Three interesting news points

So, I'm often pissed off by historic preservation societies. They seek to "preserve" so much that they do damage to the very neighborhood they claim to be preserving. Often, their desire to preserve stretches to building that aren't particularly old and little-to-no aesthetic charm. Moreover, their desire to preserve appears to override the basic fact that we still need a functioning city or house (or whatever they're preserving). So, functionality must be a permissible reason to modify existing structures. Apparently, that is not the case in D.C. An elderly couple who own a brick rowhouse (yeah, there aren't many of those in D.C.) in the Mt. Pleasant area of D.C. are now living in the basement of their house and would like a ramp connecting the basement to the front sidewalk. However, the D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board denied their request for this modification because "Repeating porches of similar height and depth create a notable pattern and rhythm on these formerly suburban streets" and this modification would have knocked out part of their porch. As Marc Fisher (the columnist reporting this) put it, the preservation board would rather preserve the rhythm of the porches than allow the couple to continue to live in the home they have lived in for decades. And did the board suggest an equally palatable alternative? Of course not. They're just there to shoot things down.

Now, I'm all for preserving the character of a neighborhood, but such desires to preserve MUST take into account that people still need to live and work in such neighborhoods. In Charleston, the historic society is currently trying to preserve a library that, based on its facade, is something from the 1950s or 1960s (i.e. not that old) and has all the aesthetic appeal of government buildings from that area. Currently, the library is an abandoned building with broken windows that the city wants to tear down to allow to be developed. Such development would be good because the building divides nice, economically vibrant areas with ones that are less so. Anyway, these people drive me crazy.


In other news, another conservative has jumped into the "I'm too stupid to live" river. Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Virginia) decided to go beyond Dennis Prager's rant about the use of the Koran in a swearing-in for Congressmen (despite the fact that no book is used during the swearing-in). Goode said:

The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

Besides Goode's ignorance about something he has done many times himself (namely, take the oath of office without any book), his statement is a complete non sequitur. Maybe he should think before mouthing off, but, alas, even after thinking, the Post reported that "In his written response, Goode said he will not apologize and does not see why his comments could be offensive to some Muslims." Really? He's completely baffled as to why Muslims might be offended by his statements? Wow, what an idiot.


Finally, in a completely unsurprising piece of news, Britain, France, and Germany have gone completely spineless -- once again -- for the umpteenth time -- in relation to yet another dangerous country. This time, it is, of course, Iran. Apparently, they have "scrapped plans to impose a United Nations travel ban on Iranian officials who are linked to Tehran's most controversial nuclear activities." Yes, that sanction would have been just too much of a hardship for those poor Iranians -- all twenty of them (I'm just guessing at this) involved in the most controversial activities. Britain, France, and Germany did this, ostensibly, to get Russia on board. Of course, this just means that these countries are spineless when it comes to anyone. I don't mean to imply much praise for the U.S. because our dear President has been a personal supporter of the Russian dictator. Yes, we've opposed Putin a few times in other countries, but Bush doesn't seem to understand the connection between Putin's problematic meddling in world affairs and the anti-democratic moves Putin has made at home. Instead, (I wish I could recall the exact words), Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw a man he could trust and work with. Yeah, right. I don't agree much with Cheney, but his speech last spring criticizing the backsliding Russia was right on. Cheney seems to be able to convince Bush of anything -- except for one of the few things that matter -- the increasing danger of Russia.

Predators and Internet Idiots

I read an interesting article this past week reporting that Virginia's attorney-general (Robert McDonnell) plans to create a registry for the state's convicted sex offenders to keep track of their email addresses and instant messaging screen names. According to his plan, when the offenders have registered their information, this information will be passed on to networking sites such as MySpace to prevent the sex offenders from using the sites and, thus, ostensibly, prevent them from interacting with minors.

Yes, that's right. For some idiotic reason, McDonnell actually believes that he can regulate the internet, as that is essentially what he's proposing. However, he's not alone. Two idiots of the U.S. Senate (John McCain and Chuck Schumer) are proposing a similar thing at the federal level.

There are so many ways that this is stupid that I'm not sure where to begin. Thankfully, a Post editorial already points out some of them. The most important problem is the obvious loophole: you can always just get another email address. It seems that our out-of-touch political leaders believe that every person is given a single, unique email address (and IM screen name) when he/she is born and that this one email address sticks with you throughout your life. Therefore, it's only necessary to find out that information, register it, and share it with networking sites. Yeah, could someone please inform these idiots that email addresses are a dime a dozen and that you can put in any name you want for an email address and that, therefore, it's impossible to keep track of them? I have had at least 8 email addresses during my life -- and I know I'll have some more. For some reason, the Post is only mildly critical. Really, they should have taken the senators and McDonnell to task for even suggesting such a stupid proposal.

So, as the program is completely unenforceable in the first place, that raises the second major problem -- it's a waste of money. I doubt it would be that expensive (relatively speaking), but the government is chock full of these small programs put in place for very small issues. And, yes, I'm calling this a small issue. As the Post editorial points out, there's no record (or even anecdotal report, apparently) of any of these networking sites leading to a known sex offender committing some sex crime with these children. So, the problem is that we're throwing money at a so-far non-existent problem in such a way that we could never prevent the problem in the first place. Great.

Finally, the third issue is that we, as a society, have become obsessed with sex offenders, and this only reinforces our obsession. We seem to think that child molesters are everywhere, and those online maps showing where sex offenders live only reinforce the idea. The reality about sex offenders is much different than what McDonnell's proposal suggests. Most sexual abuse of children is NOT committed by random strangers, let alone by strangers on the internet (Dateline's "Sexually Salacious Ways to Catch a Predator", notwithstanding). Most child sexual abuse is committed by family members or close family friends. Despite that fact, many Americans have come to live in fear of their children being abused by random strangers. Why is that? I believe that it's due to the nationalized, 24-7, sensationalistic media that we now have. When one child is New Jersey is molested and killed, the whole nation hears about it for days and days. While such events are truly awful and horrific, their over-exposure warps people's understanding of the threat such events actually pose. In a nation of 300,000,000 people, statistically speaking, we can expect all sorts of things to occur at least once a year. Yes, anytime someone says that there's a one-in-a-million chance of something occurring, then we should expect it to happen to 300 people in this country a year. Unfortunately, our media warp these things -- we panic about bird flu (ever killed in this country: 0) and hardly blink an eye at the regular flu (annually killed in this country: ~60,000).

So, what should be done about online sexual predators? Well, the government should not be involved in every aspect of life and this is one of those areas where the government can do little to prevent the bad stuff from happening. HOWEVER, people (i.e. parents) can prevent these problems easily. Unlike offline predators who can kidnap kids and molest them, online ones can only do harm WHEN people do stupid things. Do you ever notice on Dateline's "Sensationalistic, Ratings-catching Ways to Catch a Predator" that the men are lured by the underage girls willing to have sex with them? The few stories I have read about men actually meeting and engaging in sex acts with underage kids reveal that the kids (usually young teenagers) agree to meet and have sex with the men. This does not reduce the moral repugnance of the men's actions, but it does call into question the parenting of these kids. Why are these kids engaging in sexual banter online with these men? Moreover, why are they agreeing to meet them? Parents, rather than worrying about the online sexual predators out there, should be worrying about whether they've done a good job raising and educating their kids. At some point in their lives, their kids will, most likely, meet creeps and losers of all stripes, whether it's online, in school, or as adults.

In one of the news stories from the D.C. area about a case like this where (I think) the guy was convicted of statutory rape, the judge also criticized the teenage girl and parents involved. This, of course, created a giant backlash against him, but, frankly, I had to agree with him. To criticize the girl and her parents and say that what she did was stupid and dangerous does not mitigate the guilt of the adult male involved. It just merely reinforces that we all (yes, even teenagers) have to be responsible and careful and this girl was anything but.

Much Ado about the Koran (AKA: When Pseudo-Religious Conservatives Attack!)

So, the first Muslim elected to Congress (Keith Ellison) has announced that he will use the Koran when he takes his oath of office, according to this Post article. This, in turn, has apparently outraged some pseudo-religious conservatives (the qualifiers are necessary because I have to believe that more intelligent conservatives do not fall into this line of thinking), who claim that it is a slap in the face of the Judeo-Christian tradition of our country. According to Dennis Prager, a conservative talk show host,

This has nothing to do with the Koran. It has to do with the first break of the tradition of having a Bible present at a ceremony of installation of a public official since George Washington inaugurated the tradition.

Prager has explained his stance here, where he also says:

But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.

Unfortunately for Prager, the truth appears to be quite different. Ellison was incorrect to say that he would use the Koran in the first place simply because, as it turns out, Congressmen do not use any book, holy or otherwise, at their swearing-in. They merely stand on the House floor and are sworn in together. So, what was Ellison referring to? Well, after the official swearing in, House members have their own personal unofficial swearing-in that is actually just a photo op and typically includes a Bible (though that is up to them), and Ellison apparently would prefer the Koran. Note, however, that, when the Bible is present, no actual installation of a public official is going on.

Other public officials have used books other than a Bible at official oaths of office, including the current governor of Hawaii (Linda Lingle-R), John Quincy Adams, and Teddy Roosevelt. Moreover, it should be noted that not all public officials are actually sworn in -- some affirm their oaths. The Founding Fathers apparently gave this as an out due to the religiously pluralistic nature of the country (did they know something that people can't figure out today?). So, it appears that Prager is wrong on many fronts.

After his original column, he wrote a follow-up, where it appears that he has now been informed of the unofficial nature of the use of the Bible in Congressional oaths of office. Rather than offering a mea culpa, he continues to defend his original position by adding some nuances to his argument that aren't particularly germane to my post. However, it does not appear, unless I missed it, that anyone has informed him that previous presidents, no less, have NOT used the Bible in their swearing-in.

Frankly, I'll chalk this one up to the same elements behind the so-called "War on Christmas" that was so big last year (or was it the year before?). Essentially, these kinds of people create oppositions that they can bash over the head for being un-Christian, un-patriotic, and/or ultimately un-American. They create a straw man or raise the specter of the boogeyman to create the sense of a cultural and/or religious clash that is not actually occurring. They assume a certain homogeneity of cultural and religious beliefs in this country that they insist has always existed and then insist is under attack. And they cite the Founding Fathers, incorrectly, as supportive of this Christian culture that, according to these elements, has always been intended to, and is always supposed to, pervade our government.

What I find most irritating is that the Post waits until the TENTH paragraph before informing the reader that Prager has his facts about Congressional oaths WRONG. Would it kill the media to actually point out to the reader clearly and explicitly when someone has their facts wrong ASAP?