If you can’t, you are a sad excuse for an American. That’s right, you heard me.
I got 100%, BTW.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/from/RSS/
If you can’t, you are a sad excuse for an American. That’s right, you heard me.
I got 100%, BTW.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13442226/from/RSS/
Filed under Politics
Filed under Sports
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/soccer/specials/world_cup/2006/06/12/notebook.ap/index.html
MONKS CAN WATCH, TOO: The chief of Cambodia’s Buddhist monks is cutting his charges some slack for the duration of the World Cup: They may watch the matches on television, but no cheering or getting excited. And absolutely no betting.
The country’s holy men — more than 90 percent of Cambodia’s 13 million people are Buddhist — normally aren’t supposed to watch television, movies or artistic displays. According to the strictest tenets of Buddhism, they should abstain from pleasurable activity. Gambling is a major no-no.
But monks get as excited as anyone else at the chance to watch soccer’s top stars, and Supreme Patriarch Non Ngeth is willing to make allowances for such a special occasion.
"The monks can watch the games on TV but they may not bet on the games," Non Ngeth told The Associated Press. "So far, I have received some complaints that some monks are betting during this World Cup tournament."
He also says he urged the country’s monks, if they do watch the matches, not to scream or laugh.
"Cheering or screaming while watching TV are acts appropriate for children, monks may not act like that," he said.
Non Ngeth has reason to be concerned about the country’s monks. In recent years, several monks grabbed headlines for fighting with slingshots and petrol bombs at a temple, molesting a boy, beating a man and stealing motorcycles.
Filed under Sports
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13088669/from/RSS/
"According to Rosenbaum, "it’s not possible to know why pledgers retracted their sexual history since it’s impossible to know whether respondents actually had sex."
"Psychology studies in a variety of contexts seem to demonstrate that people’s memories of their behavior are consistent with their beliefs rather than their actual behavior,"
These findings imply that virginity pledgers often provide unreliable data, making assessment of abstinence-based sex education programs unreliable."
OK, so let me get this straight….If I say I will abstain and don’t, I will lie about it. If I say I have never had sex before (but lied about it) and will continue to abstain and lied then—how is that any different than saying that I have had sex (but I’m a virgin)?
They are slick about this article—they know that people read this to say, "Abstinence-based sex education programs are unreliable." Instead of driving home the fact that "they" are UNABLE to know if it works.
The reason they don’t know is that they don’t know with what metrics to measure it. I would have thought simply taking the number of abstinence pledgers and seeing how many got treated for STDs, or got someone pregnant (or became pregnant themselves) as a metric. Even the ones that lie, but were taught to abstain, would work into the metric.
WHAT’s WRONG WITH "Academia" nowadays???
Filed under News and politics