A couple of recent articles demonstrate just how off-track this august body has become.

First, an opinion article from USA Today that speaks out against UN efforts to criminalize the criticism of religion.  This is as clear-cut a free speech issue as you can get, and the cure is worse than the disease.

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

You don’t destroy free speech in order to save it.  There are clear exceptions to this rule, but "offense" isn’t one of them.  Thank you, UN

Second is a special report submitted to the UN by its Human Rights Council that has in it a definition of gender that the UN itself has been trying to get enough nations to agree with.  In a report entitled, “Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms While Countering Terrorism” (which clearly involves genders, right?), we find this:

Gender is not synonymous with women but rather encompasses the social constructions that underlie how women’s and men’s roles, functions and responsibilities, including in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, are defined and understood. This report will therefore identify the gendered impact of counter-terrorism measures both on women and men, as well as the rights of persons of diverse sexual orientations and gender identities. As a social construct, gender is also informed by, and intersects with, various other means by which roles, functions and responsibilities are perceived and practiced, such as race, ethnicity, culture, religion and class. Consequently, gender is not static; it is changeable over time and across contexts. Understanding gender as a social and shifting construct rather than as a biological and fixed category is important because it helps to identify the complex and inter-related gender-based human rights violations caused by counter- terrorism measures; to understand the underlying causes of these violations; and to design strategies for countering terrorism that are truly non-discriminatory and inclusive of all actors.

Emphasis mine.  Is the UN really unaware of biology?  No, they’re just trying to bend it to their will in order to mainstream behaviors that they deem okey dokey.

This is way beyond a big diplomatic table where nations can work out their differences.  As with any political body, they expand to fill any area they wish, not being otherwise constrained.  This is a body badly in need of remaking from the ground up.

Is health care a basic human right?  Bob Lupton, writing at the Sojourners presumptively-named blog "God’s Politics", thinks so.  I created an account so I could post a comment that includes a question I’ll now formally pose here:

Is food a basic human right?

Food you need constantly in order to live.  Health care you only need occasionally.  (For some, very occasionally.)  So which is more important for life?

Clearly, food is more important for life, and thus shouldn’t we have universal food care before we have universal health care? 

(Before you point to food stamps or the WIC program, understand that they are nowhere near as invasive to the rights of all as ObamaCare would be.  Those programs for the poor do not place any restrictions on my food purchases; on what I buy or where I buy it or what sorts of foods are sold.  ObamaCare would force me to get a certain type of policy as soon as I cross a state line or change jobs.  And there are many other restrictions on people and employers all in the name of covering those not currently covered.  None of these kinds of restrictions come from food programs for the poor.)

So the questions before you are: If you support the health care reform that the Democrats are trying to pass:

1 – Is health care a basic human right?

2 – If your answer to #1 is "Yes", then is food also a basic human right?

3 – If your answer to #2 is "Yes", then why not universal food coverage?  And what, exactly, do you consider a "basic human right" in general?

4 – If your answer to #2 is "No", why isn’t food a right if it’s more important to life?

5 – And finally, if your answer to #1 was "No", then why do you support a program that restricts everyone in order to deal with a few?  Why not a program that just covers the poor, like food stamps do in the area of food?

Your comments appreciated.  And I’ll report back if Mr. Lupton answers my question.

Carrie Prejean, who was essentially fired as Miss California after a politically incorrect answer to a Miss USA pageant question, insists she did not break the conditions of her contract, and is going to court to prove it.

Miss Prejean was fired from her role as Miss California USA in June of this year, following several months of controversy over her answer at the Miss USA pageant regarding same-sex marriage. Lewis claimed Miss Prejean’s termination was due to a violation of contract.  Miss Prejean’s complaint will refute that allegation, and demonstrate that both the chronology and factual evidence clearly show she lived up to all her contractual obligations, but was fired, harassed and publicly attacked solely due to her religious beliefs.

Shouting at congressional leaders is getting the Left all upset.  "This is not an appropriate form of protest!", they insist.  Fine, then.  Let’s use a form that the Left was all in favor of; throwing shoes at them.  (I’m sure a demonstration of this sort would be lauded as "patriotic", eh?"

(Hat tip: NRO)

No, not that Jackson 5. The first 5 American servicemen and women named "Jackson" who died in Iraq. They won’t get media coverage or the attention of those following celebrities, but theirs was a sacrifice we should honor.

PowerLine has the details.

Shire Network News #166 has been released. The feature interview is with Bruce Bawer, the Oslo-based US author of "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within" and Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom about his experiences as a gay man in what he thought would be a more tolerant European society, and what happened when he ran into radical Islam on the streets of Amsterdam one night. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News asking you to "Consider This!"

I’ve heard this sentiment many times.  "Why do we pay pro athletes millions of dollars a year, but pay teachers so little?  Which is more important?"  Indeed, it is true that occupations like teachers, fire fighters, and police aren’t paid in accordance with their importance in our society.  Instead football, basketball and baseball players, who strut and fret their hour upon the field and then are heard no more, are lavished with huge salaries and signing bonuses.  Who decided that was how society should remunerate people?

Frankly, we did.  We pay the athletes when we pay big ticket prices at games, when we watch the Super Bowl commercials, and when we buy sport memorabilia.  And we pay our teachers when we give their jobs over to the government, when we vote for politicians who waste our tax money on pork barrel projects instead of salaries and when we cheer while spending ourselves into huge debt.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying professional sports, but if you want to know why the disparity, there it is.

Here’s another, similar sentiment.  When Private William Long was gunned down by a Muslim who was upset about US military actions, it garnered a bit of coverage.  The Commander-in-Chief did come out with a statement on the incident, 2 days after the fact.  But aside from some conservative blogs, it was soon forgotten.  Here was essentially a kid, who’d hadn’t yet seen combat, killed in his prime.  He was willing to lay down his life for his country, and he wound up doing just that soon after finishing basic training.  This was a kid worthy of having the country hear his story; worthy of mourning.

When singer Michael Jackson died…well, you know what happened.  Here was essentially a man who was obsessed with his appearance to the point of overindulging in plastic surgery, and was taking a cocktail of pain killers as a result (and a cocktail of mood enhancers, hinting at the cause of the indulgence in plastic surgery).  Here’s a guy who dangled his child over a balcony, although the lineage of his children is now in question.  Speaking of children, here’s a guy who has had very questionable relationships with young boys.  And, oh yes, he had some hit songs in the 70s and 80s.  Since his death, there’s been non-stop coverage of it and its aftermath.  Who decided this is how news coverage should be doled out?

Frankly, we did.  We decided when people flocked the Apollo Theater and Neverland Ranch.  We did when we conferred on him the title of "King of Pop".  We did when we did all this while ignoring or brushing off his Howard-Hughes-like behavior, becoming no better than the codependent Yes-men and Yes-women he surrounded himself with.  Now, there’s nothing wrong with enjoying a song on the radio or buying a vintage copy of the "Thriller" album.  But if you want to know why the disparity, there it is.

I don’t know, maybe I’m turning into my dad, who didn’t quite get the whole deal made over the death of John Lennon.  Or perhaps I’ve always been him; I didn’t quite get it either.  Yeah, the Beatles were music legends, but really.  You see video of girls crying when the Beatles came on stage, but just recently, as news of the release of Michael Jackson’s last rehearsal tape leaking hit all the evening cable news outlets, one channel was replaying a concert that the Jacksons did just a few years ago.  Yup, crying girls. 

This isn’t a generational thing; it’s a celebrity thing.  It’s image and packaging, and it’s ignoring what’s important to elevate that which is, essentially, a facade.

It’s kind of like electing a President who promises change, and then doesn’t, or who promises fiscal responsibility while spending us into a level of debt previously unimaginable.  But he says the right things and makes a good speech, and the Left in this country just drools over it.  You can almost hear the teenage girls crying in the audience, and the teenage boy on the old "American Bandstand" show saying, "Well it’s got a good beat and you can dance to it; I give it a 95."

If we don’t watch it, we might look right past obvious problems, buy into the image and elect a Michael Jackson, or a John Lennon…or a Vladimir Lenin.  Some might say we already have. 

Oh, and as a public service, and in case you missed it while watching the Michael Jackson coverage; there are reports that North Korea will be testing an ICBM and more nuclear devices soon.  Y’know, you may want to consider this.

If anti-abortion protesters threw stink bombs into abortion clinics, and threatened to demolish the building, what would happen to those protesters?  Well, they’d probably get thrown in jail and decried in the media.  (Perhaps get called a "Christianist" by Andrew Sullivan.)

But, change the cause, and those tactics become, as the LA Times says, "compelling" television.  Yes, terrorize for the right cause, and you get your own TV show.

Jill Stanek has the details on "Whale Wars", a Discovery channel show documenting the life and times of an crew of anti-whalers.  I saw an episode where they made it appear that they were going to ram the offending ship.  If people trying to save babies tried this, they’d be pilloried (by, no doubt, the LA Times). 

But do this in the name of animals, and the Left and the media put you on a pedestal.  Priorities, folks.

Smoking dope causes cancer.

SAN FRANCISCO — Marijuana smoke has joined tobacco smoke and hundreds of other chemicals on a list of substances California regulators say cause cancer.

The ruling Friday by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment likely will force pot shops with 10 or more employees to post warnings. Final guidelines are expected by the time warning requirements take effect in a year.

Your tax dollars at work, telling us the obvious.  So then, all those on the Left trying to de facto ban cigarettes, will they now have the same view on marijuana?  Listening…

And as far as I know, tobacco doesn’t cause psychosis.

Shire Network News #165 has been released. The feature interview is with Israeli historian Yaacov Lozowick, author of "Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel’s Wars" and a former peace activist who found himself voting for (gulp) Sharon. Click here for the show notes, links, and ways to listen to the show; directly from the web site, by downloading the mp3 file, or by subscribing with your podcatcher of choice.

Below is the text of my commentary.

Hi, this is Doug Payton for Shire Network News, asking you to "Consider This!"

What do Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, G. Gordon Liddy and David Letterman all have in common?  They’re all on NOW’s Hall of Shame.  When the ladies in the Left wing calls a fellow liberal "sexist", it must be way beyond the pale.

And it was.

(The YouTube video is no longer available – CBS took it down – so here’s a blog post on the subject.  Essentially he said that there was an embarrassing moment at a Yankees game that Sarah Palin attended; during the 7th inning her daughter was knocked up by Alex Rodriguez.)

Yes, others like Leno and Saturday Night Live have done similar jokes and the Palins have had to laugh it off.  But the campaign’s been over for 8 months now, and Letterman’s still doing teen pregnancy jokes?  Guess he must be all out of vicious Obama jokes.

When I was asked if, for my segment on SNN, I’d like to take a crack at Letterman, I said "Yes … and I’d like to talk about him, too."  >cue rim shot<  Well the fact is, I tried to come up with a Top 9 list that could both have 9 items and yet say what I wanted to say about this.

The Top 9 Other Topics David Letterman Also Thinks Are Funny

9 – Hit and run drivers (as long as they hit a Republican)

Nah. 

How about The Top 9 Topics David Letterman Thinks Aren’t Funny

9 – Jokes about President Obama’s daughters.

Nope.

The Top 9 Ways to Make the Joke Funnier

9 – Add a minister, a priest and a Rabbi walking into a bar.

8 – Toss in a few lines from "Who’s on First?"

Eh.  I just couldn’t come up with 9 things that fit those categories without winding up in the same cesspool that Letterman jumped into.  And I won’t go there.

In his first "apology", he said he meant to make the joke about Bristol, age 18, not Willow, age 14.

So he meant to ignore the 14-year-old daughter that was really there at the game, and instead say that the 18-year-old daughter she left home somehow wound up in New York and got … yeah, well, see, that extra 4 years of age takes (what passes for) a "joke" from "inappropriate" to "comedic genius".  I mean, if he’d actually said "Bristol", why then we’d all be laughing. 

Well, about a week went by, and he came to the conclusion that the "joke" was tasteless and the "apology" was inadequate; a conclusion that should’ve taken 7 milliseconds rather than 7 days.  He finally took personal responsibility for the content, and the Palins accepted.

So what are the lessons we should all learn from this?

Lesson 1: If you’re going to tell a joke about statutory rape, don’t.  Just don’t.  It’s one of the cheapest of cheap laughs. 

Lesson 2: If you haven’t learned lesson 1, then at least be sure you know what you’re talking about.  If you’re going to attack someone’s reputation, at least get your facts straight.

And lesson 3:  If you find yourself listening to someone who hasn’t learned lesson 1, laughter & applause is not the appropriate response.  Hey, audience; consider this.

Imagine this statement by a some guy in DC bucking for a job in government:

I am a member of a private organization of male professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors.  The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Women are involved in its activities — they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions — but to the best of my knowledge, a woman has never asked to be considered for membership.

Would this disqualify the fellow, especially in the eyes of Democrats?  "Oh yeah, right.  No woman has ever asked to become a member?  Do you expect us to believe that?"

Well, here’s the actual quote, in the context of the news article.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Monday defended her membership in an all-female networking club, telling senators preparing for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing that the group did not discriminate in an inappropriate way.

Judge Sotomayor made the remarks in a cover letter for 10 documents the White House submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The papers supplement a trove of documents and videos, along with a response to a questionnaire, that she turned over earlier this month.

Her remarks indicate that some senators have taken an interest in her membership in the group, Belizean Grove, which she mentioned in the questionnaire response.

“I am a member of the Belizean Grove, a private organization of female professionals from the profit, nonprofit and social sectors,” Judge Sotomayor wrote. “The organization does not invidiously discriminate on the basis of sex. Men are involved in its activities — they participate in trips, host events and speak at functions — but to the best of my knowledge, a man has never asked to be considered for membership.”

Maybe this is why.

According to the Belizean Grove’s Web site, the group is a “constellation of influential women” who are building “long-term, mutually beneficial relationships.” It was founded as a counterpart to the all-male Bohemian Grove, a legendary club of elite politicians, businessmen and other leaders.

The group’s roughly 115 “grovers,” as members call themselves, include ambassadors and top executives of Goldman Sachs, Victoria’s Secret and Harley-Davidson. They meet each year for an annual retreat in Belize or another Central American destination, as well as occasionally in New York and other cities for outings described as “a balance of fun, substantive programs and bonding.” The group’s Web site does not appear to mention any roles for men.

Something tells me Democrats are about to suddenly get very tolerant of gender-based private organizations.