Bush and Condoms in Africa

Andrew Quinn has the byline on a Reuters article entitled, US abstinence drive hurts AIDS fight - UN official” The opening salvo is, “The U.S. government's emphasis on abstinence-only programs to prevent AIDS is hobbling Africa's battle against the pandemic by downplaying the role of condoms, a senior U.N. official said on Monday.” So it is our fault that AIDS is spreading in Uganda. The article also goes on to report that, “Uganda's State Minister for Health Mike Makula told the Monitor newspaper on Monday there was no condom shortage, saying the country had 65 million in stock and had ordered another 80 million for delivery soon.” The article continues to deride the Bush administration for the program that promotes abstinence as the primary and best way to prevent the spread of AIDS. The claim is that abstinence-only is hurting the “use a condom” message. It’s a PR problem?

Later a spokesperson named Jodi Jacobson of the U.S.-based Center for Health and Gender Equity is quoted and spreads the blame a little, “They are kow-towing to the (U.S.) fundamentalist right on this issue." At least she didn’t say Evangelicals, but I digress. There is nothing really about the article that surprises me insofar as those quoted from the UN, Uganda, or the US that blame the United States for the spread of AIDS in Africa. I will leave that to your own set of logical constructs but while you are musing consider this.

According to the CIA World fact book the population of Uganda is estimated as of August 9, 2005 to be 27,269,482. You do the math…65 million condoms in stock with 27 million people in country.

One more fact for your consideration. The age distribution is as follows:

0-14 years: 50.1% (male 6,875,663/female 6,784,378) 15-64 years: 47.7% (male 6,511,867/female 6,494,859) 65 years and over: 2.2% (male 263,790/female 338,925) (2005 est.) CIA World Fact Book

Thanks BLOGMA

Just a quick thanks to the people over at News.com [BLOGMA] for using a quote from my blog. They referenced 'Gadget Overload.' Go give them a click or two.

Reached Gadget Overload?

Peace

Abortions the Problem???

A .com news agency is reporting that in the former Soviet Union there are more abortions than births taking place. The article itself meanders over a point somewhere but I am not sure that I know what it is. [sort of reminds me of myself at times] So here are my points.

The first is shaking my finger at what appears to be the point of the article. If I get it straight the author of the article is saying that the abortions that take place are undermining the Russian economy because there are more people on pensions than there are children and adolescents. This translates into the workforce in Russia. So without the necessary workforce the economy is in a spiral downward. But, by the articles own admission the jobs that were traditionally held by the women of Russia no longer pay wages sufficient for the current “standard of living.” So then young Russians attempt to try and get on their career feet first and so forth. Then in the course of things when the Russian Yuppies get pregnant the baby is seen as something that will throw them into poverty.

Follow me here. The article quotes that with the fall of Communism in 1991 and the ensuing hyperinflation things went from bad to worse. That was only 14 years ago. The same Yuppies that are now aborting their children were conceived under the Communist regime of the USSR. A society who tried to erase God from their lives and where the ruling bodies enjoyed wealth and comfort and the populace broke their backs and waited in line for bread. It seems to me the article has a problem in understanding the nature of abortion and the impact that 1.6 million reported murders has upon a nation of 145 million. Maybe it’s the moralistic values, or the lack thereof, that the abortion minded young people have that is the base line problem. Not to mention the view that the program of financial success is more important than a human life.

My second point is this. Go and read the article [More Abortion than Births in Russia] and you will notice an undercurrent that claims that things were better in the USSR under Communism. Then go and find a copy of the movie “The Harvest of Despair.” You’ll have to really search for it but if you find it you will see the millions of Russian citizens burned in barns and exterminated by Stalin. Wait, he was a Communist…things were better under their rule. How soon a people, a world, can forget. Thank you Dr. Albert Michael from the University of Buffalo.

Oh I just thought of a third point….I’ll be brief. I thought the world population was increasing? Yes I know all those children dieing from starvation in 3rd world countries need food…and they do. But in the former Soviet Union they are killing them.

Hugh Hewitt: a book review

I just finished Hugh Hewitt’s book, “If it isn’t close, they can’t cheat” that is listed in my “what I’m reading now column” and I would recommend it to anyone. Although most of the context for the book was the election cycle of 2004 it has very valuable content that relates to life as we know it in the USA. His main thrust is to understand the level of involvement that the individual citizen has with respect to politics as they relate to National Security. There can be no debate that is the primary concern for us today, as it should have been from the beginning.

To place this in a Biblical context we read Scripture insofar as it relates that government was established by God for the punishment of those who are criminally guilty and for the protection of citizens from outside threats. Terrorism qualifies.

I picked the book up at a secondhand book store for less than 10 bucks. Well worth it.

SCOTUS flashback for Sen. Kennedy

Back in January of this year I was just surfing around and came upon this picture. If I remember it was from a Drudge link but in any case, as I was cleaning out some old folders today I was caught by the caption.

"Senator Ted Kennedy and John Kerry discuss the Supreme Court injunction against Vietnam Veterans sleeping on the Mall and whether the vets ought to risk violating it. Washington, D.C., April 21, 1971. Photo by Sheldon Ramsdell"

How deliciously ironic that 34 years later Senator Kennedy will once again be consulted to speak on behalf of the American people with regards for the Supreme Court. I half heartedly wish that someone like Hannity or Hewitt could get the audio that went along with this photo just for novelty sake.

Was the Supreme Court during the Vietnam protests an institution that ruled on matters that the people could openly reject as their current opinion and conscience told them too? Could the appointment of Judge John Roberts overturn a decision that was made just about the same time this picture was taken that has allowed under the law hundreds and thousands of lives to be snuffed out by the choice of the female who is carrying that life? I wonder if Senator Kennedy would speak out of both sides of his mouth?

North Dakota to extend borders

[Hypothetically speaking] Recently the US Government has declared that the northwest Border of the State of Minnesota from 50 miles south of Fargo to the Canadian border was to be annexed to the State of North Dakota. The slice of annexed land would be drawn 10 miles into the current Red River Valley. The reason given by the government was in order to settle disputes over bar closing times that ensue in the courts and spend hundreds of thousands of tax payers money. Also the government sited that tax revenue from cigarette sales would increase for North Dakota. The Supreme Court ruled that eminent domain issues like this were constitutional and so the enforcement of the proposed legislation will begin next week. A spokes-person for the US government made a statement this past Wednesday, "If it works for the Nation of Israel it can certainly work for the States of North Dakota and Minnesota."

I trust you didn't think that I was being serious? If you did I hope you read the following link

Troops storm synagogues

A number of weeks ago Senator Tancredo, in a discussion with a talk show host was given a hypothetical situation and responded hypothetically that if the US suffered an extreme terrorist attack on US soil how should we respond. The Senator answered by saying that we should place holy Islamic sites on our target list. There was a certain backlash by Democrats. And many from this side of the aisle were also stunned by the Senators frankness. On his blog Hugh Hewitt threw his voice into the ring and made very excellent political and humanitarian sense. But I have come to an almost certain conclusion, human nature being what it is, that I disagree with Hugh. One of his major points was that targeting holy Islamic sites would enrage or at least insight 'peaceful Muslims' against the US and not against militant Islamic Terrorist. At first I could see that very clearly and still have a vestige of why that might be true.

Then I saw the story I linked to above and my brain went into overdrive. Maybe thinking too fast for cooler logic to prevail. But if Jewish military are willing to storm Jewish places of worship to forcibly resettle Jewish people out of their 'governmentally emancipated property' Why can't, why wouldn't, why shouldn't, cooler headed and numerically dominant Muslims be able to forcibly control an extreme faction of Islamic Terrorist. Answer: because they don't want to? Because they agree with the extremist? Because they have nothing to gain or to lose by remaining silent?

Maybe I'm too simplistic. Maybe I'm too much of a geo-political neophyte? Maybe I don't understand the Muslim mindset but I certainly can't get into the head of a Jewish Military person who would act on orders to storm a synagogue. Maybe we should give Tancredo's hypothetical response some weight and see what happens?

May God help us all!!!

Peace

Gadget Overload

I consider myself a techno-geek wannabe. Don't get me wrong I am not being derogatory when I use the word geek. I am of the firm opinion that geeks run the world. But that's another post. Like I said technology geek wannabe. That is to say that I love gadgets and toys of the technological variety. But I am not so enthralled by the stuff that I would consider myself "up on the latest." If my PDA meets my needs I'm good to go. Last night I saw something that just made me say..."Ok that's enough." It was for some cell phone company that has a cool add-on feature. Ring backs that are downloaded music.

Let say you call someone and their line is busy. You can leave a directive for the "phone" to keep dialing until the person that you called is off the call that made the line busy. Then when their phone rings they pick up and instead of hearing your ringer tone they hear music that you have chosen for them to listen to. Then your phone rings and you pick it up.

I agree, that is amazing as far as a neat trick of technology is concerned. But as I watched and thought about it I asked, "Why?" Just because it's neat I guess. To whomever thought up the idea...kudos. To whomever implemented the idea...kudos. To whomever figured out the technology...kudos. And to whomever kept their job because of the technology...kudos. But with the price of gas and eventually a gallon of milk do we, the consumer, need more stuff?

File this under a Wednesday morning rant before I go see a man about a tooth...Bless God for dental technology.

Peace

ELCA Votes

The web page of the ELCA is reporting in it's preliminary minutes and voting results that recommendation #3 on human sexuality, which concerned the ordination of homosexual ministers that could demonstrate commitment to a life long partnership failed by a vote of 490-503.

ELCA Votes

Shame on the NCAA

The NCAA ruled recently that Post Season Play of Schools that have mascots and logos that derive from Native Americans will have to be covered up and/or uniforms changed. These same colleges and Universities are allowed to keep mascots and uniforms during the regular season but if they have athletic teams that go beyond the regular season into official NCAA post season play then they must adhere to the ruling.

Logically bogus. What is the difference between say a regular season game on Friday night and a first round play-off appearance on Sunday Night? Answer: Nothing except some arbitrary ruling of a governing body that has run amok.

If a logo and mascot is “offensive” to some segment of a country’s given population and that is the basis for such a ruling by a governing body then so be it. But to make the prohibitive measure only during post season betrays logic and actually discloses the actual concern of the governing body. If the logo is offensive it is offensive. If the governing body is concerned that the given population is seen in a derogatory light then why is it only in the post season? Why not always? Will they try next season to incrementalize it up and make it during the regular season too? Maybe, but then what about that given population this season? Why subject them to another “regular season” of discrimination? Is the NCAA really concerned about native Americans or are they more concerned about their own public persona? Did they make a ruling to save face at the expense of Native Americans? Have they made a ruling that is logically indefensible?

Shame on the NCAA.

Is the ruling Constitutional? Does it interfere with the free speech rights of college and university athletics? Who is the “watchdog” of what is offensive or not offensive? Why have they singled out the Native American logos? Are there other NCAA teams that have logos and mascots that derive from other segments of this country’s population? What is a Demon Deacon? What is a Tarheel? What’s an Aggie? What’s a Boilermaker? What’s Knight? What’s a Spartan? What’s a Gothic Knight? What’s a Cornhusker? What’s a Statesmen? What’s a Blueboy? Ever hear of Dallas Baptist University? Are you getting the point? If so why aren’t they deemed as inappropriate? And under the same regulations? Ridiculous I say; ridiculous. I am not saying that the possible offensiveness of the logos is ridiculous the NCAA and the way they have administered the ruling is ridiculous.

Shame on the NCAA.

A must read for Senator Frist

Just found this article at the center for Bioethics and Human Diginity. Kinda makes you think Senator Frist needs to read a bit more.


Adult stem cells-3, Embryonic Stem cells-0

Senator Frist...*doh*...what a Homer

By now you have heard the Senators comments and how he decided that in the interest of science he was going to vote to extend stem cell research moneyies etc. It is very disturbing to me that he has done this for a number of reasons. The primary reason has been already and most eloquently stated by Keith Plummer at the Christian Mind.[see links] NO LOGIC

The next reason for me goes back to something I read recently in Hugh Hewitt's book, If it's not close, they can't cheat where he brings forward the idea that "There aren't enough targets that you have to shoot at your friends." He also makes the statement "...proving once again that in the nation's capital, it isn't about winning or even moving in the right direction; it is about getting noticed." [pg.113]

Bill Frist did a masterful job of revealing Democratic obstructionism in November of 03 and has been a good "leader" in the Senate. So I ask myself...why now Senator Frist? Supreme Court nominees to get appointed, recess appointments to support, and so many other issues why would you now break from your Commander In Chief and take a shot over his bow? Are you thinking about running in '08? Senator, you're a doctor, remember your oath? Look at the research Doctor...it doesn't square with this move of yours. The benefits of fetal stem cells are not proven. Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity
I don't want to take a shot at Senator Frist. I have no political asperations this issue isn't one of politics. To be sure government is involved but it isn't a political issue it is an issue of life. And Senator you should be ashamed.

Peace