(no subject)
Dec. 8th, 2004 09:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
likethebeerOk, some random thoughts while mda puts away the dishes...
I need to work on the book. It's by my nightside table. We're talking basic edits, here.
This current controversy makes my blood boil. The short n/ sweet: it's been revealed that Wisconsin's Division of Public Health spends $6,000-$8,000 on condoms a year, some of them flavored and colored. No, wait, that's not the story. The story is that the Division of Public Health is buying flavored and colored condoms (that cost as much as regular condoms) and the head of the "Wisconsin chapter of the Family Research Institute" is livid LIVID that HER taxpayer dollars are going to pay for this.
I looked at the Wisconsin census. There are 5,472,299 people in this state. 8.7% in poverty, and 74.7% above 18. By my calculations (assuming ath people not in poverty and over 18 pay taxes--not perfect, but it's what I've got to go on), that gives us 3,558,187 taxpayers.
$8,000 (the high estimate) divided by 3,558,187= about .000225 dollars spent in taxpayer money on condoms. Or .02 cents paid for condoms. Not .02 dollars (2 cents), but .02 cents.
And "Julaine Appling has a suggestion for those who covet condoms. "Go to a drug store and buy them—it should not be on my tax dollar." The Executive Director of Wisconsin's Family Research Institute gives her two cents on the state's purchasing of condoms for free public distribution, adding the practice of purchasing prophylactics of color and flavor provides injurious incentive" No, she's not giving her 2 cents. She's giving her .02 cents. Actually, she's using her .02 cents to make a stink about nothing. It's just a part of grabbing hold of this controversy and running with it. When mda and I heard the figure "6-8,000 dollars" of state budget money used on condoms, both of us look at each other and yelled, "WHAT?!" (to be fair, mda sees the point, especially when it comes to colored/flavored condoms. However, they don't cost more money, and he agrees that if they make people use them, it would be a good thing. But he can see why someone might take offense.)
I'm thinking about sending Julaine Appling $2 and telling her, "There, I've just paid for your taxpayer money on Wisconsin state bought condoms for the next 10,000 years."
I know I had more I wanted to say, but I got caught up in statistics.
I need to work on the book. It's by my nightside table. We're talking basic edits, here.
This current controversy makes my blood boil. The short n/ sweet: it's been revealed that Wisconsin's Division of Public Health spends $6,000-$8,000 on condoms a year, some of them flavored and colored. No, wait, that's not the story. The story is that the Division of Public Health is buying flavored and colored condoms (that cost as much as regular condoms) and the head of the "Wisconsin chapter of the Family Research Institute" is livid LIVID that HER taxpayer dollars are going to pay for this.
I looked at the Wisconsin census. There are 5,472,299 people in this state. 8.7% in poverty, and 74.7% above 18. By my calculations (assuming ath people not in poverty and over 18 pay taxes--not perfect, but it's what I've got to go on), that gives us 3,558,187 taxpayers.
$8,000 (the high estimate) divided by 3,558,187= about .000225 dollars spent in taxpayer money on condoms. Or .02 cents paid for condoms. Not .02 dollars (2 cents), but .02 cents.
And "Julaine Appling has a suggestion for those who covet condoms. "Go to a drug store and buy them—it should not be on my tax dollar." The Executive Director of Wisconsin's Family Research Institute gives her two cents on the state's purchasing of condoms for free public distribution, adding the practice of purchasing prophylactics of color and flavor provides injurious incentive" No, she's not giving her 2 cents. She's giving her .02 cents. Actually, she's using her .02 cents to make a stink about nothing. It's just a part of grabbing hold of this controversy and running with it. When mda and I heard the figure "6-8,000 dollars" of state budget money used on condoms, both of us look at each other and yelled, "WHAT?!" (to be fair, mda sees the point, especially when it comes to colored/flavored condoms. However, they don't cost more money, and he agrees that if they make people use them, it would be a good thing. But he can see why someone might take offense.)
I'm thinking about sending Julaine Appling $2 and telling her, "There, I've just paid for your taxpayer money on Wisconsin state bought condoms for the next 10,000 years."
I know I had more I wanted to say, but I got caught up in statistics.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
more I wanted to say
Date: 2004-12-09 04:51 am (UTC)Re: more I wanted to say
Date: 2004-12-09 04:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 04:28 pm (UTC)Would she rather be paying for unwanted babies who are dumped into the foster care system?? Someone should ask her if it's worth .02 cents to her to keep children from having children.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 04:41 pm (UTC)The $6-8,000 pays for approx. 20,000 condoms. Illinois is also apparently having a controversy over this. They spend about $117,000. Not mentioned is something I read in the Milwaukee State Journal--that the Wisconsin division of human services's studies show that most of the people who use the free condoms are between the ages of 25-30.
That's why this gets even kookier.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 04:54 pm (UTC)Oy...yes, I forgot about those people. I wonder if you took an anonymous poll of the people who believe in abstinence and only abstinence, how many of them would admit that they engaged in premarital sex?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 05:27 pm (UTC)http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/12/09/the_sexual_disconnect/
no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 06:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-09 10:53 pm (UTC)Now I will go back to not watching/listening to the news for the next few months...