only in morality politics is less more

We've all heard the hysteria:

Since Elvis and the Beatles, music has been a touchy issue between parents and kids. But today's lyrics are more graphic, more violent, and more sexual than ever. "Today" host Katie Couric reports on what your kids are listening to. - MSNBC

...and...

Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found. - also MSNBC

So you would naturally deduce that teens must be having more sex than ever, if the music they are listening to is more sexual than ever, and sexual lyrics lead to more and earlier sex. Right?

Fewer U.S. high school students are having sex, and the ones who do are less likely to have multiple partners, according to a report issued on Thursday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

*GASP* You mean the morality police and hysterical media got something wrong? Oh the huge mammaries!
One of these things just doesn't belong... So today's lyrics aren't more sexual than ever, but sexual lyrics are still enticing children to sex, but jut not as much. Or today's lyrics are more sexual than ever, but sexual lyrics don't lead to more teen sex, so there isn't more of it. Or lyrics are more sexual, and sexual lyrics do lead to more teen sex, but the CDC got it wrong and there actually is more teen sex now than before. One of the above must logically be true. I'm putting my money on the CDC.
So the next time some volunteer in the morality militia starts whining to you about how horrible today's music is and how it's polluting our children's minds and turning them into a generation of Paris Hilton clones, you can tell them to mind their own damn business. They're wrong.

Leibermensch

Lieberman set on independent Senate bid
Voters in Connecticut turned him down, rejecting three-term Sen. Joe Lieberman for a political newcomer in the nation's first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war.
But Lieberman, undaunted, vowed to run as an independent against fellow Democrat Ned Lamont. "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand," he said of Tuesday's Democratic primary results.

First of all, good for Leiberman. He's one of the more sane members of the Democrat party. He would make a great independent Senator, and it could even set him up for a third party ticket in 2008. Who knows?
But on the story, notice how the AP calls Leiberman's primary defeat the "first major test of the depth of anger over the Iraq war." Is it just me or was there a presidential election two years ago? Thirty-three Senate elections two years ago? Four hundred thirty five House elections two years ago? Yeah, those don't count apparently. But once someone who supports the war looses, that counts as the first test of support for the war. What a bunch of ridiculous "journalists" over there at the AP...