I've been reading some of the response to an article I recently wrote regarding dogfighting. Yeah, reporters keep up with those comments and message board threads -- for better or for worse.

So, I'll address a few things.
Law enforcement said arrests were coming. But who knows how big this thing gets? The case is still young in the scheme of things. These guys are just as pissed off as you. So, patience.

Now, I'll admit, I'd like nothing better than to see these dogfighters receive the maximum penalty for their crimes. In NC, like most states, the whole enterprise is a felony. Even being a spectator at one of the events can mean serious consequences.
For me, the idea of fighting these dogs is nauseating and heartbreaking -- especially because it makes me think of my pit bull who died this past year.

Parker was one of the best dogs I've ever had. She was sweet and gentle. But she did have some aggression toward other dogs. Simple enough to combat -- we didn't expose her to other dogs. She was well trained and obedient -- most of the time. And she was exceptionally bright. She was found at a state park -- hence the name Parker -- and we feared advertising that we'd found here because someone might lie to get her and have a fighting dog. After asking around, no one had claimed her. She became our dog and short of a slight snoring problem she was perfect. I can't fathom getting any entertainment out of putting her in a pit with another dog and watching them fight. It turns my stomach.

So, I'll stay after this story, just like the cops will stay after this case.

Labels: Crowders Mountain, doggy, government, news

Photos by Rachel Tucker

Labels: government, photography

What an itch...
With the help of Emily Killian's graphics know-how, I'm putting together a package about poison oak and ivy. I've never been terribly allergic to it, but when a quick poll around the newsroom revealed that most of my college-educated, knowledgeable colleagues didn't even know what the two plants looked like, I thought it might be a good idea to give everyone a refresher course.

Robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul...
A Medicaid relief proposal is floating around the General Assembly. SB 1484 proposes to take all sales tax revenues from incorporated municipalities across the state -- Shelby, Boiling Springs, Forest City, etc. around here -- and give that money to the counties the cities and towns are in.
In the League of Municipalities Legislative Bulletin (read in full here) has the following to say about SB 1484:

Senate Majority Leader and SB 1484 sponsor Tony Rand was quoted in the Fayetteville Observer as indicating that municipalities could withstand the freeze on a significant portion of their sales tax revenues. He was quoted as follows: “Counties have to build schools, so we’re just not costing the cities anything. We’re keeping the cities where they are, but they don’t have to build jails and schools.”

We certainly support Medicaid relief as a part of an infrastructure funding package that will benefit counties, but cities must not be left by the wayside. Cities and towns also provide vital services to growing populations and have tremendous funding needs for building and maintaining municipal streets (and sometimes state system roads), water and sewer systems, storm water systems, and other infrastructure. They also provide police and fire protection for a large portion of the populace in the state.

What does our senator, Walter Dalton, and area elected officials have to say about this plan?

That's it for now...

Labels: budget, county, government, news, spending

By KEVIN FREKING, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Students who took part in sexual abstinence programs were just as likely to have sex as those who did not, according to a study ordered by Congress.

Also, those who attended one of the four abstinence classes that were reviewed reported having similar numbers of sexual partners as those who did not attend the classes. And they first had sex at about the same age as other students — 14.9 years, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

The federal government now spends about $176 million annually on abstinence-until-marriage education. Critics have repeatedly said they don't believe the programs are working, and the study will give them reinforcement.
However, Bush administration officials cautioned against drawing sweeping conclusions from the study. They said the four programs reviewed — among several hundred across the nation — were some of the very first established after Congress overhauled the nation's welfare laws in 1996.

Officials said one lesson they learned from the study is that the abstinence message should be reinforced in subsequent years to truly affect behavior.
"This report confirms that these interventions are not like vaccines. You can't expect one dose in middle school, or a small dose, to be protective all throughout the youth's high school career," said Harry Wilson, the commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families.

For its study, Mathematica looked at students in four abstinence programs around the country as well as students from the same communities who did not participate in the abstinence programs. The 2,057 youths came from big cities — Miami and Milwaukee — as well as rural communities — Powhatan, Va., and Clarksdale, Miss.
The students who participated in abstinence education did so for one to three years. Their average age was 11 to 12 when they entered the programs back in 1999.
Mathematica then did a follow up survey in late 2005 and early 2006. By that time, the average age for participants was about 16.5. Mathematica found that about half of the abstinence students and about half from the control group reported that they remained abstinent.

"I really do think it's a two-part story. First, there is no evidence that the programs increased the rate of sexual abstinence," said Chris Trenholm, a senior researcher at Mathematica who oversaw the study. "However, the second part of the story that I think is equally important is that we find no evidence that the programs increased the rate of unprotected sex."
Trenholm said his second point of emphasis was important because some critics of abstinence programs have contended that they lead to less frequent use of condoms.

Mathematica's study could have serious implications as Congress considers renewing this summer the block grant program for abstinence education known as Title V. The federal government has authorized up to $50 million annually for the program. Participating states then provide $3 for every $4 they get from the federal government. Eight states decline to take part in the grant program.

Some lawmakers and advocacy groups believe the federal government should use that money for comprehensive sex education, which would include abstinence as a piece of the curriculum.
"Members of Congress need to listen to what the evidence tells us," said William Smith, vice president for public policy at the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which promotes comprehensive sex education.
"This report should give a clear signal to members of Congress that the program should be changed to support programs that work, or it should end when it expires at the end of June," Smith said.
Smith also said he didn't have trouble making broader generalizations about abstinence programs based on the four reviewed because "this was supposed to be their all-star lineup."
But a trade association for abstinence educators emphasized that the findings represent less than 1 percent of all Title V abstinence projects across the nation.

"This study began when (the programs) were still in their infancy," said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association. "The field of abstinence has significantly grown and evolved since that time and the results demonstrated in the Mathematica study are not representative of the abstinence education community as a whole."

The four programs differed in many respects. One was voluntary and took place after school. Three had mandatory attendance and served youth during the school day. All offered more than 50 hours of classes. Two were particularly intensive. The young people met every day of the school year.
Common topics included human anatomy and sexually transmitted diseases. Also, classes focused on helping students set personal goals and build self-esteem. The young people were taught to improve communication skills and manage peer pressure.
___
On the Net:
Abstinence study: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/PDFs/impactabstinence.pdf

Do I want my daughter having sex before marriage? NO!
In the event my daughter makes the (irresponsible) choice of having sex before marriage do I want her to know how to be safe (at least until I find out and kill her)? Yeah, actually.

Teenagers are going to have sex. Yeah, you may have taught your kid better than that but some teenage boys and girls come up with new ways everyday of talking your little darling into bed.

If they do have sex, maybe it's just that one time -- they've figured out they just aren't ready for it. They regret having done it. But if they don't know how to make that mistake safely, that one time could ruin their lives. AIDS, unplanned pregnancies and a litany of STDs are out there lurking.

Frankly, I don't think it should be up to the government to tell your kid about sex anyway. Of course, if you have cable, your kids probably know all about it anyway.

Labels: education, government, sex, spending, study