Teen pregnancy rates drop. The ultimate goals needs to be reducing sexual activity outside of marriage among teens.

A news story out says teen pregnancies continue to decline. Certainly a very positive development when the potential mothers are under aged and unmarried.

The reason for the decline? The mainstream media of course buys into the comprehensive sex ed narrative that it's all about kids getting more condoms and using them. In the above news story, nary a word about abstinence message.

This is disconcerting, because it communicates the message that the only valid option is using contraception. When in fact, 75% of 15 to 17 year olds are abstaining from sex. Of course, the condom message is big business for groups getting extensive funding from the federal government. The Obama budget skews funding between condom ed and abstinence by a 20 to 1 margin.

The ultimate goal isn't reducing teen pregnancies but reducing rates of sexual activity among teens outside of marriage. Condoms and contraceptives don't stop the spread of STDs or the emotional scars of premarital sex.

Would FDR disapprove of today's social security system?

Most people think FDR was the father of our social security system and therefore thought it was a good idea.

Turns out that might not be the case. The retirement system he put in place was much different, at least initially. It was intended to be a system where workers paid and then got their contributions out later. Rather and an ongoing system where future workers paid the benefits of current retirees. According to financial writer Robert Samuelson:

Would Franklin Roosevelt approve of Social Security? The question seems absurd. After all, Social Security is considered the New Deal's signature achievement. It distributes nearly $800 billion a year to 56 million retirees, survivors and disabled beneficiaries. On average, retired workers and spouses receive $1,839 dollars a month -- money vital to the well-being of millions. Roosevelt would surely be proud of this, and yet he might also have reservations. Social Security has evolved into something he never intended and actively opposed...

When Roosevelt proposed Social Security in 1935, he envisioned a contributory pension plan. Workers' payroll taxes ("contributions") would be saved and used to pay their retirement benefits. Initially, before workers had time to pay into the system, there would be temporary subsidies. But Roosevelt rejected Social Security as a "pay-as-you-go" system that channeled the taxes of today's workers to pay today's retirees. That, he believed, would saddle future generations with huge debts -- or higher taxes -- as the number of retirees expanded.

Discovering that the original draft proposal wasn't a contributory pension, Roosevelt ordered it rewritten and complained to Frances Perkins, his labor secretary: "This is the same old dole under another name. It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress ... to meet."

But things then changed in the 1940s and 1950s when politicians got ahold of it.

But Roosevelt's vision didn't prevail. In the 1940s and early 1950s, Congress gradually switched Social Security to a pay-as-you-go system. Interestingly, a coalition of liberals and conservatives pushed the change. Liberals wanted higher benefits, which -- with few retirees then -- existing taxes could support. Conservatives disliked the huge surpluses the government would accumulate under a contributory plan.

All this is well-told in Sylvester Schieber's "The Predictable Surprise: The Unraveling of the U.S. Retirement System." Schieber probably knows more about American retirement programs than anyone. He has advised the Social Security system, consulted with private firms and written widely on the subject. His book shows how today's "entitlement" psychology dates to Social Security's muddled beginnings.

Most Americans don't understand what's going on. They think they're getting "their money" back.

Millions of Americans believe (falsely) that their payroll taxes have been segregated to pay for their benefits and that, therefore, they "earned" these benefits. To reduce them would be to take something that is rightfully theirs. Indeed, Roosevelt -- believing he had created a contributory program -- said exactly that:

"We put those payroll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions. ... No damn politician can ever scrap my Social Security program."

The problem now is it's become and entitlement which nobody can touch.

What we have is a vast welfare program grafted onto the rhetoric and psychology of a contributory pension. The result is entitlement. Unsurprisingly, AARP's advertising slogan is "You've earned a say" on Social Security. The trouble is that contributions weren't saved. They went to past beneficiaries. The $2.6 trillion in the Social Security trust fund at year-end 2010 sounds like a lot but equals slightly more than three years of benefits.

With favorable demographics, contradictions were bearable. Early Social Security beneficiaries received huge windfalls. A one-earner couple with average wages retiring at 65 in 1960 received lifetime benefits equal to nearly 14 times their payroll taxes, even if those taxes had been saved and invested (which they weren't), calculate Eugene Steuerle and Stephanie Rennane of the Urban Institute.

But things are now changing in a way nobody or politician can stop - demographics.

But now, demographics are unfriendly. In 1960, there were five workers per recipient; today, there are three, and by 2025 the ratio will approach two. Roosevelt's fear has materialized. Paying all benefits requires higher taxes, cuts in other programs or large deficits. Indeed, the burden has increased, because it now includes Medicare, which is also viewed as an entitlement.

Although new recipients have paid payroll taxes higher and longer than their predecessors, their benefits still exceed taxes paid even assuming (again, fictitiously) that they had been invested. A two-earner couple with average wages retiring in 2010 would receive lifetime Social Security and Medicare benefits worth $906,000 compared with taxes of $704,000, estimate Steuerle and Rennane.

In some respects, it's turned into a giant Ponzi scheme. Everybody wants their money before the whole thing collapses. How soon before the cracks become so big they can't be ignored is hard to say. But we can't deny reality forever.

Rick Warren on "This Week" with ABC's Jack Tapper

Rick Warren, prominent evangelical pastor of Saddleback Church did an Easter interview with ABC's Jack Tapper. It was an interesting, wide ranging interview on a wide range of topics.

Obama's contraceptive mandate and infringement of religious liberties.

Host Jake Tapper noted that Warren has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration's decision to require employers to provide insurance coverage of free birth-control without a broad religious exemption. In a February speech, Obama offered what he considered an accommodation. Religious employers with objections would not have to provide the coverage, but their employees must be offered the coverage at no additional charge by the insurance company. Warren said that his concerns were not satisfied by this change.

"The issue here is not about women's health," Warren explained. "There is a greater principle and that is, do you have a right to decide what your faith practices. Now, I don't have a problem with contraception. I'm a Protestant, I'm an evangelical. But, I do support my Catholic brothers and sisters to believe what they want to believe."

Views on separation of church and state.

Warren also said that he believes in the separation of church and state, but does not believe in the separation of faith and politics. Faith is "simply a worldview," Warren explained. And, since everyone has a worldview, those who have a religious worldview should not be excluded from politics.

Economic and financial problems facing our nation.

"Of course, everybody's worldview informs how they vote on any particular policy. So, I'm in favor of everybody being able to come to the table with a worldview. I do not believe in imposing what I believe on everybody else."

Warren tied many of the nation's current difficulties in the economy and politics to spiritual problems. The biggest source of the nation's economic problems, Warren said, is Americans inability to delay gratification. He believes that the nation is worse off now that it was four years ago, but believes that all are responsible.

"I hold everybody responsible for that. I hold the people who got themselves into debt. I hold the government who got themselves into debt. I hold multiple administrations. It's not the fault of any one person. There's plenty enough blame to be passed around."

Coarsening of civil discourse

One of the things that concerns him the most about the United States, Warren said, is "the coarsening of our culture and the loss of civility in our civilization," and he dislikes it when "people are constantly blaming everybody else."

"We don't know how to disagree without being disagreeable. The fact is, you can walk hand-in-hand without seeing eye-to-eye. What we need in our country is unity, not uniformity."

Mainstream media's treatment of Christianity.

When asked about a controversial Newsweek article and cover this week titled, "Forget the Church. Follow Jesus," Warren explained that he has a "personal gripe" against secular magazines that run religion stories on Christmas or Easter because they know it will increase circulation, "but it's always bait-and-switch."

"They never tell the stories, never tell the stories of what good the Church is doing. Never. Does the Church have problems? Of course it does, like every other institution made up of human beings. So there's sin, failure, mistakes, stuff we would disavow."

"It's like, this is news?," Warren said with sarcasm, "This is worthy of putting on the cover?"

Views on same sex "marriage".

Tapper asked if Warren's church, Saddleback Church in Southern California, needs to adjust its opposition to same-sex marriage in order to remain relevant in the culture.

"If the Bible is the word of God, then I don't have a right to change it. Policies come and go over the years. And so, if I'm unpopular for certain beliefs, well, then, I'm unpopular for certain beliefs," Warren answered.

Tapper then tried asking the question again: "I wonder if you think your church, in order to thrive, might have to adjust its policy on same-sex marriage?"

"Actually, history shows that when the Church accommodates culture, it weakens it. This is why there is very weak Church in Europe today. It's almost non-existent in many areas," Warren said.

Controversy surrounding Tim Tebow.

The controversy over Tim Tebow's public expressions of faith shows how far the nation has come in the last 50 years, Warren said.

"The fact that Tebow would get criticized for kneeling and praying? I could give you 15, or 50, other things you should be more worried about in that coliseum than a kid kneeling down to thank God that he played good."

Mormonism and Christianity.

Mormonism has become a controversial topic with the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney. The "key sticking point," for many Christians regarding whether Mormons share their faith is the trinity, according to Warren.

"That's the historic doctrine of the Church. That God is three-in-one. Not three Gods. One God in Father, son and Holy Spirit. Mormonism denies that."

Exclusivity claims of Christianity.

When asked if he believes that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven, Warren answered, "I do believe that, and I believe that because Jesus said it. See, I don't set myself up as an authority. Jesus said, 'I am the way.' He didn't say, 'I'm one of the ways,' he said, 'I'm the way, I'm the truth and I'm the life.' I'm betting my life that Jesus wasn't a liar."

Tapper noted that Warren does a lot of work with members of other faiths and asked, "Why would a benevolent God tell those friends of yours who are not evangelical Christians, 'I'm sorry you don't get to go to Heaven'?"

Warren answered that one does not get to Heaven by being a good person, but through grace.

"Most of us think if my good works are higher than my bad works, then I'm gonna kinda make it in. Most of us want to have enough good works to get in to Heaven, but enough bad works to be fun," he said with a laugh.

"The bottom line is God doesn't grade on a curve. People say, 'well I'm better than so-and-so.' You probably are. In fact, I have no doubt many non-believers are better than me in some moral issues. They probably have more integrity, or something like that. I'm not getting to heaven on my integrity. I'm not getting to heaven on my goodness. I'm getting to Heaven on what I believe Jesus said is grace. The fact is, it's available to everybody."

Prohibition, legalizing drugs and the public health consequences

Here's an interesting column on the drug dilemma facing our nation by George Will. He points out the tremendous costs of enforcing our drug laws along with the tremendous health consequences of legalizing drugs.

Legalizing drugs would increase the public health consequences enormously.

So, suppose cocaine or heroin were legalized and marketed as cigarettes and alcohol are. And suppose the level of addiction were to replicate the 7 percent of adults suffering from alcohol abuse or dependency. That would be a public health disaster. As the late James Q. Wilson said, nicotine shortens life, cocaine debases it.

Still, because the costs of prohibition — interdiction, mass incarceration, etc. — are staggeringly high, some people say, “Let’s just try legalization for a while.” Society is not, however, like a controlled laboratory; in society, experiments that produce disappointing or unexpected results cannot be tidily reversed.

Legalized marijuana could be produced for much less than a tenth of its current price as an illegal commodity. Legalization of cocaine and heroin would cut their prices, too; they would sell for a tiny percentage of their current prices. And using high excise taxes to maintain cocaine and heroin prices at current levels would produce widespread tax evasion — and an illegal market.

Furthermore, legalization would mean drugs of reliable quality would be conveniently available from clean stores for customers not risking the stigma of breaking the law in furtive transactions with unsavory people. So there is no reason to think today’s levels of addiction are anywhere near the levels that would be reached under legalization.

I think there's another side to the issue which isn't much discussed. Why is there such a high demand for drugs whether legal like alcohol and cigarettes or illegal marijuana, cocaine and heroin? I think they highlight the deeper moral and spiritual crisis in our culture and society. They're a means of escape or masking the pain of spiritual emptiness found in materialist culture.

Tebow: NFL football player and marketing celebrity

Tim Tebow, now a NY Jets QB is also a marketing celebrity.

According to a marketing study, Tebow only runs behind Oprah, Adele, and Princess Kate in marketing appeal:

Tim Tebow was recently announced as a backup quarterback for the New York Jets football team. But when it comes to being a spokesperson for a product, he is a first-stringer.

According to the findings of a new marketing index, the outspoken Christian quarterback's endorsement is one of the most marketable among today's celebrities.

Sports Illustrated asked The Marketing Arm to update their Davie-Brown Index (DBI) – a marketing formula which measures 3,000 celebrities in eight different categories – and found that the only celebrities better suited to promote a product are Oprah Winfrey, Adele and Kate Middleton, the New York Daily News reported Tuesday.

When scoring the celebrities, the DBI takes into account factors such as trust, aspiration, appeal, influence, approachability, sincerity and experience. Tebow scored 180 points on the index while, in comparison, New York Jets starting quarterback Mark Sanchez scored just 12 points.

While he was still with the Denver Broncos, Tebow's popularity translated into big-time jersey sales. His was the second best-selling NFL jersey of 2011, according to CNBC, and was only outdone by Green Bay Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers.

The Jets organization is located in the largest sports and media market in the U.S., which is part of the reason for the Tebow-mania that has caught fire even during the NFL's off-season. While the media frenzy over Tebow's trade from Denver to New York has somewhat settled, the latest drama is the battle between two of the world's biggest sports apparel brands over the right to sell Jets products bearing Tebow's name.