Politics and Culture

As many as one in eight teens in the United States may take a virginity pledge at some point, vowing to wait until they're married before having sex. But do such pledges work? Are pledge takers more likely than other teens to delay sexual activity?
A new study looked at the sexual behavior of hundreds of young people, some of whom took virginity pledges.

A new study looked at the sexual behavior of hundreds of young people, some of whom took virginity pledges.

A new study suggests that the answer is no. While teens who take virginity pledges do delay sexual activity until an average age of 21 (compared to about age 17 for the average American teen), the reason for the delay is more likely due to pledge takers' religious background and conservative views -- not the pledge itself.

From here.

Now, if one reads the headline, "Virginity Pledges Don't Mean Much," one might conclude that kids who take abstinence pledges have sex at the same rate as those who don't. That's what the ignorant rubes at the Huffington Post thought- even after I pointed out otherwise. They continued clucking with their Bristol Palin jokes, assuming that the article said that conservative kids have as much sex as liberal ones. You have to understand that the average reader of the Huffington Post probably doesn't have kids. He doesn't know any conservatives. He gets his view of both from the Huffington Post and movies made by people who read the Huffington Post.

The Huffington Post itself is the most dishonest of the semi-legitimate news sites. It didn't even put the information from the CNN, above, in its post. It just pointed out that the pledge is ineffective.

What the researchers did was select kids who took a pledge and didn't really mean it and then reported that the pledge didn't work. Well, of course! It's not the pledge. Like everything else in life, it's the values. Kids who take abstinence seriously, delay sex, which I think is a healthy emotional, physical, and spiritual choice for teenagers.

The pledge may still serve a purpose by creating an atmosphere amenable to the sincere pledger's beliefs. As for the condoms: Unless there's a higher incidence of pregnancy or STDs, who cares? And, why would an abstinence only class restrict knowledge of condoms or biology? Is it that hard to understand that sex leads to pregnancy? It seems like it would take about twenty minutes to explain both that fact and condoms.

Conclusion:

Liberals, our teenage daughters are having less sex than yours.

Swallow that along with the fact that conservatives are happier and give more to charity.

Many children and quite a quite a few adults suffer from a disconnect from Nature. The rise of Marxism-derived philosophies** like feminism and its equality-above-all value system (They themselves think themselves superior- one internal contradiction amongst many.), have de-linked the chain of millennia-old received wisdom.

In other words, amongst the well-educated, ideology has triumphed over common sense and what's essentially true in most cases.

It's why a book like The Rules became so successful- many reality-deprived women hungered for something true and practical instead of PC. The message of The Rules can be summarized in two sentences: Men and women are different. Men like to chase and be in control. It also implies that women can be very happy being chased and deferring to a decent man. The less a woman has marinated in modern university thought, the less likely she would need or be impressed with The Rules. "Everybody know that," my smart, Mexican, and non-college trained wife told me when I showed her the book.

The Rules(TM) : Time-Tested Secrets for Capturing the Heart of Mr. Right by Ellen Fein

Most mothers try to impart "time-tested" wisdom to their daughters, but because they often can't compete with liberal public schools in articulation and the use of academic terminology, children dismiss their parents as "ignorant."

Since I can compete, I try sometimes to validate the students' mothers' and Churches' ideas by giving them an alternative perspective.

Now to the task at hand:

Bristol Palin's birthing of a baby reminded me of a talk I give to the girls in my high school. Based on their rapt attention and nods of agreement, from both the students and teachers who don't know that I'm a Republican, I think it's worth devoting a blog post to. Here is that talk's summation:

Boys, You can read or do something else. This isn't for you. [They listen anyways. Some, for the first time.]

Young ladies,

If you follow these four basic rules, I think that you'll have a better high school experience:

1. Remember that boys may feel differently about the same thing as you do. While you may be at the beach thinking: "My, what a lovely moon. This is so romantic!" The boy may be thinking, "This is the kind of thing girls like. Hopefully, it'll do the trick."

Don't hate them for it. That's the way boys are. Traditionally, boys have overcome their baser instincts through an intense socialization process that emphasized respect for their future wives and mothers of their children.

Popular culture doesn't give boys that message anymore. Music, movies, and magazines such as Maxim and FHM instead cater to boys' lower desires. So, if you want the kind of boy most girls want, it's going to be tougher these days. It's not impossible, however, if you follow the rest of my advice [See, you have to assume that their are "lower" and "higher" natures, and that marriage and family are proper goals. I don't mention church because I teach at a public school, but the only institution that counters this message is the church, which doesn't mean that only religious people have these values. It's just to say that non-religious people would only arrive at this conclusion because they live in a neighborhood that holds these values in high esteem or through their parents' disconnected beliefs.].

2. Choose character. One of my jobs in the Army was working with injured soldiers at Walter Reed hospital. Some of the soldiers were missing legs and arms and otherwise very bad off. Most of the wives, husbands, boyfriends, and girlfriends of the soldiers reacted with courage and loyalty. Some didn't. Now, I ask you: If you were ever in such a situation and required some extraordinary loyalty from your significant other, would it be more important that he had large rims, were handsome, or were of good character?

Two ways to test for character:

a. How does he treat people that he can treat poorly? For example: How does he treat the unpopular kids or the waitress at the restaurant? Is he nice to the smaller boys? If there's a disparity in his treatment, with the better treatment going to the stronger, that's an indication that he will take advantage of a superior position. In other words: if he feels that he can get away with it, he may treat you poorly, for he fears strength instead of something else.

b. If you observe him lying to somebody else, you're next.

3. Be your own best friend or, think with your brain instead of your heart. Many times your emotions get in the way of good decision-making. So, you might stay with somebody that's wrong for you or make a poor decision because you feel what you call "love."

I bet that if your best friend were in such a relationship, you'd tell her that she's making a mistake. The reason is that you're not emotionally involved and can think clearly.

Therefore, when making a decision, view yourself from a distance: Ask: "If I were my best friend- one who loved me and wanted what's best for me- what would I tell myself"

4. [This explanation is for your benefit, as every teenage girl know what I'm talking about: It's my belief that teenage sexual activity makes a girl less happy than she otherwise would be. Girls are naturally modest and careful with their sexuality, but society has deemed that there's something wrong with girls who choose to delay sex. At least, society- through school textbooks and counselors- say that the only reason a girl would choose not to have sex is to avoid disease and pregnancy. It's a materialistic view of humanity and doesn't take into consideration the whole person- unwholesome, as it were.]

It starts when you're walking through the quad. You drop your book and the cutest boy you've ever seen picks it up for you. You look into each others' eyes and you feel a tingle- maybe a little light-headed. He sits next to you at lunch. You tell your friends about him and write his name on your notebook over and over again.

He walks you home. Eventually, you want to see each other outside of school. He asks you to Tam's [local burger joint]. Soon, he'll buy you a whole special instead of just sharing the chili fries. Next step: Carl's Jr. [Hardee's to my Southern brothers and sisters. This is a step up because Carl's Jr. takes the food to your table.].

He might invite you to the movies or go over your house to watch Sabado Gigante [I teach in Huntington Park, Ca.].

Then, young ladies [And you not-so-young ladies, if you think about it.], you have a decision to make. Yes, that one. Now, I'm not saying that it's guaranteed that this will happen, but most often a "yes" will lead to relationship stagnation. Or, instead of going to museums, sharing, discovering the world and about each other; you spend your times planning- "Will your parents be home?" "There's nobody in that parking lot." [Notice that I don't bring up STDs or pregnancy.].

How many of you know other girls who made that decision and came to you, crying, the next day? [All hands go up.]. The boy doesn't talk to her anymore, etc.

And for what? [nods of understanding].

The end.

That's it. Advice girls never get from school. Easy to follow, non-sectarian, and 99% true.

I usually use a chart like the one above. It looks no better on the board than written with a Wacom tablet.

**I don't mean that these people would cheer the millions of deaths caused by Marx-practitioners. I'm talking about the Marxist (and fascist, originally) proposition that all non-physical- and some of that, ever- human difference is a social construct and that humanity's goal should be to deconstruct them in order to achieve a "just" (equal) society.

Here

OK. Let's calm down. First, the song:

It's clearly making fun of the LA Times and some black political commentators who once thought that Obama wasn't "black" enough for them. It also satirizes the Reverend Sharpton's sense of entitlement and his all-around uselessness.

We know the lefty blogs are probably brainlessly condemning it- that's what they do. So's the RNC chairman:

The chairman of the Republican National Committee said he was "appalled" by a song called "Barack the Magic Negro" on a CD distributed by one of his political rivals.
Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan is first party member to criticize "Barack the Magic Negro."

Republican National Committee Chairman Mike Duncan is first party member to criticize "Barack the Magic Negro."

"The 2008 election was a wake-up call for Republicans to reach out and bring more people into our party," RNC Chairman Mike Duncan said in a statement reported Saturday afternoon by Politico.

"I am shocked and appalled that anyone would think this is appropriate, as it clearly does not move us in the right direction."

Everybody's shocked, but nobody says why. I'm guessing because the song has the word "negro" in it and it mimics a black dialect.

I don't like humor that calls attention to race, and I do think that some humor is insulting- heck, how many times do people make fun of the religious (Do religious satirists ever make fun of black religious people?). The question is: Do we want to build humor force fields around certain groups or subjects?

Maybe we do. Racial references are divisive and do breed contempt. On the other hand, such de facto censorship might injure truth by ignoring reality.

Either way, we must remember that almost all satire is a way of establishing superiority over the satiree (Liberals, who value equality above everything else, only like it when the perceived oppressor is the target of the satire.). Again, "brights" make fun of religious for the same reason. We may want to limit feelings of superiority to ideas and more legitimate characteristics- perhaps only those characteristics which the person can control (like religion).

Or, maybe the best thing is to simultaneously not encourage such jokes and not go nuts over it.

Is it smart politics?

Mike Duncan was probably thinking, "If everybody feels that it's racist, for legitimate reasons or just because it's harsh on their ears, then we need to be against it."

By apologizing, Duncan is saying that there are categories of humor which are untouchable. Namely, that white people can't reference racial characteristics or touchstones when making fun of black politicians. And yes, I know that black comedians make fun of whites often, but it doesn't sting for various reasons, mostly because of historical injury. Remember, context may not be everything, but it's something to consider.

So, I don't know. Shrinking before criticism every single time ultimately plays into the hands of people who just want to silence their guys' critics- it's not as if they're going to give you credit for doing so, either. On the other hand, perception is reality, and you don't want to say things which the majority of people don't like.

To David Gergen, not giving in to certain science lobbyists makes one "anti-science.

Did Bush lock exile astronomers or jail physicists? Not exactly, but he practically did by not giving them money and balancing the plight of stranded polar bears with people's jobs. Gergen's evidence:

The President and the men around him have been so ideologically opposed to the idea of man-made global warming that they first put their heads in the sand, refusing to accept evidence and editing reports from scientists inside the government such as the EPA, sending morale down the tubes. More recently, President Bush has acknowledged that man has contributed to warming, but the U.S. continues to drag its feet in international negotiations and Bush has resisted mandatory emission standards.

Since we're experiencing the coldest winter in seven years and a recession, does anybody really regret not having curbed American energy and industrial production? I think people who don't write for newspapers should be very grateful indeed.

Top scientific leaders in the administration have sometimes been silenced, including a top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. A number of government scientists have resigned.

So? What if one of the growing number of global warming skeptics resigns because Al Gore in won't tolerate "doubt?"

The President twice vetoed bills for stem cell research over the objections of many in the scientific community as well as Bill Frist, the cardio-surgeon who was a GOP leader in the Senate.

Does David Gergen think that research should trump all ethical concerns? Should we not treat men with syphilis to see how the disease progresses?

The President allowed funding for the National Science Foundation to go essentially flat and after sizable increases, also allowed a flattening of the budget for the National Institutes of Health.

So what? Without government, there's no science?

The President did sign onto the competitiveness agenda proposed by a special commission of the national academies of science and engineering - and he helped to secure Congressional passage of legislation endorsing the agenda. But, stunningly, the Congress refused to fund it - and the President put up very little fight.

Gergen again falls into the "If you don't 'fund' it, it won't exist" error. We see this mostly in education where people who don't support ever-increasing education expenditures are "anti-education" even though there's absolutely no correlation between spending and achievement. Most of the time, the "funding" is a waste of money

This November, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science publicly lambasted the administration for putting unqualified political appointees into permanent civil service jobs that make scientific policy decisions. A case in point: Todd Harding, a 30-year old with a bachelor's degree from Kentucky's Centre College, was named to a permanent post at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration working on space-spaced science for geostationary and meteorological data.

So what?

Even as some positions were filled with non-entities, the White House left vacant the post of Executive Director for the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Oh my God! He left a post vacant! Because the past Executive Directors for the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology have been so useful.

That's it?

Round and round the case goes. Where it ends, nobody knows.

Some statements stay with one. A friend commented on the customs officials in his native Nigeria: He said that the law was "whoever was on duty." I feel that way about the American judiciary in 2008.

Nothing seems to matter except who sits on the bench. Reviewing the same law, "conservative" and "liberal" judges will come to completely different conclusions. That's why California Attorney General Jerry Brown could have articulated that Proposition 8 should be struck down because it violated the intent of the future Galactic Federation's constitution and it wouldn't make any difference. It all depends on the disposition of the judges.

It should be entertaining to watch "legal experts" pretend otherwise.

When Michelle Malkin said that the this story would make "my blood boil," I went to the fridge and prepared an ice pack. I went to the site to see:

Inappropriate Religious or Political Remarks. In one judicial ceremony, an official participant of the ceremony made explicit sectarian religious remarks when discussing the origins of freedom; in another, the judge utilized his welcoming remarks to make pointed and partisan political comments. Specifically, the judge stated that persons should "get off their dead [posteriors] and oppose the war."

and

Oath ceremonies Conducted in a Foreign Language. In one district with a large Spanish-speaking population, the judge administered the oath ceremony (introductions, directions, speech, artistic presentations, etc.) entirely in Spanish, with the exception of administering the oath itself in English and Spanish. A USCIS official polled the audience, by show of hands, to determine if every applicant present understood Spanish; despite the fact that several persons raised their hands indicating they did not speak Spanish, the presiding judge proceeded in Spanish. While certain waivers exist, no person is naturalized who cannot demonstrate an understanding of the English language.

I expected flag-stomping or Nazi salutes or a group rendition of The Internationale. They said it in Spanish. So what? And a few political comments. I don't like political comments either, if my blood boiled every time a government official preached to captured audiences, I'd have melted like a drenched wicked warlock years ago.

Now, if this were the ceremony, I would understand.

From here.

(CNN) -- Prominent liberal groups and gay rights proponents criticized President-elect Barack Obama Wednesday for choosing evangelical pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at the presidential inauguration next month.
President-elect Barack Obama has chosen pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration.

Warren, one of the most influential religious leaders in the nation, has championed issues such as a reduction of global poverty, human rights abuses and the AIDS epidemic.

But the founder of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, has also adhered to socially conservative stances -- including his opposition to gay marriage and abortion rights that puts him at odds with many in the Democratic Party, especially the party's most liberal wing.

It's amazing that opposition to same-sex marriage is now beyond the pale for some people. It's also surprising, in a good way, that Obama keeps frustrating liberals. Anytime a liberal is upset, we can be assured that somebody, somewhere, has done something wise.

Perhaps, I was wrong, and Obama will govern as a centrist in social matters as well as in economic and foreign policy ones. If he does, he will be a very popular president, indeed. Part of the reason that Clinton was so unpopular his first couple of years were his stances on these kinds of things.

Heck, if the only liberal thing Obama does is build roads, I'll vote for him.