Abstinance Works

A recent federal study, published in the Archives of Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, suggests very heavily that abstinence only sex education programs actually work. They decrease the likelihood of teens become sexually active before they should. This is contrary to the liberal assumption that young people must be treated like rabbits, with no penchant for self-discipline at all.

It is interesting that such studies are even necessary. Like the study a few years back by educationists which concluded that students who study more learn more (gasp!), the common sense of the matter is so obvious that it is hard to believe anyone would think about the questions in a contrary or contradictory manner.

The fact is, anybody who accepts that there are such things as common sense and reason see things more clearly than those who need studies with various data tables normalized to certain base lines. When we have folks who do not believe in rationality, we get folks who ultimately have an agenda. In the case of sex education, we get liberals whose presumptions muddy their objectivity, like the environmentalists whose views are skewed by the thought that mere earth and animals and plants are superior to people, or the evolutionists whose scientific findings are clouded by their presumptions. With sex ed, we have folks who want promiscuity. Consequently, they presume it will happen, rather than afford others the dignity that they may actually be able to control themselves.

Such an approach insults our children in particular and our society in general. At the risk of overusing the term, common sense tells us that a structured, disciplined environment will, by and large (for we do recognize that simple human freedom will lead to errant behavior) give us a structured and disciplined society. People can be taught to behave in appropriate manners. If we are willing to concede that such personal control is possible.

It is an easy point to accept if you believe in the dignity of the individual. If you do not believe in that, then nothing is possible.

Elections and Satire

The proposed Detroit City Charter revisions passed easily yesterday, in part (supposedly) as a backlash against corruption in city government. Now, among other things, the City Council will be elected in seven districts rather than having all nine elected citywide (two seats will still be chosen at large). Sadly, all that likely means is that corruption will be spread evenly across the town. As we've said before, if the citizens can't elect decent government as it is, then it doesn't really matter how we do it.

A French satirical newspaper had its offices bombed after an issue depicted Mohammed on the cover. He was depicted as saying '100 lashes if you don't die of laughter'. Haven't heard that news yet? It isn't surprising: the media are handling Islam with kid gloves. If Muslims are offended, even if only a handful as their supporters claim, silence must be kept. Yet one wonders how quickly it would be front page news if Christian reactionaries firebombed the offices of Family Guy in protest of that show's incessant attacks on their religion.

Representative Paul Scott has been recalled, thanks to the influence of the Michigan Education Association (a union). It seems the vote may have turned on the heavily union area in south Flint which is part of his district. Very well, then, all you radical recallers, you have your sacrificial lamb, and damn the cost for your selfishness. Now you'll have two elections in less than a year for the same spot, seeing as November 2012 isn't that far away. The taxpayers are the ones anteing up for you liberals. But that's all right, isn't it? It's what they're supposed to do.

Voters in nearby Ohio chose to exempt themselves from buying health insurance under Obamacare. It is not more than a protest vote, yet it still may be fodder for Republicans who want to repeal the proposed health care changes scheduled to take place after the 2012 elections. Health care is sure to be a major issue next year, and this vote can only serve to keep it in the public eye. Sometimes a little symbolism can go a long way.

Elections 2011

Today is Election Day. Most areas of Michigan will have votes on this or that, from school boards to charter revisions. This is considered an off year election; there are areas which will have no voting at all. It is off year because there are no presidential or legislative races. In short, it's kind of the dull part of the cycle.

Many teachers in Michigan get the day off. That may be the biggest joke job perk in the world. It's done in order to help them vote and help others get elected. What that translates into is that it is assumed the teachers will work for the Democrats and liberal causes on the presumption that's where their passion lies. Quite frankly, they shouldn't get the day off without burning a personal or sick day. No one else does; there's no reason educators should get a free pass simply because of an election.

Let's be honest: no one's single vote really means that much. Few elections of any consequence are decided by such unimaginably slim margins, and those that are are probably so local as to be relatively meaningless. But vote anyway. The system won't work if you don't, and it goes without saying that there are worse systems which may creep in and take over if we don't use the ballot box for what we believe important. The slippery slope goes often unnoticed; treat your vote as though it means the entire election.

So speaking of elections, there are too many to comment on. We'll trust your judgment on your own local races. But in Detroit, we've decided to recommend a vote against the proposed Charter revisions, simply because they encourage city wide recycling. Yes, we mean that. Recycling is seriously overrated, and simply isn't worth the effort. It's feel good pulp which allows conservatives and liberals to appear to agree on something, yet it has no honest practical value. Vote against the Charter revisions on that issue alone.

Black Thursday?

Thanksgiving is not far away now; two weeks from Thursday in fact. How many of us can already smell the turkey, the stuffing, the gravy and sweet potatoes, and...the sales?

Many stores have already announced that they simply cannot wait until the actual day after Thanksgiving, the aptly named Black Friday, to begin their Christmas sales. Many local stores, or, more precisely, the local outlets of national chains, have announced that they will open at midnight of Black Friday. We might suppose so that they can, with some smirky honesty, assert they have not encroached on the holiday. Still, some cannot wait that long. Great Lakes Crossing has said that their sale prices will go into effect at 9PM on Thanksgiving Day.

If we simply must appeal to secular attitudes, seeing as the secularists have pretty well made Christmas into a selfish orgy of shopping fanaticism anyway, is there at least some way we might make people believe again that it is all right to have a holiday or two not tied into our nation's economic success? Is not the human benefit in the way of rest and relaxation acceptable even to the nonreligious? Can we not have holidays be holidays anymore, simply so that we can see family and friends and just have a good time?

Anybody out seen Terry Gilliam's Brazil? How many of you who have actually get it? It's Christmas all the time in that movie world precisely so that the citizens will buy, buy, buy, because it's the only way they can keep the economy going. We're becoming like that, you know. Our lives are being run by how many things we have.

That's all we have at the end of the day, of course. Things. Our new TV is great for a few days, and then it's simply our TV. Same with our clothes and our cars and our almost everything else. Yet we rarely stop for a moment and consider that maybe, just maybe, we're being played.

This is not to say that shopping is bad or that buying and getting new things is bad. But it is to say that, when buying and getting becomes our focus, we might perhaps take a deep breath and a step back and ask how ourselves exactly how important mere things are. We need to tell ourselves: it's okay not to get the best TV at the best price. It's just a thing. It's okay if we help the general economy starting at 9AM on a Friday rather than let such insipid needs be fed while we're still on holiday. We'll be all right. We'll still have plenty of things at the end of the day.

Actually, we might have several more: the goodwill and good cheer of friends and the family. You know, the ethereal things which make for true humanity and true human happiness.

California Knows Everything

As if it isn't bad enough that the Federal Government has its hands in too many pies, now we have situations where one the states has taken it upon itself to get involved in enlightening the citizenry through badgering people about what it thinks important. It should be no surprise that that State is California.

While installing an in line ground fault interrupter on a piece of machinery, I found this warning wrapped around the cord:

WARNING: This product contains chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm. Wash hands after handling.

On what grounds do they force this warning? California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guideline states thus: “A person exposed to the chemical at the ‘no significant risk level’ for 70 years would not have more than a ‘one in 100,000’ chance of developing cancer as a result of that exposure.” Anything over that, say one extra case per 100,000 people over 70 years, means the tag has to be applied to the whatever it is at hand.

Doesn't this strike anyone as overkill? How am I supposed to feel about getting a scare that I have increased my chance of contracting cancer simply by putting a power cord on a machine? How do the people using equipment day after day react to the news that they are in such a slightly more hazardous situation than they could possibly have imagined? By what right does California think it can violate someone's comfort zone by insisting on a tag where no significant increase of contracting cancer exists?

We could dismiss it as simply the big dog of the nation throwing its weight around. But it's more than that: it serves as a reminder that government, any government, when its gets big enough feels it has the right to throw its weight around. California is darn near a nation unto itself anyway, and seeing as its infrastructure needs are well below what its citizens demand, one would think it would be more concerned with shoring up its physical plant than in promoting scare stories.

But, after all, its still a big brother government. What's not to love?

Whither Herman Cain?

Pity Herman Cain. He has now been officially baptized into presidential politics. He carries the stain of scandal which so many of his forebears have had clearly marked upon their earlier campaigns. As likely as not, he thought it had all gone away.

Unfortunately such things vaporize only to condense and form rain another day. When running for President of the United States especially, accusations will manage to seep out of the woodwork. Ask Bill Clinton.

To be sure, if Cain is guilty of any serious transgression it is only fair to consider as much when thinking about giving him a vote; there is no grounds for a Republican double standard on the question. We called out then candidate Clinton on it; we should not ignore it when a similar thing happens to one of our own. Still, if what happened long enough ago and repentance is clear, we shouldn't necessarily hold it against an office seeker either.

If the allegations are true then it hardly matters where they came from. It is interesting that Mr. Cain has accused Rick Perry of spreading the word in that it only increases the mudslinging; perhaps that is the intent of course. Making someone else the bad guy to take attention away from yourself is itself a staple of American campaigning.

What Cain should do is own up if the things he's accused of doing actually happened, to show integrity while also getting the issue of the table as best he can. Conversely, if they are indeed untrue or inflated, then shout it from the rooftops and don't point fingers. If nothing else, remember that Clinton's dalliances didn't seem to affect him.

In the meantime, welcome to the world of big time American politics, Herman Cain. But take care not to make things worse. It will only hurt you in the long run.

Society and Double Standards

Last Friday, Macomb Sheriff's Deputies arrested a 47 year old Harrison Township man on charges of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and child pornography charges. He was allegedly carrying on a sexual relationship with a 16 year old girl, and had child porn on his computer. Such things are, of course reprehensible, or worse. If guilty, he ought top have the proverbial book thrown at him. But the situation raises a question rarely if ever debated publicly: why are some forms of child pornography perverted while others are openly tolerated, and even encouraged?

No one seems to mind that Jodie Foster played a 12 year old child prostitute in Taxi Driver, or that Brooke Shields was messing around in The Blue Lagoon while she was 15. Never mind that movies involved mere acting: isn't something being acted out in whatever type of pornography may be your fancy? We can talk of body doublers too, but it doesn't alter the fact that what we are dealing with is meant to represent child porn. Aren't movies supposed to be taken at face value?

Nor can we dismiss such films as little more the prurient drivel: Taxi Driver made number 53 on the American Film Institute's list of the top 100 films of all time. So the question remains: by what standard are certain kinds of child pornography evil, while others are not?

Is it art? Then we ask a variation on the original question: what is the difference between mere art and perversion?

Is it for reality's sake? But it then becomes fair to ask whether movies are real. The answer is that, yes, they are, and there is a significant difference between, say, faking a shooting, and actually showing (or pretending to show) two teenagers getting it on. One extends the drama of a scene, and everyone knows it isn't really real. The other is meant to be 12 and 14 year olds at, well, play. Again, why are such things acceptable if a duly accredited movie studio portrays them, yet vile and contemptible if done more privately?

We propose that they are in fact no different. Further, that when society condones such characters and scenes, it condones child porn done rightly, so to speak.

As such, we should not be surprised when some people take it just a bit more literally and actually pursue child porn and inappropriate relationships with the young. They're wrong, yes, but they've also been at least arguably encouraged in their perversions. So long as such societal double standards exist, we will continue to see such travesties as 'actual' child porn more readily pursued. And that, quite frankly, is a shame on us.