Thursday, September 29, 2011

Koch Brothers and Economic History: a Surprising Letter

This epitomizes corrupt and dishonest intellectual discourse, and how money can buy an expert to say anything they want said. Who? Who else - one of the egregious Koch Brothers!

Charles Koch

From the Dylan Ratigan Show on 9/29/'11, MSNBC.com:

Ideas for sale September 29, 2011 “The Nation” magazine’s Mark Ames and co-writer Yasha Levine discuss an investigative report revealing that billionaire Charles Koch bought and paid for an anti-Social Security and Medicare stand.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The original article appears HERE in the Nation Magazine. It is written by Mark Ames and Yasha Levine. The source of this letter is the collected papers of Friedrich von Hayek, in the Hayek Archive at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, where it was an indexed part of the collection. From the article referenced above:

The private correspondence between two of the most important figures shaping the Republican Party’s economic policies—billionaire libertarian Charles Koch and Nobel Prize–winning economist Friedrich Hayek, godfather of today’s free-market movement—were obtained by Yasha Levine from the Hayek archives at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. This is the first time the content of these letters has been reported on.

The documents offer a rare glimpse into how these two major free-market apostles privately felt about government assistance programs—revealing a shocking degree of cynicism and an unimaginable betrayal of the ideas they sold to the American public and the rest of the world.

"Publicly, in academia and in politics, in the media and in propaganda, these two major figures—one the sponsor, the other the mandarin—have been pushing Americans to do away with Social Security and Medicare for our own good: we will become freer, richer, healthier and better people.

But the exchange between Koch and Hayek exposes the bad-faith nature of their public arguments. In private, Koch expresses confidence in Social Security’s ability to care for a clearly worried Hayek. He and his fellow IHS libertarians repeatedly assure Hayek that his government-funded coverage in the United States would be adequate for his medical needs.None of them—not Koch, Hayek or the other libertarians at the IHS—express anything remotely resembling shame or unease at such a betrayal of their public ideals and writings. Nowhere do they worry that by opting into and taking advantage of Social Security programs they might be hastening a socialist takeover of America. It’s simply a given that Social Security and Medicare work, and therefore should be used."

The authors of the article have posted a digital copy of the letter here at the Nation, and here, at the blog Exiled.com, if you care to see it for yourself. This is just a taste, a 'tease'. The authors understood this surprising discovery, and they explain the significance of it very eloquently. I encourage our Penigma readers to follow the links, and inform yourself more fully on WHY the discovery of this document is significant in the larger context of American economics and politics.

Herman Cain Lies About 'Obama Health Care', Fact Checked by Politifact.com

In the context of President Obama requesting the SCOTUS to rule on the legality of the Health Care legislation, the right continues to blythely lie about the provisions. Here are of Cain's false statements, pandering to the willfully ignorant base in Florida, where Politifact.com began. It is almost identical to the death panel statements which earned Sarah Palin the Lie of the Year Award, back in 2009.

GOP Presidential contender and straw poll winner, Herman Cain was busted by Politifact.com for making false claims during the Fox News Debate in Florida:

"If we had been on 'Obamacare' and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment."

Herman Cain on Thursday, September 22nd, 2011 in the Fox News Google debate in Orlando

Herman Cain said government bureaucrats will determine when you get a CAT scan once the new health care law begins

Cain had made the statement previously, so Chris Wallace of Fox News asked him about it at the debate sponsored by Fox News and Google in Orlando, Fla.

Wallace: "Mr. Cain, you are a survivor of Stage 4 colon and liver cancer. And you say if 'Obamacare' had been -- (Here Wallace was interrupted by sustained cheers and applause) and we all share in the happiness about your situation, but you say if 'Obamacare' had been in effect when you were first being treated, you'd be dead now. Why?"
Cain: "The reason I said that I would be dead on 'Obamacare' is because my cancer was detected in March of 2006. And from March 2006 all the way to the end of 2006, for that number of months, I was able to get the necessary CAT scan tests, go to the necessary doctors, get a second opinion, get chemotherapy, go to get surgery, recuperate from surgery, get more chemotherapy in a span of nine months.

"If we had been on 'Obamacare' and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment. My surgeons and doctors have told me that because I was able to get the treatment as fast as I could, based upon my timetable, and not the government's timetable, that's what saved my life, because I only had a 30 percent chance of survival. And now I'm here five years cancer-free because I could do it on my timetable and not on a bureaucrat's timetable. This is one of the reasons I believe a lot of people are objecting to 'Obamacare,' because we need to get bureaucrats out of the business of trying to micromanage health care in this nation."
"Obamacare," in case you haven't figured it out yet, is the Republicans' often mocking name for the health care law that President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010. Some of the changes resulting from the law have already taken effect, including sons and daughters under 26 being allowed to be covered by their parents' health insurance. But many major provisions don't begin until 2014.
Here's the general way the new law works: The major health insurance systems are left in place, especially the health insurance coverage people get through work and Medicare. For people who have to buy insurance on their own, the government adds new regulations for health insurance companies to follow. States will create "exchanges," which are virtual marketplaces where people will be able to comparison shop for insurance. The law says that everyone must have insurance or pay a tax penalty. (That's called the individual mandate, and it's being challenged in federal courts.) People who make modest incomes will qualify for tax breaks to help them buy insurance, and very poor people will be eligible for Medicaid.

What the law is not is a single-payer system, as in Canada, where the government picks up the bills; nor is it a nationalized system like Great Britain's where the government owns hospitals and employs doctors. So if those are the systems Cain had in mind, that's not what the new health care law is. (We asked Cain's campaign what the basis was for his statement, but we didn't hear back.)

Even for people over age 65 in Medicare -- the part of the health care system that most resembles a single-payer plan -- private physicians would still make decisions about scans and treatments.
Still, opponents of the health care law have argued that it will eventually result in bureaucrats making decisions that affect treatment, particularly for Medicare recipients. But those claims have been rated False on our Truth-O-Meter when they have asserted that bureaucrats will make decisions about individual cases.

For example, PolitiFact Georgia looked at a statement from Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga., who said that under the health care law, "a bunch of bureaucrats decide whether you get care, such as continuing on dialysis or cancer chemotherapy."

Gingrey said the bureaucrats are part of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.
The board is a new part of the health care law, and it was created in response to criticism that Congress has been unable to make the politically risky and technically complex decisions needed to slow the growth of costs for Medicare.

Under the health care law, if Medicare spending growth is projected to exceed certain targets, the IPAB must come up with plans to slow the increase. If Congress does not act on the recommendation within a set time frame, the IPAB's plans are automatically implemented.

Both sides of the aisle have problems with the board. Some worry it will be too hard for Congress to overrule IPAB recommendations or that the board will stifle innovation. In recent months, several members of Congress from both parties have signed on to repeal the board.

But saying that the IPAB will determine the course of treatment for individual cases is an entirely different matter -- and it's factually incorrect. Even people who oppose the IPAB agree that it will not intervene in the cases of individual patients but will rather determine how much the government pays health care providers for various services. It can also reduce payments to hospitals with very high rates of readmission or recommend innovations that cut wasteful spending. (See PolitiFact Georgia's fact-check for more details on the IPAB.)

But we should point out here that the IPAB applies to Medicare. Medicare is a government-run health insurance program for those over age 65. When Cain was diagnosed with cancer in March 2006, he would have been 60 -- too young for Medicare. So the IPAB wouldn't even have applied, even if it had been in effect at the time.
We don't know the personal details of Cain's health status or how he is insured. But it's impossible for us to see how a government bureaucrat could have delayed Cain's care. Cain said at the debate that, "If we had been on 'Obamacare' and a bureaucrat was trying to tell me when I could get that CAT scan, that would have delayed my treatment." But there is no part of the health care law that allows a government bureaucrat to weigh in on an individual's course of treatment -- not Cain's nor anyone else's. We rate his statement False.

And here is the second of Cain's 'Obamacare' lies, factcheck failed by Politifact.com. (bolder larger type in the body of the article is my emphasis added - DG):

Says "in Canada, the number of CT scan machines per 1,000 people is like one-tenth of what we have here in this country. That's why people have to wait."

Herman Cain on Thursday, March 17th, 2011 in an interview

Oh Canada! Cain says nation way behind U.S. in CT machines

Health care in the United States is costly for patients. But it might prove even more costly for elected officials next year.

Both Republicans and Democrats hope to wield public concerns over health care as a potent weapon in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections, and some early candidates have already started swinging away.

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO and conservative activist Herman Cain set up a presidential exploratory committee in January and last month attacked President Barack Obama’s health care initiative. He described the health care plan approved by Democrats in the House and Senate as socialized medicine that increases wait times for diagnostic tests.

Cain, a cancer survivor, said longer waits could put cancer patients like him in danger by delaying discovery.

Cain told The Root, a black perspectives online magazine: "In Canada, the number of CT scan machines per 1,000 people is like one-tenth of what we have here in this country. That's why people have to wait."

That’s a huge difference, so PolitiFact decided we’d pass this statement through our own diagnostic equipment to see whether Cain’s prognosis is accurate.

Computerized tomography scanners are X-ray machines that emit several beams from different angles simultaneously to produce detailed images of any part of the body. CT scanners are used to look for bleeding in the body, tumors and other internal damage.

Unfortunately Cain would not tell us how he determined the number of CT scanners in Canada and the United States. In fact, neither he nor anyone from his staff would say anything to us beyond, "I don’t think we’re going to comment."
But PolitiFact did find data quantifying the number of CT scans per capita.

Canada had 12.7 CT scanners per 1 million residents in 2007, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. The United States had 34.3 per million in 2007, the last year the organization had data for the United States.

Canada has fewer CT scanners per capita than Greece and Portugal, two countries on the verge of bankruptcy, and it certainly has fewer than the United States, but not "like one-tenth." It’s more like one-third.

Even though Cain’s numbers were not factually accurate, his general opinion that decreased diagnostic capacity puts patients at risk still deserves scrutiny.

Canada spends less on medical treatment and therefore does have less capacity, said Edwin Meyer, founder of Buffalo-based Cross Border Access, a company that helps negotiate hospital billing rates for Canadians coming to the United States for medical services.

Canada does a good job prioritizing who needs service right away and by doing so keeps costs for patients low, Meyer said.

But a person with a non-life-threatening injury that keeps them out of work and causes constant pain may not receive diagnostic services and surgery right away.

"People that are in need but stable can end up waiting a long time," Meyer said.

While the United States has better capacity in general, many Americans, like the uninsured, do not have access to this capacity, said William Custer, a professor at the Institute of Health Administration at Georgia State University.

The high number of CT scanners has also helped to drive up the cost of health care in the United States, but Custer said there is little evidence that this more costly service leads to better health outcomes.

Ultimately, you can’t judge a national health care system on medical capacity alone, he said.

"They make trade-offs and we make trade-offs," Custer said. "It’s a matter of taste."

If Cain had said Canada has one-third the number of CT scanners of the United States, he would have been correct and then we could have examined whether this lack of capacity really does make Canada’s system inferior.

That’s not what he said, though, and it doesn’t take a 3-D X-ray imager to know that one-tenth is different than one-third.

Prognosis: False.

Ideology Over Reality: The Tea Party IS JUST NUTS!

Sometimes Ideology has to take a back seat to reality; this is a case of not spite, but fanaticism cutting off our collective noses to spite our faces.

It is dangerous, and it is why people like this should never ever have been elected. Rand Paul here is representing an extreme, and dangerous narrow segment of our nation. Shame on the voters who put him in a position to do such bad things!

THIS is the evil of extremism in action.

From the 9/28/'11 Rachel Maddow Show

POGO Uncovers Government Waste BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR

Next time you hear someone trying to sell you on smaller government - think again. When we privatize, when we shrink government resulting in reduced services like fewer teachers, fewer police, less infrastructure or poorly maintaining infrastructure......remember that privatizing services costs more, not less. Civil service employees are not the enemy. Politicians who transfer government provided services to more expensive private providers ARE the enemy of frugal and responsive, responsible government. I would encourage our readers not only to check out the POGO web site and their studies and reports, but also to follow up with other independent studies as well as the reports available online from the respective Inspectors General.

Project On Government Oversight

Bad Business: True or false?
The U.S. government relies on contractors to do work because the private industry is cheaper than in-house staff.
If you guessed true, think again. POGO’s latest investigation busts this myth by showing that using contractors actually increases costs to taxpayers.

In fact, on average, contractors charge the government almost twice as much as the annual compensation of comparable federal employees.

Tell your Member of Congress we can’t afford to pay twice as much for service contracting.

Of the 35 types of jobs that POGO looked at in its new report—the first report to compare contractor billing rates to the salaries and benefits of federal workers—it was cheaper to hire federal workers in all but just 2 cases.

Given that Congress’s special “Super Committee” has the goal of cutting $1.5 trillion from the deficit by December 2, we can’t let this kind of government waste continue. Tell your Member of Congress that it’s time to take a closer look at what service contracting costs taxpayers.

In some occupations, POGO found that the difference in price was so dramatic that anyone could easily see the government was getting ripped off. When the government hired a claims examiner for example, it paid contractors nearly five times more than if it had gone with a federal employee.

Even worse, the government doesn’t have the mechanisms in place to do basic price checks. Would you spend $320 billion a year without doing a cost analysis of the services you were paying for? Probably not.

You can help the government stop paying too much for contractors by bringing this problem to the attention of your Member of Congress. We simply can’t afford to be paying double if we don’t have to.

Politifact FAILS the Right Wing Claim
"every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown"

The Truth-O-Meter Says:

"Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."

Joe Walsh on Sunday, April 17th, 2011 in an interview on "This Week with Christiane Amanpour"

Rep. Joe Walsh said that every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown

Members of the tea party movement like to say the "tea" stands for "taxed enough already." Several House members on ABC's This Week with Christiane Amanpour said they stand by that sentiment, even if tax increases could more quickly balance the budget.
Amanpour asked if it was realistic to oppose tax increases while also calling for a balanced budget. "Can you really sustain what everybody is calling for, just by cuts in public services? Doesn't there need to be revenue-raising mechanisms?" she asked.

"Christiane, you raise revenue by growing the economy," said Rep. Joe Walsh, R-Ill, one of several new House members elected with tea party support. "And everything this president has done the last two years has gone against that. You get taxes and regulations off the backs of businesses so that revenues can increase."

"I know that that is your position," Amanpour said. "But there's so much evidence, even going back to Ronald Reagan, where he did tax cuts and in fact the debt increased, and then he had to make tax increases. I mean, can you really cut public spending by that amount and just expect to balance the budget?"

Walsh answered, "In the '80s, government revenues went up. We didn't cut spending. Revenues went up in the '80s. Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."

We decided to check out Walsh’s claim that "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown."
We should first note that on its face, Walsh’s statement is not accurate. The White House Office of Budget and Management publishes detailed tables of government collections of income taxes. There was a small dip in 1983, after President Ronald Reagan signed off on a tax cut in 1981, though tax revenues increased the next year and all through the 1980s. More significantly, income tax revenues fell in 2001, 2002 and 2003, as President George W. Bush successfully pursued tax cuts.

We contacted Walsh’s office, and his staff told us that the Bush tax cuts didn’t reach their full impact until 2003 (when the top rate decreased to 35 percent, where it now stands), and that tax revenues increased after that.

"The pickup in economic growth, and the strong growth in revenues, coincides fairly neatly with the 2003 tax cut," said spokesperson Elizabeth Lauton via e-mail.

But the question of rising revenue is more complicated than that. For one thing, economists expect tax revenues to go up each year due to economic growth, population growth and inflation, even if tax rates stay the same. So saying "revenues have gone up" isn’t particularly meaningful in that context.

Given that, it would be more significant to be able to say what effect tax changes have on the overall economy. But this isn’t easy, because so many things affect the economy more than the federal tax code. What this means is that you can raise taxes during a bad economy and get less revenue, or you can cut taxes during a time of economic growth and get more revenue.

Those changes to revenue generally aren't caused by the tax rates at all, but by other changes in the broader economy. President Bill Clinton, for example, raised taxes in 1993, and the economy expanded for much of the 1990s and tax revenue went up.

"There's no clear relationship between taxes and economic growth," said Bob Williams of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. "Too many factors complicate the picture to draw clear conclusions about the taxes-growth relationship."

Additionally, a 2006 report from the U.S. Treasury Department concluded the effect of most tax laws on the wider economy were "uncertain, but probably generally small."

Previously, we’ve rated statements that tax increases lowered revenues, and we’ve found that False. Walsh’s statement stops short of such a claim, but it does leave the impression that tax cuts could help the budget picture, and that’s problematic.

The 2006 Treasury report sought to document the revenue effects of every major tax law passed since 1940. To compare the different laws, it examined tax revenues as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, a measurement that accounts for economic growth and inflation.

The report found that laws that lowered taxes produced declines in revenues, and that laws that increased taxes produced increases in tax revenues. This undermines claims that tax cuts can actually increase government revenues more than they would have increased otherwise.

We’re examining Walsh’s statement, "Every time we've cut taxes, revenues have gone up, the economy has grown." He said "every time," and that’s not the case. Revenues did not go up in 2001, 2002 or 2003, after tax rates were lowered. We also find it problematic to make hard claims about tax cuts growing the economy enough to increase tax revenues and helping balance the budget. Overall, we rate Walsh’s statement False.

From POGO on Government Waste

Project On Government Oversight

Bad Business: True or false?
The U.S. government relies on contractors to do work because the private industry is cheaper than in-house staff.
If you guessed true, think again. POGO’s latest investigation busts this myth by showing that using contractors actually increases costs to taxpayers.

In fact, on average, contractors charge the government almost twice as much as the annual compensation of comparable federal employees.

Tell your Member of Congress we can’t afford to pay twice as much for service contracting.

Of the 35 types of jobs that POGO looked at in its new report—the first report to compare contractor billing rates to the salaries and benefits of federal workers—it was cheaper to hire federal workers in all but just 2 cases.

Given that Congress’s special “Super Committee” has the goal of cutting $1.5 trillion from the deficit by December 2, we can’t let this kind of government waste continue. Tell your Member of Congress that it’s time to take a closer look at what service contracting costs taxpayers.

In some occupations, POGO found that the difference in price was so dramatic that anyone could easily see the government was getting ripped off. When the government hired a claims examiner for example, it paid contractors nearly five times more than if it had gone with a federal employee.

Even worse, the government doesn’t have the mechanisms in place to do basic price checks. Would you spend $320 billion a year without doing a cost analysis of the services you were paying for? Probably not.

You can help the government stop paying too much for contractors by bringing this problem to the attention of your Member of Congress. We simply can’t afford to be paying double if we don’t have to.

Justice Stevens on His Death Penalty Opinion:
It Was Wrong, and Why

From ABC.com / Good Morning America:

Latest Domestic Terrorism Plot

From the BBC World News:

Rezwan Ferdaus held over Pentagon and Capitol bomb plot

A 26-year-old US citizen has been arrested for allegedly plotting to fly explosive-packed, remote controlled planes into the Pentagon and the US Capitol in Washington.
Rezwan Ferdaus was also charged with attempting to supply materials to al-Qaeda and aid attacks on US soldiers. The Northeastern University physics graduate is accused of planning to commit "jihad" since early 2010. Mr Ferdaus was arrested in Boston after an undercover investigation by the FBI. Attack supplies Announcing his arrest, the US Department of Justice described an elaborate operation over a period of months leading up to the arrest of Mr Ferdaus. Authorities said he designed and supplied undercover operatives with a total of eight mobile phone detonators intended to be used by al-Qaeda operatives to set off bombs in the Middle East. “The public was never in danger from the explosives”- Carmen Ortiz US attorney

During a June 2011 meeting, Mr Ferdaus was told that his first phone detonation device had killed three US soldiers and injured four or five others in Iraq. "That was exactly what I wanted," he reportedly told the undercover agents.

Also during 2011, Mr Ferdaus began speaking to the agents about his desire to organise an attack on the Pentagon, home of the US military, and the Capitol building in Washington DC, seat of the US Congress. Posing as accomplices, they then supplied him with C-4 explosives, a remote-controlled plane and arms. Mr Ferdaus was arrested on Wednesday immediately after putting the newly delivered weapons in a storage container, the FBI said.

The Pentagon was previously attacked in 2001 when the 9/11 hijackers flew a plane into the building

"The conduct alleged today shows that Mr Ferdaus had long planned to commit violent acts against our country, including attacks on the Pentagon and our nation's Capitol," US Attorney Carmen Ortiz said. However, Ms Ortiz, US Attorney for Massachusetts, added: "The public was never in danger from the explosives," which were controlled by undercover FBI employees. If convicted, Mr Ferdaus could face up to 15 years in jail for providing support and resources to a foreign terrorist organisation and up to 20 years in prison for attempting to destroy national defence premises. Richard DesLauriers, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI's Boston Division, said law enforcement agencies in the area had worked together to "detect, deter, and prevent terrorism". "We have an obligation to take action to protect the public whenever an individual expresses a desire to commit violence," he said.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Another Worthwhile Clip from Jon Stewart

I gave the television a standing ovation for this one; I think Stewart encapsulated the right wing circus of debates and gaffes and insanity perfectly. The right doesn't know what it wants, what it THINKS it wants is out of step with the country - AND THIS CENTURY - and it is NUTS.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Indecision 2012 - The Great Right Hope - The Ideal Candidate

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

The Chaz Bono Controversy Continues--

I delight in the humor and satire of Jon Stewart.

He has a gift for both factual information, coupled with presenting an accurate perspective to current events as context.

He was never better than he is here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Areola 51

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

Ignorance About Sex Is Not Limited to Right Wing Culture Wars

World Contraception Day was September 26, 2011 this year. Organizations, like USAID, provide contraceptive assistance and education to 54 developing countries, under direction from the State Department.

Unfortunately, we don't do as well for our own citizens.

The rate of increase in unsafe sex is among the worst in the United States, of the countries listed in this article. This can be linked to abstinence-only sex ed funding, like the insertion of funding for failed abstinence only sex ed in 'Obamacare':

The bill restores $250 million over five years for states to sponsor programs aimed at preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases by focusing exclusively on encouraging children and adolescents to avoid sex. The funding provides at least a partial reprieve for the approach, which faced losing all federal support under President Obama's first two budgets.
"We're very happy to see that funding will continue so the important sexual health message of risk avoidance will reach American teens," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association, a Washington-based lobbying group. "What better place to see such an important health issue addressed than in the health legislation?"
But the funding was condemned by critics, who were stupefied by the eleventh-hour rescue.
"To spend a quarter-billion dollars on abstinence-only-until-marriage programs that have already been proven to fail is reckless and irresponsible," said James Wagoner of the Washington group Advocates for Youth. "When on top of that you add the fact that this puts the health and lives of young people at risk, this becomes outrageous."

No surprise, that right wingers like Presidential Candidate contender Rick Perry promotes abstinence-only sex ed as 'working' despite Texas having one of the highest rates of unintended pregnancies - and he highest rate of REPEAT unintended pregnancies. It's not just a war on sex ed and accurate medical information being provided to kids and adults, in Texas, there IS an actual war on contraception :

Yet another instance where right wing ideology is not fiscally responsible, and is misogynistic.
From the Ottawa, Sun:

More young people having unsafe sex: Study

LONDON - Young people across the globe are having more unprotected sex and know less about effective contraception options, a multinational survey revealed on Monday.
The “Clueless or Clued Up: Your Right to be informed about contraception” study prepared for World Contraception Day (WCD) reports that the number of young people having unsafe sex with a new partner increased by 111% in France, 39% in the U.S. and 19% in Britain in the last three years.
“No matter where you are in the world, barriers exist which prevent teenagers from receiving trustworthy information about sex and contraception, which is probably why myths and misconceptions remain so widespread even today,” a member of the WCD task force, Denise Keller, said in a statement with the results of the study.
“When young people have access to contraceptive information and services, they can make choices that affect every aspect of their lives which is why it’s so important that accurate and unbiased information is easily available for young people to obtain,” Keller said.
The survey, commissioned by Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals and endorsed by 11 international non-governmental organisations, questioned more than 6,000 young people from 26 countries including Chile, Poland and China, on their attitudes towards sex and contraception.
The level of unplanned pregnancies among young people is a major global issue, campaigners say, and the rise in unprotected sex in several counties has sparked concern about the quality of sex education available to youngsters.
In Europe, only half of respondents receive sex education from school, compared to three quarters across Latin America, Asia Pacific and the USA.
Many respondents also said that they felt too embarrassed to ask a healthcare professional for contraception.
“What young people are telling us is that they are not receiving enough sex education or the wrong type of information about sex and sexuality,” spokeswoman for the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Jennifer Woodside said in a statement.
“The results show that too many young people either lack good knowledge about sexual health, do not feel empowered enough to ask for contraception or have not learned the skills to negotiate contraceptive use with their partners to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies or STIs (sexually transmitted infections),” she said.
More than a third of respondents in Egypt believe bathing or showering after sex will prevent pregnancy, and more than a quarter of those in Thailand and India believe that having intercourse during menstruation is an effective form of contraception.
But the fact that many young people engage in unprotected sex and the prevalence of harmful myths should not come as a surprise, Woodside said.
“How can young people make decisions that are right for them and protect them from unwanted pregnancy and STIs, if we do not empower them and enable them to acquire the skills they need to make those choices?” she said.

The War on Contraception and Sex Education about contraception is a dangerous and costly problem for our national Public Health policy. According to the web site of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies result in a cost of BILLIONS of dollars in direct health care costs each year. That doesn't begin to address the indirect costs, and the related costs of STDs.

Can we AFFORD misogynistic right wing ideology and policies?

I don't think so.

Good Job, Joe!

Giving credit where credit is due, all the more important in 'view' (pun intended) of the right wing culture war on women. From the View, 9/27/'11:

Monday, September 26, 2011

Execute a Corporation

Remember when Romney claimed, at the Iowa Presidential Candidate Fair and Circus, that corporations were people, too? I wonder how long it will be until Romney not only takes the money from corporations, but tries to get them the right to vote, as well?

via Job Sanger and
MikeB's blog:

An Apple a Day, and
The Rot of
Government Subsidies

When Louie Gohmert, idiot at large and Republican Congressman from Texas takes to the floor of the House of Representatives to trash talk eating healthy, you have to start following the aroma of money, not food. I would bet, given the number of Republicans who are against the government promoting healthy eating patterns, that there are large campaign donations made to them by Big Ag, directly or indirectly, for continuing the subsidies noted in the article below.

More Government Subsidies

Going to Twinkies

than Apples?

September 26, 2011 at 7:04AM by Katie Robbins | 9 Comment

In its efforts to curb the nation's obesity epidemic, the U.S. government seems to be taking inspiration from the infamous Twinkie diet, with more federal dollars going to subsidize the production of junk food than to growing fresh fruits and vegetables.

In a report released last week, the California Public Interest Research Group (CALPIRG) revealed that from 1995 to 2010, $16.9 billion in American tax dollars went to subsidize production of four common junk food additives: corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, corn starch, and soy oils (often processed to create hydrogenated vegetable oils).

More from Delish: Common Food Additives and What They Do
The report, called "Apples to Twinkies: Comparing Federal Subsidies of Fresh Produce and Junk Food," found that during the 15 year period studied, the federal government spent over $260 billion in agricultural subsidies. However, the vast majority of this went to commodity crops like soy beans and corn. As the production of additives like corn syrup was receiving billions in tax dollars, the study reveals that the only significant funding of fresh produce was for apples, which received a comparatively stingy $262 million in subsidies from 1995 to 2010.

More from Delish: What's Your Apple IQ?
So where are your tax dollars going? To offer a more personalized sense of the discrepancy, the report breaks down the figures. If taxpayers were given a direct cut of the agricultural subsidies to spend on groceries, we'd each receive $7.36 to spend on junk food each year and a mere $0.11 to purchase apples — the equivalent of 19 Twinkies and a few bites of a Red Delicious apple.

Better hope that Twinkie diet really works...

A Penigma - a mystery, under a pseudonym