www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWYkUGmZYmA

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYGO6UiCyUc

 I apologize for boring you with a short history, but one is necessary: 

When I first read this plan three weeks ago, I was confused.  The wording confused me, the idea seemed silly, and I just couldn’t wrap my head around why someone would propose such a thing.  And so, my instinct was to pass the bill on to congress without prejudice, meaning that our committee would neither recommend the bill for passage nor recommend that congress fail the bill.  I figured that a lively discussion, unbiased by our recommendation, would be worthwhile. 

The idea , however, was not popular among the members present at the committee meeting three weeks ago.  Instead, a motion to pass the bill favorably was proposed, and the majority of members consented. 

In full congress members voted to send the bill back to our committee — again.  There, last night, after voting to pass the thing unfavorably, we voted (nearly the next second, certainly the next minute) to reconsider the bill and ended up (after forty-five minutes or more of wasted time) passing the thing without prejudice — what I tried to do three weeks ago. 

I voted against passing the bill favorably three weeks ago and I voted against passing it without prejudice last night.  The latter resulted from three weeks spent thinking about it.  I realized that preferential balloting takes away the ability of students to know for whom they actually end up voting.  This is due to the fact that if your vote is not final.  Honestly, I don’t even think I’ve wrapped my head around it. 

Needless to say, it is a confusing plan with little merit.  I think it would  be confusing to students and I don’t think it would be worth the money that they say it will save because I think the headaches to be wrought by incompetent student government officials is, as of yet, unimaginable. 

If congress wants to save money and time, congress ought to consider dissolving the self-aggrandizing institution of student congress.

Warning: the sound bites of protestors featured on the following program have been known to prompt nausea and vomiting

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVnj6ud5yCY

Before you go watch my new Crowder Chat.  It will change race relations forever .  .  .

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnKyIzvPoXU

At least $71,623 of the stimulus money is making me laugh very hard today.  Basically, monkeys over at Wake Forest are going to give themselves cocaine.

I feel sure enough has been said.   But, I will add a comment: when the government centrally plans a recovery, a lot of idiotic bull goes down . . . that makes me laugh. 

I felt that this very important news bulletin called for a CROWDER CHAT SPECIAL (echo):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJRr0WL-x5w

I talk about the thing Zach wrote about below:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNrZA1kPajw

Part 1:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1MdQxj2ya4

Part 2:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER1q8Xz2pyk

Part 3:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hI3zUfYpNM

First of all, among the many false premises of the sex education sycophants, sexual health is not a communal matter.  One’s health is a private, personal matter.  In dealing with health issues that students have control over (i.e. getting pregnant or transmitting an STD), personal responsibility is where one’s health education should begin and end.  

 Secondly, the idea that students are ignorant about sex education is just absurd because they are not.  However, even if they were, that is no excuse for state-sponsored sex education in college.  People who want to know things know them, especially people who are older than the age of 18.  Students aren’t as stupid as people at Campus Health Services (CHS) want everyone to think. 

 Thirdly, Campus Health and the University continually take an irresponsible stance when it comes to pre-marital sex: they condone it.    

Sex education advocates never tire of making fun of people who believe in teaching abstinence in schools.  They claim that it is silly and backward to take such a dogmatic stance on the issue of teenage/pre-marital sex.  In fact, the name calling involved is merely a way to marginalize people who disagree with their view that sex before marriage is a good and healthy thing.  Not only does CHS think sex before marriage is a good thing, it goes so far as to give tips on how “To increase sensitivity and pleasure of the receiving partner during oral sex” and other like advice. 

 As a showcase for what it wrong with UNC’s take on sex education, check out CHS’s webpage on abstenence.  In a tone most people reserve for morons, the all-knowing sex educators explain: “Depending on your personal definition of abstinence and reasons for abstaining, any type of sexual activity may be unacceptable. The decision to abstain is one that you can make at any point in your life, even if you have been sexually active before.”  

 Wowzers, I had no idea! 

 The webpage goes on to explain some of the disadvantages of abstinence.  Included among the bulleted, adverse effects of not having sex (and I quote): “This method may be frustrating.”  

And that’s where we are, I guess.  If it’s frustrating for goodness sakes avoid it!  Never mind that one’s body has the potential for being the temple of the living God — woop!  Sorry, it seems I accidently posited a truth claim.  

Thankfully, sex educators are not biased at all, unlike me.