As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.

Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

The two winning posts are excellent. The winning Council post is from King of Fools, a site you may want to put on your blogroll and visit often. The post discusses abstinence as it relates to the AIDS crisis. Evidently, some of our “betters” disagree that keeping one’s pants zipped and wick dry isn’t a viable option:

“Millions of women became infected while monogamous and faithful, so focusing solely on personal behaviour and risk absolutely does not go far enough,” said Geeta Rao Gupta, head of the International Centre for Research on Women. Mr Piot added: “Abstinence isn’t an option for women who are violated or abused. Our prevention strategies have to fit the realities of women’s lives. Marriage was not made for sexual abstinence.”

The “Fool” translates nicely and then gets to the core of the counterargument:

This is the first time I’ve heard this line of reasoning in opposition to promiscuity. Let me paraphrase: “Being faithful has no benefit because your lover might not be and you might still be at risk of infection. Thus being promiscuous is just the same. Oh, and abstinence is really boring. Marriage was not made for sexual abstinence so get out there and wrap your legs around everything that moves.”

The common thread between these two stories is the ideology that everyone is going to have lots of sex with lots of people and to suggest that people do otherwise is bad. What is so bad about abstinence? The first big problem is that the concept is based on one of those “moral values” we have heard so many complaints about so recently.. The other issue is that the experts feel that people have no control over their own sex drive.

Spot on. I vividly recall a similar reaction to the The President and Mrs. Reagan’s televised appeal to “Just Say No” to drugs. The simplicity of the argument took my breath away at the time but was lost on those who thought the program “too simplistic.” That, of course, was the beauty of it. The “Just Say No” campaign like the sexual abstinence program today actually empowers people to do the right things in their personal behavior. To this day, studies show that at risk teens suffer from low self esteem. By empowering these teens with choice, the chances of them becoming addicted to drugs or sexually active are dramatically reduced.

There’s only one group at risk as a result of the abstinence program: International health bureaucrats who think they know what’s best for everybody and are at risk of losing their jobs if people realized we didn’t need them.

The winning non-Council post is from Victor Davis Hanson. His thoughtful post on how we’ll be looking at Iraq a few years from now is both moving and prescient:

“We have come too far and too many have died to cease or even pause. In the name of the dead Americans, those lost of the Coalition, and the resolute Iraqis who were butchered by both Saddam and then by the Islamic fascists, let the January election proceed as promised. If Bill Clinton could run America with 43 percent of the popular vote in 1992, if Lincoln could conduct a war after receiving 40 percent in 1860, and if the Supreme Court could adjudicate the electoral mess of 2000, so then the Kurds and the Shiites, if need be, can hold elections in Iraq with participation of 70 percent of the people.”

For my money, there’s no better columnist on the web than VDH. You can catch his writings both at the above link and at NRO on line.