I used to be a big fan of Bob Geldof. I liked his music, and I admired his activism on behalf of the poorest of the poor. I didn't always agree with him, but I found what he was doing to be worthy of admiration. That is why I find this decision regarding the (misguided) Live8 concert to be so shocking to the conscience.

Collecting food for the homeless and hungry is taking a back seat to poverty in Africa as organizers for Saturday's Live 8 concert ban charities from collecting donations at the event.

Organizers have said local fundraising could "dilute the focus" of the concerts, which includes encouraging the world's G8 leaders to eliminate the debt currently owed by African countries.

"That decision came right from Sir Bob Geldof, himself," said Live 8 spokeswoman Katherine Holmes, referring to the Irish rocker fronting the Live 8 concerts.

No, we cannot let there be any effort to actually help the homeless and the hungry -- that would imply that individuals and not just governments have a responsibility to take action on their behalf. Not only that, it would detract from the focus -- that you show your caring and concern more by going to a concert than by actually doing something for another human being.

I understand Planned Parenthood not being charged in this case -- after all, they did the absolute minimum required of them by law. While it might have been desirable for them to take the extra step and actually verify that this little girl had given them the number for a parent rather than the adult who was raping her, such fundamental decency is not required under the law. Instead, they unwittingly facilitated the statutory rape of a 14-year-old.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Joe Deters announced today that no criminal charges will be filed against Planned Parenthood over an abortion it performed on a 14-year-old girl on March 30, 2004.

Questions about the legality of the abortion came up after the girl's family filed a lawsuit in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court earlier this year alleging the abortion was performed without parental notification as required by law.

An investigation by Deters' staff found that the girl provided the incorrect phone number for notification. Instead of giving the agency her parent's phone number, she gave officials the telephone number of her 21-year-old boyfriend, the father of her unborn child.

"Apparently they made no effort to confirm to whom they were speaking when they placed their call to notify the parents," Deters said. "They did the minimum they could under the existing law."

Now I am curious about something else, though. Aren't doctors, nuses, and other staff of medical facilities mandatory reporters under the child abuse laws of the state of Ohio? If not, why has this case not produced an outcry from the public toplace upon them the same obligation that teachers and other professionals in a position to become aware of abuse have?

I've wondered why the two boys (I will not dignify them with the title of "men") in this incident haven't been charged with a hate crime. After all, their crime was based upon antipathy towards the victims based upon their actual or perceived national origin, as indicated by an American flag flying from the front of their homes.

Those guys didn't set fire to flags they owned in some sort of symbolic gesture. They burned flags that were someone else's private property, something with a value to the owners that goes beyond the cost of the cloth.

But far worse than that, some of those flags were on poles attached to the owners' homes.

Burning those flags goes way beyond expressing contempt in a petty-criminal sort of way. It is a chillingly dangerous and invasive act.

That makes this less like stupid kiddie-acting-up-anarchism and way too much like the real thing. It is a serious crime.

It is also just like the Ku Klux Klan burning a cross on someone's lawn to terrorize a family or an entire community. The damage isn't just to the wood, and it isn't a crime because of the symbol that was destroyed. The damage is the fear it creates for people in their own homes.

Aren't we told that the reason for hate crime laws is the impact of the crime that goes beyond the impact on the victim personally? Well, we have that here -- won't folks be afraid to express their pride in their country for fear that some creting is going to use that symbol of pride to burn the house down around their ears?

Or is a hate crime a hate crime only when it is expressing hate against the "right" people?

UPDATE: I had not seen this story when I wrote the above post.

A white teenager was charged with a hate crime Thursday for allegedly beating a black man with a baseball bat in the Howard Beach section of Queens, the site of an infamous racial confrontation two decades ago.

Police said Nicholas Minucci, 19, confessed to the Wednesday attack, which left the victim in critical condition with multiple skull fractures and a bruised kidney.

Minucci was charged with assault as a hate crime punishable by a minimum of eight years in prison as well as robbery and criminal weapon possession. Police also arrested a suspected accomplice, 21-year-old Anthony Ench, who was to be charged Friday with assault as a hate crime, authorities said.

A third companion surrendered to police and was being described as a witness.

Minucci's attorney, Lori Zeno, said the victim, Glenn Moore, 22, had tried to rob Minucci and threatened him with a screwdriver. Police said they did not believe Minucci's account.

Police said Moore and two other black men were walking in Howard Beach early Wednesday when they were attacked by three white men. One of Moore's friends said he was intending to steal a car, but Moore was not aware of the plan, officials said.

Prosecutors said Moore's assailants hurled racial slurs and allegedly told him, "That is what you get when you try to rob white boys."

Hate crime? Possibly -- but there appears that there could be an addiional angle of a possible crime by the victim or the group that he was with. I'll be watching how this plays out in the days and weeks ahead.

But again I'll ask the quyestion -- why is this a hate crime, but acts of arson committed against folks for flying an American flag not a hate crime?