Long live our glorious leader.

[kandrathe]

However, I don't remember you taking this line of attack with Bush - but it comes up constantly in discussions about Obama, even ones that have nothing to do with executive power.

I actually did note the two same things you did; 1) incredibly ambiguous, and 2) irrelevant if they have no more power than the executive branch anyway.

Most of them are feel good positions, where the President or his cabinet departments appoint a special person to lead a project, and they are mostly harmless like the safe sex czar, faith based initiatives czar or the abstinence czar. Obama's are tending to be more domestically focused and like the pay czar, are starting to bite into what I view to be unconstitutional territory. Imagine if the abstinence czar was given the power to actually enforce limits to coupling. I am fearful of the increasing number of environmental czars, because one persons property is another persons environmental concern.

[Jester]

Most of them are feel good positions, where the President or his cabinet departments appoint a special person to lead a project, and they are mostly harmless like the safe sex czar, faith based initiatives czar or the abstinence czar.

If you are under the impression that an "abstinence czar" is harmless, then all I can say is that we see things very, very differently.

Obama's are tending to be more domestically focused and like the pay czar, are starting to bite into what I view to be unconstitutional territory.

I think this must be about the tenth time we've been over this, but once again: If you take a *government bailout*, you no longer get to tell the government to screw off. Either you embrace your rugged capitalistic individualism and live or die on your own money, or you don't.

Imagine if the abstinence czar was given the power to actually enforce limits to coupling.

Imagination is a wonderful thing. Once we're in the realm of just imagining stuff, why bother talking about what is or isn't true, or even plausible?

I am fearful of the increasing number of environmental czars, because one persons property is another persons environmental concern.

They're called "externalities". And naive theories of private property are ill equipped to deal with them. That doesn't make me fearful - it makes me hopeful, that centuries of ignoring environmental damage to others in the name of "private property" might actually end. However, since the EPA has been authorized to deal with most of this stuff long ago, the "czar" is just a face you can point to. The powers were all there already.

-Jester

[DeeBye]

Most of them are feel good positions, where the President or his cabinet departments appoint a special person to lead a project, and they are mostly harmless like the safe sex czar, faith based initiatives czar or the abstinence czar.

I don't know what a "faith based initiatives" czar is, but I'm guessing it's religious in nature?

[kandrathe]

Imagination is a wonderful thing. Once we're in the realm of just imagining stuff, why bother talking about what is or isn't true, or even plausible?

Yes, so what exactly did the Abstinence Czar actually get accomplished? I mean other than get "escorted" out of his post?

[kandrathe]

I don't know what a "faith based initiatives" czar is, but I'm guessing it's religious in nature?

Not entirely. I know of one which is run by churches, but they feed the poor and homeless. This was the 1000 points of light stuff, where government can help those agencies already helping the poor. Mostly, the government just gets in the way, creates too much bureaucracy, and ties strings to everything they do.

Like Jester said above, if you lie with dogs, don't complain about the fleas.

[Jester]

Yes, so what exactly did the Abstinence Czar actually get accomplished? I mean other than get "escorted" out of his post?

Well, other than the whole hookers thing, presumably, he was the one directly in charge of the Bush administration's maddeningly stupid (and borderline unconstitutional) policy of lying to students about birth control in order to (supposedly) encourage them to live lives of purity (which somehow is not a religious objective, not sure how that works.)

That "accomplishes" the spread of STDs (including and especially AIDS) unwanted pregnancies, and the propagation of ignorance about sex. The less well the "abstinence czar" does his job, the happier I am. And, I suspect, the happier the teenagers of America will be.

-Jester

[Jester]

Not entirely. I know of one which is run by churches, but they feed the poor and homeless. This was the 1000 points of light stuff, where government can help those agencies already helping the poor. Mostly, the government just gets in the way, creates too much bureaucracy, and ties strings to everything they do.

What would a non-religious faith-based initiative look like?

Confused, probably.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

What would a non-religious faith-based initiative look like? Confused, probably.

Not really. If the activity is promoting the religion, then the government doesn't provide aid. If the activity is helping people who need help regardless of their affiliation, then the government does provide aid. It makes sense to me that the government shouldn't need to build parallel secular aid agencies to perform the same functions that are already being provided by local churches and religious organizations.

[Jester]

Not really. If the activity is promoting the religion, then the government doesn't provide aid. If the activity is helping people who need help regardless of their affiliation, then the government does provide aid. It makes sense to me that the government shouldn't need to build parallel secular aid agencies to perform the same functions that are already being provided by local churches and religious organizations.

I think something got tangled up here. I was just asking what a "faith-based" initiative would be, if not religious? If they were performing charitable functions, but were not religious, then there would be no "faith" to base it on. So, it seems obvious to me, faith-based charities are religious ones, regardless of whether they are promoting their religion directly through charity.

For myself, I think it's too entangling to have government supporting religious charities, no matter what the terms. Churches are already tax exempt, which is an enormous advantage, and donations to their charities are tax deductible. Direct support strikes me as crossing the line, but I guess that's for the Supremes to decide, and not me.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

For myself, I think it's too entangling to have government supporting religious charities, no matter what the terms. Churches are already tax exempt, which is an enormous advantage, and donations to their charities are tax deductible. Direct support strikes me as crossing the line, but I guess that's for the Supremes to decide, and not me.

I agree with you completely. The argument s often made that since the money is for charity, it does not support religion per se. However, the reality is that by supplying the churches with this money, it frees up their other money for proselytizing and political activity. It's a nice little circle where the government gives our money to the churches and they, in turn give some back to the politicians. But, hey, we have separation of church and state. And "In God We Trust". :angry:

--Pete

[kandrathe]

The less well the "abstinence czar" does his job, the happier I am. And, I suspect, the happier the teenagers of America will be.

In other words... You don't know. Randall L. Tobias was the Director of Foreign Assistance, so in as much as we might influence through foreign aid what he called the "ABC" approach - Abstinence, then Be faithful to one partner, and use Condoms. It really had nothing to do with teaching school children anything, and I don't think he had any effect on the abstinence rates in any country.

Put another way, it was a waste of money and a bad appointment. I don't mind abstinence as a method for preventing STD's and pregnancy, as long as it isn't the only method taught.

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . and I don't think he had any effect on the abstinence rates in any country.

But it probably did contribute to the birth rate and STD spreading. The previous administration's refusal to fund any foreign assistance for birth control or STD control other than abstinence has caused an unmeasurable amount of harm to many. But that's OK, we've got God on Our Side.

--Pete

[Jester]

In other words... You don't know.

Apparently not, although I did say "presumably". Good catch - although the same religious ideology about abstinence is being pushed at home as abroad.

Randall L. Tobias was the Director of Foreign Assistance, so in as much as we might influence through foreign aid what he called the "ABC" approach - Abstinence, then Be faithful to one partner, and use Condoms.

He certainly wasn't a great fan of condoms - his plan was to downplay their effectiveness. Exactly the same crap they push on teenagers in the US.

It really had nothing to do with teaching school children anything, and I don't think he had any effect on the abstinence rates in any country.

Well, not schoolchildren in the US. Just the rest of the world.

I don't mind abstinence as a method for preventing STD's and pregnancy, as long as it isn't the only method taught.

Teaching kids the trivial truth that you're very unlikely to contract an STD if you don't have any sex at all is harmless. Trying to encourage abstinence by lying about the effectiveness of other methods is seriously harmful, whether it's being taught to kids in America or Africa.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But it probably did contribute to the birth rate and STD spreading.

Although, funding for Aids prevention, including the distribution of condoms, and pharma went up exponentially during the Bush presidency.

http://www.annals.org/content/150/10/688.full

Stanford study first ever to show US AIDS Relief program saved a million lives

So, at best, you might say that more lives might have been saved had they not wasted a large portion on the abstinence part. Even with the alleged waste, it was far more than any previous administration had done to relieve the epidemic in Africa.

[Jester]

Although, funding for Aids prevention, including the distribution of condoms, and pharma went up exponentially during the Bush presidency.

http://www.annals.org/content/150/10/688.full

Stanford study first ever to show US AIDS Relief program saved a million lives

So, at best, you might say that more lives might have been saved had they not wasted a large portion on the abstinence part. Even with the alleged waste, it was far more than any previous administration had done to relieve the epidemic in Africa.

From the numbers in your links, about 7% of funding was explicitly earmarked for abstinence *only* programs. But, of course, 7% is a drop in the bucket compared with 93% for better ideas.

I note that the studies showed no difference in AIDS prevalence between countries receiving the aid and the controls - which might be evidence against the effectiveness of the prevention strategy. The second article seems to hint at this - that prevention must be focused on to a greater extent.

However, all efforts to alleviate the effects and restrict the spread of AIDS are greatly appreciated. I don't like very many things that Bush did, but allocating money to fighting AIDS is something I support, even if I find some of his delivery methods to be highly suspect. If Obama can fix those while maintaining financial support, I'll be even happier - although economic implosions don't usually create much in the way of charity.

-Jester

[shoju]

The very fact that this thread cites Wikipedia as a credible and reliable source of information makes me laugh uncontrollably.

My 7th grade son isn't even allowed to use Wikipedia as the basis for anything in school. Why in the world would you try and use it in an intellectual discussion between adults?

If you don't like what is going on in America, post credible information from credible sources. Non-credible sources include but are not limited to

wikipedia
Fox news
MSNBC
and possibly CNN depending on the reporter.

[Jester]

My 7th grade son isn't even allowed to use Wikipedia as the basis for anything in school. Why in the world would you try and use it in an intellectual discussion between adults?

Wikipedia is excellent - better than standard popular encyclopaedias - for most topics, and for casual use. Its average article quality is very high, at least for complete articles. If I want to know how the endocrine system works, what family the Hungarian language belongs to, or which baseball team has won the most World Series, the Wiki is great. But the variance is high. Some articles, especially on hot-button, current-events topics, are simply partisan disaster zones. The article linked in this thread is clearly of that type, which is why I linked to Factcheck.org instead.

Wikipedia is also not scholarly, and shouldn't be used for school assignments. But for casual discussions, it has its place, in my opinion.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

My 7th grade son isn't even allowed to use Wikipedia as the basis for anything in school. Why in the world would you try and use it in an intellectual discussion between adults?

Then I suggest you take your son out of that school and put him somewhere where the teachers aren't too lazy to check sources. Information from Wikipedia is no better nor worse than any other information on the web (and most print and TV for that matter). When someone cites a source, check out that source. See if it appears impartial and correct or biased. Look at it to determine if it is propaganda or information. Check *it's* references to see if they stand up.

I've often used Wikipedia to refresh my mind on matters of science or mathematics, two fields I *am* an expert in. I've yet to find an error. I use it often to check on matters of history, of philosophy, of geography, of bibliography. These are fields in which I have a passing interest and knowledge. I have found a few cases where the information in Wikipedia did not agree with what I thought was true. Further investigation showed that sometimes I was right, sometimes I was wrong, and sometimes it was a matter of opinion that even the experts did not agree upon.

To simply write off a source is stupid, narrow minded, and lazy. Send your kid to a school that teaches better thought processes, or risk his becoming another of the mindless millions who believe without thinking, know without examining, and act from ignorance.

--Pete

[Delc]

My 7th grade son isn't even allowed to use Wikipedia as the basis for anything in school. Why in the world would you try and use it in an intellectual discussion between adults?

Most would consider wikipedia 'good enough' for a discussion between friends. I hope anything done as part of school is held to a higher standard than a discussion on a video game forum.

[kandrathe]

Non-credible sources include but are not limited to ...

One might make a reference to ISBN 0-19-213965-7 "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions", Page 417

However, it tends to not engender free discussion on the internet. It's nice to reference semi-accurate information that has hyper links, which can then also refuted as needed. It's more like a courtroom, where evidence is presented and then is accepted or rejected.