He Should Know

Sec Annan says Darfur looks like "hell on earth". But it doesn't, you know, meet the threshold of "genocide". Sheesh. No wonder the numbers are down.

UPDATE: More here.

You Can Get Pregnant By Not Having Sex!

Well, that's not exactly what Kristof is saying. But the logic is just as tortured. His fundamental argument seems to be that kids are going to have sex no matter what you do, so at least educate them as to how to do so safely. This argument, though, is flawed in its assumptions. First, kids are not going to have sex no matter what you do. If they were, they percentage of kids having sex before age eighteen would be one hundred, not sixty. Second, there's really no such thing as safe sex, except for two virgins losing it to each other and staying monogamous. Sorry, Nick, but that's just the facts.

The breakdown here is in interpreting the problem. Kristof and the Left want to erase consequence. You see this in affirmative action (guaranteeing result regardless of ability), gay marriage (granting "rights" regardless of whether the behavior is harmful), and budgetary issues (spending money with no accountability as to its usage) to name a few. My conviction is that if we remove the option of abortion as birth control, expect our kids to remain abstinent until marriage and monogamous afterward, and enforce the idea that actions have consequences (those consequences often waking up at 2am for a bottle), then most kids wouldn't have sex.

But then, I guess I'd never make it in a Blue State, either.

"Grace. She Takes The Blame, She Covers The Shame. . ."

Sorry. You never know when a U2 song is going to burst forth around here.

Nonetheless, the Peerless Scribe of Orthodoxy, politics, and British "tubes" has moved to her new site: This Side Of Glory. Change the blogrolls, update your favorites lists, brush up your address books, and tag your site feeds; this blog is going to be a bigger doozy than a possum dancing between two John Deere tractors.

(Oh, God, I've been listening to too much Dan Rather. . . .)

So Advance, Already.

I served as the chaplain at my NAACP chapter's annual banquet Saturday night (which simply means I offered prayers of invocation, blessing, and benediction). Due to my service in an African-American church, I am very involved with the NAACP, working on voter registration drives and chairing the Religious Affairs committee. (Hey, I received an award at the banquet! A white minister with an NAACP award. Who'd a thunk it?) The other members assume I am a liberal and I have said nothing to dissuade them of the idea; this, of course, gives me a great deal more currency, so that when I say something positive about the current Administration, they hear it as one of their own, instead of automatically categorizing me as the opposition. (And, truth be told, I'm not always in line with this Administration, myself.)

Anyway. . .the speaker (whose name I will not use) for the banquet is a member of the national leadership. She was quite a good speaker--eloquent at times, colloquial at others; forceful in her passion and kind in her temperament; careful in her study of historical events, although misguided (in my opinion) in her interpretation. But what struck me was how the speech (and the banquet, and my chapter in general) used racism. The speaker told the story of a nearby man who was struck by a car while walking by the road; EMS arrived on the scene and pronounced him dead before providing care. The man was put in a body bag and sent to the morgue, whereupon the coroner examined the body and discovered the man still alive. You guessed it: The victim was black and both EMTs were white. Now the EMTs did not come close to giving Standard of Care. They were grossly negligent in every way. But no evidence exists to suggest they were willfully negligent due to race. The evidence that exists is that they were complete idiots and need to be knocked down to cleaning chamberpots.

But the speaker used this episode to draw lines between the white establishment and the black oppressed. And the incident was discussed in terms of resistance and civil rights. The tone of the thoughts that were offered was of complete struggle. This tone was reinforced today when I received my copy through the post of the NAACP magazine, "The Crisis". I was starting to think that at any minute the Supreme Court was going to revoke universal suffrage, or something. (The victim, by the way, was equally protected by the regulations in place; the morons just didn't abide by said regulations.) Perhaps I am being too harsh, but the idea kept occurring to me as I listened to the speaker and others who offered reflections that the NAACP is still reacting to events as though this is 1967. The NAACP, it seems to me, can't move forward to meet new challenges, because it is structurally and philosophically required to depend on the existence of racial oppression in order to validate its existence and vision. It is hard to completely combat prejudice when some of the leadership depend upon it to survice. The NAACP does many wonderful things; its inclusion of me has been exemplary, for instance. Its support of African-Americans attending college, its fight against the death penalty, and its constant call for reform of the judicial system are all noteworthy. But right now, it is archaic in its organization and focus, in my humble estimation. I hope it reforms itself quickly and begins attending to the problems that are eating at the African-American community like a cancer. I hope that will happen for the good of the NAACP, and for the good of the community in general.

UPDATE: Of course, this would qualify as a new direction.

UPDATE: Jean notes that the EMS thing sounds like an urban myth. Yes, it does. Unfortunately, though, this one is true. Here's one of the local pieces on it.

Or At Least I Hope So

After reading Entertainment Weekly's article on Green Day and their latest album "American Idiot", I, being a lover of punk (although not as up on it as I once was), ran out to the store and bought a copy. Rock on! The album is fresh and creative, and it has songs that just scream out of the speakers. My favorite thus far is "St. Jimmy", which has all the raw guitar riffs you might expect from the Ramones or the Clash.

The article, though, noted something interesting. The lead singer, Billie Joe Armstrong, says in the interview, "U2 started out more or less as a punk band and wound up one of the biggest bands in the world. I think it's okay to want that." Yes, Billie, it is. But when Bono was your age [32], he was already fronting one of the biggest bands in the world. I think a major reason was the difference between hope and despair. Green Day's music is loud, raucous, and well written; in addition, some important things are being said, such as the analysis of media in "American Idiot" or civic religiosity in the "Jesus of Suburbia" suite. After the analysis is done, however, the listener is left feeling, well, a little like the band members, who say in one of the songs that they need a shot of Novacaine. U2, however, constantly vacillate between crisis and hope. What starts off as dilemma ends in embrace. Perhaps that's why "The Passion of the Christ" sold more tickets than "Fahrenheit 9/11 (among other reasons); perhaps that's why a hopeful George W. Bush beat a dour John F. Kerry (among other reasons); perhaps that's why it's so hard to stomp Christmas out of the public sphere. We seem to understand that we need hope. And we apparently reward those who traffic in it.

Killing Social Security

One of the (many) reasons the Democratic Party is foundering is because it has tacked away from fundamental moral principles. Instead of having a moral goal, around which it draws like-minded constituencies, the Democratic Party is a patchwork quilt of special interests that often oppose one another's agendas. Tree huggers and Big Labor. African-Americans and pro-gays. Abortionists and the AARP.

Abortionists and the AARP? Yup. Since Roe v. Wade, roughly forty million pregnancies have ended in elective abortion. That's forty million persons who are NOT paying Social Security taxes to shore up the Winnebago drivers who depend on them. Now, simply adding numbers to the roll won't itself save Social Security, but if forty million contributors were added to Roosevelt's Ponzi Scheme, it would certainly ease the strain on the system and open up more options for keeping is solvent. Once again, Democratic opportunism works against the party. One day they'll get the message: Morality pays. Literally.

Intro To Political Parties (101)

Democrats: In the box--Michael Moore.

Republicans: In the box--Afghans and Iraqis who risked their lives to vote.

The State Of The Blog Address

A few immediate responses to the SOTU address (from one who attended the Inaugural):

Which means nothing, actually. Nonetheless, with single malt scotch in hand, we proceed:

1) The only worry--partial privatization? I'm 33; either privatize all of it, or be honest and tell me I'm screwed!

2) Mr Bush believes in the push for liberty. I mean really believes it. Like Steve says, you can disagree with his policies, but you can't fault his honesty. I'd buy him a pint, but he doesn't drink. Mr Bush, that is. Steve actually drinks a lot, from what I understand. Oh, nevermind. . .

3) Is it just me, or does all that Democratic booing sound like British Parliament?

4) Okay, I'm not a sentimental guy, but when the mother of the fallen Marine hugged the daughter of the slaughtered Iraqi, I trembled.

5) My ten-year-old daughter wants to be President when she grows up. After this address, I think I know why.

6) Response: Please. No, really. Please. Stop. Talking.

7) The only way to make the SOTU better? If he'd held up a purple finger when he started. . .

UPDATE: PoliPundit agrees with me on the British Parliament connection. And in a delicious write up of the speech, Grace mentions it, too.

Jane's Addiction Does Africa

A lot has been written about the U.N. report that says Sudan atrocities are not genocide. If that isn't a genocide, then what is, for God's sake? The fundamental problem, it seems to me, is that this actually opens the door for other countries to act in like manner without having to deal with the international repercussions of being genocidal. Or, to use a very difficult analogy, if a criminal sexually abuses a woman with an object that is not his genitalia, and that violent intrusion is ruled by a court as not being 'rape' because it involves a tool other than his anatomy, then it seems to me that a great number of sicko thugs now think to themselves, "Ha! A broomstick, and it's not rape!" Then, this becomes a ruling that actually exacerbates the problem and makes victims more vulnerable. The analogy is a tough one, to be sure, but when so many die, and when a theoretically governing body downplays it so pitifully, perhaps a shock is precisely what is needed. It's sure needed at the U.N.