Author Archives: jtjim

James Bond in Danger…For Real

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 30, 2004

Our son Justin just graduated from college and came home for a few weeks to regroup before heading off for a new life in Florida.

Sorting through his belongings and packing boxes, we came across the twelve VCR tapes of James Bond movies Justin recorded many years back during a week-long Bond marathon on television.  Forty years of 007 tradition…Moneypenny, “M”, vodka martinis, shaken not stirred, gadgets in watches, cars that sail and fly into space…all of it tightly packed into a box headed for Florida.

Bond, the ultimate Man…always clever, swift, rough, rugged, deft, handsome, smug, suave, debonair.  Bond…always a survivor.

Not anymore.

But it’s not what you might expect.  Bond is not in danger of death from villains, double-crosses, guns, crossbows, or bombs.  Nope.

It’s the action under the sheets that has Bond one step from the grave.

Professor John Ashton, a director of public health in the UK, has just pointed out the obvious. If James Bond were a real person, the good professor tells reporters, he would have almost certainly been HIV positive.  007 is more at risk from careless sex than he is from any arch enemy.

Beginning in 1962 with Ursula, Eunice, and Daniela, straight through forty years into the new millennium with Denise and Elektra…The World is Never Enough when it comes to Bond and his women.  No matter how swift the action and dangerous the situation, in each and every movie 007 always has time to “make whoopee” with a new Bond woman.

Liberated by Hollywood magic, Bond and his eternal harem are free to flow with their sexual urges.  No matter how short the friendship, or how fleeting the relationship, 007 and his woman of the moment inevitably merge in a big-screen sexual romp.

According to Hollywood, sex is everything wonderful…anytime, anywhere, and with anyone.

According to medical realities, sex is only wonderful…in the right time, in the right place, and with the right person.  And no gadget known to mankind will save Bond…or the rest of us…from the inevitable.

Medical realities are amassing in data to prove the truth of what abstinence educators have been teaching over the past twenty years.  Professor Ashton raises the same alarm.  Sex has consequences, both good and bad.  And the bad consequences of sex will not disappear, no matter how big the denial is from those who promote condoms and “safe sex.”

The medical realities are these.  The world is engulfed in a major STD epidemic.  We now have over 20 serious STDs responsible for death, infertility, and incurable infections.  New national figures just released for England, where Professor Ashton lives, show a dramatic increase of STDs.  Syphilis is up 28 per cent from the previous year, and chlamydia is up by nine percent.  No wonder.

Condoms are not fail-safe.  They are subject to failure…and lots of it.  For teens and pregnancy, condoms fail approximately 20 percent of the time.

Condoms are never fail-safe.  They have no documented effectiveness in preventing humanpapilloma virus (HPV) infections, the virus responsible for over 97 percent of cervical cancer. Genital herpes viruses infect one in five people over the age of twelve… partly owing to the fact that they live on body areas not covered by the condom.  These are just a few of the realities that never touch Bond.

Hollywood profits from building the illusion that Bond will never die…from anything.  This makes for great movies.  But in our hearts, we know the truth.

We know it’s an illusion when we see 007 dodging a hail of bullets, skiing off the top of the Alps and landing with a downhill swoosh of grace, sailing down the slope, around the trees, and over the rocks…his hair unmessed and his body unsmashed.

In bed, the illusions are no less spectacular. Bond has been allowed to dodge STDs, pregnancy and abortion through ignorant movie “madness.”

Illusions make great movies.  But they are deadly in real life.

No doubt about it.  If you want to Never Say Die, take note.  Bond is a great thrill to watch.  But he is no role model for living a life in the real world…on the slopes…in space…or under the sheets.

 

April 30, 2004:  Condoms: A Failure to Protect

 Question:  Did James Bond ever marry?

Answer:  Come back next week for the answer…

See Archives for past editorials.

My Friend, Betty

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 23, 2004

“Come on,” Lynetta pressed.

There was precious little time left before curfew in the dorm.  Betty had promised to follow her down to the snack bar where Lynetta planned to “bump into” the latest “cute guy” she had staked out on their college campus in Rochester, New York.

Only minutes later, Lynetta’s mission accomplished, Betty found herself trapped with the group at the snack bar table across from a complete stranger.  John.

The conversation was easy and lively when suddenly the group broke into giggles.  John leaned back in his chair, slapping the table with laughter.  He captured Betty’s heart right then and there.

Unfortunately, as he walked her back to the dorm that night, she was so shy she couldn’t manage to speak.  Looking at his Ohio high school letter jacket, she finally thought of something to say.  “How do you say that?” Conneaut, she pointed to the name of his town.

John was Betty’s first kiss.  In 1960 language, they “made out a lot.”  But they both knew they would not “go all the way.”  They held to those standards for three years, saving sex for married life.

Betty remembers the night John proposed in the car after dinner.  “He was so cute, so nervous.  I can’t imagine that he thought I might say no.”  One year later on June 4, 1966, in a quiet small-town ceremony, John and Betty became Mr. and Mrs. Arthurs.

The Arthurs are in their 50s today, and their children Julie and Rob are each grown and married with children.  John and Betty were very close to them as they grew up.  They could always talk.  About anything.

Both Julie and Rob remained abstinent until their wedding days. Including John and Betty’s parents, the Arthurs have a tradition of abstinence–until-marriage through three generations.

Nobody remembers any pounding lectures about abstinence.  They are a distinctly gentle family, ready to laugh at the silly and embarrassing things every family experiences.  Betty had been a nurse, and household conversations were always frank and honest.  Julie tells her, “Well, I respected myself, and I wanted to make something of myself.”  She married Mike in 1989 at the age of 20 after a one-year courtship.

Her brother Rob met his girlfriend Heather when he was 16, and they married on June 19, 1993.  Rob was 21.  His reason for staying abstinent?  Looking at Mom and Dad, he tells them, “You always trusted us.  We didn’t want to betray your trust.”

My friend Betty, her husband, her parents…and her two grown children…they all have a lot to teach us.

There are those who want us to give up on our children.  They tell us that teaching children to stay abstinent until marriage is a hopeless task.  If we were to believe their gloomy projections, our kids are “going to have sex anyway.”  They hand us a box of condoms, advising us this is the best we can do for our children.

My friend Betty thinks better.

Statistics give us reason to listen to her.  More teens today are choosing to stay abstinent.  Over 54% of high school teens in 2001 have not had sex.[1]  That’s an amazing success story when you consider the social climate for these teens and the steady pressure on them to become sexually active.

It makes one wonder what those statistics would be if adults really believed in our children. We believe kids can say no to drugs…and tobacco…and to drunk driving.  And we back up our message with a culture that gives an uncompromising message that these behaviors are irresponsible and dangerous.

The facts are in about teen sex.  It is dangerous and leads to serious lifelong consequences.  That’s enough reason to consider it irresponsible behavior.  And those are the best reasons possible for parents and teachers to begin to promote and believe in the abstinence message…all of it.  We need to believe in our teens again.

The next time you want to give up, remember my friend Betty.  We will never achieve a goal we fail to set or make a touchdown we don’t work for.  If Betty can do it, and her husband, parents, and children…then maybe we can, too.

 

[1] 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey Results, Division of Adolescent and School Health, Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  [http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dash/yrbs/data/2001/index.html] at 11/26/03.

MORE ON ABSTINENCE

May 14, 2004:    Order in the Courtroom!

June 4, 2004:     AIDS:  Importing the Cure

See Archives for past editorials.

Why Johnny Can’t Read…or Write…or Count

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 9, 2004

Michelle Malkin, bemoaning a summer program that teaches the poetry of Tupac Shakur to high school students, points to the specifics of why Johnny can’t read.  No one expects him to read.

Her editorial shared space this past week with American father Bill Cosby who has blasted his American black family.  Why can’t Johnny read…or behave?  Because, Mr. Cosby says, no one expects him to.

These two people, Maulkin and Cosby, are addressing the bad fruits of a culture that has planted and watered the wrong tree.  This tree was planted back in the 1960s when I entered Arizona State University to train as a teacher.

When Rudolf Flesch provoked the academic elites in 1955 with his bestseller Why Johnny Can’t Read, people saw the breakdown in education as one of simple methodology:  the “look-say” method of teaching reading versus phonics.  But this debate ignored a greater problem, the changes in basic educational standards.

Black English classes went beyond validating unique cultural sentence structure and dialect when college professors advanced it as an alternative to standard English.  English-as-a-second-language programs mutated into massive bilingual bureaucracies that institutionalized Spanish as an alternative track for children who lost any incentive to move beyond basic functional English.

And it is no surprise that these changes occurred at the same time as America’s pop-psychologists worked to make everyone forever happy.  In a culture that esteems self-esteem, we began to teach children their happiness comes as the result of never being criticized or challenged.  This has had disastrous results in the classroom.

Under a banner of diversity, educators refused to exclude any possible form of communication for fear of hurting someone’s feelings.  Discipline could only be positive.  And as the breakdown of two-parent families gained momentum, homework became optional.

It is no digression, as Mr. Cosby points out, to discuss marriage.  Two-parent families where both Cosby Show Familya mother and father share the responsibilities of raising children are essential to success in the classroom.  Fathers and mothers working together have the energy and resources to lay the basic foundation of respect for education, take children to the library and supervise study time.

Removing Tupac’s poetry from the summer reading list is a start in improving education for our children.  But it’s only a start.

If we want children to read poetry of substance and meaning, the answer involves everyone from teacher to parent to student.  We must unabashedly embrace two-parent families with both mother and father as the optimal environment to support schools and teachers.

Teachers must have students who do their homework.  And when the papers are graded and report cards come out, teachers must have the backing of parents who understand that a “D” in English is evidence that the child is not performing, and not evidence that the “teacher is punishing my baby.”

And if we really want our children to read…and write…and count, we must finally accept that there are general standards of excellence in education that transcend culture and race.  We must have the courage to select the best of human achievement and set it as the standard for our children.

Because we are race-sensitive, criticism of Tupak and his poetry becomes a racial argument, ultimately suggesting that black children aren’t capable of basic standards of literacy because their self-esteem is too fragile to call trash what it is…trash.

It is silly when teachers, if white, are discounted as racists in a culture where it is impolite to suggest that gansta’ rap is anything other than cultural comment.  It is ridiculous when only Hispanics can tell Hispanics that their children must learn proper English in order to succeed.

It is no surprise that good teachers would see Tupak as their “key” to reaching kids. Teachers, lacking a culture of support, try desperately to find some method of getting kids to turn off the video stream and study a spelling list on Friday night.

If we really want to turn things around, we must all get involved.  We need to finally embrace as a culture what it means to be civilized, humane, and dignified…and then teach it to our children.  Most importantly, we must do this together…black, brown, red and white…mothers and fathers.  If we fail to take the lead, we can’t expect our children to follow.

 

See Archives for past editorials.

Abused by Freedom

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

July 2, 2004

There are many ways to abuse a child.  And porn fits right in there with the biggies.  It is a sad day for parents when the supreme law of the land is unwilling to protect our children from porn.

Thanks to five of the nine Supreme Court justices, child abusers are free to practice their “business”.

Why?  If you take out the mumbo-jumbo and use plain-speak, the answer is simple.  The law is too restrictive on the rights of pornographers.

Wow!  I don’t know about you, but I feel so much safer in America now that I know smut peddlers are free to do business in “the least restrictive” manner.  Never mind child abuse.

We surely wouldn’t want pornographers to use some of their billions of dollars in revenue to pay for computer software that ensures children can’t access porn.  Heaven forbid.  Those dastardly restrictions!!

If upheld, the COPA law would impose criminal penalties of a $50,000 fine and six months in prison for the knowing posting, for “commercial purposes,” of World Wide Web content that is “harmful to minors.”

Under COPA, websites pushing porn would have been required to verify the legal age of their clients.  Users would verify age using a credit card, adult personal identification number or other similar technology.

The “Supremes” have a better idea.  Parents all over the country are advised to go out and buy $40 filters for their computers…filters that will be outdated within six months because smut peddlers can use all that money they save in criminal fines to wiggle around them.

Wow!  Imagine that.  Parents, who are already taxed to the limits, who scramble daily to keep up with the ordinary job of being parents, will now have to fit in one more teeny tiny chore to protect their kids.

Imagine this.  Parents will subscribe to Consumer Reports, analyze all computer filter equipment known to man, pick out the absolute best product available, go to the store, charge it on their credit card, install it, learn it, monitor it…and just when they think they have it down…technology will change…and they will be back where they started.  Consumer Reports, the store, the credit card…well, even if the “Supremes” can’t get the picture…parents can.

Or…we could tell smut peddlers to spend their own money on software that keeps porn out of the hands of our children.  But that’s too restrictive!  That’s right.  Restrictive.

I thought that was the point of laws…to restrict the ability of abusers to abuse.

Well, I must be truthful.  The “Supremes” were concerned with bigger issues.  They didn’t want adults to be embarrassed.  That’s right.  Embarrassed.

You see, we have perfected porn on the internet.  No more slinking around dirty bookstores, ordering magazines in brown paper wrappers, or embarrassment.   Under the COPA law, entering our credit card number on a computer screen…well…that’s embarrassing.

Really?  Would that we had a few embarrassed adults for the sake of protecting our children from abuse!

Well, to be totally and absolutely truthful, the “Supremes” are hoping our children will be safe…eventually.  Looking into their collective crystal ball, they know that eventually, if we spend enough money, we might be able to devise some incredible software that might perhaps protect our children from abuse by porn.  Eventually.

Wow!  Imagine that.  A new governmental Department of Computer Technology, funded by rebates on all the filtering software parents are buying to protect their children.

Eventually, years down the road, if all things go well, maybe, and hypothetically, our children might be safe from abuse by porn.  But today, immediately, in the here and now, our children have been sent out to play on the internet freeway with no guardrails in sight.

The Supremes should be defrocked.  And if they are, they won’t have to worry what they wear under their robes.  If it’s indecent, if they’re standing there in their collective birthday suit, they have nothing to fear.  It may be porn.  But it’s protected by law.

Alas, instead, we must fear for our children who are still at risk, under assault and abused by the freedoms of those who don’t care.

Supreme Court Decision, June 29, 2004:  Comment by Congressman Todd Akin

CNET News, January 21, 2009:  Supreme Court deals death blow to antiporn law

See Archives for past editorials.

Unplanned Joy

Jane Jimenez

Jane Jimenez

June 25, 2004

The road to success and happiness is paved with planning…and more planning.  This is the modern mantra of American culture.  If you want to be happy, plan for it.

Tasha’s life was a model of planning.  Born Natasha Danvers in 1977, she is one of Britain’s “brightest Olympic hopes” in track and field, a consistent medalist in hurdles.  As a junior, she was the 1995 European Junior Silver medalist, moving on to sixth place in the World Juniors in Sydney the following year.

In 2001 she took the Gold medal in the 400m hurdles in the World Universities held in Bejing.  On an objective numerical basis, scoring the best British all round hurdling performers, Tasha is ranked third.  Against world hurdlers, she is ranked sixth.

If anyone knows about the planning it requires to be successful, Tasha knows.  Looking ahead to the 2004 Olympics, she told Sporting Life in 2003, “I’ve been able to train hard.  I’m different mentally, more dedicated.  The results are showing now.”

And she knows her training is paying off.  “The way I’m running right now, the times I’m putting down, I think I should be aiming for not just making teams or finals.  What I should be aiming for right now- I’m at the point where I can go in and expect a medal.”

Tasha’s determination and dedication to her goals is the stuff parents and teachers thrill to see.  She is the shining light we hold in front of students to inspire them.  “Here,” we tell our young people, “this is what planning for success looks like.  You can be just like Tasha.  And you can succeed.”

But Tasha has another lesson to teach our young people.  She can teach them one of the most important lessons of planning for success, a lesson about what happens when the best-laid plans take an unexpected turn.

Right in the midst of her intense training schedule, Tasha noticed a change in her body.  “I was in the shape of my life.  I was more focused than ever before….Then things didn’t feel quite right.  I was feeling tired all the time, feeling flat for no reason.”

A trip to the doctor surprised Tasha and her trainer/husband Darrell Smith.  They were facing an unplanned pregnancy.

“The timing could not have been worse” she told reporters.  “If I had run at Athens it would have meant greater financial security, more recognition.  There is nothing negative that can happen when you have a shot at an Olympic medal.”

Like millions of women and couples around the world, Tasha and Darrell faced “The Choice.”  Even the term “unplanned pregnancy” seems to suggest getting rid of the pregnancy and getting back to the plan.

And like millions of women, Tasha is truthful, “I cannot lie, I considered an abortion.  On the one hand you look at the situation and say, ‘I can have a baby and incur more costs, more problems.’ We don’t even have a house yet, we are staying with Darrell’s parents.  And I am the major breadwinner.”

But this is where Tasha can teach us the ability to plan for the unplanned.  Considering her options, she realized the path to happiness is paved with more than plans.  “Even the thought of it [an abortion] depressed me.  I cried thinking about it as I tried to convince myself this is what I should do.”

Tasha is still facing an unplanned pregnancy, but she is happy now.  She looks forward to giving birth in early 2005.

Darrell reminds everyone that her career is bigger than one competition.  “We will definitely prepare for the Commonwealth Games in 2006,” and if things go as planned, they hope to participate in the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

Tasha’s picture is up on the refrigerator in our house right now, a reminder that some of life’s greatest moments come from planning to accept the unplanned.  A heart that is open to life as it comes is a more certain key for happiness than anyone has dared to admit in the past thirty years.

Tasha is a witness to the unexpected path to happiness.  She has new plans that seem to change daily.  On her website she tells her fans, “It’s six months before I give birth and already baby is dictating the pace.”

One suspects that Tasha will succeed no matter what happens in her life.  She has embraced the magic of unplanned joy.

 

 See Archives for past editorials.