I’m a Growing Boy…
February 27, 2009
UNICEF: Good or Goblin?
February 27, 2009
We just finished our 2nd, seemingly biannual fundraiser for UNICEF, and boy, are my feet tired. This time I got to work the business part mostly on my own (stupid Obamacession) while the UNICEF organization got to have all the fun upstairs; I got a little help but had to face the never-ending line on my own from when the assistant headed up the stairs to wash dishes at 8:30 until 11 when the line died down and the event was over. So, I am just a smidgen drained and grumpy.
I looked up how UNICEF claims to help children last time, but for those of you that never wondered enough to see how they spend your All Hallow’s Eve money:
- Support free, compulsory government education
- Fighting the spread of AIDS, primarily though “comprehensive sex education”
- Set up governmental child protection services
And, since we are talking about a branch of the UN here, to meet the children-focused UN Millennium Development Goals. That opens up a whole different can of worms.
There are a number of problems with the stated goals of UNICEF. When I found out that UNICEF is going the way of “comprehensive sex education” last time, I could not agree to giving them money. In fact, I have problems with any organization that accepts the UN Millennium Goals wholesale. The goals I cannot support: universal availability of contraceptives and abortion as a part of Target 5B and Target 6A; mandatory enviro-cult principles enshrined in US law as a part of Target 7A (which, of course, interferes with eradicating malaria); and I am sure, others, if I dug further into how the UN wants to meet the other goals.
So, these development goals essentially require every government on the planet to start the cap ‘n’ trade scam and supply free condoms/abortion on demand. UNICEF will use your money to do it’s part, teaching kids how to use condoms and pre-natal infanticide to meet those UN Goals (reduce the number of teen parents and infant morality rates).
There are better ways at preventing AIDS and better places to give your money.
The moral of the story: research how a charity will use your money before you give it. Else, you will be an unwitting assistant to evil.
This is a First for Me…
February 26, 2009
So, a Lorenzo Bouchard sent me a “comment” for my Koran Challenge post. And by comment, I mean a longish article he wrote and shoves in various people’s comments sections. His comment here starts with “Ban Islam for past and present War Crimes”. I have seen this before in other people’s comments section and it always bothered me, for a number of reasons.
I am uneasy about approving the comment. It is not that I find the content offensive or otherwise disagree with it so much that I do not wish to have it on my site; I just think that, if someone is going to write an article, they should use their own publishing methods to put it out there. The guy has his own website; he should use it. He also supplied a broken URL in the “tell us what your website is so we can create a hyperlink using your name in the comments section” blank.
This brings up the purpose of comment sections. Comments are supposed to be, to use a cliche, throwing your two cents into the conversation. If there is no direct link to what has already been said (either the post or some previous commenter), it is noise, not an actual contribution to the conversation.
That’s my other problem with the comment: while not exactly off-topic, Mr. Bouchard did not even bother to make a reference to the video. He did not say “Hey, I agree with this guy. Here is something I wrote on the subject: [hyperlink here]“. He just began his speech. That would be like barging into the middle of someones conversation at a mixer and have a 5-minute rant mildly related to the subject at hand; all it does is offend the previous participates in the conversation.
Which brings us to the joys of moderating comments. I can keep bargers from interrupting. I have provided a way (with this post) to read what he wrote without approving a comment 4 or 5 times longer than the post he was “commenting on”. I hope he is satisfied with this; if not, he is welcome to resubmit his comment after fixing the problems I enumerated. Or, he is welcome to try and change my mind about the purpose of comments sections.
Am I errant in my thought on this subject? Let me know.
Belated Ash Wednesday Thoughts
February 26, 2009
Yesterday (according the the calender measure of time) was Ash Wednesday. The beginning of Lent, 46 days until Easter.
I do not know what it is about this year, but it kind of snuck up on me. Maybe it is the fact that I spend the vast majority of my non-work time alone, so I was never really around people who care about high liturgical holidays and bring them up in conversation. Maybe it is because the system for figuring out the date for Easter in a given year is unnecessarily confusing.
I’m not exactly high liturgical so it is not an arbitrary religious requirement for me, but I think it is a good practice. The whole idea of taking “40 days” to add more discipline into your Christian walk is a good one; Rick Warren jumped on that idea when he created the Cheesy Baptist Lent (a.k.a. The Purpose Driven Life program). It does not necessarily needs to be the 40ish days before Easter. In fact, one’s walk should continuously become more Christ-like if we are to be spiritually healthy.
To use a possibly cheesy analogy, the Christian life is kind of like a pond; if one does not do churn it up by adding in more Christ on a regular basis, it becomes stagnant. And drinking from a stagnant pond is a good way to get oneself sick. We need to continuously go for that living water, not settle for the stagnant remnants from the past.
As is my usual modus operandi for these sorts of posts, here is some pertinent Scripture. Paul’s analogy is better anyways. Enjoy:
“Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.” – 1 Corinthians 9:24-27
Christian discipline is training. It is important to note that salvation is a free gift; it cannot be earned, no matter how one goes about performing religious acts. No amount of fasting, abstaining from chocolate, or other usual Lenten activities can save oneself or even bring oneself to be a little more deserving of salvation. Intentionally trying to become more Christ-like, however, is what sanctification is all about.
Lent (in the way I view it) is not for the unbelievers. It is for the followers of Christ. It is for those trying to walk that narrow path, trying to keep their eyes on the prize, as it were.
Happy Lent.
Remember that Koran Challenge Video?
February 24, 2009
If you have yet to watch it, you might want to do so.
If this blog post by the video’s maker is any indication [Nota Bene: examples of hate speech await], Youtube might be pulling it any time now.
No More Interstate Monkey Knife Fight Leagues…
February 24, 2009
At least if this passes the Senate.
Think about it. My Simpsons-inspired dream of starting a monkey knife fighting league will be crushed. I’ll never know the joys of watching the monkey trained by Ron Paul fight the monkey trained by Dennis Kucinich slash each other to pieces. Why, 111th Congress, why? Must you rob us of all joy?

How can you say no to that cute, monkey face, 111th Congress? With the hate and bloodlust in his eyes? And the sharp, pointy implement of death in his hands? Have you no heart?
Shame on you 111th Congress. Shame on you.
Tip of the Hat: Drudge again
If This Does Not Sum Up “Global Warming”, I Do Not Know What Will
February 24, 2009
To borrow an Internet meme, global warming = EPIC FAIL.
The costly satellite failed to launch once it had to face the harsh truth of reality. That made the mainstream media and academia sad.
It’s just like the theory itself: costly (in terms of money and quality of life), not based on reality, and supported primarily by emotionally invested “journalists” and “professors”.
And, man, has my writing been lazy the past couple of days.
Anti-Facebook Statement o’ the Day!: Neuroscience
February 23, 2009
This neuroscientist/House of Lords lady says it does, so it has to be true! It destroys one’s ability to delay gratification and interact face-to-face! Get off it before your brain reverts to toddler state!
Update: Belated Tip of the Hat to Drudge




