Category archives: Other Issues

At GEICO, Protecting Kids Is So Easy A Caveman Could Do It

by Tony Perkins

February 12, 2007

Here’s today’s Washington Watch Daily commentary from FRC Radio:

At GEICO insurance, they’ve got families covered—in more ways than one. When parents pressured them to pull their ads from a vulgar TV show, GEICO listened. Last month, people who watched the FX program “Dirt” were horrified. Not only did the actors use profanity after profanity, but part of the story involved an explicit gay sex scene. contacted the show’s sponsors and said “Dirt” was dragging their names through the mud. Of all of the corporations involved, GEICO was the only one to pull their ads. Their marketers agreed that an insurance company, of all places, should put a premium on kids’ innocence. And supporting shows that promote sex and homosexuality is a huge liability for the family. If anything, this is a great reminder of how important it is to contact companies when they support something that’s offensive. It only takes a few minutes. And with GEICO, those 15 minutes could save your kids 15% or more in graphic content.

To download this commentary as an MP3, follow this link.

Young Minorities Share Old Values

by Family Research Council

February 7, 2007

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 naive. 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.

The China boys club revisited

by Jared Bridges

January 24, 2007

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.”

I hope his siblings don’t read this…

I think ICANN, but I won’t.

by Jared Bridges

January 9, 2007

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.

FRC opposed this action the first time around, on the grounds that it would be unenforceable — and grant a legitimizing status to the porn industry. While there have been a few revisions to the initial proposal, they don’t appear to offer much incentive for pornographers to leave the .com domain.

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.