« The Next Black Swan | Main | The New York Times' Employment Test »

STD's Soar in California because of Pro-Sex, Anti-Abstinence Programs

And liberals insist that comprehensive sexual education, which includes access to condoms and the morning after pill and not abstinence programs, would protect kids from sexually transmitted diseases:

According to a study published last month in the Californian Journal of Health Promotion, there were 1.1 million new cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among young Californians in 2005, the California Catholic reports.

The figure is ten times higher than previously believed. If the study is accurate, diseases such as chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis, HPV, and HIV now infect almost one out of four Californians in the 15-24 age group.

Why? Because of the left-wing, pro-sex agenda that the radicals have imposed on the entire state's public education system.

According to Chris Weinkopf, editorial-page editor of the Los Angeles Daily News, state law prohibits 'abstinence-only' education in public schools. California has also refused to accept millions of dollars in federal funding for abstinence education.

Linda Klepacki, sexual health analyst for Focus on the Family Action, thought the dramatic increase was unsurprising. "California has insisted on teaching contraceptive-based sex education in their schools all along. They expect teens to be sexually active. They don't raise the health standard to abstinence... It's clear California supports sexually active teens, and STI rates will naturally explode with these policies," she wrote in an on-line press release.

Plan B, the so-called "morning-after pill," could be another factor contributing to the increase in STIs. Sexually transmitted infections soared in the British Isles when Plan B was made available without prescription in 2000. California was one of the first states to permit the sale of Plan B over-the-counter without an age limit.

The liberals in the state of California are doing these kids a horrible disservice. They are teaching young, impressionable kids who are already bombarded by sex everywhere they turn, in music, in movies, on television, and on the internet, that they don't have to engage in any kind of self-control because they have these so-called safe guards, which are, obviously, not effective. Some of these STD's are incurable, so these kids will be living with their diseases for the rest of their lives. And some day, when these kids grow up and have a better perspective on life, they will realize how horribly they were served by their education system, and they are going to be furious.

Unfortunately, STD's are not the only devastating effects of the pro-sex agenda in California:

Along with the increase in sexually transmitted infections, there has also been a striking increase in the suicide rates among young people. UCLA psychiatrist Dr. Miriam Grossman has argued that promiscuity is the root cause of much depression. She believes the promiscuity-depression-suicide link is being ignored by doctors who fail to caution students about the dangers of the "hook-up" culture.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/24940.

Comments (46)

But doesn't sex education o... (Below threshold)

But doesn't sex education of any type warn of the consequences of premarital sex for young people including unintended pregnancy or possible STDs? Many young people may act out sexually to express rebellion against their parents, which means that there may be a basic respect issue in many families.

Other studies find high sexual activity rates even among Christian youths, so the problem is far deeper than some regional sex education program in part of California with a very high minority student population and very low graduation rates. The problem still goes back to the family and the lack of respect many young people have for their parents.

Now Wizbang is anti-sex?</p... (Below threshold)

Now Wizbang is anti-sex?

"Now Wizbang is an... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
"Now Wizbang is anti-sex?"

For 12 year olds, maybe not such a bad thing.

Don't bother, you'll never ... (Below threshold)
Baggi:

Don't bother, you'll never convince them.

The reason is always the conservatives fault. The suicide rate is because society says "free love" is wrong and they feel bad about all their sex. If we would just make them feel good about all of it, then they wouldn't kill themselves.

And they diseases? Its the Christians fault almost certainly.

Study after study indicates... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work.

Just a little bit misleadin... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

Just a little bit misleading aren't we? The so called increase is due to a new technique to "estimate" the number of cases.

"Jerman and her colleagues used a computer model developed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to estimate the incidence of STDs. Using the technique, CDC researchers reported in 2004 that 9.1 million new STDs occurred nationwide among 15- to 24-year-olds in the year 2000 with a direct medical cost of $6.5 billion."

Sounds more like they were underestimating the problem in the past or the models are wrong. I bet this is the first time the right has argued a cause based on a computer model (see global warming deniers).

Study after study ind... (Below threshold)

Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work.

Barney
Is it the abstinence or the program that doesn't work?

Well since the last study o... (Below threshold)
Big Dan:

Well since the last study on abstinence-only sex education concluded, that it does not keep teenagers from having sex, we can conlcude the rates would be even higher if California wasn't smart enough to try to get kids to use condoms.

That is basic logic Kim.

Barney you stubborn fool. Y... (Below threshold)

Barney you stubborn fool. You going to argue that CDC's use of computer models is unreliable? Hmmm. Guess that global warming crisis is up in the air.

CDC's history of estimating is not new. Despite decades of studies about second hand smoke over 40 years, CDC determined that it would change the standard deviation (previously applied without exception), aggregate dissimilar studies and came up with a conclusion that SHM was a first class carcinogen.

CDC's track record of protecting the public goes back decades. Remember Love Canal? Times Beach, MO?

If you're going to (miraculously) find skepticism from CDC's conclusions, you have a lot of re-thinking to do.

Study after study ... (Below threshold)
Steve:
Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work

Which studies might those be Barney?

Now the democrats in Me are... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Now the democrats in Me are giving 11 year olds birth control pills to make them feel that nothing will happen. I think this is to allow the teacher to reach some new meat. Will they lower that to 7 or maybe 5? There is a group of real perverts in the democrat party, or the entire democrat party has became a group of perverts. After the past couple of days watching congress I've realized that 99% of them are mentally ill to the point that they should be locked in a rubber room.

Found the below on the web.... (Below threshold)
Big Dan:

Found the below on the web. It shouldn't be hard to find more by doing a google.

Heck, if you are skeptical you can google and see if there are an counter studies. That show abstinence programs work. I am guessing no such studies exist though as everything I have ever read about it has come to the opposite conclusion. Maybe someone can find something that would prove that wrong though?

Study for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

The study released earlier this month, which was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. and authorized by Congress in 1997, evaluated the effectiveness of abstinence programs funded under Title V, Section 510 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The major findings were that the abstinence programs they studied had no correlation with a decreased level of sexual activity in the population of teens they surveyed

This was a Republican congress btw that authorized the study.

I would rather have schools... (Below threshold)
db Author Profile Page:

I would rather have schools work on getting children to do basic skills however if we have to Sex Education they should be taught the truth.

If you have vaginal sex you are at risk for becoming pregnant not matter what method of contraception which is used. If you engage in any sexual activity your risk getting an STD no matter what method of contraception which is used. Meaning there is no 100% safe method. However abstinence is a 100% proven method of birth control and stopping the spread of STDs. Therefore it should get equal time in the curriculum. Also their should include the both legal and economic cost of having children, as well as the physical and psychological risk of having pre-teen and teenage sex.

Abstinence only should be taught for everyone under the legal age of consent. Otherwise you the school is promoting statutory rape.

"Which studies might those ... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

"Which studies might those be Barney?"

In the most recent and one that was most reported on:

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 14, 2007; Page A02

A long-awaited national study has concluded that abstinence-only sex education, a cornerstone of the Bush administration's social agenda, does not keep teenagers from having sex. Neither does it increase or decrease the likelihood that if they do have sex, they will use a condom.

In another evaluation of several programs:
Summary of Results

Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time.

http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/stateevaluations/index.htm

So Kim decides to report on... (Below threshold)
herman:

So Kim decides to report on a sociological study rather than merely pass on anecdotes? Great, Kim, you're learning!

But you still have a long way to go.

You see, if you really want to accurately assess the relative merits of California's practices, you would do a comparison with, say, some hicksville state like Alabama. Strange, but I just don't predict that the rate of sexually transmitted diseases among the young socialist Californians is greater than that for the young Bible-thumpin' Alabamans. But why don't you find out, Kim?

On second thought, I'll do it for you, at least for young women with chlamydia:

"In 2000, the 10 states with the highest level of chlamydia positivity among 15- to 24-year-old women in family planning clinics include: Mississippi (15.8%), Rhode Island (11.9%), Louisiana (9.7%), Texas (9.3%), South Carolina (8.6%), Alabama (7.9%), North Carolina (7.5%), California (7.3%), Illinois (7.4%) and Wisconsin (7.2%)." http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1017352076.html

Well! Not only does Alabama rank above California, but North Carolina does too! Say, isn't North Carolina where Lorie Byrd lives? Don't you live there too, Kim?

Oh, and Kim, you left this part out:

"Jerman [the study author] stressed that there has not been a surge in sexually transmitted diseases, it's just that the sheer size of the problem has never been fully appreciated."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/10/10/BAG5SMCRK.DTL&type=printable

Is it the abstinence or the... (Below threshold)

Is it the abstinence or the program that doesn't work? BTW, define "program".

STD's Soar in California... (Below threshold)
Brian:

STD's Soar in California because of Pro-Sex, Anti-Abstinence Programs

Where are you getting that "because of" from, Kim? It looks like the CDC updated their computer model and reported the numbers. And then some wacky web site takes those numbers, and then adds a couple of paragraphs about California's sex ed policies, and a completely unrelated and out-of-left-field mention of suicide rates.

And then along comes you and Wizbang to take all of those and establish a fake causal relationship.

Well, the numbers don't lie, right? So let's take a look... the population of California is 12% of the US. The CDC reported that 9.1 million new STDs occurred nationwide, with 1.1 million of them in California. So what's 1.1 out of 9.1? That's right.... 12%.

Wow, looks like California is right in line with the national average. Huh. So much for the causal relationship. In fact, you have no way of knowing whether California's programs helped keep the number lower than it would have been otherwise, do you?

This is shockingly sloppy, even for you, Kim. But I guess that's what happens when you get your news from the Catholic News Agency.

Study after study ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
Study after study indicates that abstinence only programs do not work.
And it appears 'programs' without abstinence don't work either. And yet it wouldn't hurt to include it. Not one bit.

However, the mere idea of discouraging promiscuity on any level is banished from any 'program'.

I always like this finding:... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

I always like this finding:

"..they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens and less likely to use condoms once they become sexually active, according to a study published in the April issue of the... Journal of Adolescent Health, .."

You going to argue that ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You going to argue that CDC's use of computer models is unreliable?

The CDC is arguing that themselves, so there's no need for anyone else to.

CDC's history of estimating is not new.

The new study, the first of its kind...

If you're going to (miraculously) find skepticism from CDC's conclusions, you have a lot of re-thinking to do.

Miraculous? The CDC was skeptical of their own past conclusions. That's why they developed a new model.

If you're going to spout off without knowing what you're talking about, then you're going to look as silly as you already do.

One more example of how lib... (Below threshold)
civildisobedience Author Profile Page:

One more example of how liberals hate children and want to destroy families. Liberal policies are criminal policies.

One more example of how ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

One more example of how liberals hate children and want to destroy families.

Yeah, except that if you bothered to read the comments and their citations, you'd have realized that this post and its conclusions are complete and utter fabrications that are at odds with their own sources.

Oops.

"The liberals in the stat... (Below threshold)
RobLACal:

"The liberals in the state of California are doing these kids a horrible disservice."

Of course they are , the dirty pack of "GOTZ 2 FEELZ GOOD" bastards. Democrats are child molesters in every way possible. Lets not forget to give credit where credit is due, thank you very much BJ Clinton for your "it's not sex , sex".

Does anyone truly expect anything honest or decent from the party of criminal frauds?

Last democrat President was a draft dodger , sexual deviant , liar and a no good incompetent phony.

Al gore and Fraud Kerry?

An imbecile and uncoordinated football in the face Traitor where the next two embarrassments they thought they could successfully lie into office.

"they also are more likely to engage in oral or anal sex than nonpledging virgin teens"

Like I said before , thanks alot Bubba aka the "Bent one" as in hell bent on doing whatever of whoever he wants. Sharon Stone is proud to admit how well she was capable of climbing that latter, not shy about it one bit.

Aren't democrats the greatest?

Brain:If you'r... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brain:

If you're going to spout off without knowing what you're talking about, then you're going to look as silly as you already do.

And we know Brain would NEVER look silly now would he?

No never.

RobLACal:Of co... (Below threshold)
marc:

RobLACal:

Of course they are , the dirty pack of "GOTZ 2 FEELZ GOOD" bastards. Democrats are child molesters in every way possible.

Yeah, and you're the shining light of decorum, civil discourse and the defender of truth, justice and the American way.

Gotcha... but no thinks, I'll pass.

I once heard an abstinence ... (Below threshold)

I once heard an abstinence advocate say that *of course* abstinence education doesn't work because you can't teach abstinence if you don't teach self-control and self-discipline from an early age and you can't teach *those* things... if you refuse to do so.

At least since I was in school (going on 25 years now) the message to teens has been, "We know you're going to do it *anyway* so..."

And how about this bit of psychological brilliance... MADD or SADD at school assembly asks the kids who *don't* drink to raise their hands. When the kids do... "You're all liars."

The message "everyone does it" has consequences. Firstly, it's not true. Secondly, the damage done to one group (those who don't "do it" or may not have "done it" otherwise,) in order to reach those kids that *are* "doing it" is inexcusable.

Saying "we know it's not easy but we know you can" is a far more positive message, and *reinforcing* message, than saying "we can't expect you not to, because you're kids."

What kind of results would parents be expected to get if they treated their kids like liars because "all kids lie?"

Looks like the new part is ... (Below threshold)
db:

Looks like the new part is this show how much it cost.

The new study, the first of its kind, also found that the direct cost of treating the new infections is more than $1 billion per year.

"We've seen the human toll, but this provides the first estimate of the enormous economic cost that is borne in California due to STDs," said Dr. Peter R. Kerndt, director of the county's sexually transmitted disease program.

Looking at it the number were low because of reporting requirments.

Condoms help prevent STD's.... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Condoms help prevent STD's...
Condoms should be made available to H.S. males.
Condom use should be a part of sex education.

The males is our society get off too easily(cheap pun intended). Not getting a girl pregnant is our(Male) responsibility.
Why is it a popular male student who has different sexual partners is "a stud" but a female student who does the same is "a slut"?

Sex sells in our nation. It is everywhere and please don't get into Liberal media just watch FOX.
High School and middle school sex is not a Liberal plot.
It happened when you were that age. If you did not experiment with sex...love or lust, in school you know those that did...

Our hormones don't give a rat's ass about political philosophies....never did and never will.

Take away the perceived con... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Take away the perceived consequences (IE pregnancy), drench the culture in sex, add in a hefty dose of irresponsibility and is it terribly surprising you get more of an action and more side effects of that action?

Simple cause and effect... and as Nogo said, hormones don't give a damn about political philosophies.

Yeah, except that ... (Below threshold)
jpm100:
Yeah, except that if you bothered to read the comments and their citations, you'd have realized that this post and its conclusions are complete and utter fabrications that are at odds with their own sources.
Sounds like some science leaked out before it could be plugged with politics.
'Condoms help prevent STD's... (Below threshold)
JB:

'Condoms help prevent STD's...
Condoms should be made available to H.S. males.
Condom use should be a part of sex education.'

'It happened when you were that age. If you did not experiment with sex...love or lust, in school you know those that did...'

We also know those that didn't use condoms, despite having access to them and knowing the consequences. Gee, maybe kids don't have the nuanced notion of self-restraint that libs expect them to have. Educations, smeducation...my hormonez iz ragin', and bareback just feels sooooo good....

Libs are such freakin' sociopaths. I swear to God.

And we know Brain would ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And we know Brain would NEVER look silly now would he?

Being wrong makes one look silly? In that case, you're a regular Bozo.

The problem with condoms, n... (Below threshold)

The problem with condoms, nogo, is that if you go to your college doctor and say, "I use condoms for birth control", the woman will have an aneurism, yell at you for at least 30 minutes, shove a armload of "condom failure" pamphlets at you and when that's all over you'll walk out of her door with a prescription for a pill.

But if the discussion is persistent, non-curable, or even deadly STD's... use a condom and you're fine. Just be sure to have Safe Sex.

One thing no one has mentioned yet... young people tend to evaluate risk differently from adults.

I'd say that "safe sex" is one place where adults take a teenager's risk assessment failings and douse the fire with gasoline. The kids know they're lying about the effectiveness of condom use because they've either read the package or suggested that a condom will solve the pregnancy issue. If a condom can't be counted on to keep you from getting pregnant, how is someone supposed to assess the risk involved of catching a disease? The other, back up contraceptive that is supposed to be so necessary doesn't exist for STD's or AIDS.

So they've stopped saying "Safe" sex and started to say "safer" sex. Well, what good is "safer" if it isn't "safe?" And if a risk of catching something is acceptable, then maybe the risk isn't so great after all. Hm?

What *is* the risk of catching something, even pregnancy, from any random encounter? If it were up to me I'd concentrate on abstinence and the near *surety* of getting emotionally hurt either by pretending that sex doesn't matter or by placing that physical and emotional investment in someone you'd never dream of staying with forever at a point in your life when forming a permanent life-partnership is not considered.

I guess with my kids it *is* up to me. I don't discount either hormones or opportunity but I don't discount my kids ability to understand what a powerful tool for messing up their lives their *minds* are, and I don't discount their ability to rule their own selves.

The thing about knowing how it was when I was that age is that I know just now truly messed up a lot of my friends were, how their attitudes of self-worth related to sex, how patterns of accepting abusive or "using" relationships was established or reinforced. The hormones aren't any different. The interpersonal traps aren't different either, no matter how many times someone tries to pretend that "hooking up" is powerful and liberated.

AIDS is something far away for most people. STD's ignored. Even the chance of pregnancy isn't that great. And then we've made up supposed new rules for an ancient biology that makes it unacceptable to talk about the one element of risk assessment that, while it might not be as *dire* and most people do work out their issues, it's not at all unlikely... which is the psychological dangers and pitfalls of being *that* physically and emotionally vulnerable with anyone and everyone.

..felt as a former H... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

..
felt as a former H.S. teacher charging under 18 crimes as adult are B.S.)

The part of our brain dealing with choices is still developing..
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/interviews/todd.html

Libs are such freakin' soci... (Below threshold)
nogo war:

Libs are such freakin' sociopaths. I swear to God.

JB...can I assume you are not presently in a sexual relationship?
or your comment "bareback just feels sooooo good"....
I don't remember using the term for gay sex...
Time to come out of the closet JB...

RobLACal,No, the D... (Below threshold)
Robert:

RobLACal,

No, the Democrats aren't the greatest. It just seems that way (by a longshot) when you compare them to Republicans.

We can still do better than either, if given a choice.

Synova put it very succinct... (Below threshold)

Synova put it very succinctly. I couldn't agree more.

The problem with early sex-ed is that we began sacrificing children who were living real childhoods - meaning a childhood free of adult thought - to reach the small minority of those who weren't. We began treating them as a whole when they were individuals, thereby corrupting a whole slew of kids with information that they weren't intellectually or emotionally ready to process.

Any of you who are well over forty, hark back to your jr. high and high school days. If a girl in your school was known to have had sex, didn't she have a "bad reputation"? The peer pressure alone was enough to hold most of us back.

I wouldn't argue against comprehensive sex education. But I would argue that we are teaching these kids way too young. And I would argue that there is a moral element left out of the education all in the name of political correctness.

Brian, you completely </... (Below threshold)

Brian, you completely misread the meaning of my comment, but that's no surprise.

Wonder if all the gay conse... (Below threshold)
g. c.:

Wonder if all the gay conservatives are using protection? Or is DENIAL enough of a safty net?

db and synova have good poi... (Below threshold)

db and synova have good points.

While one could accurately say that California's sex ed programs haven't helped in terms of reducing STD's amoung young people, I, as a California parent, do not abdicate my responsibility as a parent and expect the school system to do my job. If there is an "explosion" in STD's amoung California youth we have to put the lion's share of the blame squarely where it belongs - on the parents.

Sure, we have an immoral culture to fight against and it truly sucks to have the schools caving to the PC pressure to promote immorality, but any parent who waits until their child's hormones are raging to try to instill a morality greater than that expected by the uber-liberal public school system has simply waited too long. Ditto for teaching self-control, good decision making, and understanding that actions have consequences.

Essentially #15 an... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:


Essentially #15 and #17 pretty much established the factual smackdown for Kim's hoo ha religious crusade against liberal sex education.

Alabama, Texas, North Carolina, all those abstinence bible believers and what do you get?

Man I love it when somoene like Herman lays out the facts.
Great job Herman.

Sorry Kim, just cause it fe... (Below threshold)
epador:

Sorry Kim, just cause it feels good doesn't mean its right. Like trying to link story one with points about CA sex education policies.

I hear you Oyster, but we also risk losing the kids we don't reach out for that need the info.

There is no good solution. Except maybe coming up with a specific hormone receptor blocker that kills the sex drive without affecting other hormone effects, implant it in all kids at age 10 and not remove it until age , say, 34 or so...

Epador, I would say there p... (Below threshold)

Epador, I would say there probably IS a better answer, but this exercise to normalize certain behaviors that are harmful to society as a whole, in the long run, in an effort to be non-judgmental has hampered any desire to pursue other avenues or solutions.

It's just another "one size fits all" approach that has dumbed down the whole educational curriculum.

It really doesn't matter wh... (Below threshold)
forenpsycho:

It really doesn't matter what kind of education is provided, history tells us that teenagers will have sex. Not all, and certainly some places more than others, but kids will have sex. It has been true in every generation, probably since the beginning of time.

Given that truth, it seems clear that ALL types of sex education should be provided, including the recommendation of abstinence. Kids want and need straight talk. The truth. Not one particular individual's or group's version of the truth, but the provable, factual truth about the dangers of youthful and unprotected sex. In schools where such education has been provided - and admittedly there are few - teen pregnancy and STD/STIs are consistently, down and abstinence is up.

Teenagers are not children, but not yet adults either. Their lives are full of contradictions. Sex education should not be among those contradictions.

There have been many good c... (Below threshold)
Pro-sex libral:

There have been many good comments already that show there is no correlation between abstinence only education and STD's or even sexual activity. So I will skip that part. The one thing I missed in the comments is that NO WHERE in that report do they say what the 2004 numbers are. Between that lack of information and the fact (as has already been pointed out) that these are guesstimates how do you come to the conclusion that the new cases are a net new increase rather then what has been happening all along?

This article seems to assum... (Below threshold)
LA Fisher:

This article seems to assume that just because schools educate kids how to have sex safely it advocates sex. While I didn't go to school in California my school did not have an abstinence only program, but in no way did any of my teachers ever promote going out and having sex with lots of different boys.
It also assumes that students, if educated in abstinence only would then practice that, which just isn't the case. I knew quite a few girls in college who were taught abstinence only in Catholic high schools, yet still had (lots of) premarital sex. Therefore an education on how to protect one self will actually prevent some of these children from getting pregnant or STDs.
While promiscuity might be a sign of depression there is no link to promiscuity and a safe sex education. Also even in this article you just assume the reader will connect these things, but you don't actually do it.
In short this article has no actual facts to back it up ... just assumptions. All it really can state is that kids are getting STDs in California, maybe if she had some facts on if these children went to private religious schools or public schools it might have some substance. As it stands it's pretty much unsubstantial fluff.
Oh and on a side note ... good for the public school system for not taking the buy off from religious conservatives (such as yourself obviously) and continuing to teach our children how to be safe. There are children out there who will have sex no matter what there teachers said and they need to know how to protect themselves.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy