On April 25th, I wrote here about Quin Hilyer's terrific column describing some vile television programming he encountered. Well, I don't think even Quin could have dreamed up one TV network's recent ad campaign. This vile promotional campaign was created and distributed for The Gossip Girl, a national broadcast from the CW network.
Gossip Girl is a relatively new sleazy teen and young adult-centric show that glorifies sex, drugs, and drinking in a group of Manhattan college prep students. After a spring hiatus, the show returned with new episodes on April 21st preceded by a blasphemous and soft porn ad campaign. As one website put it: "The desperate ad campaign clearly shows that the producers want Gossip Girl's viewer to know that there will be a whole lot of sex scenes in the coming episodes."
The attack on decency was multi-pronged.
First, a once-respected magazine, New York, sold its soul to carry the most vacuous review of anything ever written or broadcast. The piece came complete with a cover featuring the program's stars lying in bed together pretty well undressed in orgiastic poses. In the center of this cover photo, one finds "Best Show Ever*" imposed, and, as is befitting of such art, the cover story was duly titled, "The Genius of Gossip Girl."
Second, the new season is supported by raunchy still photo and video ads. Both promotions are focused on the phrase "OMFG" - which is probably not a phrase you are familiar with. "OMG" is an abbreviation for "Oh, My G-", the ubiquitous disrespectful exclamation of the popular culture. Well, "OMFG" is a spin-off of this phrase whose etymology is not certain but seems to come from the teen internet subculture. Yes, the "F" stands for what you think it does.
When I say that the still life ads are sleazy, I mean they are SLEAZY. Now that you are familiar with the lingo, take a look at those posters that are appearing on standard street-size and sidewalk billboards:
The OMFG theme isn't exactly hidden, and neither is the sexually explicit content. There is also at least one offensive OMFG video ad for Gossip Girl that is available on the CW website, YouTube, and on television. Of course, a CW honcho denied in an interview with CNN's Brooke Anderson that OMFG means what it clearly means. Anderson was incredulous, so she conducted "man on the street" interviews to prove her point. Only two women over 60 were not able to define OMFG. See the CNN interview featuring Melissa Henson of the Parents Television Council. Kudos to Anderson.
Let's be clear: this is an ad campaign and television program promoted by a major American broadcast network and targeted at teenagers and young adults. Parents who are concerned about this might wish to contact one or two of the Gossip Girl sponsors and complain about the blasphemy, the decadence, and the cruel indifference to the moral lives of the young revealed by the network and its advertisers.
At times like this I think: wouldn't it be nice to have the power to tell my cable provider that I don't ever want the CW network to be seen in my house again? It sure would. It's definitely time for cable choice and time to find out how the presidential candidates feel about consumer empowerment over the media content that comes into our homes.
The last thing Marti Tracy wants to do on a Saturday is clip coupons. But last month the 34-year-old Bowie resident felt she no longer had a choice. She'd already given up organic meat and decided to buy organic milk only for her 2-year-old son, not for the whole family.
Tracy and her partner also stopped buying the cereals they like in favor of whatever was on sale; stopped picking up convenient single-size packs of juice, water or crackers; and, in order to save gas, stopped going to multiple stores. "I find the whole thing a huge hassle, but I've reached a tipping point," said Tracy, a government human resources specialist who is pregnant with her second child. "Clearly, I'm not unable to feed my family. But I just can't feed my family the way I'd like to feed them."
Indeed, the horror of having to do all your shopping at one store is hard to stomach, as is the thought of having to eat a box of bad cereal. But, if the level of "crisis" has reached this point in America, think of how hard it must be on those poor folks in third-world Africa --- I bet they're having a hard time even finding organic milk.
Seriously though, I have kids and a penchant for Oreo cookies. Therefore, I'm well aware of how much milk costs these days. I don't deny that high grocery bills are affecting families, but to render the high price of boutique foods part of the "global food crisis" is quite a stretch.
Now and again a great writer comes along and hits the nail on the head by vividly describing a particular problem or social ill. Well, Quin Hillyer, associate editor for the Washington Examiner and a senior editor of The American Spectator, has written a terrific article illustrating how bad broadcast TV programs have become: the level of indecency, vulgarity, and nastiness on TV just seems to grow more intense daily with no abatement in sight. Combined with a Vesuvius-like eruption of indignation, Hillyer gives a stunning description of one show he saw while waiting to catch a basketball game. Hillyer then launches the equivalent of an anti-p.c. nuclear bomb: a call for “all decent Americans to proudly demand censorship of the public television airwaves.”
His battlecry made me wonder whether “censorship” is even the correct word for taking adolescent trash – like the show he describes – off the air. Isn’t there some minimal qualitative level to which a piece of “art” must attain – or pretend to attain – before a grandiose term like “censorship” can be applied to said program’s eradication ?
Quin, excellent analysis with a terrific bonus rant thrown in. I salute you and hope the game was worth the wait.
Senator Hillary Clinton made news during a recent TV interview when she was asked what her reaction would be if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. She left little ambiguity:
“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president we will attack Iran,” Clinton said. “In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”
As a friend of Israel, I am glad to see strong support expressed for that nation. Hopefully, this will clarify the thinking of the radical clerics who control Iran. That being said, Senator Clinton’s remarks address only part of the problem.
It is true that Iran might someday lob several of its new missiles at Israel’s cities after they have been armed with nuclear warheads. That would devastate Israel and might kill tens or hundreds of thousands depending on the size of the devices exploded. But missiles can be traced back to their launch points within seconds, and devastating Israeli – not American – retaliatory attacks would be launched against Iran within hours. Thus, Iran might effectively destroy Israel, but Persian civilization would almost certainly come to an end that day.
Given the assured devastation that would follow is it likely that Iran would go down that path? The real problem lies in the possibility that the Iranians or North Koreans or Pakistanis might allow a non-state terrorist organization to have a nuclear device that would be smuggled into Israel – or downtown Manhattan – with no trace-back being possible.
When a smuggled bomb goes off – against whom do you retaliate? Should there be an announced policy of deterrence simultaneously directed at all “rogue” regimes? Something like: “Alright, Iran, North Korea, Pakistan – if an American city is attacked with nuclear weapons, there will be swift retaliation against all of you.”
It was in light of this problem that the eradication of Saddam’s Iraq regime was so important, for the United States eliminated one of the more significant states that had a long track record of working with and harboring international terrorist organizations. Things have been difficult in Iraq since 2003, but we clearly have one fewer terror accomplice state to worry about now.
Mrs. Clinton has started an important public discussion, but it is astounding that in the six years since 9/11 very little has been done by the United States government to advance our thinking about multi-level deterrence in an age of jihadist and state-sponsored terror. This is especially surprising if one can remember the prodigious body of work that grew out of the Cold War addressing the problem of deterring nuclear war. Entire institutions like the Rand Corporation were created to examine those dire threats. Deterring Soviet nuclear attack was taken seriously.
Unless I have missed something, there has been no similar effort since 9/11. Perhaps, the three presidential candidates can follow-up on Senator Clinton’s remark by telling us how they plan to deter the use of nuclear weapons against Israel, Europe, or the United States by an alliance, coalition, or temporary partnership of jihadists and nuclear capable states.
Sad news came over the weekend that Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo had departed this life for the next. He is likely best known as the head of the Pontifical Council on the Family, but before being appointed to that post, he was a Catholic bishop in Columbia, and head of the conference of Catholic bishops of Latin America. In those roles, he was a fearless champion of orthodox Christianity, most famously in leading Vatican efforts to correct the mistakes of “liberation theology.” His life was threatened multiple times, and he escaped assassination attempts on several occasions only through the Lord’s grace.
He was appointed a Cardinal at a very young age – 46. Thus, he was one of the longest serving of the Cardinals. When he came to the leadership of the Pontifical Council on the Family about 20 years ago, he convened successive meetings to examine the latest knowledge in demographics, sex education, morality, and bioethics. He also began the practice of holding World Meetings of Families every 3 years.
One of his achievements was producing the Lexicon. This book, by multiple authors, examined “ambiguous and debatable terms regarding family life and ethical questions” that anti-life and anti-family forces use internationally to advance their agenda.
Cardinal Lopez Trujillo was a leader not of Catholics only, but of all people of good will who support the natural family founded upon the marriage of one man and one woman. He enthusiastically supported the pro-family efforts of non-Catholic Christians, and collaborated with them, and with religious believers of other faiths, in the great work of promoting and protecting the family. His leadership will be sorely missed.
In the last week a story from England has gained considerable notoriety due to the troubling questions it raises about the political neutrality of searches conducted by Google, the internet search behemoth. In March 2008, England’s Christian Institute (“the Institute”) informed Google U.K. that it wished to place this ad (see below) to promote its pro-life papers when Google visitors searched for abortion service websites:
In an e-mail dated March 19, 2008, Google U.K. denied the Institute’s request to place the advertisement on pages producing abortion-related search results. Google stated that it denied placement because “Google policy does not permit the advertisement of websites that contain ‘abortion and religion-related content.’” Additionally, Google noted that it retained the “right to exercise editorial discretion when it comes to the advertising we accept on our site.”
No further explanation was given until April 10th, when Google U.K.’s media office issued the following comment: “We only allow ads that have factual information about abortion.”
Google’s insulting comment speaks volumes about the company’s prejudices. My quick review of papers posted on the Institute’s website found studies that thoughtfully combined Christian Biblical teaching, Christian ethical analysis, accurate discussion of scientific facts, and reasonable public policy conclusions. For example, the 76-page study on the Morning-After-Pill is very well reasoned even if does not come to the same conclusions Google’s staff would reach about the ethics of using “emergency contraception.”
Well, this story will continue to develop because the Institute’s attorneys wrote to Google informing them that the company’s actions violate the U.K.’s Equality Act of 2006. Apparently, that law prohibits religious discrimination in the provision of a good, facility or service, and the Institute’s attorneys believe its actions fall within protections afforded by the law. If courts in the United Kingdom interpret such laws in a manner similar to the way an American court would, the Institute probably has a good case.
This will be an important legal contest for the United Kingdom should it go to court. If Christian organization’s can be banned from advertising on pages produced by specific search terms then freedom of speech on the internet is in grave danger. If push comes to shove, Google may find that millions upon millions of Christian web users can take their searches elsewhere, and Google’s stock price has already lost around $300 from its 52-week high.
YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PLACE FOR RELIGIOUS CONVICTION TO INFORM POLICIES. WHAT PRINCIPLES SHOULD GUIDE CHRISTIAN ACTIVISTS AS THEY TRY TO INFLUENCE LEGISLATION?
Thomas Aquinas once was asked, "If the public view was that a famine was imminent, would you be justified in charging injurious prices for your grain, knowing that a relief wagon of grain was coming?" Thomas said yes, you would, but it would be wrong. A Christian would not do that.
Certain things which the market authorizes simply in terms of law are unchristian and ought not to be done. The big issue today has to do with the fidelity of marriages. The tendency now to leave your wife because you have an infatuation with a younger woman of tenderer flesh is an enormous temptation. It's carnal, and it's also easy to justify with all the solipsistic reasoning that we hear today. That is about the gravest offense that a human being can commit, to throw away a wife.
Video of John G. West's lecture at FRC on Darwinism
Below is video of this week's Witherspoon Fellowship lecture at FRC with John G. West of the Discovery Institute. The lecture is entitled "Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science."
Live webcast today with John G. West: Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science
If you're in DC today, stop by FRC at noon to hear a lecture by John G. West. Dr. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and author of the provocative new book Darwin Day in America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science (ISI Books), will speak today, Tuesday, February 12 at noon on Darwinian Fundamentalism and its dehumanizing effects on our politics and culture.
Bill Bennett lecture to be webcast live at 12:00 noon today
Join FRC in welcoming William J. Bennett. Dr. Bennett will speak on what our students know, do not know, but should know about our country's history. Bill Bennett is a leading cultural figure in this country. He served in the Reagan administration as Secretary of Education and under the first President Bush as Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. Bill Bennett is the author of The Book of Virtues which sold over 2.4 million copies and has been translated into twelve languages. Bennett's two-volume history of the United States, America: The Last Best Hope, is a New York Times Bestseller.
Join us today, December 6, at 12:00 noon EST for the lecture. The event will also be available via live webcast.
NEW DELHI, November 30 (Compass Direct News) – Ending a long era of absence of adoption rights for non-Hindus, the government has cleared the way for all religious communities in all Indian states to adopt legally.
The government of the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance on October 26 gave notice of new rules under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act or JJA of 2006, making room for all communities to adopt, reported national daily The Times of India on November 17.
“This has ended a long wait by the Christian community, which for many years has been urging the government to grant them the right to adopt,” a representative of the Christian Legal Association (CLA) told Compass.
Christians from almost all denominations are happy with the government’s move.
Hopefully, the increased availability of adoptive parents will be good news for survival chances of Indian girls.
Republican or Democrat, Maryland Governors Are Addicted to Gambling
Regardless of party, recent Maryland governors have one thing in common—an addiction to gambling as a source of new state revenue. Maryland’s new Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley has followed in the footsteps of the Republican he defeated last year, Robert Ehrlich, by calling for legalization of slot machine gambling in the state.
O’Malley has apparently broken a deadlock between the House and Senate leaders with his proposal to put the issue of slots on the ballot in November of 2008.
This is modestly good news, because such referenda have a poor record at the polls. But it would be better for the legislature to reject the slots proposal immediately. On this issue, conservatives who know that gambling destroys families are united with liberals who know that gambling preys on the poor. The revenue generated by gambling is far outweighed by the social costs it imposes (see The National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling).
The FRC Action Values Voter Straw Poll has been making lots of news, but one of the poll questions that hasn't yet gained as much attention was question #3, which asked participants to rank the order of importance among a set of issues. Here are the results:
Here's the statistical breakdown:
ISSUE
VOTES
PERCENTAGE
Abortion
2398
41.52%
Same-sex "Marriage"
1141
19.76%
Tax Cuts
626
10.84%
Permanent tax relief for families
563
9.75%
Federal "hate crimes" legislation
331
5.73%
No vote on this question
181
3.13%
Taxpayer funding for abortions
151
2.61%
Prayer in schools
93
1.61%
Reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine"
88
1.52%
Public display of the Ten Commandments
57
0.99%
Enforced obscenity laws
54
0.94%
Embryonic stem cell experiments
48
0.83%
Voluntary, student-led prayer in schools
44
0.76%
Total
5,775
100%
Now that you've got the numbers, feel free to crunch away.
**UPDATE: SAT. AFTERNOON** Voting is now closed, and results are being tallied. Stay tuned this afternoon for results.
It's Saturday morning here at the Washington Briefing, and before all the activities commence today, I wanted to remind everyone that there's still time to vote in the online version of the Values Voter Straw Poll.
Online voting will be cut off at 1:00pm EDT sharp, so make sure to give yourself plenty of time to get through the sign-up process and hit "submit" before the clock rolls over to 1:00pm EDT!
Recent reports from the Vatican show that Pope Benedict will use his upcoming talk at the United Nations “to deliver a powerful warning over climate change.” Allegedly the Holy Father will seek to make the prevention of climate change a “moral” obligation for us Catholics throughout the world. Of course, the Church has long taught that we have a clear obligation to be “good stewards” of our planet, hearkening back to Genesis. The actual policy obligations that stewardship entails, however, are debatable propositions on which reasonable people can disagree according to the determinations of prudence. Pope Benedict is possibly the greatest mind of our age, but these reports from the left remind me of an exchange from Brideshead Revisited:
Fr. Mowbray: Supposing the Pope looked up and saw a cloud and said “[the climate must be changing],” would that be bound to happen?
Rex Mottram: Oh, yes Father.
Fr. Mowbray: But supposing it didn’t?
Rex Mottram: I suppose it would be sort of [changing] spiritually, only we were too sinful to see it...
What would be a serious middle-class tax cut? One answer is to expand the tax credit for children. But none of the candidates is proposing to do so, or any other big tax relief for regular folks.
Why indeed, are candidates from both parties not pushing this?
The position of surgeon general today has become mostly one of a bully pulpit to serve as a federally funded advocate for various health causes (complete with a uniform straight out of a Gilbert and Sullivan play — “I am the very model of a modern surgeon general.”) The authority of the surgeon general has been reduced through reorganizations and, we are led to believe, a politicization of the confirmation process. Today, the office has a budget of $3 million and the surgeon general is paid close to $200,000 annually. However they have little or no authority to coordinate the federal government’s public health activities. This coordination is already being done by more than 50 different federal offices that are involved in protecting public health.
The statement by my friend and former colleague, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, was very disappointing. He admitted to a “serious sin” in a statement he released to the press on Monday, prior to news reports revealing that his phone number appeared on a long list of client’s numbers of the now infamous DC Madam, Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
In the release David assumed complete responsibility for what he did and that he “asked for and received forgiveness from God and [his] wife in confession and marriage counseling.” These allegations first surfaced about 4 or 5 years ago when David was considering running for governor of Louisiana. He backed away from the race admitting to marital problems and he and his wife sought counseling. This public revelation coincides with that time frame.
While I commend him on assuming personal responsibility and working to make things whole in his life, I cannot defend David’s behavior. Adultery is a serious matter that affects not only the individuals involved but families and the well being of the entire community. Voters have the right to consider issues like this when they assess the character of an elected official.
Having said that, the American people have shown themselves to be very forgiving toward a public official who admits their failures and takes redemptive steps. And despite what some have said since he released his statement, so does God. Proverbs 24:16 reads “For a righteous man may fall seven times and rise again, but the wicked shall fall by calamity.” I hope to see David back on his feet again.
A good example has just come to us from Boston of why people did not trust Washington on its recent promises to enforce a “new and improved” immigration law and assimilate immigrants into the American family. USA Today reports that Massachusetts officials are suing the federal government in court to stop the U.S. Justice Department from forcing the state to publish the 2008 election ballot in both English and Chinese in certain polling areas.
According to USA Today, this bilingual ballot is the result of a settlement reached between the state and the federal government back in 2005 when DOJ “accused Boston poll workers of mismarking the ballots of Asian voters who didn’t speak English.” Did I miss something? I thought you had to be an American citizen to vote. And I thought that to become an American you had to be able to read, write and speak English.
Americans are OK with walking into the local ethnic restaurant and navigating a bilingual menu; that’s a cultural experience. But walking into a voting booth and navigating a bilingual (and someday, inevitably, multilingual) ballot threatens something that is truly an American experience. The phrase e pluribus unum captures it, and the way we vote is one of its most important symbols and expressions.
FRC's Ken Blackwell takes on Michael Moore's new film Sicko in a New York Sun op/ed:
Mr. Moore correctly identifies health care reform as a pivotal issue for this country, but he dives off the liberal deep-end by claiming the Cuban health care system is somehow superior to ours.
Let's put it this way. While Major League Baseball scouts may dream of free access to Cuban pitchers, shortstops, and clean-up hitters, few Americans would consider drafting a Cuban doctor for a critical surgery.
"Saving Lives, Securing our Future Yesterday" is the ingenious motto of the nonpartisan ONE Vote ‘08 campaign, which launched yesterday in a church in Washington D.C. In a stroke of brilliant marketing, ONE Vote ‘08--an offshoot of the ONE Campaign--combines two quintessentially American traits: moral idealism (The world’s poorest countries are in crisis and we have a moral obligation to act) and strategic pragmatism (Fighting poverty is in the strategic interest of the United States).
ONE is a grassroots organization which attempts to mobilize supporters to pressure elected national leaders, particularly Congress, to fund more of the U.S’s international development and relief programs. The ONE Vote '08 Campaign extends that focus to the upcoming presidential race.
Although my favorite charity (World Vision) is a founding member of the coalition, I've tended to view the ONE Campaign with a degree of skepticism. The problems of humanity are too complex to be solved by government programs or increased funding of NGOs and no amount of money can substitute for the world's most pressing need: the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Still, international aid can help alleviate the rampant poverty and disease that ravages our neighbors in Africa and threatens the security of the West. That is why I'm giving my tentative support for this campaign.
Here are five more reasons I support ONE Vote '08:
FRC hosted a policy discussion on global warming with panelists Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, Dr. Kenneth Chilton, Dr. Jim Ball, and Dr. Lowell Pritchard. Ball and Pritchard are associated with the Evangelical Environmental Network and advocate a strong response to human-caused climate change. Beisner is at Interfaith Stewardship Alliance. He and Chilton advocate environmental stewardship that avoids significant economic impacts on the poor, and crafted a rebuttal to EEN’s “Urgent Call to Action” on climate change.
Don Bosch of The Evangelical Ecologist live-blogged the event and had a number of interesting comments, including:
I thought the discussion was very civil, at least what I caught of it. Happy about the concensus that climate change must not be an issue that divides the Church. Debating the issue is good, and we may have different ideas about how to deal with climate change (human-caused, naturally-occurring, or some combination), but that shouldn’t divide the family of God.
HRC President Joe Solmonese says FRC is “lying” in saying that America doesn’t have a federal “hate crimes” law. Actually, a recent FRC paper carefully explains that there are two federal laws related to so-called “hate crimes”—a 1990 law which mandates the collection of statistics on them, and a 1994 law which provides for “sentence enhancement” (higher penalties) for existing federal offenses motivated by bias. HRC contends, however, that we have had a federal hate crimes law since 1969, citing the United States Code at 18 U.S.C. 245.
Is it irony that the only people who would get excited by this news are well over thirty?
'Matrix' producer plans remake of sci-fi classic
US filmmaker Joel Silver, who produced all of "The Matrix" films, said Tuesday he is planning a remake of the 1976 Oscar-winning science fiction classic "Logan's Run."
"I love the original material but I think that version is a bit silly," he told reporters in Barcelona where he was promoting his latest film "The Reaping" starring Academy Award-winner Hilary Swank.
Based on a 1967 novel by the same name, "Logan's Run" chronicles a future society which imposes a mandatory death sentence for all those turning 30 in order to avoid overpopulation and the depletion of natural resources.
The film won an Academy Award for its visual effects and was nominated for two other Oscars.
Of all the contentious government programs, surely everyone would agree on an initiative to promote responsible fatherhood, right? Wrong. The National Organization for Women (NOW) has filed a formal complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for funding fatherhood programs that "discriminate" against women. Kathy Rodgers, the president of Legal Momentum, which joined the protest, said, "What we're asking them to do is to make sure that the grantees provide equal services to men and women.
It should be a parenthood initiative." Theirs is an interesting suggestion, seeing as the Food and Drug Administration was recently hammered by leading feminists for providing less funds for its Office of Women's Health. If NOW were truly an equal-opportunity watchdog, why hasn't its leadership launched a similar grievance against the FDA? Where is NOW's campaign for an Office of People's Health? Unfortunately, their anti-father crusade only exposes the group's true agenda--to treat fathers as having no special role to play in children's lives. As HHS says, "Helping men become better fathers will benefit women and children too."
Furthermore, the initiative is modestly funded when compared to other government programs, many of which rake in far more than $50 million--and without the direct benefit to families. As part of Promoting Responsible Fatherhood, men, many of whom are low-income, receive job and parent training, substance-abuse prevention and treatment, and educational opportunities.
What's more, there is no official ban on women in the program. One HHS official said the programs were advised to accept females if they applied. NOW claims to be a "voice" for women everywhere, the effect of which has been nothing less than a shriek by a group of fringe "feminists" taking aim not at discrimination, injustice, or chauvinism but motherhood, healthy sexuality, and traditional families.
This week, after a six-year absence, Al Gore was greeted more like a liberal folk hero on Capitol Hill than a former vice president. His newfound fame, provided in part by two Oscar awards, helped persuade Senate Environment and Public Works chair Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) to relax the rules on his global warming testimony. Unlike others called to testify, Gore was not required to submit his planned testimony 48 hours in advance. Instead Boxer waived the rule, giving Gore preferential treatment and allowing committee members only a few hours to prepare for the hearing.
During the session, Gore's "Chicken Little" scenarios were met with skepticism, particularly from Senate Republicans like Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) who said he, like many scientists, believed the dire global warming projections were a "hoax." On the House side, the former vice president was called a prophet by some Democratic members but his revelations were challenged by others. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) cited 600,000-year-old scientific evidence that Gore's carbon dioxide claims are false.
When Gore introduced a 10-point plan to make the environment a U.S. priority, conservatives argued that taking the steps he proposed would stifle the economy and harm the family. Mr. Gore is not the first prophet of doom. Not unlike 19th century political economist Thomas Malthus, who urged drastic steps to limit population growth because of the scarcity of resources, the proposed cure is more intrusive government. In time Malthus was proved wrong, but his heirs love on.
If your parents cautioned that playing video games would be harmful to your eyesight, their concerns may not have been entirely true. Findings from a recent study by researchers from the University of Rochester in New York show that playing action video games for an hour or so on a daily basis actually heightens one’s visual acuity.
According to Daphne Bavelier, lead author in the study and a professor of brain and cognitive sciences at the University of Rochester, "Action-video-game play changes the way our brains process visual information…These games push the human visual system to the limits and the brain adapts to it. That learning carries over into other activities and possibly everyday life."
...Yes, hundreds of millions of people will face water shortages and starvation by 2080 -- but only if those hundreds of millions of people are alive in the first place.
What am I getting at? One solution to the crisis is for people to stop having so many babies. We're already using up the fisheries. The cattle being raised to feed so many meat-eaters is as big a problem as the cars we're all driving.
There is plenty of time between now and 2080 to dramatically cut the population of the world by simply limiting how many babies we're all having. If there are fewer people around then fewer people face starvation, disease, dislocation and the rest of the consequences.
Johnson doesn't say whether or not he would have given such advice to his mother...
For the last few years, NAE's Vice President for Government Affairs has been adding fuel to the fire of the global warming debate and giving the impression that not only NAE but Evangelicals at large agree with the hysteria of the global warming crowd. While there is growing consensus that the earth is warming slightly, there is no consensus that humans are the main cause. Those pushing global warming are proposing a radical agenda as the solution to a problem that is not yet fully understood. In part, this solution calls for population control, which is code for abortions, condom distribution and mass sterilization.
Here is what NAE's Vice President, Rich Cizik, said at the World Bank last year:
"I'd like to take on the population issue...Population is a much more dangerous issue to touch... We need to confront population control and we can-we're not Roman Catholics-but it's too hot to handle now."
After a press report last month that said NAE was in an unprecedented collaboration with scientists to advance policies to address global warming, NAE released a statement saying that only Mr. Cizik was involved in the effort. The confusion in the press is understandable. We've asked NAE to make its positions clear and to ensure their representatives in Washington represent their official position not their own personal priorities.
