Slow updating…
Sorry for the lack of blurbage. I’ve been working on a lot of projects around the house, and doing some woodworking as well in preparation for the holiday. Also, I’ve been reading like a madman, all the ‘14-day’ books I requested from the library have come in at once, so its time to read read read.
I imagine you have seen or at least heard of ‘The Shoe Incident’ by now. I didn’t realize the would be attacker had said anything as he tried to bean the ninny. To see what he said, and get a little background check out this article!
A couple of interesting pieces from Chris Hedges
I was cruising around Truthdig and saw a piece with a catchy title that caught my attention, some of the comments lead me to a second older piece about the media’s preference for reporting the personal scandals of politicians rather than the scandalous behavior in policy making and governance. Now let me preface this with a disclaimer:
While I find a lot of what Chris writes about interesting, he has a lot of views that I disagree with. Sometimes his column is more of a rant than an organized presentation of ideas, but I certainly have no place to criticize that ;) I do not want to give the impression that I wholeheartedly endorse the views put forth in the linked articles, but they are worth a read and some reflection.
That being said, Chris does get some major cool points for his use of the F-word in this first piece. No I’m not talking about the expletive, I’m speaking of the word ‘ fatuous ‘ which is in my estimation one of the greatest words ever devised. It captures so much, distilling the essence of more complex yet less hard hitting words and roles off the tongue so easily, striking its target like a silk wrapped flaming bag of dog poo. In short perfection. Go look it up.
The first piece: ‘The Best and the Brightest Led America Off a Cliff,’ is a bit of a rant against the way in which schools, specifically upper class and private colleges, are producing an army of people that have been highly specialized in new and unwholesome ways. In becoming specialized they have been made disconnected, giving an arsenal of technical jargon unique to their field that makes discussing their field with other non-specialists nearly impossible. Also specialization prevents these people from seeing the bigger picture, and provides a level of social and emotional detachment from the work they pursue and the consequences for society. They have been taught not to think critically, but to meet the expectations of their teachers or superiors, focusing not on understanding and insight, but on memorization, regurgitation, and targeted learning (i.e. at the end of a term you will be tested on these areas, so memorize the bold-faced facts in your text about these areas, don’t bother thinking to much about the ideas behind the material).
Reading this made me think a lot about my own education at a smaller public college, and before that a community college. While I think that being educated at a school the opposite end of the spectrum from an Ivy League institution may have spared me, I can identify with some of the tendencies he talks about. On the one hand universities claim to cherish diversity, free thinking, and creativity while on the other they are designed to funnel students into a ‘4-year plan’ that locks them into a career path before they even begin their first semester as a freshman. In order to finish on time and incur the smallest possible debt students are discouraged from taking ‘exploratory classes’ or anything outside of their immediate major.
The first two years are the basic classes, usually a hundred or more students per classroom, which areoften taught by graduate students or multiple instructors sharing the class, offer little chance for interaction, questions, or real learning. Instead it is more of a ‘memorize these facts to pass the course’ period designed to weed out those that don’t fit and also serves to get students in the habit of learning through repetition and rote memorization. Students also become trained not to expect much interaction with professors, and more importantly not to expect deep critical analysis of any of the material they are learning. Even material that is not factual and is presented as a subject for debate often includes instructions to the students as to the correct way to analyze the matter rather than eliciting students opinions or feelings and holding a discussion.
By the time you are a junior or senior you are in ‘pro-school’ and taking some very specialized classes preparing you for a job in your chosen field. Let me say that again, preparing you for a job in your chosen field. Now, furthering your education to be better in your chosen profession is one thing. But that is not the sole purpose of higher education, it is supposed to be about learning how to think critically, broadening your horizons to become aware of the rest of the world, and furthering your understanding about the nature of the universe. Instead somewhere along the way our system of higher education has become not about personal growth, but about growth of personnel.
Well that was a longer rant than I had planned. So, uh, here is the second article: ‘What’s Sex Got to do With it?’ Some intersting observations about the way the media loves a good old fashion sex scandal and why these get so much more attention that actions by the same politicians that have world wide impact on the lives of millions. It always seemed rediculous to me that we focused so much attention on the private sexual behavior of public figures. For example take Alaskan senator Ted Stevens. Here is a guy convicted on mutiple felony counts of corruption, and still running for reelection. Now if a convicted felon is not allowed to vote in America why are we letting one run for the Senate???? Where is the public outcry?? If he had cheated on his wife with a staffer there would be a mob screaming for impeachment, but curruption?? not a problem, we just don’t care about that so much. In a country that has come to place the highest value on earning money no matter the cost to ourselves or others it is no big deal when a public servant sells himself for some tacky yard ornaments.
For those that have not yet had their fill of election coverage…
First and foremost, I want to apologize dear readers for the dearth of new stuff here on the site. After the holidays I planned to get some things implemented and wrap up a couple of pieces I’m working on. Instead I’ve been doing home maintenance…. not the most fun.
Anyway to tide you over here is a little snippet from the blog of Christopher Moore that he wrote just before the election. I stumbled across it the other day, and it really summed up a lot of the frustrations I had with the way in which the candidates were talked about in the news during the run up to the election. Listening to the media’s coverage I knew I was annoyed, and now months later Christopher Moore puts his finger on the reason why… Enjoy.
http://blog.chrismoore.com/index.php/archives/238#more-238
And after you read that, check out the completely awesome ‘Beta Male Manifesto’ also by Chris Moore, boy does this guy have some deeply penetrating insights into the workings of the world 
‘Tis the season….
This year more than ever I am disgusted by the holidays. The never-ending bombardment on the radio, in the newspapers, on TV, through junk mail and catalogs, and online telling us that there are only XX shopping days left until Christmas so we better hurry up and buy just makes me sick. We have reduced a time of year when family gathered together to celebrate something (I maintain the important thing is coming together as family, not what particular religious or seasonal event you are celebrating) into a pathetic commercialized mess. It is now, “He who spends the most cash on heaping piles of useless crap is most in the spirit of the holidays, and loves their family/friends/cat the most” (no joke, if you don’t buy your cat or dog a present at PetCo this year you might as well break out your Grinch mittens).
It seems that it is worse every year, with ‘Black Friday’ the day after Thanksgiving the worst of all. And now we have sunken to an even more pathetic level of consumeristic depravity: A mob of about two thousand people stormed the doors at a New York Wall-Mart and trampled an employee, Jdimytai Damour, to death before the store opened. What could Wall-Mart possibly have that is worth killing someone for? I hope that ever single person in the mass of human sheep spends the rest of their lives regretting their participation in this event. Most likely though the only thing they are thinking is, “Cool, I saved an extra $20 on that new TV! Now I can see Cops in 52 inches of glory!!”
This year I challenge you all to do something different. Try and de-commercialize your Christmas. Take it in steps to make it easier….
1. Reduce overall level of giftage by doing an exchange. Rather than have everyone buy something for everyone else, have a drawing, and buy for one person or family.
2. Make a pact with friends and family that you keep gifts small, say under $20, or better yet only buy gifts for small children rather than loading your friends up with crap they really don’t’ want, which will end up in Good Will anyway.
3. Try and buy your gifts from small family owned businesses and keep it local (better to spend your money in a family owned store than a big box store, it keeps more of the money local as well).
4. If you are feeling really brave try and find only gifts that are made in America, from local family owned merchents.
5. Make your own gifts. I did this last year for my family and it was a blast. Nothing shows how much you care like a handmade gift.
6. Say “Bah, Humbug,” but mean it in a good way, and just have a nice meal with your friends and family, play some board games, listen to some music (preferably in a room with a wood stove) and be merry!
This Holiday there is much to be thankful for….
First and foremost you can be thankful you don’t live in Gaza. And if by any chance someone who lives or has family in Gaza reads this, my heart goes out to you. I would like to offer my apologies for what you are going through and my, as an American, stake in it. I would ask that you don’t think too terribly of us as individuals, most of us have little or no idea of what is going on in your country. As a country we don’t like to publicize the horrors that are inflicted on others by our ‘allies’ even when they go against everything America is supposed to stand for.
It is so saddening that these neighbors might not be fighting at all if it wasn’t for their different religious beliefs. It is not as though the area is overpopulated, when there is no blockade there is food and fuel enough for both groups. It doesn’t seem that one side possesses an unequal abundance of raw materials, or fertile soils, or access to good fishing grounds. I wonder what the region would be like if the Jewish and Muslim people had not demonized each other to the point of blind aggression.
Among the international community only the US and our lapdog Great Britain seem bent on ignoring the plight of the Palestinian people in deference to Israel. The UN has been pleading with Israeli PM Ehud Olmert to lift the blockade of food/energy/fuel, who says that the suffering of the Palestinian people is the fault of the Hamas rocket attacks. [This reminds me of the terror we have inflicted on the citizens of Iraq, which of course is the fault of terrorists in Afghanistan, isn’t it?] Even the Israeli people have denounced the blockade as inhumane and cruel, pleading with their government to relent. But Israel holds firm, locking journalists out as the situation for tens of thousands of Palestinians becomes dire. The government won’t listen to its people, and it won’t listen to the UN, maybe it would listen to its closest ally? Unfortunately that ally isn’t talking.
What is most troubling is that the policies of Israel cannot be publicly criticized in the US/UK without IAPAC or The Board of Deputies of British Jews screaming anti-Semitism. And let’s face it, the last thing America wants to do is make Israel mad because of how dependent we are on them. Israeli money pours into Washington from IAPAC and other organizations, Israel provides a uniquely strategic site for military operations, many of the weapons we wish to see sent to other countries originate or pass through Israel leaving us blameless, and perhaps most importantly our own NSA depends on technology developed, installed, and managed by Israeli companies for its foreign and domestic eavesdropping programs.
This holiday while we are all stuffing ourselves with turkey and mashed potatoes, let’s take a minute and think about how lucky we all are not to be starving and under constant threat of attack. Take this opportunity to look into the eyes of your loved ones and tell them how much they mean to you, how fortunate you are to have them in your life and just how much you love them.
Peace be with you all.
My Frustrations with the Sham that is the Bailout
I have been working on getting my feelings about the so called financial bailout on paper for the last week or so. The difficulty for me is that I can’t keep my lines of thought focused, and whatever I write ends up being a disjointed piece that is, I think ineffectual. However if I don’t get something out soon I will miss my window on this issue, so here goes! Please bear with me…
My experience with the ‘bailout’ began with a sense of purpose and hope that I had not experienced before with any other political event. Let me explain. When I first heard of Paulson’s “Give me 700 Billion with no strings and no oversight or the financial world will end,” plan (and I use that word loosely) I was outraged. To me this represented the latest in a series of power grabs by an administration that has been consolidating power in the hands of a few at the expense of the American people ever since ‘Dick’ Cheney oozed into office. Forget the economics behind it, for me it was over when the FED chairman (remember the fed is a private corporation) demanded a free hand with 700 billion of our tax dollars with complete freedom, no oversight, and immunity from any fallout.
Yet I was hopeful! “This is it!” I thought. They had finally crossed the line, tried to take to much, and now the American people would eat them alive. And from all signs it seemed that is what was happening. Polls showed that only about 20-25 % supported the bailout, while 60-65% were firmly against it. On top of that numerous online petitions were launched to halt the bailout, and reporters were telling us that the switchboards at the house and senate were being flooded with calls from constituents demanding a no vote. I got excited; I sat down and wrote letters to all my representatives. I laid out my arguments, did a little homework, explained why I thought the plan was unconstitutional, expressed my shock at the lack of oversight, and firmly reminded my elected officials that they were duty bound to serve the will of their constituents. I sent the letters, then I wrote emails and sent them off. Then I went nuts and signed every petition I could find. As the Senate was about to meet I placed calls to both my senators offices and spoke to staffers. I explained that for me this was a make or break issue, and that if they did not vote it down I would no longer support them. The staffer for Gordon Smith made a funny noise which I took to mean she doubted my resolve. I told her that I would vote for a smurf over Smith if he didn’t try and kill this bill. Then I held my breath…
The bill passed the senate! This had to be some sort of nightmare, how could these men elected by the people to serve our interests have an overwhelming majority of the voters screaming to kill this bill and then pass it? All I could think was, “where the fuck were the republicans on this???” Here is a bill that screams “The free market doesn’t work, deregulation doesn’t work” and the party of fiscal responsibility passes the damn thing. I was worried about the democrats buckling, but I figured that the republicans would balk, not wishing to seem like socialists (Obama was being criticized as being a socialist Marxist for wanting to ’spread the wealth’ and middle class tax breaks seems tiny compared to the nationalization of 700 billion dollars worth of private corporate debt).
I was still in shock when the bill was narrowly defeated in the house. Thankfully Peter Defazio voted against it, I would really have hated to find a replacement for him (seriously he is one of the few politicians I truly respect, and also the only one to answer my letter about the bailout; a personalized response no less). After the bill was killed the administration and Paulson went back to revamp it while the house republicans blamed the impending financial supernova on Speaker Pelosi’s newly acquired powers of mind control (remember that the republicans were swayed by her last minute speech, a first in the history of the House).
At this point I was reeling, but deeply grateful the bailout had been blocked. I figured once the initial shock was over, our elected representatives would get their heads on straight and continue to fight against this terrible plan. The first round in the Senate must have been a mistake, they were caught off guard, the second time they wouldn’t fail us. I made another round of emails and calls, scolding where necessary, applauding when appropriate, and waited for the second round.
The second bill was also terrible. Not just because the attempts to address the failings of Paulson’s first plan were flimsy, but because of the staggering amount of pork contained in it. Something to the tune of 120 billion if I remember correctly. Why blow 700 billion we don’t have when we can spend 820?? Not to worry! our great grandchildren can work it off. Polls still showed America did not want this bailout. Economists began making the rounds of talk shows offering other solutions and expressing doubt as to the effectiveness of the bail out package Paulson demanded. I still had hope!
But not for long. To cut a long story short, the bill passed in the senate, and also in the house. Despite other economic rescue plans offered (again Defazio to the rescue with a much better plan, that of course got no attention) the congress passed the bailout without making any real demands on the administration, selling out for a few energy tax credits and some personal pork. Then they made speeches praising their own quick action.
I was crushed. Not once, but twice in a little over a week the American people were sold out by our representatives. We said no to the bailout and they told us we weren’t equipped to make the decision. Apparently the American people just didn’t grasp the problem, even with one news channel explaining the crisis in terms of McDonald’s apple pies (yes, they really think we are that dumb). What do you do when your representative does not represent your interests? This experience left me feeling totally disenfranchised. As Ralph Nader might say, “democracy was week that day.”
Fast forward to today. The FED has handed out over 2 trillion in secret loans, and spent more than 230 billion of the rescue package. The economy is still in the toilet. There is no oversight of the ‘financial rescue package’ the president has not yet appointed anyone to the position, the reports go unwritten, there are no balances, only massive checks being cashed. And just this week Paulson has decided to change the way in which money is being given out.
We won’t buy bad assets, we will let the banks keep their assets in case they are ever worth anything. Instead lets just give them the money and prey they start lending. However we don’t want to force them to lend, that smacks of regulation, which as president Bush just explained over diner the other night was responsible for the crash in the first place. Yep, you heard that right, let me say it again. According to Bush to much government regulation destroyed the free market.
In other news it seems as though those golden parachutes we were told would not be part of the bailout, have been packed, handed out, and deployed, with one small change. They are now diamond studded golden parachutes! Thanks to some deft manipulation of the tax code by the treasury department (a move outside their legal authority) banks merging due to economic troubles can qualify for a windfall in the form of tax breaks. This comes in addition to the bailout money and the secret loans, which according to recent information are being used not to free up lending, but to pay out dividends to shareholders and executives. Some banks want to use the bailout cash to buy up other banks! No wonder some of these guys are so happy they are throwing wild parties (read AIG).
If I sound a little sarcastic it is because every time I think about this mess I get so mad I see spots and the stomach acid production goes into overdrive. Worst of all I feel completely powerless to do anything about it. What can we do when the people elected to promote our interests stop listening? How can democracy work in this environment?
Here is some interesting reading/viewing on the subject….
An interview on Democracy Now’s War and Peace Report with Naomi Klein: Transcript and full Video.
I really like Naomi Klein, I have seen her on the book publicity rounds for her ‘Shock Doctrine’ and she is a sharp one with a great sense of humor. And she is feisty as well. I can’t seem to find the link but her talk with Alan Greenspan is great, she plays some hardball! See her article in Rolling Stone as well.
A piece by Pam Martens from CounterPunch that compares the Wall Street crash / bailout to a Ponzi scam, very convincingly too I might add.
Coverage of Paulson’s trip to the Senate (11-19-08) by the Washington Post’s Neil Irwin
Growing pains
Sorry about the lack of new material the past few days. We are in the midst of reconfiguring this site, hopefully making things smoother and easier to use/navigate as well as adding some new pages. Unfortunately being a SQL newb this is a slow process…..
Hopefully everything will sorted out this weekend and some new material will be forthcoming.
Thank you for your patience!
Just a quick survey of the day’s news…
No time for any in depth ranting today, it was a long day and I’m still under the weather. There are some interesting things going on though:
The Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft has reached a stable lunar orbit and is cruising about 100 km above the surface of the moon. This site has a neat mission timeline and some cool images of the craft, components, orbital trajectory and whatnot…Check it out.
In other space news it looks like shortly after NASA’s Phoenix Lander froze to death on Mars the rover, Spirit is also in trouble due to dust storms interfering with its ability to generate power, the link is here…
There has been a buzz lately about the White House’s response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia this past summer. The new information that people are talking about comes in the form of the accounts of the action from ‘independent military observers’ and seems to indicate that Russia was responding to a Georgian provocation rather than conducting a US style pre-emptive strike. Whether or not this is true, it does make one think about how quickly the Whitehouse was to condemn the Russian’s actions, and how the main stream news coverage of the event was very consistant in painting a picture of brutish Russia remenicient of the cold war era. An intersting article by Rober Scheer can be found here.
If anyone hasn’t seen it yet, check out Alice Walker’s open letter to Barack Obama. The first I saw/heard of this was when she appeared on the War and Peace report with Amy Goodman yesterday.
In local news a Corvallis woman is returning to the state capital to protest the impending deployment of our National Gaurd to Iraq/Afghanistan. She and others are conducting a 24/7 vigil/hunger strike to raise awareness. The story is covered from Salem here. Whether or not you agree with her [I do, the National Gaurd should be just that, a National Gaurd] you have got to admire her determination and commitment to what she believes is right. I heard some one today refer to the story and call the dismiss the people conducting the vigil, saying they are wasting their time. That comment really started me thinking about what these people are putting themselves through for their beliefs. This woman, Michele Darr, has 4 young children and a life in Corvallis that she is putting on hold to sit in the rain on the steps of the capital building (she has been there over a week now with nothing but water). How many of us are willing to endure the discomfort of standing in the rain for an hour, or skipping a meal to make a point or express our beliefs?? This lady has been out there 200+ hours and skipped about 30 meals becuase she is fighting for what she believes is right. My hat is off to her, and I wish that I had that kind of determination and will. Perhaps if more of us exercised our right to protest, and did so in a peacefull yet powerful way, things would hot have eroded so far in this country.
Police saturation patrols: increasing the public’s awareness and making some money to boot.
It seems that Friday afternoon was a busy time for Oregon State Police on Hwy 34 between Corvallis and Albany. They were out in force conducting saturation patrols to increase awareness and enforce the state’s ‘Move Over’ law which requires motorists to change lanes if possible or slow down when an emergency vehicle is on the side of the road with lights flashing.
Carrie Petersen, reporter for the Gazette Time covered the story, find it at: http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2008/11/08/news/community/2loc03_tickets1108.txt
I have several concerns about these kinds of activities. By staging an emergency situation at the side of the road during the busy morning commute I can’t help but feel that the police are increasing the likelihood of an accident. Especially if the pool of reserve units keep moving on and off the highway to ticket drivers. Also there seems to be a trend emerging that so called opportunities to inform the public (Move over law, continuous redefinitions of where/what/when school zones are in effect) become fund raising activities. According to Peterson 22 tickets were written, each up to $355.
As an example, while driving across my fairly small town I often see three or more speed trap operations being conducted. This has gotten especially bad in some of the school zones located on major roads where a speeding ticket can be almost a thousand dollars. Now I’m glad that they are keeping people from speeding near schools when children are present, but lately the coverage has seemed excessive. Too often there are multi unit speed traps in place at times when all the children are safely within the school. I worry that other activities are being ignored because the school zones are such lucrative areas to target.
As an example of just how much traffic and parking enforcement can bring in, have a look at the following excerpt from the Corvallis budget. Note that these are only fines handled through the municipal court, I was unable to locate numbers for the county (which is also located in Corvallis).
Excerpt from page 11-12 of the City of Corvallis 08-09 adopted budget, Link at:
http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/downloads/fin/FY0809/BUDGET/ADOPTED/ADOPTED_BUDGET08_09.pdf
According to the City of Corvallis website, the Corvallis Police Department has 34 officers assigned to community services (traffic and patrol, parking enforcement) and 5 detectives which handle theft, assault, etc. Corvallis also has triple coverage, housing a regional office for the Oregon State Police, the Benton County Sheriff’s department, and the municipal police force.
I am worried that raising money is becoming more of a priority that it should be for police officers. There are a lot of thefts or other minor crimes in this small college town. How can these be prevented if the police are all camped out writing tickets?
Soooo, Does Exposure to Sex on TV Increase the Chance of Teen Pregnancy?
What has me annoyed this week is the little sound bytes and talking points from all our favorite news sources gushing about the results of a new study funded by the Rand Corporation which says that teenagers exposed to ‘sexual content’ on TV are more likely to become or be responsible for a pregnancy.
Their claim isn’t what is bothering me; seeing how sexualized some of the content for young children is these days, there may indeed be cause for concern. What bothers me is that I am being told what to believe having heard almost nothing about the nature of the studies that lead to this conclusion (sample size, control methodology, how data was obtained, margin of error, etc). Instead you get a newscaster or journalist regurgitating the conclusions posted on the RAND website with a deeply concerned look on their face. There is little or no discussion, just the author’s interpretation presented as fact.
Here are a few examples (pay attention and see if any questions are asked about how these results were obtained).
http://www.artsjournal.com/artsjournal1/2008/11/rand_corp_study.shtml
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1855842,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/03/teen.pregnancy/index.html
And finally http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27506234/ which actually asks a few questions about what other factors might be responsible for teen pregnancy. There is also a short blurb on a previous RAND report that was part of the founding work for the current release: http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-09-06-teens-tv-sex-usat_x.htm which also questions some of the assumptions made in these works.
So let’s take a closer look at this study and see what’s going on. The Web address for the brief is http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9398/. The authors of the paper are: Anita Chandra, Steven Martino, Rebecca L. Collins, Marc N. Elliott, Sandra H. Berry, David E. Kanouse, Angela Miu. Their paper is published in the journal Pediatrics:
Chandra et al. Does Watching Sex on Television Predict Teen Pregnancy? Findings From a National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Pediatrics, 2008; 122 (5): 1047
The fact sheet summarizes the work of the authors, gives conclusions, and makes policy recommendations based on those conclusions. According to the site this research brief, produced in 2008, is based on previous data published by some of the same authors. The fact sheet for this also references a previously released brief that was posted in 2004. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/index1.html. Both research briefs were based on two original studies conducted by Rebecca L. Collins and her group, and were published in Pediatrics in 2003 and 2004[1,2].
The 2008 fact sheet begins with the following paragraph:
“Teen pregnancy remains a serious problem in the United States. Although rates have declined since 1991, the United States still has the highest rate of teen pregnancy among industrialized nations — nearly one million American women aged 15–19 become pregnant each year. A majority of these pregnancies are unplanned. The factors that contribute to teen pregnancy are multiple and complex. However, one factor that has not been studied in depth is exposure to sexual content on television. Previous RAND Corporation research established a link between such exposure and the onset of sexual activity among teens (see RB-9068). Extending this work, a team of RAND researchers examined the link between teen pregnancy and exposure to sexual content on TV. The study found that frequent exposure to TV sexual content was associated with a significantly greater likelihood of teen pregnancy in the following three years.[3]” [Emphasis added]
and then continues on to show a graph with three series of data each with a few data points representing the results of the study. Note that there is no margin of error listed or error bars shown in the graph. Also there is no breakdown of sample versus age or other relevant demographic listed in support. And most interestingly, if you look closely at the y-axis of the graph you will see, “Percentage of teens expected to become pregnant or to be responsible for a pregnancy.[3]”
From the discussion in the fact sheet it appears that the original work began in 2001 with a sample of roughly 2000 children (according to the article in Time only 1461 were polled[4]) age 12 to 17 who were asked about their sexual behavior and television viewing habits. Follow up surveys were conducted in 2002 and 2004. The results of these surveys were used for the articles written by Collins and her co-authors. The current analysis that is making the news is the result of collecting pregnancy histories from about 700 participants who had engaged in sexual intercourse sometime between the first and last surveys[3].
The 2004 research brief that served as a basis for Chandra’s work represented a summary of the results from the two follow up analysis with the children. The introduction to the research brief describes the kind of sexual content they are looking at and the supposition that watching sexual behavior causes sexual behavior.
“The average American teenager watches three hours of television a day. Typical teen fare contains heavy doses of sexual content, ranging from touching, kissing, jokes, and innuendo to conversations about sexual activity and portrayals of intercourse. Sex is often presented as a casual activity without risk or consequences. Conventional wisdom holds that the messages young viewers absorb from television promote sexual activity in this group.[5]”
The information contained in the 2004 research brief is similar to that in the 2008 brief, comparing exposure to sex on television and increased sexual activity . The two major conclusions of the study according to the research brief press release from the RAND website are:
“After adjustment for other contributing factors, including living in a single-parent household and engaging in problem behaviors such as skipping school, exposure to sexual content on TV was associated with subsequent teen pregnancy.[3] “
“From these results, the researchers estimated that the proportion of teens who are likely to become pregnant or be responsible for a pregnancy in their teen years is two times greater among those who view high levels of televised sexual content (those in the 90th percentile) than among those who view low levels (those in the 10th percentile). See the figure.[3]“
The first question I would like to raise about this study is that of causation. Researchers took a sample of children 12 to 17 and recorded what TV shows they watched. They then asked these children about their sexual behavior. One year and three years later they followed up, once again asking about their sexual behavior since the last interview. The underlying assumption was that the TV these kids watched at the start of the study contained sexual content that caused the children to engage in sexual behavior in the subsequent years. How can this causation be proven conclusively, especially with such a small sample? It could be argued that children with an increasing interest in sex (as they move into and through puberty) seek out TV shows with more sexual content. I think you could also argue that children wanting to learn about sex will turn to TV for answers if information about sex presented in a comfortable environment isn’t readily available.
I would be very interested to see this study repeated (with a larger sample and better explanation of sampling techniques) in some of the more sexually open European countries. I am willing to bet that in countries where children are taught about sex at a younger age, and in a open manner that there would not only be fewer teen pregnancies, but that there would be no correlation between the TV watching habits of those children and their likelihood of getting pregnant as a teen.
“We were surprised to find this link [between sexual content on TV and increased levels of teenage pregnancy],” said Anita Chandra when talking to MSNBC. I find this statement surprising when you look at the original RAND studies which claim, “Conventional wisdom holds that the messages young viewers absorb from television promote sexual activity in this group.[5]” Reading this statement it seems that the conclusions reached by the latest study were pre supposed from the outset.
It is interesting that the work in 2008 claims to strengthen and expand on the link discovered in 2004 between sex on TV and increased sexual activity, and yet it does not appear to contain new data, just further analysis of the 2004 study. If you have a small sample of children in one study that provides a correlation the level of sexual content on the shows they watch and their increase in sexual activity, why would you be surprised when you take the same data and make the discovery that kids who have more sex are more likely to experience a pregnancy?
In the discussion of results, the authors acknowledge that the factors leading to teen pregnancy are complex. One conclusion they reached was, “Youths who intended to have children early also were more likely to experience a pregnancy[6].” It is interesting that children actually seeking to get pregnant at a young age were glossed over as a cause for teen pregnancy during these studies. It would have been one thing if they removed the teenagers expressing this desire from their sample, but there is no indication that this was done.
And finally my biggest complaint is while the study claims to have corrected for ‘family and neighborhood factors’ there is no discussion about the level of sexual education these children received. Did they go to schools where sex ed began in middle school, or did they grow up in conservative areas like my own hometown where everyone had to bring singed slips from the parents so they could hear dangerous and uncomfortable words like ‘condom’, ‘vagina’, or ‘penis’?
I want to make it clear that I have not yet read the full journal articles that Chandra’s study is based on. At this point I am not willing to pay Pediatrics $12 per article for two days access (scientific publications should be free for all, but that is a topic for another day)…. I plan to try and read these through the university library and get some more information about the logistics of the studies. It may be that my concerns with the conclusions of these works and the quality of the research carried out will be completely allayed after reading the full articles. However if the evidence in support of their position is so strong, why omit so many details as to the way in which the sampling was conducted? Why not enumerate the specific factors that the data has been corrected for? Why hesitate to identify all 23 TV shows considered in the study? Why does the one piece of data provided in the press release that supports their claim list the number of teens expected to become pregnant, rather than the actual percentage of teens in the survey? And why claim surprise when the conclusions of the work agree with the premise under which it was conducted???
I am fully expecting to hear something like the following at some point this week: “Did you see that thing the other day on CNN? Where that new study shows kids seeing kissing on TV doubles their chance of getting pregnant as a teen? God that is scary. What can I do, take the TV away till my daughter is 20 so she doesn’t get pregnant?”
What I won’t hold my breath for is “Hmmm, maybe I’ll toss the TV cause it rots children’s brains, and while I’m at it let me make sure my kids have factually sound information about sex, and proper access to contraception.”
1. Collins, Rebecca L., Marc N. Elliott, Sandra H. Berry, David E. Kanouse, and Sarah B. Hunter, “Entertainment Television as a Healthy Sex Educator: The Impact of Condom-Efficacy Information in an Episode of Friends,” Pediatrics, Vol. 112, No. 5, November 2003.
2. Collins, Rebecca L., Marc N. Elliott, Sandra H. Berry, David E. Kanouse, Dale Kunkel, Sarah B. Hunter, and Angela Miu, “Watching Sex on Television Predicts Adolescent Initiation of Sexual Behavior,” Pediatrics, Vol. 114, No. 3, September 2004.
3. Adamson, David M., “Exposure to Sex on TV May Increase the Chance of Teen Pregnancy.” The RAND Corporation Reports and Bookstore : Research Briefs.10-31-2008. The RAND Corporation. 11-5-2008 <http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9398/index1.html>
4. Park, Alice, “Sex on TV Increases Teen Pregnancy, Says Report,” 11-3-2008, Time, Inc., 11-5-2008, <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1855842,00.html >
5. “Does Watching Sex on Television Influence Teens’ Sexual Activity?”, The RAND Corporation Reports and Bookstore : Research Briefs.12-7-2007. The RAND Corporation. 11-5-2008 <http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9068/index1.html>
6. RAND Corporation. “Teen Pregnancy Linked To Viewing Of Sexual Content On TV.” ScienceDaily 3 November 2008. 5 November 2008 <http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/11/081103084042.htm>.