Thanks. The percentage of analysts who eventually work at investment banks is higher than I would expected. I wonder if that means they were being hired for analyst positions. I didn't deal with the analysts that often, as they were quite far down the pecking order in investment banks.

The author found some evidence of capture with respect to corporate bond ratings, but it sounds like the evidence pointed in the oppositive direction for ratings of RMBS. Specifically, it appears that the rating agency analysts whose ratings were more accurate with the benefit of hindsight were the most likely to be hired by Wall Street banks.

It also would be interesting to know how when these people were hired. The analysts in his sample apparently were working at rating agencies during the period from 2000-2009. I suspect that means that a lot of these people were hired by investment banks in the aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

If you really want a deep dive into this topic, I will PM you a link.

You're welcome and happy to have the 'deep dive' link. Thx in advance.

True.

The hypothetical standing in the gay website case is troubling, but this is even worse.

Even if his daughters had already been given contraceptives by the program, does he think that would somehow force them to have sex?

Unless his religion specifically forbids his daughters from owning contraceptives, he should have no standing even on the loosest of religious grounds.

In my opinion, no minor should ever been given contraceptives without parental consent, unless a licensed physician has determined that serious mental or physical harm would come to the minor if she did not receive the contraceptive. (And the school nurse doesn't cut it.)

What's your reasoning behind that?

And how could serious mental or physical harm come from not having them (other than from pregnancy, if that counts)?

Do you think it's OK for a toothbrush to be given to a minor without parental consent? If so, why is your answer different?

While I don't generally like to ask a new question before I answer a question already put before me, I would like to first ask you a question about one of your follow-up questions:

Did you spend at least thirty seconds considering why there at least might be an important difference between giving a teen a contraceptive and giving a teen a toothbrush?

If you didn't, please do so now and let me know what you came up with.

Thanks.

Actually I spent several minutes before my previous post to try to come up with something as similar as possible to ask about. The important similarities between the two are several:

Being given either does not require one to use it.

Both serve as preventatives against the negative consequences of doing things one's parents may not approve of (having sex, eating lots of candy / drinking lots of soda).

Neither likely makes the teen more likely to do the behavior the parents may not approve of (the teen will do what they want regardless).

The objections of parents to either are based completely on irrational beliefs.


The one difference: more parents will likely object to the contraceptive than to the toothbrush, because the irrational beliefs about contraceptives are more common.

Good.

True. But it is a tacit endorsement of using it. If the teen asks for a pocket knife, should the teen be given it? After all, she might not use it. However, unlike the toothbrush, there are few potential misuses of it. Maybe you don't know this, but there are potential physical, psychological, sociological and moral consequences of the use of both pocket knives and contraceptives. Not so much with toothbrushes afaik.

That's between the parent and the teen. Would like to see a survey of how many parents oppose the use of toothbrushes. Also, I am unaware of any potential physical, psychological, sociological and moral consequences for using toothbrushes. (If I'm mistaken on this, please englighten me.)

Interesting equivalancey. Not brushing teeth for a week is equivalent to using a contraceptive.

I suspect that it would be irrational to oppose of use to toothbrushes. Apparently you are unaware of the potential sociological, psychological, physical and moral consequences of contraceptives.


The virtual proof of the absurdity of your comparison is that nobody opposes the use of toothbrushes. Serious scholars, including both sides of the contraceptive issue, recognize the potential problems.

Anyway, thanks for your detailed response.

Eh, I had a pocket knife from well before I was a teen. In fact I still have it, over 40 years later. I never did anything dangerous with it. I recently found a knife that looked more like a weapon in the room of my 15 year old nephew. I told him to put it away somewhere that his younger brother or other younger kids couldn't easily get hold of it. It probably wasn't more dangerous than some of the knives in their kitchen though. It was more dangerous that a toothbrush, but there are certainly potential dangerous misuses of those as well, from what I have heard about improvised prison weapons.

I'm pretty sure that someone opposes the use of toothbrushes. I mean, there were plenty of people who opposed the fluoridation of the water supply. It seems like they would probably also oppose the use of toothpaste with fluoride, which is pretty much all of them these days. And while the possession of a toothbrush certainly doesn't force someone to use toothpaste, it certainly seems like a tacit endorsement of it. There seem to be lots of people these days who oppose the government telling them to do anything related to their health and opposing their children getting help with anything health-related.

But more on topic, I don't really know of any potential sociological, psychological, physical and moral consequences of contraceptives, except for the physical consequences of hormonal birth control for females, which is most often positive for teens (reduction of acne). But to narrow it down, I'm sure that condoms are the most likely contraceptive to be given out freely to teens in schools, so maybe you could tell me what some of those consequences of condom use are.

I wasn't frequenting the politics forum in previous years when apparently some other posters learned of your religious beliefs, so I don't know which brand of Christianity you subscribe to. If it is Catholicism, I would be curious to know if you would be ok with teaching teens the rhythm method to prevent pregnancy, as that form of birth control is allowed by the church.

He is a "preach in the street" evangelical.

chillrob there is nothing other than control that drives most evangelical/fundamentalist types desires to gain power over the law to stop OTHERS from engaging in things, they, the evangelical/fundamentalist, do not want to do themselves and thus feel no one else should be allowed to do them.

Whether it is a past desire to stop 'Dancing', "alcohol consumption', 'or giving out free contraception', as you rightly point out none of those are wrong or sinful (via the bible) but because evangelic/fundamentalist types believe it makes MORE likely people will then engage in casual sex, they then feel justified to seek the power of law to stop everyone from engaging in them.

Evangelicals/Fundamentalists operate via one consistency whether they are christian, muslim or other, and that is 'once i decide how I want to live my life, i do not want the State imposing between me and my religious beliefs, however given the chance for us to gain power in the State, we will seek to force everyone else to live to our beliefs and choices'.

It really is as simply as that. If you ask evangelicals 'do you support the State getting between you and your ability to live your life according to your values and your religion', they would say 'No'.


If you ask evangelicals 'do you support the State imposing your beliefs as mandatory on all others', they would say 'yes'.

That's why he lives in California, he's a fair weather fan(atic)

Freedom of speech case have historically not required "judiciable controversy" when it is the govt prohibiting speech. Historically, the court does not require someone to put themselves in legal jeopardy to challenge such a law and gives such laws the highest level of scrutiny. So no, the 303 creative case provided no precedent or authority or even encouragement for the Texas judge to make his crazy ruling.

This should be good.

What are the sociological, psychological and physical consequences that you feel justify imposing your choice over that of the teenager using a contraceptive? You can skip the moral issue as we don't want to see you banned again.

Unless there are good reasons to suspect that a teen is being abused, delicate matters such as using contraceptives should be determined by the parent or guardian.

It's a sad commentary that in this wicked and perverse generation my view should be thought controversial .

And I don't care if I get banned or not. I can use my banning as a talking point my YouTube channel.

I don't want you to get banned, but you still haven't answered the question at all.

If the forum were to ban him it would be without posters.

I would be quite curious to see your YouTube channel.

I don't think you answered the question either laggy. But if you ever do answer the question, I assume from what you wrote
that you tbink the parents will should control if there is a conflict between the parent and child?

fyp, Cliff.

As long as a teen is living under his or her parent's roof, the parent gets to tell the teen what s/he can and can't do. If the teen wants to "do their own thing", they can leave home and try to make it on their own.

Having said that, if there is evidence of abuse or neglect, then the state has not only has a right, but an obligation to remove the child away from harm.

Except for there being evidence of abuse or neglect, nobody should have a right to give contraceptives to a child without the parent's consent.


As always: In my opinion.

Hope to launch it soon.

The answer is essentially one of jurisdiction.

Parents are responsible for the upbringing of their children, not the state.

A bad parent can do a lot to mess up their own children's lives. But the State, in a wicked and perverse generation such as ours, can (and HAS) messed up a whole generation of children.

(I'm not ready to banned YET, so I'll leave it at that for now.)

Or, more precisely, a "preach in the street" fundamentalist.

Not all evangelicals are fundamentalists. In fact, many Christians self-identify as "evangelicals" to distinguish themselves from fundies like me.