He's ba-ack! Fertility doctor Panayiotis Zavos now claims he created 14 cloned human embryos and transferred 11 of them into 4 women's wombs, in hopes of a born clone. The claim was accompanied by a video, from an independent film maker, of Zavos supposedly doing cloning in the lab. While no clone pregnancies resulted, Zavos stated "the cloned child is coming." Dr Zavos also said he has produced cloned embryos of three dead people, including a 10-year-old child called Cady, who died in a car crash. He said he did this in response to grieving relatives who wanted clones of their loved ones. In those cases, Zavos says he fused the human cells with cow eggs rather than human eggs, to create a human-animal hybrid "model" allowing him to study the cloning procedure. He noted "It's a model for us to learn. First you develop a model and then you go on to the target. We did not want to experiment on human embryos, which is why we developed the hybrid model."
Given the history of human cloning claims, we should be hearing more news soon. The tinfoil hat crowd includes the Raelians (who believe that the human race was cloned from aliens) and their claim that they cloned several children back in 2002, and fertility doctor Severino Antinori, who has also claimed success in creating born clones, most recently in March 2009.
There is no evidence to believe Antinori or the Raelians. But Zavos does warrant watching. Zavos is determined to succeed and supposedly has a long line of people eager to sign up for his cloning program, at a cost of between $45,000 and $75,000. Zavos first published a paper claiming an 8-10-cell cloned human embryo back in 2003, in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online. Since then he has been collaborating with Karl Illmensee, who has a long track record in cloning experiments dating back to pioneering studies in the early 1980s with mice. Illmensee also pioneered in the 1970s what has become the gold standard test for pluripotent stem cells--injecting a cell into an early embryo and following its development into various tissues in the born organism.
In a March 2009 paper another Chinese group claimed production of several cloned human embryos. Despite their claim in the first sentence of their abstract, they went on to explain in the paper that they did not obtain any embryonic stem cells from the cloned embryos (maybe there was a problem in translation?)
ACT again claimed in 2009 that they had produced both cloned human embryos and cloned animal-human hybrid embryos (no cells were obtained from the embryos.)
Talk show host and author Tavis Smiley has written a new book called Accountable, which attempts to navigate the difficult waters swirling around the success or failure of Obama's presidency. Smiley, who is African American, is quoted in the Washington Post today as saying that if Obama fails, "it may be another 400 years before we get another African-American president." Smiley is at the center of a raging debate among African-American leaders about the limits of tough questioning of the new president and his policies, a debate in which Smiley has been in the minority as an advocate for treating Obama as a man and not merely a milestone. Smiley is on the right side of this debate, in my view, but his apocalyptic opinion that Obama holds the fortunes of African-American politicians in his hands only feeds into the mantra of those who regard Obama as an untouchable symbol. A failure of Obama's policies would and should damage only those policies - massive expansion of government, nationalization of various parts of the U.S. industrial sector, international naiveté, and radical social liberalism - but that failure should merely pave the way for the election of someone of opposing views. There are a number of conservative African Americans of stature who have that resume, and the country could well elect one of them president before 4 -- and not 400 -- years have passed.
For weeks the FRC Blog has been commenting on the growing prominence of CNBC as a national news outlet. We have also commented on the liberal counter-reaction against the network. Our point has been that even though the Left dominates the mainstream media (MSM), in a time of financial and economic crisis the MSM news organs are structurally ill-equipped to deal with stories of such complexity. CNBC has on-air staff with the smarts and the career training to discuss these matters at a sophisticated level. The MSM does not have people like this on their programs with a few exceptions (e.g., Lou Dobbs at CNN (who is not MSM)). Consequently, there has been a tremendous power shift toward CNBC.
CNBC is more conservative than the MSM, but it might be fairer to say CNBC is more libertarian and market-oriented. That being said there has always been a good mixture of liberals and conservatives on CNBC, and many Wall Street players were Obama supporters.
Well, the Left noticed the increasing prominence of CNBC and a campaign of mau mauing began quickly once Barack Obama became president. First, Rick Santelli was attacked; this effort was assisted by NBC's Today Show. Jim Cramer was next, and his assault by Jon Stewart soon followed. However, it appears that a larger effort to compromise CNBC is underway, and it may be working. There is now an entire Leftist-"progressive" website devoted to serving up ideological attacks on CNBC: it is called "Fix CNBC." (Go to the website and look at the long list of liberal big-wigs who have signed on. Amazing. This is quite an effort. I wonder who is paying for it?) Interestingly, Media Matters also presents an online petition at "Change CNBC," and the language looks pretty similar to Fix CNBC's petition.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom ("USCIRF"), established by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 ("IRFA"), issued a press release today. It took to task the State Department, which, under President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, had failed to release publicly its 2008 list of countries of "particular concern," that is, countries where the denial of religious freedom is particularly severe. Such a list is required yearly under IRFA; however, it took an official inquiry from USCIRF to get the 2008 list released by the State Department ("DOS").
Last night President Obama went on the Tonight Show. Deciding to go off-teleprompter, the President made a joke at the expense of the disabled, saying that his bowling skills might qualify him for "the Special Olympics." In other words, America was treated to the spectacle of her President engaging in a less-funny version of the traditional Rodney Dangerfield send-up ("I tell ya, I don't get no respect. I went bowling the other day, and my wife Michelle tells me...") Lovely. (It should be noted that Obama has since apologized for the comment.)
For those of you keeping track, there has been a recent bevy of digital ink spilt on the Jon Stewart- Jim Cramer kerfuffle. At about the same time I chimed in, Mark Hemmingway at National Review gave us an excellent run down on this feud and the larger Stewart comedic bait-and-switch. Wunderkind Ben Shapiro presented a similar anti-Stewart brief over at Big Hollywood. Tucker Carlson has presented his insider's testimony about Stewart as pseudo-pundit. And the always enjoyable Jon Last has been following the business with a matter-of-fact and correct read on Stewart's soporific lack of funny. Furthermore, the CEO of NBC Universal, Jeff Zucker, has gone on the attack, calling Stewart's hit job "absurd."
"You Commie homo-loving sons of guns! I did not expect this, but I - and I want to be very clear that I do know how hard I make it to appreciate me. Often. But I - I am touched by the appreciation and I hoped for it enough that I scribbled down - so I have the names in case you were Commie homo-loving sons of guns."
In case you were trapped in an elevator during the Academy Awards, or landing in a USAir Jet on the Hudson River, you doubtless know by now that the above quote was part of Sean Penn's acceptance speech for his Oscar in the film, Milk.
For once, let's not focus on homosexuals. Or even on guns. Let's consider instead that toss-away line about Commies. The Hollywood glitterati cheered and laughed to have themselves so described by one of their favorite bad boys. And maybe, with Penn's blessing, we can use the Russian pronunciation-Gollyvood.
Reading George Orwell's masterpiece all over again provides fresh insights into the natural rebellion of the human will, frail as it is, against totalitarianism of every stripe. It also reminds one how many different stripes the totalitarian tiger wears. The United States at the present day is a long way from a totalitarian reality, but Orwell's novel is a healthy reminder that one thing every impulse to total power has in common is a consummate skill at evoking the existence of a permanent enemy or crisis. The benefit of all-encompassing power is security purchased at the price of liberty.
In the polarized lens of the Left, this permanent enemy as evoked by conservatives was the war on terror. For the new cultural Left now in power, the "enemy" is capital and the imminent crisis or "catastrophe" is economic disaster. There are many ways to get to overweening government control. In one scene late in 1984 between Orwell's hero, Winston, and his nemesis in "the Party," O'Brien (English novelists always liked Irish-surnamed villains), this exchange occurs:
Winston: "But how can you [the Party] control matter? You don't even control the climate or the law of gravity? And there are disease, pain, death . . . "
O'Brien silenced him with a movement of the hand. "We control matter because we control the mind."
Today's champions of unlimited government, oddly enough, do claim they can control the climate and they have plenty of access to young minds, which begs the question, if government could control the climate, would one wish it to?
The Washington Post: "...merely a conservative villager..."
You have to love The Washington Post. It manages to avoid calling liberals liberals. Why? Because the politically correct name for liberals is now progressives. The governing assumption is that whatever liberals used to want was progress, and so if the American people are skittish about what liberals want, if they've had a bellyful of experience with many things liberal, it's better all around to call the people who want progress progressives.
Deposing a Czar, Scraping the Bottom of the Barrel
Washington, D.C.'s regular listeners to Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" talk show got a rude awakening this week. First, there was nothing but static on AM 570, WTNT. Then, the former cabinet member and former "Drug Czar" was unceremoniously deposed and replaced by the egregious Mancow. Those who follow Bennett online or on XM/SIRIUS, as well as Bennett's enthusiastic national audience were able yesterday to hear Dr. Scott Teitelbaum-an internationally respected authority on the hazards of drug use. Dr. Teitelbaum warns about the new potency of marijuana. Listeners to Mancow heard him mooing about boycotting Kellogg's. He's mad at the cereal giant because they dropped Michael Phelps from their advertising after the Olympic swimmer was caught on camera inhaling from a bong.
Mancow may be more in tune with the temper of these "high times," it should be noted. "Harm reduction" is the current buzz-word on handling the drug problem. Even PBS travelogues-which used to be a child-safe zone-have been enlisted to soften up public opinion. In a documentary on Switzerland this week, viewers got to see pot-smokers happily sharing parks with hard-working Swiss. Switzerland's laissez faire approach to drug use was described as "civilized." Amid views of the beautiful cathedrals and Medieval streets of Bern, we were treated to the sight of drug addicts getting clean needles from openly available vending machines. Men's rooms-not your usual travel fare on TV-were shown with blue lights. That's so those who mainline drugs cannot find their veins and will stay out of the loo. What PBS did not show were the pictures brought back to us at FRC over a decade ago, photos that depict the other side of the soft-focus drug-users paradise offered up PBS. In those photos, we could see young men and women, lying on railroad tracks, their eyes turned back in their heads. Unconscious, overdosed, their arms with drug needles still protruding, their life's blood spattered all over them. It's not a "Heidi" portrait of the Alpine republic; it's a vision of hell. Harm reduction is a euphemism for the real message that the Swiss government is sending to its young people tragically addicted to drugs: "We don't care if you drop dead. In fact, we will even help you."
By replacing Bill Bennett with Mancow, the owners of WTNT are also replacing Bennett's cerebral "NPR for our side" with a braying know nothing. There are other ways to kill conservative talk radio than federal regulation. You can banish Bennett's brand of intelligence, candor and goodwill and call it a business decision. Maybe it's the station owners' blue light special.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the firmament sheweth his handiwork." Thus saith the Lord. Not necessarily, saith George Will. Washington's leading smart man notes today's two hundredth anniversary of Lincoln's birth with a useful explanation of what Darwin taught. Darwin was born on the same day that Lincoln was born. Historian John Lukacs calls such coincidences spiritual puns. There are some secularists who are trying to make Lincoln and Darwin trans-Atlantic twins, suggesting somehow that just as Lincoln liberated the slaves, so Darwin freed us from religious dogma and catechesis through his writings on the origins of dogs and cats-and us.
Will notes that Darwin "had no intellectual room for a directing deity that wills a special destination for our species." Darwin, Will points out, "placed humanity in a continuum of all protoplasm." How elevating.
Will rejects Intelligent Design. "The fact of order in nature does not require us to postulate a divine Orderer." But is it reasonable for us to rule that divine Orderer out of order?
President Barack Obama's decision to nominate Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) to head the Commerce Department has at least one interesting ricochet.How will Gregg affect Obama administration policy toward reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine?The Commerce Department contains one of the federal telecommunications regulatory agencies, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). It appears that NTIA would have no direct role in matters pertaining to the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine ....that capacity lies solely within the jurisdiction of the FCC and Congress.Of course, judicial review would occur also.
That being said, what is Senator Gregg's position on the Fairness Doctrine?Well, Save Talk Radio Dot Org posted the text of a press release from Senator Norm Coleman's office dated July 13, 2007.The release states that on that date Senate Democrats blocked an amendment "to the Defense Authorization bill that would prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine...."One of the amendment's co-sponsors was Senator Judd Gregg.
Even though Commerce/NTIA would not play a direct role in this matter, as a department secretary whose portfolio does touch on telecommunications issues, Judd Gregg would be better positioned to present a pro-First Amendment case to the President and the Obama cabinet.He would certainly be much better placed to let the President know the sort of nuclear political war he will start should an Obama FCC go down that path.
Hopefully, Senator Gregg will be reminded of this 2007 vote during his confirmation hearing.
Richard Neuhaus offered many lapidary phrases to enliven our public debates. He's credited, of course, with the influential book, The Naked Public Square. His title and his arguments have influenced the views of many religious and political thinkers for a generation.
We see evidence of the ceaseless demand for such nakedness in the silly lawsuit filed to prevent prayers from being offered at President Obama's Inauguration later this month. We see it more menacingly in the offhanded godlessness of the new Capitol Visitor Center, whose vast empty spaces are almost literally a naked public square. Rev. Neuhaus warned of what might come to fill that space if religiously derived principles were ruled out of order. Public life would not remain a vacuum. Predictably, we have seen that void filled with political correctness and unprincipled concessions to what can be termed soft jihadism.
Consider the case of Georgetown University. Some time ago, we saw a celebration of Georgetown's $15 million Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding with a full-page, four-color ad in The Washington Post. Georgetown's great old Gothic spires topped by the cross were depicted under a night sky in which the Crescent Moon and five-pointed star of an ascendant Islam stood out most starkly.
Meanwhile, Georgetown's law faculty went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with a lawsuit challenging the Solomon Amendment. That law requires that institutions of higher education which accept federal funds must permit military recruiters to have access to students. Georgetown profs joined thousands of others from the nation's leading universities in protesting this requirement. They were outraged by the U.S. military's "don't ask/don't tell" policy on homosexuals. The Supreme Court slapped down their suit by a vote of 9-0. The best law professors in the nation had crafted an appeal so devoid of merit that it could not even command the assent of Justices Breyer and Ginsburg.
Still, no one asked Georgetown profs how they could deny our Armed Forces while welcoming on their campus Saudi Arabia's Prince Alaweed bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding. After all, have the Georgetown Hoyas ever inquired about the status of homosexuals in the Saudi military? It's safe to say, the Saudi authorities don't ask; Saudi homosexuals don't tell. And Georgetown doesn't care.
The public square, when stripped of its Judeo-Christian raiment, will not long remain naked. We need only consult French and British police, many of whom fear to enter some neighborhoods in their largest cities. There, shari'ah holds sway.
Perhaps my favorite Neuhaus formulation is the phrase "welcomed in life and protected in law." That was his way of describing the goals of the pro-life movement. We want a country where unborn children are, indeed, safely born and provided with the protections of law before and after birth.
There has been, frankly, too much emphasis on "creating a culture of life" as a precondition to passing protective laws. This lets half-hearted politicians neatly off the hook. Father Neuhaus certainly recognized the need for legal protections. He marched with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King in Selma, where all the freedom demonstrators needed legal protection. Dr. King himself famously pointed to the need for protective laws: "I know a law cannot stop a racist from hating me; but it can stop him from lynching me. And his chances of learning to love me are a lot better if he has not lynched me first." Lynching was stopped in this country because federal law led to federal protection. The law led the culture.
That idea leads to the second function of the law: its teaching function. The inauguration of President Barack Obama would have been inconceivable had not Dr. King and Richard Neuhaus and so many others marched for the passage of good and just laws-laws that taught all Americans that it was wrong to judge our fellow Americans by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character.
There is nothing wrong and everything right with a culture of life. It can only be wrong if we argue that we must first createa culture of life before we can pass protective laws. Unless the laws teach us that life is to be protected, children will not be welcomed.
When young Pastor Neuhaus was marching with Dr. King, I was a college student at the University of Virginia. I had been shocked to find that though the University was de-segregated, the city of Charlottesville was not. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964-that
great charter prayed and labored for by Dr. King and Fr. Neuhaus-passed Congress overwhelmingly, a small number of Charlottesville's restaurants and swim clubs resisted integration. Overnight they became "private clubs." Anyone with five dollars and a white face could join one of these "exclusive" clubs. Some of my fellow students brazenly showed off their membership cards.
That bravado soon faded. Within a single year, all of those segregated clubs had folded. The good people of Charlottesville refused to patronize them. Membership in them was considered an indecent thing to do. Because the law taught us that racial discrimination was wrong, the racists quietly folded their tents.
It is not clear that such would have been the reaction if America in those days had had a naked public square. Richard Neuhaus was a leading clergyman even then, but his efforts to support Dr. King were joined by millions of believers, clergy and lay people alike. America's great achievement in civil rights would have been impossible without them and without the religiously grounded motives upon which they acted.
So, we should understand Richard Neuhaus' powerful formulation. Shall unborn children be welcomed in life? Yes, pray God they will be so welcomed. But they are more likely to be welcomed if they have not been slain first. The protection of law will teach all of us to extend that welcome. "Welcomed in life," of course, "and protected in law."
That is the legacy from my friend Father Richard Neuhaus that I will cherish. May he rest in peace in the richly adorned public square of Heaven.
A recent Los Angeles Times article makes clear that President Obama's enormous stimulus/spending plan may run into a huge GREEN roadblock - the nation's environmental laws and, in particular, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA was signed into law on January 1, 1970, and as Wikipedia puts it: "NEPA's most significant effect was to set up procedural requirements for all federal government agencies to prepare Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). EAs and EISs contain statements of the environmental effects of proposed federal agency actions." If significant environmental effects are found, the government has to propose adequate ways of mitigating the harms to be caused by the project. Spending vast sums on construction, roadway, and other infrastructure projects are certainly going trigger NEPA reviews.
To spur jobs Governor Schwazenegger is attempting to clear environmental hurdles to various road projects that he believes "would give the state a $1.2 billion economic boost and create 22,000 jobs over the next three years." The Governator wants to bypass environmental objections to get the projects moving. In doing so, he "has infuriated the Sierra Club and other groups with such proposals and with a letter he sent to President-elect Barack Obama last week asking that federal environmental reviews be waived on the highway projects." (my emphasis)
As I read this, Schawarzenegger wants the Obama administration to waive the NEPA requirements. California's request here is understandable, and if President Obama wants his stimulus explosion to effect the economy quickly, the Congress, the president, and the primary federal agencies for each "action" may need to waive these laws. Otherwise, each project could get bogged down. As Schwarzenegger noted, " 'What is important here is not to have projects ready [ ] three years from now, which can happen with the environmental approvals and other kind of red tape that you go through.'"
Having some familiarity with NEPA and related laws, I was beginning to wonder how its requirements were going to be met if the Obama Administration decided to seek a crash building & spending program. Well, the article from California makes it abundantly clear that environmental regulation of the stimulus spending is going to be a real problem that the Congress will probably have to address statutorily.
I remember the scene clearly. It was the first time I'd ever fired a weapon. It was March, 1969, in Cape May, New Jersey. Our Coast Guard recruit company was banging away at the targets. Some of the fellows in Lima 74 were actually in the "butts," a sheltered trench, where they strained at the lines to haul the heavy padded targets up and down to mark the points where we had hit our marks.
We had been thoroughly trained in range safety by our demanding boot camp company commander. He was Boatswain's Mate Chief Clarence Ward Hollowell, of Hopewell, Georgia. Chief Hollowell was loud and profane. He would occasionally march into our squad bay in the middle of the night and give us "a white tornado." That's when he'd pull all the sheets and pillow cases off our racks, turn over everything, and order us to clean it all up in five minutes.
At first I thought this middle aged man from the Georgia piney woods would be a cartoon version of a southerner. His pot bellow protruded over his Coast Guard belt buckle. He bellowed at us while keeping his coffee mug grasped tightly in his hand. He was always threatening to jack ammonia. Who, I asked my mostly New York and New England bunkmates, was this Jack Ammonia? A Louisiana recruit helped with a translation: "Jack them on you. Demerits, you fool," he drawled. And if you got too many demerits, you could be kicked out of Chief Hollowell's Lima 74 company.
I soon learned that media images of southerners were wrong. Chief Hollowell was certainly rough on our black and Hispanic fellow recruits. And we'd all look around in consternation as he came into the squad bay roaring "Knives! Knives!" None of us had a knife. They'd all been confiscated. Only with some help, again from the rebels, did we realize the Chief was calling for Recruit Nieves, a Puerto Rican. Yes, the Chief was rough on the minority recruits because he was rough on all of us. He was one of the hardest and fairest men I've ever known.
Our first day on the range was one of excitement and anticipation. Most of us were city boys and suburban kids. Even though we'd been field stripping our M-1 rifles since our first week in boot camp, we had never fired them, or any rifle.
We were banging away at the targets. Beyond the butts, was the Atlantic Ocean. Any bullets that missed the targets would go out to sea. The area had been well marked off as dangerous. There were red buoys. There were radio announcements broadcast on the channel all boaters monitored in those days. All nautical charts contained "Notice to Mariners" warnings: Live Fire Area: Keep Out.
So, it was surprising when above the din we heard Chief Hollowell bellowing out: "Cease fahr! CEASE FAHR!" When we didn't respond quickly enough to suit him, he brought his swagger stick down on my neighbor's rifle with a resounding THWACK! When we had all gone silent, the Chief yelled above the wind and the waves: "When ah say cease fahr, ah mean CEASE FAHR! Are yew peepul idiots?"
He saw how puzzled we all were. (We were out there, after all, in obedience to his orders.) With his swagger stick, he pointed out to sea. "Don't you peepul see thet?" he demanded.
We strained and saw on the horizon a tiny white triangle. It might have been a sail. It might have been the superstructure of a tanker. It was hardly discernible. It must have been five miles out, far out of range of our rifles.
"We are th' Yew-nited States Coast Guard, men. We are the life savers. Thet maht be hyoo-man lahf out there. Yew don't take a chance when hyoo-man lahf is at stake. Yew give it every benefit of the doubt."
No, Chief Hollowell never took a chance where human life was concerned. We were all E-1s then, Seaman Recruits. Chief Hollowell was an E-7, Chief Petty Officer. And none of us then thought the protection of human life was above our pay grade.
It was not too many years ago that all milk in this country came from dairy farmers who milked their cows by hand. To go into a dairy barn in winter was to enter a place of peace and warmth. I remember how my Uncle Bill stripped off his coat, even his shirt, to milk the cows on his Connecticut farm.
I thought of that scene in the dairy barn when my wife and I visited Versailles in France. Queen Marie Antoinette liked to play the role of milkmaid. King Louis XIV built that palace as a monument to his own greatness. He may have styled himself the Sun King, but his palace was freezing. In all their portraits the kings and queens of France are draped in magnificent furs. Fur was the foundation of France's colonial empire in North America. Rich beaver, mink, and, especially, snow-white ermine pelts were brought back to France from Canada. Those furs in the elaborate portraits were not just for show. Surrounded as those royals were by gold, marble, and fine crystal, they nonetheless lived in a frigid atmosphere. As much as it delights the eye, all that gold was cold.
At this time of year, we celebrate the birth of the King of Kings. But our Lord Jesus was born in no great palace. However exalted such a birthplace might have been, such palaces were death traps. Many of those little princes of France died of pneumonia. No. our Lord was born in a lowly stable. And we believe that baby Jesus was surrounded at his birth by oxen, donkeys, and other farm animals. His birthplace must have been warm and secure.
Our Heavenly Father knows what we need. He knew where to place His only begotten Son that He might be kept warm and safe. There, in that rude stable, nurtured by His loving Mother, with faithful Joseph the Carpenter standing watch, the Christ Child came into our world.
Jesus' birth is the most important thing that ever happened in this world. God's Word became Flesh. Jesus came to conquer sin and death. He came to give us forgiveness of our sins that we might live with Him forever. Compared with this incomparable Truth, what is the significance of princes of finance or commanders of armies, of kings and queens, of presidents and prime ministers? Jesus is Lord. That is the Good News we need. It is the Good News we have received.
Just when you thought the toymakers could not go any further with crazy toys and ensuring children grow up faster, it appears that there is a new version of Betsy Wetsy on the toy market. There is an overwhelming demand at various retailers for this toy. While I do not have anything wrong with dolls (believe me, I once played with dolls), this doll has gone beyond the original design to more realistic childlike qualities.
According to The Washington Post, this new doll has caused a stir amongst many parents, who either find this doll inappropriate or just feel it is another toy that will be fun for their child. However, you might be wondering if this will have any impact on the child.
"With 5,000 toys introduced into the market every year, "what happens is that there's huge competition to get noticed. And what that means to toys is that they get more and more and more and more outrageous," said Susan Linn, professor of child psychology at Harvard and director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. "This toy is shocking enough that it's going to be noticed. But at best, this toy is unnecessary. At worst, it's really gross."
But Jim Silver, editor of Time to Play, a Web magazine that reviews toys, says children want reality.
"By the time they're 5 or 6, they don't want a play cellphone, they want a real cellphone," Silver said. "A baby doll is all about nurturing. So what Mom went through with them, they want to go through with their dolls. And how do you do real potty training without pooping?" Silver said he laughed when he first saw the pooping dolls and wondered if they were necessary. Although he said he has been sworn to secrecy about next year's new toys, an early peek shows reality is only going to get more real. "You're going to see the envelope pushed to make baby dolls as real as possible without being offensive in any way.
It appears that the toy makers do not have any decency when it comes to producing age appropriate products. The fact that you have a toy reviewer indicating that the envelope will be pushed some more by the toy makers, you might wonder what will our children will be subject to next.
"Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform"
Check out this new book by former FRC director of tax policy and blogger extraordinaire, Leslie Carbone. You can find the book here. Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, "explores the moral dimension of tax policy and calls for a fundamental tax reform."
Book Description from Potomac Books, Inc.
"In the natural order, virtue and vice each carries its own consequences. On the one hand, virtue yields largely positive results. Hard work, patience, and carefulness, for example, tend to generate prosperity. Vice, on the other hand, brings negative consequences. Sloth, impatience, and recklessness, for example, tend toward suffering.
In Slaying Leviathan, Leslie Carbone argues that since the early twentieth century, U.S. tax policy has been designed to mitigate the natural economic results of both virtue and vice. When the government disrupts the natural order through taxation by creating incentives and disincentives that overturn these natural consequences, the government perverts its own function and becomes part of the problem-a contributor to social breakdown-rather than part of the solution or an instrument of justice.
Slaying Leviathan envisions an approach to tax policy rooted in natural justice. To achieve this goal, Carbone first traces the historical evolution of U.S. tax policy, from the 1765 Stamp Act to the 1997 tax cut. She then assesses the current American tax burden and George W. Bush's tax cuts and explores the fundamental problems with U.S. tax policy. After providing a historical analysis of federal spending and of expanding governmental expectations, she offers a set of over-arching principles and instructions on how to apply them to tax policy proposals."
About the Author: "Leslie Carbone served as the director of Family Tax Policy at the Family Research Council, chief of staff to the late assemblyman Gil Ferguson of California, and a speechwriter for U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao. Her writing has been published in the Weekly Standard, the American Enterprise, the San Francisco Chronicle, and numerous other magazines and journals. She has lectured on more than 100 college campuses and has been interviewed on more than 250 radio shows. She lives in Fairfax, Virginia."
Alarming Study Raises Awareness of Teens and Technology
According to a recent survey published by The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com, approximately 20% of teens (ages 13-19) and 33% of young adults (ages 20-26) have sent or posted pictures of themselves either nude or semi nude. If this statistic is not shocking enough, of the 1,280 survey participants, 39% of the teens surveyed said they have sent or posted suggestive messages, while 59% of all young adults have done the same thing.
The questions in the study were asked and categorized by the sex. When asked, "What do you think are the reasons that girls send/post sexy messages or pictures/video of themselves?," approximately 85% of teens and 80% of young adults agree that the main reason behind sending these sexy messages is to get or keep a guy's attention. Another popular response from both the teens and young adults was that it is a great way to get noticed.
However, when the question was asked of males, both teens and young adults surveyed said the main reason guys sent or posted sexy messages was to get or keep a girl's attention, only to be followed by guys wanting to be fun or flirtatious.
When asked how the teens and young adults described such activities, a majority of young adults said they viewed this as flirty, while others viewed this behavior as being stupid and dangerous. When asked about a characteristic that describes the people who resort to these messages, a majority said this behavior was flirty, while many felt this behavior was stupid, desperate, immature, and insecure.
Then, why do teens and young adults still feel compelled to post provocative messages online? Is it because they feel a need to be desired or wanted by the opposite sex?
In a society that seems to be driven by the line that says, "sex sells," this type of behavior can lead to many dangers. According to PC Magazine, online sex predators are gradually threatening the security of many teenagers through sites like Facebook and MySpace. If these sites are used properly, they can be safe places for networking. When posting semi-nude or nude pictures on these sites, a teenager is setting themselves up for potential risk of abduction, stalking, rapes, etc.
Additionally, employers and potential employers do look at this material, and the study indicates that many view this is as disgusting and disrespectful.
Let's get back to basics. Teenagers and young adults do not need to resort to such behavior when they have respect for themselves and hold high standards. When you are a teenager, you might have a concept about what true love is, but the concept is flawed due to the overwhelming emotions that you experience. Enjoy your time being a teenager! Adulthood comes fast enough. Be patient, love comes in due time with trust in God's plan for your lives.
Parents often recognize that their child participates in things online that they would not approve. According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project survey, "65% of all parents and 64% of all teens say that teens do things online that they wouldn't want their parents to know about."
This is why parental involvement is so crucial and needed. Family Research Council has a wonderful publication available online that provides ways to keep your child from engaging in risky behaviors online.
As mentioned in the November 12, 2008 Daily Buzz, the Washington, DC Metro Transit system has been in some deep heat from riders and onlookers alike for their recent advertisements on the back of buses. The advertisements are a part of the American Humanist Association campaign that says: "Why believe in a God? Be good for goodness sake."
According to a recent article from The Washington Examiner, the Metro Transit Agency has received such complaints like, "May all your atheist buses break down." Metro spokeswoman Candace Smith responded to these complaints by saying,
"As a public agency, Metro must observe the First Amendment with respect to the acceptance of commercial advertising," Smith said. "Although we understand that feelings and perceptions will vary among individuals within the community, we cannot reject advertising because an individual, or group, finds it inappropriate or offensive.
Metro spokeswoman Smith said the number of complaints represents a small fraction of its ridership, which averages more than a million trips on buses and trains daily.
"Do we think we're losing customers over this?" Smith said. "I doubt it."
She said Metro responds to each complaint, urging those who complain to contact the advertiser directly. Or, she said, "They can pony up money for counter advertising."
It is an attitude like this that sends a clear sign that the Metro does not take note or consider how offensive an advertising campaign can be to their patrons.
I now have better access to internet. Here is the latest official information on what is happening (in short). The Governor has asked for me to assist in coordinating volunteer food relief. The need is overloading state government resources. Here is our biggest need: mobile food kitchens and food. As of last night at the joint command meeting, which I am now attending, a little under 1/2 of the state was without power. That is changing by the hour, but some areas will be 3-4 weeks before power is restored, especially in South Louisiana.
Beyond food kitchens, basic food staples that can be cooked is needed: beans, rice, meat (with refrigeration truck). Contributions can be sent to PRCCompassion.net.
I find it difficult to describe how boneheaded Mike Bloomberg's newest idea is. CBS News calls the plan, to put windmills on New York City bridges "bold." It's not bold. It's ugly.
New York's suspension bridges are part of the artistic patrimony of the United States. They were made for one specific purpose: allowing people to travel from one point to another without getting wet. With this goal in mind, engineers designed the bridges to do so safely, while also taking into consideration construction economy, design efficiency and overall aesthetic elegance. The consideration of these factors, coupled with and driven by economic growth in New York at the turn of the last century, impressive developments in industrial steel production, and sophisticated engineering load-calculation resulted in a wonderful flurry of suspension bridge construction uniting New York City unto itself and its neighbors.
The relationship between form and function in New York bridge engineering can be seen in the difference between the bridges. Roebling's Brooklyn Bridge, designed in the days of carts, pedestrians, and trolleys, brings people from the industrial heart of Brooklyn to the financial heart of Manhattan with a stony classical grace. On the other hand, Ammann's George Washington Bridge-along with the Chrysler Building, one of the great paeans to the automobile-accommodates 14 lanes of private and commercial motorcar traffic (opposed to the Brooklyn Bridge's six non-commercial lanes) using the superior mobility granted by automobile travel to span a narrower area of the Hudson with an ingress point at the less bustling Upper Manhattan. These bridges were designed to facilitate different sorts of movement, and they do so spectacularly and uniquely, while providing beautiful aesthetic experiences in the process.
Now, in Mayor Mike's preening greening scheme simply allowing people to access his city isn't good enough for these marvels of engineering. The spans that linked a series of unruly islands into the greatest city on earth no longer have sufficient economic or cultural value to continue their stolid duties unmolested. No, they need to be retrofitted with windmills to look like steal islands planted tight with pinwheels. Their forms, their functions, and their histories have to go by the wayside because Bloomberg wants his city to be the greenest city.
Therein lies the problem with much of the environmentalist movement. People should conserve; clean energy is a good thing. But is it such a good thing that it warrants the mutilation of majestic structural art, embedded in the public consciousness and of great historical significance? Mayor Bloomberg and his cohorts seem to think so. The posturing moralism of the few leads to banal ugliness for the many. Wagner had it almost right with his planned book (The Unbeauty of Civilization): What we're dealing with is the unbeauty of liberal civilization.
The 7th Circuit sends the Italian genius packing ...for now
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that The Freedom From Religion Foundation had no legal standing to sue the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for incorporating chaplain work into its veteran health care. What does this have to do with Gramshi, the Italian genius of soft communism?
To have the federal government expand its reach into virtually every corner of life (family, school, health, the economy) and simultaneously to push for a radical "wall of separation of church and state" is to ban religion from life. It is the perfect scenario for a slow but Sherman-like "march through the institutions" as Gramsci envisioned.
The plaintiff in a case against Veterans Affairs for their support of chaplains' work with ill patients, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, clearly falls among the ranks of those dedicated to a Gramsciite deconstruction of American society, not a building up of her strengths nor even of the care of her sick soldiers.
Back on May 5, 2008, I posted a blog note about the sleazy TV show - "Gossip Girl." Well, Gossip Girl is in the news again - see the article in Newsweek. It appears that the geniuses who produce this sleazefest have decided to quote the show's critics in advertising posters promoting the new season of raunch. So, for example, one ad quotes Parents Television Council which had called the program, "Mind-Blowingly Inappropriate." If you have the maturity of a 14-year-old boy this is probably mind-bogglingly clever.
I prefer to see these ads as another a piece of evidence that this country needs cable choice (a la carte) more than ever. Parents need to be able to block networks like CW - even though it is a broadcast channel - from entering their home. Perhaps then the folks at CW and Gossip Girl will be less like likely to mock the decent Americans who really do care about the welfare of teenagers and young adults more than the prospect of selling ads and making buckets of money. Oh, sorry, I should have said - producing great art.
At one level it's a bit embarrassing to admit that I regularly watch movies based on comic books. I'm 56 and my youngest is 14, so it's at least a semi-voluntary endeavor. Nonetheless, I grew up with subscriptions to DC Comics, the "Justice League of America," "Classics Illustrated," and an obscure favorite called "Metal Men." These readings did not replace literature for my siblings and me; they supplemented it, and, with "Classics" especially, helped to pique interest in the real (and even unabridged) thing. It's hard even now to describe the imaginative windows opened by just a handful of N.C. Wyeth illustrations in the editions we craved as children.
Thus, an invitation to watch a full-fledged Batman movie with today's technological accomplishment is no bow to my teenage son, it's irresistible. The new feature, The Dark Knight, is engrossing and visually spectacular. Unlike the comic books, however, it also has psychological depth and is almost unremittingly dark. It is good v. evil, certainly, but it is a troubled good confronting, in the character of the calculating Joker played by the late Heath Ledger, an almost-explicable evil.
The intense scenes of the Joker wielding knives in the face of his victims are stomach-churning to watch (at least one hopes that audiences have not become used to scenes like this that, in Roman Polanski's 1970's film noir Chinatown, became an iconic image of sadistic criminality), but it is during these scenes that the character explicates his personal history. He is the tormented product, he seems to imply, of his father's wanton cruelty to his mother, just as much as Batman, played by Christian Bale, is the product of his father's heroic effort to save his mother. Role reversals abound in the movie, and the public's need for heroes it can both treasure and revile supplies the broad dramatic tension, but good fathers clearly matter.
Among the twisted ethical dilemmas the Joker poses to Gotham City involves two ferry boats full of passengers who are challenged to a potentially mutually fatal decision. One boat is full of criminals, the other ordinary citizens, so it is not a "Sophie's Choice" that is presented. The scene is played out to an extraordinary conclusion. In the murky moral swamp into which Gotham City has sunk, this depiction of "lifeboat ethics" leaves plenty of room for thought. The Dark Knight is overlong and the violence exceeds its prequel, Batman Begins, and there are instances of implied sexuality and some language.
Finally, the film redefines the Batcycle just as Batman Begins redefined the Batmobile. At least a few things in Gotham City have gotten definite upgrades. Now if only my mother hadn't thrown out a half million dollars' worth of comics . . .
I asked my Witherspoon Fellows, Jan Ledochowski and Simona Beskova, to attend a talk on Tuesday by the man behind the Irish vote against the Treaty of Lisbon, which would have further expanded and consolidated the European Union. Their report follows:
Gingrich's Co-Author, Bill Forstchen, to speak at Family Research Council
Newt Gingrich is a man of ideas. And one of his best ideas was to team up with Bill Forstchen to co-author what they call "active history." The two idea men have developed the best historical novels I've ever read. The literary quality of their work is outstanding. It would be hard, for example, to top the dramatic story of Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain at Little Round Top on the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. But Gingrich and Forstchen's fictionial treatment of this story is even more compelling! What Gingrich and Forstchen are trying to do is exactly what Bill Bennett wants to do with his non-fiction histories of the U.S.--to re-ignite a love for America's past and to share the story with millions of the young who will inherit this last best hope of earth. Bill Bennett calls America's story "the second greatest story ever told." I agree.
And Gingrich and Forstchen have made a great contribution to stimulating interest in America. FRC is honored to have Dr. Bill Forstchen as our guest lecturer next week.
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.
The religious impulse is a fundamental and basic human yearning. Yet, governments and societies sometimes deny religious freedom, particularly to those whom they view as a threat to their own ideology. Within the past ten years, the question of international religious freedom has become an important part of U.S. foreign policy. How did this happen? What does it portend for the future of religious freedom around the world? In this lecture, Bill Saunders will examine these and related questions.
Bill Saunders is Senior Fellow and Human Rights Counsel at the Family Research Council. A graduate of the Harvard Law School, he has been active in the cause of international religious freedom for more than a decade, first at the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, then at the Family Research Council. He was involved from the beginning in the movement to make this part of U.S. foreign policy. In 1999, he founded an organization to provide relief to persecuted Christians and others in Sudan. He has written on this topic frequently, in a variety of journals.
Anthony Esolen of Touchstone magazine reminds us of the unnoticed gift of trickle-down decadence:
The rich can afford their vices, for a time anyway; the poor have no such margin for comfort. They are, in fact, endangered by the vices of the rich. I don’t simply mean that the rich man can extort his will from the poor, or wield the law as a club to keep the poor man in his place. He can do worse: He can infect the poor man with his vice, and that may be the quicker way to destroy him.
Two years after FRC helped to defeat the idea, the push for a "Triple X" domain for pornographic web sites is on again. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) continues to debate whether or not to establish an online .xxx domain specifically for the adult industry. While supporters argue that it would help regulate pornography, FRC strongly disagrees. Instead of relegating it to a specific domain, the government would actually be facilitating the adult industry's growth. Without the necessary enforcement, pornographers would simply retain their .com sites and add to them. If successful, ICANN could be responsible for potentially doubling the number of porn sites on the Internet. Proponents claim the .xxx domain will make it easier to filter out these graphic sites, while web experts say it will make it more difficult because the sites will be operating under dual domains.
The .xxx would also establish a virtual red light district or "safe haven" for illegal, hardcore obscenity. Rather than legitimize an industry that exploits women and endangers children, ICANN should focus its efforts on making the web safer for families.
Hey kids, want to see a R-rated movie? What’s that? Your parents won’t take you to see and the video clerk won’t rent it to you because you’re under age? No problem. Just get the movie from your local librarian.
Libraries in Johnson County will let anyone, regardless of age, check out an R-rated movie. This news surprised Sally O'Rear. She found out the hard way. She saw her 13-year-old daughter with the movie.
O”Rear said, “I want people to know you can go out there to the library and check these out. I want to be that voice to say, 'Hey parents wake up. Look this is what's going on.'"
For O'Rear, it is not so much that the movies are available. She wants the staff to help monitor what kids are doing inside the library. She said, “I feel the parents should keep an eye also, but I feel the library needs to put up notification."
North Liberty library’s assistant director Jennie Garner said, “We can't be baby sitters. We can't monitor everyone's age." Library staff will tell you blocking kids from any material at the library is unconstitutional.
Garner said, “Anyone, including minors, has the right to access any materials under the First amendment."
The American Library Association's website offers a "sample answer" that librarians can give when parents ask about such policies:
Kids can't rent R-rated movies at the video store, or buy Playboy at the newsstand. Why won't you use the same common sense restrictions at my public library?
* Those types of rating systems are voluntary, and libraries make them available to assist parents and others in making decisions for their families and themselves. As librarians, we strongly encourage parents to take an active role in monitoring what their children see and view, but as public employees, it's not appropriate for librarians to make those decisions for them.
The Pew Research Center released a survey report that examines how young people ages 18 to 25 view their lives, futures, and politics. The results are alternately fascinating and disheartening:
• About half of Gen Nexters say the growing number of immigrants to the U.S. strengthens the country – more than any generation. And they also lead the way in their support for gay marriage and acceptance of interracial dating.
• Beyond these social issues, their views defy easy categorization. For example, Generation Next is less critical of government regulation of business but also less critical of business itself. And they are the most likely of any generation to support privatization of the Social Security system.
• They maintain close contact with parents and family. Roughly eight-in-ten say they talked to their parents in the past day. Nearly three-in-four see their parents at least once a week, and half say they see their parents daily. One reason: money. About three-quarters of Gen Nexters say their parents have helped them financially in the past year.
• One-in-five members of Generation Next say they have no religious affiliation or are atheist or agnostic, nearly double the proportion of young people who said that in the late 1980s. And just 4% of Gen Nexters say people in their generation view becoming more spiritual as their most important goal in life.
• They are somewhat more interested in keeping up with politics and national affairs than were young people a generation ago. Still, only a third say they follow what’s going on in government and public affairs “most of the time.”
• In Pew surveys in 2006, nearly half of young people (48%) identified more with the
Democratic Party, while just 35% affiliated more with the GOP. This makes Generation
Next the least Republican generation.
A recent survey conducted by the University of Chicago provides some interesting insight into the comparative social behavior of blacks, Hispanics, and whites between the ages of 15 and 25. The scope of the survey was broad, covering issues ranging from political involvement to entertainment to sexual mistreatment of women, but what I found most intriguing about the study were the answers to the question, “Is abortion always wrong?” The responses surprised me greatly, for among blacks and Hispanics surveyed, 47% and 46%, respectively, thought that abortion was wrong in all instances, while comparatively only 34% of whites surveyed believed that abortion was wrong in every circumstance.
When I read further, however, the survey data continued to puzzle me.
When asked about homosexual activity, 55% percent of blacks surveyed felt that homosexual activity was, once again, always wrong, while only 35% of whites felt the same way. What we increasingly see is that the picture being painted by this eye-opening survey is inconsistent with the traditional voting record of minority communities. As evidenced by the above statistics, we have minority groups, and most especially African-Americans, who appear to support the underlying moral principles of the conservative social agenda, yet who consistently and even dogmatically persist in voting for liberal legislators. So, how do we reconcile the findings of this study with what we know from past experience?
For any social issue there are a number of contributing factors, so to posit that there is a simple cause and effect for the dichotomy in professed beliefs and behavior of some minorities would be naïve. However, I propose that this disparity might very well be due in no small part to a general lack of information in the minority community, especially among its younger members – the subjects of this survey. Perhaps the conservative community is not reaching out to minorities as it should. Might it even be plausible that conservatives have, in some instances, ceded that ground to the liberal platform and gone on their merry way? I think this might very possibly be the case.
More than anything else, I believe these statistics give us hope. The real crux of the issue lies in the opportunity that conservatives have with the younger generation of minority voters – the future influencers of thought and opinion both in minority communities and in the nation as a whole. At a time when the black and Hispanic communities are showing an increasingly open mindset toward the social issues so vital to the life of our nation, we need to seize the opportunity to reach out to them on common ground, to make ourselves relevant, and to lay the foundation for future success in revitalizing the moral fibers of our country.
A couple of weeks ago, I noted here that China's one-child policy, along with sex-selective abortions, contributed to what is becoming a dangerous gender imbalance. According to a recent AP story, China has just renewed their one-child policy, despite the evidence that females are vanishing:
[Zhang Weiqing, minister of the National Population and Family Planning Commission] said China's basic policy -- in effect since the late 1970s -- was reviewed and renewed without change last month. The policy limits urban couples to one child and rural families to two to control the population and conserve natural resources. Beijing says it has helped prevent 400 million births and has aided the nation's rapid economic development.
Lest the "prevention of births" in favor of rapid economic development seem too life-affirming, the Chinese government is taking new steps:
China has about 1.3 billion people -- 20 percent of the global total. The government has pledged to keep the population under 1.36 billion by 2010 and under 1.45 billion by 2020, Zhang said.
It's frightful to think what might happen if the number of births began to exceed the government's pledged limit. We can only hope that PRC leaders would eat their words and move on. Besides, according to Zhang, growing up without brothers or sisters is a good thing:
"They are much better off than I was, being one of four kids," said Zhang, 62. "I envy them."
As if the internet didn't have enough rough neighborhoods for web surfers to negotiate, the International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is once again revisiting the notion of creating a virtual red-light district on the internet. Ostensibly, this tactic will separate web pornographers from the rest of the internet, making it easier to filter out (or in) pornographic websites.
The domains that are available today including .com, .net, .gov, .edu, .us, etc., represent certain areas of societal value. The proposed revisions do nothing to address the fact that granting a niche business its own top-level domain name would be unique to pornographers, who would gain a status currently only available to groups like schools, governments, and nations.
