Blogebrity

How about abstaining from opening your mouth?

Yesterday, a parade of public health experts told Congress that abstinence-only education doesn't work and shouldn't be funded.

In response, Rep. John Duncan replied "that it seems 'rather elitist' that people with academic degrees in health think they know better than parents what type of sex education is appropriate."

Yeah, those elitists with their fancy degrees in actually knowing about stuff should back off and let parents have their say! And what do parents say? According to one poll, only 30% of American adults agree with the statement "the federal government should fund sex education programs that have 'abstaining from sexual activity' as their only purpose." In contrast, 67% of adults agree with the statement "the money should be used to fund more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives."

Um, but that's all adults. And they're probably counting liberal college students. What about actual parents with kids in school. That's right, "95% of parents of junior high school students and 93% of parents of high school students believe that birth control and other methods of preventing pregnancy are appropriate topics for sexuality education programs in schools."

Still, Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, issued a statement calling yesterday's hearings "biased" and a "sham." Also yesterday, Perkins issued a statement calling Earth Day "a calculated attack on the sanctity of human life," adding that "the crisis du jour is global warming, but even that is just another excuse to fund 'Planet' Parenthood and similar groups." So he seems like a level-headed individual.

That last link is via Utne Reader, which also has an excerpt from a new book that may be of some interest, I Want to Be Left Behind.

Welcome, Christians. Run away!

If you've arrived at this site through the Paul Edwards show, I should warn you that you might not feel entirely comfortable here. I'm cool, but some of my readers, frankly, are potty mouths. Also, I think a few of them are liberals.

In any case, what you're probably looking for is information about my book, Rapture Ready!. Trust me, go there instead. You can check out reviews, excerpts and more.

For my regular readers, I'll have a link to my conversation with Detroit pastor Paul Edwards when it's online. Update. Listen here. I come in about 3/4 of the way to the end.

Did you say pretty please with sugar on top?

I'm reluctant to criticize David Barstow, whose New York Times article on the Pentagon's force-message multipliers was so terrific -- not just important but interesting. But I did find his answer to one reader's question somewhat... lacking.

Q. While this is an excellent piece of reporting in covering the relationship between the networks' star military analysts and the Pentagon, the networks themselves essentially get a free pass. To say that the networks simply neglected to investigate conflicts of interest obscures the fact that overall there was a huge gap between the picture of the war presented through news reporting and that presented through so-called expert analysis. That gap must have been as obvious to the networks themselves as it was to anyone else. The editors and executives who made no effort to close that gap have questions to answer. Why did you not dig more deeply into the network side of this story?

— Paul Woodward, Asheville, N.C.

A. We did dig into the network side of this story. Two networks, CBS and Fox News, declined to answer any questions about their use of military analysts, including what specific steps they took to vet them for business ties that could pose conflicts and what ethical guidelines they established for them. NBC would not allow any executives to be interviewed, but released a short statement saying it had “clear policies in place’’ to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest. Spokesmen for CNN and ABC said that while their military analysts were expected to keep them informed of outside sources of income, neither network had written ethics policies governing potential conflicts of interest with their analysts. But the question you raise – why didn’t the network news executives try to “close the gap’’ between what journalists were reporting and what some analysts were saying – is a good one. One possible answer: Several analysts said in interviews that network news officials tended to defer to their experience and expertise in military matters.

Um, they declined to answer questions, released short statements and gave non-answers -- and that's the end of the story? I'm not exactly sure I'd call that "digging." Good thing Barstow had better sources in the Pentagon than at the networks -- but why didn't the Times pair him with someone who does have good TV news sources? Surely they can't all be working for the Journal.

Read more entries at Radosh.net »