Monday, December 21, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
China late-term abortion actual footage
You're able to see a fleeting glimpse of the stillborn child, aparently burned from a saline solution.
Documentary of a Russian late-term abortion clinic
The abortionist explains how tough it is -- 'yes, it is legalized murder' -- but justifies it as the lesser evil.
Non-religious Christmas at the White House
The Obamas are not Christian.
"The embattled White House Social Secretary, Desiree Rogers says that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas." According to the Sunday New York Times the confession emerged at a luncheon earlier this year with former White House social secretaries. The ladies must have choked on their Caesar salads when Rogers went on to announce that the Obamas did not intend to display the Christmas Creche--the manger scene that traditionally occupies a central spot in the East Room. (This revelation reportedly drew a gasp from the retired social secretaries). The idea was that the absence of the Creche (i.e.,Christ's Birth) would make Christmas "more inclusive". Though there was serious discussion of keeping the shepherds and the Holy Family in storage, tradition finally won out. So good of the Social Secretary to put Jesus on the Christmas party invite list."
"The embattled White House Social Secretary, Desiree Rogers says that the Obamas were planning a "non-religious Christmas." According to the Sunday New York Times the confession emerged at a luncheon earlier this year with former White House social secretaries. The ladies must have choked on their Caesar salads when Rogers went on to announce that the Obamas did not intend to display the Christmas Creche--the manger scene that traditionally occupies a central spot in the East Room. (This revelation reportedly drew a gasp from the retired social secretaries). The idea was that the absence of the Creche (i.e.,Christ's Birth) would make Christmas "more inclusive". Though there was serious discussion of keeping the shepherds and the Holy Family in storage, tradition finally won out. So good of the Social Secretary to put Jesus on the Christmas party invite list."
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
Vaccines and autism
Glad to see science is starting to take this seriously.
*************************************
Tuesday July 21, 2009
________________________________________
Is Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines Linked to Autism?
By Theresa A. Deisher, Ph.D.
July 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just when the pharmaceutical industry thought the vaccine-autism controversy had been resolved, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has recommended further study of vaccine safety. A perceived fear of the safety of the U.S. vaccination schedule has led increasing numbers of parents to opt out of full compliance. The numbers of children who are not fully vaccinated has now reached a point where "herd" immunity may be compromised, compelling the Centers for Disease Control to hold town-hall meetings and convene a Vaccine Safety Working Subgroup. Despite research ruling out mercury (Thimerosal) or the measles portion of one specific vaccine, autism continues to rise to a level of one in every 64 children in the UK.
The NVAC draft report recommends further study of the potential for vaccines to contribute to autism in children who have underlying mitochondrial disease, a worthwhile study given the clinical history of such children developing autism after vaccinations (see Poling case). What the NVAC has overlooked, however, in their recommendations, is that epidemic regressive autism is associated with the switch from using animal cells to produce vaccines to the use of aborted human fetal cells for vaccine production. Now when we vaccinate our children, some vaccines also deliver contaminating aborted human fetal DNA. The safety of this has never been tested.
Autism and autism spectrum disorder are polygenic diseases, meaning that multiple genes have been shown to be associated with these diseases. Studies have also clearly shown that there is an environmental component, a trigger, that is required. Vaccines are an obvious potential environmental trigger for autism because of the almost universal childhood exposure to vaccines in first world countries. The vaccine-autism connection was first hypothesized following the introduction of a new measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to the U.S. in 1979, with complete U.S. market share by 1983, and to the UK in 1988. Autism rates began to rise in the U.S. after 1979 and rose dramatically after 1983, and likewise rose in the UK after 1988, leading physicians to suspect a link. Initially, the measles component of this vaccine, MMR II, was suspected to be the culprit. Subsequent studies have also focused on the presence of mercury in vaccines, which incidentally, the MMR II vaccine did not contain.
Those studies have largely ruled out the new measles portion of the MMR II or mercury as the environmental trigger for autism. However, the compelling temporal association between this new MMR vaccine and autism cannot be ignored or explained away. What has been ignored is the fact that this new MMR vaccine introduced the use of aborted fetal cells for vaccine production. At one point, as much as 94 percent of children in the U.S. and 98 percent of children in the UK were given this vaccine.
Today, more than 23 vaccines are contaminated by the use of aborted fetal cells. There is no law that requires that consumers be informed that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cells and contain residual aborted fetal DNA. While newer vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells do inform consumers, in their package inserts, that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce the vaccine, they do not identify the cells as being derived from electively aborted human fetuses.
In other words, they tell you what is in the vaccine, but they don't fully inform you where it came from. The earliest aborted fetal cell-produced vaccines such as Meruvax (rubella) and MMR II do not even inform consumers that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce them. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that the public-health risk of injecting our children with residual contaminating human aborted fetal DNA has been ignored.
How could the contaminating aborted fetal DNA create problems? It creates the potential for autoimmune responses and/or inappropriate insertion into our own genomes through a process called recombination. There are groups researching the potential link between this DNA and autoimmune diseases such as juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Our organization, Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), is focused on studying the quantity, characteristics and genomic recombination of the aborted fetal DNA found in many of our vaccines.
Preliminary bioinformatics research conducted at SCPI indicates that "hot spots" for DNA recombination are found in nine autism-associated genes present on the X chromosome. These nine genes are involved in nerve-cell synapse formation, central nervous system development and mitochondrial function.
Could genomic insertion of the aborted fetal DNA, found in some of our childhood vaccines since 1979, be an environmental trigger for autism? Could the fact that genes critical for nerve synapse formation and nervous system development are found on the X chromosome provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease found in boys? Could the "hot spots" identified in these autism-associated genes be sites for insertion of contaminating aborted fetal DNA?
These questions must be answered, and quickly. Recent literature suggests that autism spectrum disorder may now impact one out of every 100 children. The pharmaceutical industry is also currently moving to replace more animal-produced vaccines with aborted-fetal-cell production and also to produce biologic drugs using aborted fetal cells.
The practice of using aborted fetal cells for vaccine and drug production creates wrenching moral dilemmas for parents and consumers, ignores informed consent rights, and exposes our children and ourselves to contaminants lacking safety evaluations. We cannot ignore this issue in good conscience, and we cannot afford to wait.
(Dr. Deisher is president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (www.soundchoice.org), as well as a cofounder and the research and development director for Ave Maria Biotechnology Company (www.avmbiotech.com), which promote pro-life biotechnology. This article is an adaptation and update of SCPI's June 2009 newsletter and is published with its kind permission.)
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072106.html
*************************************
Tuesday July 21, 2009
________________________________________
Is Aborted Fetal DNA in Vaccines Linked to Autism?
By Theresa A. Deisher, Ph.D.
July 21, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Just when the pharmaceutical industry thought the vaccine-autism controversy had been resolved, the National Vaccine Advisory Committee has recommended further study of vaccine safety. A perceived fear of the safety of the U.S. vaccination schedule has led increasing numbers of parents to opt out of full compliance. The numbers of children who are not fully vaccinated has now reached a point where "herd" immunity may be compromised, compelling the Centers for Disease Control to hold town-hall meetings and convene a Vaccine Safety Working Subgroup. Despite research ruling out mercury (Thimerosal) or the measles portion of one specific vaccine, autism continues to rise to a level of one in every 64 children in the UK.
The NVAC draft report recommends further study of the potential for vaccines to contribute to autism in children who have underlying mitochondrial disease, a worthwhile study given the clinical history of such children developing autism after vaccinations (see Poling case). What the NVAC has overlooked, however, in their recommendations, is that epidemic regressive autism is associated with the switch from using animal cells to produce vaccines to the use of aborted human fetal cells for vaccine production. Now when we vaccinate our children, some vaccines also deliver contaminating aborted human fetal DNA. The safety of this has never been tested.
Autism and autism spectrum disorder are polygenic diseases, meaning that multiple genes have been shown to be associated with these diseases. Studies have also clearly shown that there is an environmental component, a trigger, that is required. Vaccines are an obvious potential environmental trigger for autism because of the almost universal childhood exposure to vaccines in first world countries. The vaccine-autism connection was first hypothesized following the introduction of a new measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to the U.S. in 1979, with complete U.S. market share by 1983, and to the UK in 1988. Autism rates began to rise in the U.S. after 1979 and rose dramatically after 1983, and likewise rose in the UK after 1988, leading physicians to suspect a link. Initially, the measles component of this vaccine, MMR II, was suspected to be the culprit. Subsequent studies have also focused on the presence of mercury in vaccines, which incidentally, the MMR II vaccine did not contain.
Those studies have largely ruled out the new measles portion of the MMR II or mercury as the environmental trigger for autism. However, the compelling temporal association between this new MMR vaccine and autism cannot be ignored or explained away. What has been ignored is the fact that this new MMR vaccine introduced the use of aborted fetal cells for vaccine production. At one point, as much as 94 percent of children in the U.S. and 98 percent of children in the UK were given this vaccine.
Today, more than 23 vaccines are contaminated by the use of aborted fetal cells. There is no law that requires that consumers be informed that some vaccines are made using aborted fetal cells and contain residual aborted fetal DNA. While newer vaccines produced using aborted fetal cells do inform consumers, in their package inserts, that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce the vaccine, they do not identify the cells as being derived from electively aborted human fetuses.
In other words, they tell you what is in the vaccine, but they don't fully inform you where it came from. The earliest aborted fetal cell-produced vaccines such as Meruvax (rubella) and MMR II do not even inform consumers that the vaccines contain contaminating DNA from the cell used to produce them. Furthermore, it is unconscionable that the public-health risk of injecting our children with residual contaminating human aborted fetal DNA has been ignored.
How could the contaminating aborted fetal DNA create problems? It creates the potential for autoimmune responses and/or inappropriate insertion into our own genomes through a process called recombination. There are groups researching the potential link between this DNA and autoimmune diseases such as juvenile (type I) diabetes, multiple sclerosis and lupus. Our organization, Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI), is focused on studying the quantity, characteristics and genomic recombination of the aborted fetal DNA found in many of our vaccines.
Preliminary bioinformatics research conducted at SCPI indicates that "hot spots" for DNA recombination are found in nine autism-associated genes present on the X chromosome. These nine genes are involved in nerve-cell synapse formation, central nervous system development and mitochondrial function.
Could genomic insertion of the aborted fetal DNA, found in some of our childhood vaccines since 1979, be an environmental trigger for autism? Could the fact that genes critical for nerve synapse formation and nervous system development are found on the X chromosome provide some explanation of why autism is predominantly a disease found in boys? Could the "hot spots" identified in these autism-associated genes be sites for insertion of contaminating aborted fetal DNA?
These questions must be answered, and quickly. Recent literature suggests that autism spectrum disorder may now impact one out of every 100 children. The pharmaceutical industry is also currently moving to replace more animal-produced vaccines with aborted-fetal-cell production and also to produce biologic drugs using aborted fetal cells.
The practice of using aborted fetal cells for vaccine and drug production creates wrenching moral dilemmas for parents and consumers, ignores informed consent rights, and exposes our children and ourselves to contaminants lacking safety evaluations. We cannot ignore this issue in good conscience, and we cannot afford to wait.
(Dr. Deisher is president of Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (www.soundchoice.org), as well as a cofounder and the research and development director for Ave Maria Biotechnology Company (www.avmbiotech.com), which promote pro-life biotechnology. This article is an adaptation and update of SCPI's June 2009 newsletter and is published with its kind permission.)
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jul/09072106.html
Monday, July 20, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayor: abortion rights "settled law"
The next one in the parade of pro-abortion Catholics who do not consider the unborn to be objects of their charity.
******************************
Sotomayor calls abortion rights 'settled law'
Jul 14 11:34 AM US/Eastern
Comments (21) Share on Facebook
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights "settled law" and says there is a constitutional right to privacy.
The federal appeals court judge was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.
Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution." She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say pointblank if she agreed with the high court's precedent on this volatile issue.
Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that "all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law," subject to the possibility of subsequent reversal, such as when the court last month renounced a previous precedent in a reverse discrimination case. It ruled 5-4 on the side of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who challenged a decision by the city to discard the results of an employee test in which they fared better than minorities who took the examination.
******************************
Sotomayor calls abortion rights 'settled law'
Jul 14 11:34 AM US/Eastern
Comments (21) Share on Facebook
WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights "settled law" and says there is a constitutional right to privacy.
The federal appeals court judge was asked at her confirmation hearing Tuesday to state how she felt about the landmark Roe versus Wade ruling legalizing abortion in 1973.
Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee that "there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution." She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. She declined to say pointblank if she agreed with the high court's precedent on this volatile issue.
Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that "all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law," subject to the possibility of subsequent reversal, such as when the court last month renounced a previous precedent in a reverse discrimination case. It ruled 5-4 on the side of white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who challenged a decision by the city to discard the results of an employee test in which they fared better than minorities who took the examination.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Dr Regina Benjamin: pro-abortion Catholic?
One blog says this:
In December 1996, Benjamin spoke in favor of a vote by the AMA's governing body to "urge medical schools to expand their curriculum" to teach "more about abortion."
If this is true, this means the Pope erred when giving her an award, and Obama misled the Pope last week when they met in person and Obama said he was interested in reducing abortions in America. It is bad form to misleed the Pope.
In December 1996, Benjamin spoke in favor of a vote by the AMA's governing body to "urge medical schools to expand their curriculum" to teach "more about abortion."
If this is true, this means the Pope erred when giving her an award, and Obama misled the Pope last week when they met in person and Obama said he was interested in reducing abortions in America. It is bad form to misleed the Pope.
A new politics for Generation "M"
I can agree with just about everything this guy says. It's very fascinating because it doesn't cut down across traditional liberal/conservative lines. This kind of viewpoint could be a game changer.
**********************************************
Umair Haque Edge Economy RSS FeedThe Generation M Manifesto
8:01 AM Wednesday July 8, 2009
Tags:Economy, Generational issues, Global business
Dear Old People Who Run the World,
My generation would like to break up with you.
Everyday, I see a widening gap in how you and we understand the world — and what we want from it. I think we have irreconcilable differences.
You wanted big, fat, lazy "business." We want small, responsive, micro-scale commerce.
You turned politics into a dirty word. We want authentic, deep democracy — everywhere.
You wanted financial fundamentalism. We want an economics that makes sense for people — not just banks.
You wanted shareholder value — built by tough-guy CEOs. We want real value, built by people with character, dignity, and courage.
You wanted an invisible hand — it became a digital hand. Today's markets are those where the majority of trades are done literally robotically. We want a visible handshake: to trust and to be trusted.
You wanted growth — faster. We want to slow down — so we can become better.
You didn't care which communities were capsized, or which lives were sunk. We want a rising tide that lifts all boats.
You wanted to biggie size life: McMansions, Hummers, and McFood. We want to humanize life.
You wanted exurbs, sprawl, and gated anti-communities. We want a society built on authentic community.
You wanted more money, credit and leverage — to consume ravenously. We want to be great at doing stuff that matters.
You sacrificed the meaningful for the material: you sold out the very things that made us great for trivial gewgaws, trinkets, and gadgets. We're not for sale: we're learning to once again do what is meaningful.
There's a tectonic shift rocking the social, political, and economic landscape. The last two points above are what express it most concisely. I hate labels, but I'm going to employ a flawed, imperfect one: Generation "M."
What do the "M"s in Generation M stand for? The first is for a movement. It's a little bit about age — but mostly about a growing number of people who are acting very differently. They are doing meaningful stuff that matters the most. Those are the second, third, and fourth "M"s.
Gen M is about passion, responsibility, authenticity, and challenging yesterday's way of everything. Everywhere I look, I see an explosion of Gen M businesses, NGOs, open-source communities, local initiatives, government. Who's Gen M? Obama, kind of. Larry and Sergey. The Threadless, Etsy, and Flickr guys. Ev, Biz and the Twitter crew. Tehran 2.0. The folks at Kiva, Talking Points Memo, and FindtheFarmer. Shigeru Miyamoto, Steve Jobs, Muhammad Yunus, and Jeff Sachs are like the grandpas of Gen M. There are tons where these innovators came from.
Gen M isn't just kind of awesome — it's vitally necessary. If you think the "M"s sound idealistic, think again.
The great crisis isn't going away, changing, or "morphing." It's the same old crisis — and it's growing.
You've failed to recognize it for what it really is. It is, as I've repeatedly pointed out, in our institutions: the rules by which our economy is organized.
But they're your institutions, not ours. You made them — and they're broken. Here's what I mean:
"... For example, the auto industry has cut back production so far that inventories have begun to shrink — even in the face of historically weak demand for motor vehicles. As the economy stabilizes, just slowing the pace of this inventory shrinkage will boost gross domestic product, or GDP, which is the nation's total output of goods and services."
Clearing the backlog of SUVs built on 30-year-old technology is going to pump up GDP? So what? There couldn't be a clearer example of why GDP is a totally flawed concept, an obsolete institution. We don't need more land yachts clogging our roads: we need a 21st Century auto industry.
I was (kind of) kidding about seceding before. Here's what it looks like to me: every generation has a challenge, and this, I think, is ours: to foot the bill for yesterday's profligacy — and to create, instead, an authentically, sustainably shared prosperity.
Anyone — young or old — can answer it. Generation M is more about what you do and who you are than when you were born. So the question is this: do you still belong to the 20th century - or the 21st?
Love,
Umair and the Edge Economy Community
**********************************************
Umair Haque Edge Economy RSS FeedThe Generation M Manifesto
8:01 AM Wednesday July 8, 2009
Tags:Economy, Generational issues, Global business
Dear Old People Who Run the World,
My generation would like to break up with you.
Everyday, I see a widening gap in how you and we understand the world — and what we want from it. I think we have irreconcilable differences.
You wanted big, fat, lazy "business." We want small, responsive, micro-scale commerce.
You turned politics into a dirty word. We want authentic, deep democracy — everywhere.
You wanted financial fundamentalism. We want an economics that makes sense for people — not just banks.
You wanted shareholder value — built by tough-guy CEOs. We want real value, built by people with character, dignity, and courage.
You wanted an invisible hand — it became a digital hand. Today's markets are those where the majority of trades are done literally robotically. We want a visible handshake: to trust and to be trusted.
You wanted growth — faster. We want to slow down — so we can become better.
You didn't care which communities were capsized, or which lives were sunk. We want a rising tide that lifts all boats.
You wanted to biggie size life: McMansions, Hummers, and McFood. We want to humanize life.
You wanted exurbs, sprawl, and gated anti-communities. We want a society built on authentic community.
You wanted more money, credit and leverage — to consume ravenously. We want to be great at doing stuff that matters.
You sacrificed the meaningful for the material: you sold out the very things that made us great for trivial gewgaws, trinkets, and gadgets. We're not for sale: we're learning to once again do what is meaningful.
There's a tectonic shift rocking the social, political, and economic landscape. The last two points above are what express it most concisely. I hate labels, but I'm going to employ a flawed, imperfect one: Generation "M."
What do the "M"s in Generation M stand for? The first is for a movement. It's a little bit about age — but mostly about a growing number of people who are acting very differently. They are doing meaningful stuff that matters the most. Those are the second, third, and fourth "M"s.
Gen M is about passion, responsibility, authenticity, and challenging yesterday's way of everything. Everywhere I look, I see an explosion of Gen M businesses, NGOs, open-source communities, local initiatives, government. Who's Gen M? Obama, kind of. Larry and Sergey. The Threadless, Etsy, and Flickr guys. Ev, Biz and the Twitter crew. Tehran 2.0. The folks at Kiva, Talking Points Memo, and FindtheFarmer. Shigeru Miyamoto, Steve Jobs, Muhammad Yunus, and Jeff Sachs are like the grandpas of Gen M. There are tons where these innovators came from.
Gen M isn't just kind of awesome — it's vitally necessary. If you think the "M"s sound idealistic, think again.
The great crisis isn't going away, changing, or "morphing." It's the same old crisis — and it's growing.
You've failed to recognize it for what it really is. It is, as I've repeatedly pointed out, in our institutions: the rules by which our economy is organized.
But they're your institutions, not ours. You made them — and they're broken. Here's what I mean:
"... For example, the auto industry has cut back production so far that inventories have begun to shrink — even in the face of historically weak demand for motor vehicles. As the economy stabilizes, just slowing the pace of this inventory shrinkage will boost gross domestic product, or GDP, which is the nation's total output of goods and services."
Clearing the backlog of SUVs built on 30-year-old technology is going to pump up GDP? So what? There couldn't be a clearer example of why GDP is a totally flawed concept, an obsolete institution. We don't need more land yachts clogging our roads: we need a 21st Century auto industry.
I was (kind of) kidding about seceding before. Here's what it looks like to me: every generation has a challenge, and this, I think, is ours: to foot the bill for yesterday's profligacy — and to create, instead, an authentically, sustainably shared prosperity.
Anyone — young or old — can answer it. Generation M is more about what you do and who you are than when you were born. So the question is this: do you still belong to the 20th century - or the 21st?
Love,
Umair and the Edge Economy Community
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
God references in 50 state constitutions
Obama said in Turkey : "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIVd7YT0oWA
Well, maybe not a Christian nation, but a faithful nation... or a nation of faithful states:
• Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
• Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
• Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
• Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
• California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
• Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
• Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
• Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
• Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
• Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
• Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution.
• Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
• Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
• Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
• Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
• Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
• Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
• Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
• Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty....
• Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
• Michigan 1908, Preamble.. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
• Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
• Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
• Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
• Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
• Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
• Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
• New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art . I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
• New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
• New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
• North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
• North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
• Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
• Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
• Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
• Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
• Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
• South Carolina , 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
• South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
• Tennessee 1796, Art . XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
• Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
• Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
• Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
• Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
• Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
• West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..
• Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
• Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...
Well, maybe not a Christian nation, but a faithful nation... or a nation of faithful states:
• Alabama 1901, Preamble We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution..
• Alaska 1956, Preamble We, the people of Alaska , grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.
• Arizona 1911, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...
• Arkansas 1874, Preamble We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...
• California 1879, Preamble We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...
• Colorado 1876, Preamble We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...
• Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.
• Delaware 1897, Preamble Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...
• Florida 1885, Preamble We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...
• Georgia 1777, Preamble We, the people of Georgia , relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...
• Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance .... Establish this Constitution.
• Idaho 1889, Preamble We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings..
• Illinois 1870, Preamble We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• Indiana 1851, Preamble We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.
• Iowa 1857, Preamble We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.
• Kansas 1859, Preamble We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.
• Kentucky 1891, Preamble.. We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties..
• Louisiana 1921, Preamble We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.
• Maine 1820, Preamble We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.
• Maryland 1776, Preamble We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty....
• Massachusetts 1780, Preamble We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction
• Michigan 1908, Preamble.. We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.
• Minnesota, 1857, Preamble We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings:
• Mississippi 1890, Preamble We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.
• Missouri 1845, Preamble We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...
• Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution ..
• Nebraska 1875, Preamble We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.
• Nevada 1864, Preamble We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...
• New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art . I. Sec. V Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.
• New Jersey 1844, Preamble We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.
• New Mexico 1911, Preamble We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty..
• New York 1846, Preamble We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.
• North Carolina 1868, Preamble We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...
• North Dakota 1889, Preamble We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...
• Ohio 1852, Preamble We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.
• Oklahoma 1907, Preamble Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish this
• Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences
• Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....
• Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...
• South Carolina , 1778, Preamble We, the people of he State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.
• South Dakota 1889, Preamble We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ...
• Tennessee 1796, Art . XI..III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...
• Texas 1845, Preamble We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.
• Utah 1896, Preamble Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.
• Vermont 1777, Preamble Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ..
• Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other
• Washington 1889, Preamble We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution
• West Virginia 1872, Preamble Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ..
• Wisconsin 1848, Preamble We, the people of Wisconsin , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...
• Wyoming 1890, Preamble We, the people of the State of Wyoming , grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Democrats too liberal? Gallup
An opening for Republicans? Today the Dems win the supermajority. How long will they retain power?
********************
June 30, 2009
More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”
More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
Most major demographic and attitudinal subgroups show at least a slight uptick since 2008 in perceptions that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.
Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is "too conservative," though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.
As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).
But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats' ideology is "about right" (42%) than say this about the Republicans' ideology (34%).
In fact, the 34% who say the GOP is about right is a new low since the question was first asked in 1992, and a far cry from November 1994 and November 2002, when majorities thought the Republicans' views were appropriately balanced.
Independents' Views of the Parties
Political independents' perceptions of the two major parties' ideological orientation are important since both parties need to appeal to the political center in order to win elections. (The vast majority of partisan identifiers predictably view their chosen party's views as being about right and the other party's as being too extreme.)
Currently, independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme in either direction than to believe they are about right. But more independents say the Democratic Party (38%) than the Republican Party (25%) is about right.
Independents are a little more likely to say the Republican Party is too conservative than to say the Democratic Party is too liberal, in a slight departure from the results among all Americans.
Since last year, there have been declining perceptions among independents that each party is about right in its ideological orientation -- from 31% to 25% for the Republican Party and from 43% to 38% for the Democratic Party. Most of the decline in regard to the Democratic Party has been associated with in an increase in seeing the party as "too liberal."
Implications
The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 14-17, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
********************
June 30, 2009
More Americans See Democratic Party as “Too Liberal”
More believe Democratic Party’s, rather than Republican Party’s, views are about right
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- A Gallup Poll finds a statistically significant increase since last year in the percentage of Americans who describe the Democratic Party's views as being "too liberal," from 39% to 46%. This is the largest percentage saying so since November 1994, after the party's losses in that year's midterm elections.
Most major demographic and attitudinal subgroups show at least a slight uptick since 2008 in perceptions that the Democratic Party is too liberal. The increasing perception of the Democrats as too far left comes as President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have expanded the government's role in the economy to address the economic problems facing the country. Additionally, the government is working toward major healthcare reform legislation and strengthening environmental regulations.
Notably, there has been no change over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say the Republican Party is "too conservative," though the 43% who say the party leans too far to the right matches the historical high mark set last year.
As a result, now slightly more Americans perceive the Democratic Party as being too liberal (46%) than view the GOP as being too conservative (43%).
But the Democratic Party still compares favorably to the Republican Party from the standpoint that more Americans say the Democrats' ideology is "about right" (42%) than say this about the Republicans' ideology (34%).
In fact, the 34% who say the GOP is about right is a new low since the question was first asked in 1992, and a far cry from November 1994 and November 2002, when majorities thought the Republicans' views were appropriately balanced.
Independents' Views of the Parties
Political independents' perceptions of the two major parties' ideological orientation are important since both parties need to appeal to the political center in order to win elections. (The vast majority of partisan identifiers predictably view their chosen party's views as being about right and the other party's as being too extreme.)
Currently, independents are more likely to view both parties as being too extreme in either direction than to believe they are about right. But more independents say the Democratic Party (38%) than the Republican Party (25%) is about right.
Independents are a little more likely to say the Republican Party is too conservative than to say the Democratic Party is too liberal, in a slight departure from the results among all Americans.
Since last year, there have been declining perceptions among independents that each party is about right in its ideological orientation -- from 31% to 25% for the Republican Party and from 43% to 38% for the Democratic Party. Most of the decline in regard to the Democratic Party has been associated with in an increase in seeing the party as "too liberal."
Implications
The Democratic Party continues to hold the upper hand over the Republican Party in the current U.S. political environment by a variety of measures, including party identification and party favorable ratings. However, compared to last year, Americans are significantly more likely to see the Democratic Party as too liberal, and as a result, they are somewhat more likely to view the party as being too far left than to perceive the Republican Party as too far right. That may expose a bit of a vulnerability for the Democratic Party, and if perceptions of the Democratic Party as being too liberal continue to grow, the GOP may be able to win back some of the support it has lost in recent years. But that may be possible only if the Republicans are at the same time able to convince the public that they are not too far to the political right.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 14-17, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.
Newborn blood samples - DNA privacy
Here we go again.
****************
Blood Samples Raise Questions of Privacy
Some Samples Are Stored and Used For Research Without Parents' Consent
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Matthew Brzica and his wife hardly noticed when the hospital took a few drops of blood from each of their four newborn children for routine genetic testing. But then they discovered that the state had kept the dried blood samples ever since -- and was making them available to scientists for medical research.
"They're just taking DNA from young kids right out of the womb and putting it into a warehouse," said Brzica, of Victoria, Minn. "DNA is what makes us who we are. It's just not right."
The couple is among a group of parents challenging Minnesota's practice of storing babies' blood samples and allowing researchers to study them without their permission. The confrontation, and a similar one in Texas, has focused attention on the practice at a time when there is increasing interest in using millions of these collected "blood spots" to study diseases.
Michigan, for example, is moving millions of samples from a state warehouse in Lansing to freezers in a new "neonatal biobank" in Detroit in the hopes of helping make the economically downtrodden city a center for biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health, meanwhile, is funding a $13.5 million, five-year project aimed at creating a "virtual repository" of blood samples from around the country.
The storage and use of the blood is raising many questions, including whether states should be required to get parents' consent before keeping the samples long-term or making them available to scientists, and whether parents should be consulted about the types of studies for which they are used. The concern has prompted a federal advisory panel to begin reviewing such issues.
"There has not been a good national discussion about the use of these samples," said Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah who is studying policies and attitudes about the newborn blood samples as part of a federally funded project. "Genetics is an area that touches a nerve. The public is concerned about massive databases."
Hospitals prick the heels of more than 4 million babies born each year in the United States to collect a few drops of blood under state programs requiring that all newborns be screened for dozens of genetic disorders. The programs enable doctors to save lives and prevent permanent neurological damage by diagnosing and treating the conditions early.
Although parents are usually informed about the tests and often can opt out if they object for religious and other reasons, many give it little thought in the rush and exhaustion of a birth. And parents are generally not asked for permission to store the samples or use them for research.
Each state determines what is done with the blood spots afterward. The District discards them after a year. Virginia saves them for up to 10 years but does not allow them to be used for research, officials said. Maryland has been storing blood spots since 2004 and may make its inventory of about 350,000 samples available to researchers. At least nine other states also keep the blood spots indefinitely.
"We consider them a national treasure," said Sharon Terry of the Genetic Alliance, a coalition that promotes genetics research. "We think they offer us the beginnings of a national blood bank to understand disease at an early age and follow people longitudinally over time."
The stored samples are mostly used to validate the accuracy of newborn screening and evaluate new tests. But scientists are also using them for other types of research, including to study specific genetic disorders, explore the frequency and causes of birth defects, decipher how genes and environmental factors interact, and probe whether exposure to chemical pollutants early in development plays a role in cancer and other diseases.
Research projects are only approved, officials in Maryland and other states said, after undergoing careful scientific and ethical review. In most cases, all identifying information is stripped from the samples.
"I've never heard anyone complain that their privacy was violated or their dried blood was used for something that negatively impacted them," said Michael S. Watson of the American College of Medical Genetics, which has the NIH contract to create an electronic database of newborn blood samples from across the country.
But the states can still link each sample to an individual child -- and that worries some parents, patient groups, bioethicists and privacy advocates, especially with advances in genetics and electronic data banks linking medical information from different sources.
"It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it. Once we start using DNA for more and more things like regular medical records, somebody could do a cross-check and say whose blood it is."
As scientists continue to discover new genetic markers, many wonder what such databases might reveal.
"I'm not a big scaremonger about the dangers of DNA medicine," Greely said. "But you could use someone's DNA to make some inferences about their future health, about their future behavior, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships."
Because of those and other concerns, parents and privacy activists in Minnesota are asking that more than 800,000 blood spots that have been stored without parents' approval since 1997 be destroyed.
"Once learning the genetics of one child, you could see an insurance company seeing that possibility for the next child and making it clear that this is a preexisting condition that the company would not cover. Or perhaps an employer that found out about it wouldn't want to have us as an employee," said Twila Brase of the Citizens' Council on Health Care in St. Paul.
Guaranteeing Privacy
The Minnesota case prompted a similar parents' lawsuit in March against Texas, which since 2002 has stored an estimated 4 million samples. The litigation spurred the Texas legislature to require the state health department to start getting parents' permission to store the samples and honor requests that samples be destroyed. But the lawsuit is still pending over what should be done with the samples already on file.
"I don't want to sound paranoid, but I'm not comfortable with a governmental agency having this information, with potentially the ability to share it with sister governmental agencies, such as criminal agencies," said Maryann Overath, an Austin lawyer with two sons who sued the state.
Law enforcement agencies have been cataloguing millions of DNA fingerprints in recent years, raising similar concerns.
State officials argue that strict safeguards protect the privacy of information associated with the newborn blood samples and say details about a child's medical history are provided to researchers only if parents are contacted individually for approval.
"Privacy is very important, and we protect it every way we can," said David Orren, the Minnesota health department's chief legal counsel.
In Michigan, officials plan to start asking new parents for permission to include their children's samples in the stockpile. But officials decided it would be impractical to try to contact the parents of all 3.5 million children whose samples are already on file. Instead, they are publicizing the biobank to allow parents to object if they don't want their children's samples included.
But even if the question of consent is resolved, other issues remain.
"There might be some research that offends moral sensibilities of citizens, such as research into prenatal screening for some genetic condition that might lead some parents to make a decision to selectively abort affected fetuses," said Tom Tomlinson, a bioethicist at Michigan State University.
Concerned that the debate might undermine the newborn screening programs, the federal Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children will discuss the issue in September.
"There are obviously legal and ethical issues that need further discussion," said R. Rodney Howell, who chairs the committee. "Unfortunately we live in a world of conspiracy theories. We want to inform people that these spots are retained in some states and that they are carefully guarded. We want to be totally transparent."
Comments: steinr@washpost.com.
****************
Blood Samples Raise Questions of Privacy
Some Samples Are Stored and Used For Research Without Parents' Consent
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Matthew Brzica and his wife hardly noticed when the hospital took a few drops of blood from each of their four newborn children for routine genetic testing. But then they discovered that the state had kept the dried blood samples ever since -- and was making them available to scientists for medical research.
"They're just taking DNA from young kids right out of the womb and putting it into a warehouse," said Brzica, of Victoria, Minn. "DNA is what makes us who we are. It's just not right."
The couple is among a group of parents challenging Minnesota's practice of storing babies' blood samples and allowing researchers to study them without their permission. The confrontation, and a similar one in Texas, has focused attention on the practice at a time when there is increasing interest in using millions of these collected "blood spots" to study diseases.
Michigan, for example, is moving millions of samples from a state warehouse in Lansing to freezers in a new "neonatal biobank" in Detroit in the hopes of helping make the economically downtrodden city a center for biomedical research. The National Institutes of Health, meanwhile, is funding a $13.5 million, five-year project aimed at creating a "virtual repository" of blood samples from around the country.
The storage and use of the blood is raising many questions, including whether states should be required to get parents' consent before keeping the samples long-term or making them available to scientists, and whether parents should be consulted about the types of studies for which they are used. The concern has prompted a federal advisory panel to begin reviewing such issues.
"There has not been a good national discussion about the use of these samples," said Jeffrey Botkin, a pediatrician and bioethicist at the University of Utah who is studying policies and attitudes about the newborn blood samples as part of a federally funded project. "Genetics is an area that touches a nerve. The public is concerned about massive databases."
Hospitals prick the heels of more than 4 million babies born each year in the United States to collect a few drops of blood under state programs requiring that all newborns be screened for dozens of genetic disorders. The programs enable doctors to save lives and prevent permanent neurological damage by diagnosing and treating the conditions early.
Although parents are usually informed about the tests and often can opt out if they object for religious and other reasons, many give it little thought in the rush and exhaustion of a birth. And parents are generally not asked for permission to store the samples or use them for research.
Each state determines what is done with the blood spots afterward. The District discards them after a year. Virginia saves them for up to 10 years but does not allow them to be used for research, officials said. Maryland has been storing blood spots since 2004 and may make its inventory of about 350,000 samples available to researchers. At least nine other states also keep the blood spots indefinitely.
"We consider them a national treasure," said Sharon Terry of the Genetic Alliance, a coalition that promotes genetics research. "We think they offer us the beginnings of a national blood bank to understand disease at an early age and follow people longitudinally over time."
The stored samples are mostly used to validate the accuracy of newborn screening and evaluate new tests. But scientists are also using them for other types of research, including to study specific genetic disorders, explore the frequency and causes of birth defects, decipher how genes and environmental factors interact, and probe whether exposure to chemical pollutants early in development plays a role in cancer and other diseases.
Research projects are only approved, officials in Maryland and other states said, after undergoing careful scientific and ethical review. In most cases, all identifying information is stripped from the samples.
"I've never heard anyone complain that their privacy was violated or their dried blood was used for something that negatively impacted them," said Michael S. Watson of the American College of Medical Genetics, which has the NIH contract to create an electronic database of newborn blood samples from across the country.
But the states can still link each sample to an individual child -- and that worries some parents, patient groups, bioethicists and privacy advocates, especially with advances in genetics and electronic data banks linking medical information from different sources.
"It's fine and good to say these can't be identified, but how real is that?" said Hank Greely, a Stanford University bioethicist. "Just because you don't have a name or Social Security number doesn't mean you can't identify it. Once we start using DNA for more and more things like regular medical records, somebody could do a cross-check and say whose blood it is."
As scientists continue to discover new genetic markers, many wonder what such databases might reveal.
"I'm not a big scaremonger about the dangers of DNA medicine," Greely said. "But you could use someone's DNA to make some inferences about their future health, about their future behavior, and if you got samples from their parents or a DNA databank, you can make inferences about family relationships."
Because of those and other concerns, parents and privacy activists in Minnesota are asking that more than 800,000 blood spots that have been stored without parents' approval since 1997 be destroyed.
"Once learning the genetics of one child, you could see an insurance company seeing that possibility for the next child and making it clear that this is a preexisting condition that the company would not cover. Or perhaps an employer that found out about it wouldn't want to have us as an employee," said Twila Brase of the Citizens' Council on Health Care in St. Paul.
Guaranteeing Privacy
The Minnesota case prompted a similar parents' lawsuit in March against Texas, which since 2002 has stored an estimated 4 million samples. The litigation spurred the Texas legislature to require the state health department to start getting parents' permission to store the samples and honor requests that samples be destroyed. But the lawsuit is still pending over what should be done with the samples already on file.
"I don't want to sound paranoid, but I'm not comfortable with a governmental agency having this information, with potentially the ability to share it with sister governmental agencies, such as criminal agencies," said Maryann Overath, an Austin lawyer with two sons who sued the state.
Law enforcement agencies have been cataloguing millions of DNA fingerprints in recent years, raising similar concerns.
State officials argue that strict safeguards protect the privacy of information associated with the newborn blood samples and say details about a child's medical history are provided to researchers only if parents are contacted individually for approval.
"Privacy is very important, and we protect it every way we can," said David Orren, the Minnesota health department's chief legal counsel.
In Michigan, officials plan to start asking new parents for permission to include their children's samples in the stockpile. But officials decided it would be impractical to try to contact the parents of all 3.5 million children whose samples are already on file. Instead, they are publicizing the biobank to allow parents to object if they don't want their children's samples included.
But even if the question of consent is resolved, other issues remain.
"There might be some research that offends moral sensibilities of citizens, such as research into prenatal screening for some genetic condition that might lead some parents to make a decision to selectively abort affected fetuses," said Tom Tomlinson, a bioethicist at Michigan State University.
Concerned that the debate might undermine the newborn screening programs, the federal Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children will discuss the issue in September.
"There are obviously legal and ethical issues that need further discussion," said R. Rodney Howell, who chairs the committee. "Unfortunately we live in a world of conspiracy theories. We want to inform people that these spots are retained in some states and that they are carefully guarded. We want to be totally transparent."
Comments: steinr@washpost.com.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Jenny Sanford - strong woman
This is amazing. Have you ever seen such a woman.
*******************
Jenny Sanford: I asked husband to leave 2 weeks ago
'I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 24, 2009
5:22 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford
Jenny Sanford, the first lady of South Carolina, released the following statement today:
I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.
I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.
(Story continues below)
I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.
I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.
Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.
This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.
*******************
Jenny Sanford: I asked husband to leave 2 weeks ago
'I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 24, 2009
5:22 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
S.C. First Lady Jenny Sanford
Jenny Sanford, the first lady of South Carolina, released the following statement today:
I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.
I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.
(Story continues below)
I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.
I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.
Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.
This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Christians compelled to participate in US, UK gay parades
Wow.
***********
Heterosexual ambulance staffers sought for 'gay' parade
Despite clampdown on expenses, offered overtime to participate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Staff members from a British ambulance service are being offered extra pay if they take part in a homosexual parade, following the low attendance at the event a year ago when participation was voluntary, according to a report in the London Daily Mail.
The costs, including overtime, refreshments for the staffers and transportation to and from the Brighton, England, resort where the parade is scheduled, will be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers, the report said.
The newspaper said a paramedic said the South East Coast Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust would be paying its workers 40 British pounds each – about $65 – to take part in the Brighton homosexual parade.
That's the equivalent of two hours overtime pay, even though the newspaper reported paramedics confirmed there had been a halt order issued for overtime payments.
(Story continues below)
"People from the trust went last year but they all attended as all volunteers," the paper quoted one paramedic saying, "I heard that the turnout wasn't very high and they wanted to get more people there."
A member of parliament, Ann Widdecombe, called the situation "unacceptable."
"The fact that the ambulance service is having to bribe paramedics to go is even worse. It would be much better to let them take a day off so they can get refreshed before they have to start their vital work saving lives," she said.
A Taxpayer Alliance official told the newspaper if staff members want to march, they can, "but there's no way we should pay for them to go on this march."
According to the report, a spokesman for the ambulance service said such community events are good ways to engage the public.
WND previously reported on a case in the United States in which firefighters were ordered to appear in a homosexual "Pride Parade," and later were awarded $5,000 each for emotional damages from the event.
In that case, Charles LiMandri, the West Coast regional director for the Thomas More Law Center, said, "Government employees should never be forced to participate in events or acts that violate their sincerely held beliefs."
"We are pleased with the jury's verdict recognizing the firefighters' right to abstain from activities that they consider morally offensive and that subject them to harassment," LiMandri said.
LiMandri said the main goal was that firefighters, all Christians, no longer will be subjected to such treatment.
The firefighters had been ordered to participate in the July 21, 2007, promotion of homosexuality and explicit sex.
WND reported earlier when attorney LiMandri made clear the liability held by the city of San Diego.
"These men were sexually harassed in clear violation of San Diego's sexual harassment code," LiMandri said. "Further, the California Constitution's freedom of speech provision prohibits compelled speech. What the firefighters were ordered to do was endorse what goes on at this parade through their participation in it."
***********
Heterosexual ambulance staffers sought for 'gay' parade
Despite clampdown on expenses, offered overtime to participate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 19, 2009
8:42 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Staff members from a British ambulance service are being offered extra pay if they take part in a homosexual parade, following the low attendance at the event a year ago when participation was voluntary, according to a report in the London Daily Mail.
The costs, including overtime, refreshments for the staffers and transportation to and from the Brighton, England, resort where the parade is scheduled, will be paid by United Kingdom taxpayers, the report said.
The newspaper said a paramedic said the South East Coast Ambulance Service National Health Service Trust would be paying its workers 40 British pounds each – about $65 – to take part in the Brighton homosexual parade.
That's the equivalent of two hours overtime pay, even though the newspaper reported paramedics confirmed there had been a halt order issued for overtime payments.
(Story continues below)
"People from the trust went last year but they all attended as all volunteers," the paper quoted one paramedic saying, "I heard that the turnout wasn't very high and they wanted to get more people there."
A member of parliament, Ann Widdecombe, called the situation "unacceptable."
"The fact that the ambulance service is having to bribe paramedics to go is even worse. It would be much better to let them take a day off so they can get refreshed before they have to start their vital work saving lives," she said.
A Taxpayer Alliance official told the newspaper if staff members want to march, they can, "but there's no way we should pay for them to go on this march."
According to the report, a spokesman for the ambulance service said such community events are good ways to engage the public.
WND previously reported on a case in the United States in which firefighters were ordered to appear in a homosexual "Pride Parade," and later were awarded $5,000 each for emotional damages from the event.
In that case, Charles LiMandri, the West Coast regional director for the Thomas More Law Center, said, "Government employees should never be forced to participate in events or acts that violate their sincerely held beliefs."
"We are pleased with the jury's verdict recognizing the firefighters' right to abstain from activities that they consider morally offensive and that subject them to harassment," LiMandri said.
LiMandri said the main goal was that firefighters, all Christians, no longer will be subjected to such treatment.
The firefighters had been ordered to participate in the July 21, 2007, promotion of homosexuality and explicit sex.
WND reported earlier when attorney LiMandri made clear the liability held by the city of San Diego.
"These men were sexually harassed in clear violation of San Diego's sexual harassment code," LiMandri said. "Further, the California Constitution's freedom of speech provision prohibits compelled speech. What the firefighters were ordered to do was endorse what goes on at this parade through their participation in it."
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Internet time crowding family time
Time to turn off the screens across America. But not until I do this blog entry.
*******************************************
Survey: Family time eroding as Internet use soars
Jun 15 01:38 PM US/Eastern
Comments (24) Share on Facebook
NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's around the dinner table or sitting front of the TV, U.S. families say they are spending less time together.
The decline in family time coincides with a rise in Internet use, and the boom of social networks—though a new report stops just short of assigning blame.
The report is from the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California.
The center is reporting that 28 percent of Americans it interviewed last year said they have been spending less time with members of their households. Only 11 percent said that in 2006.
*******************************************
Survey: Family time eroding as Internet use soars
Jun 15 01:38 PM US/Eastern
Comments (24) Share on Facebook
NEW YORK (AP) - Whether it's around the dinner table or sitting front of the TV, U.S. families say they are spending less time together.
The decline in family time coincides with a rise in Internet use, and the boom of social networks—though a new report stops just short of assigning blame.
The report is from the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future at the University of Southern California.
The center is reporting that 28 percent of Americans it interviewed last year said they have been spending less time with members of their households. Only 11 percent said that in 2006.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Tami Farrell: just like Prejean
Atta girl.
****************
New Miss California: Marriage between man, woman
Tami Farrell: 'The right thing to do is let the voters decide'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 11, 2009
5:50 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Tami Farrell, the new Miss California
Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, and President Obama that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:
"[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?"
Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, "Uh huh."
"You do, OK," said Cavuto.
Farrell quickly added: "I don't think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can't love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide."
****************
New Miss California: Marriage between man, woman
Tami Farrell: 'The right thing to do is let the voters decide'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 11, 2009
5:50 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Tami Farrell, the new Miss California
Tami Farrell, the newly crowned beauty queen who is replacing the ousted Carrie Prejean as Miss California, apparently holds the same view as her predecessor, Carrie Prejean, and President Obama that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
Fox News host Neil Cavuto asked Farrell, who is Christian, on his show today:
"[Prejean] went out and said that a marriage is between a man and a woman. Do you share that view?"
Farrell responded in the affirmative with a simple, "Uh huh."
"You do, OK," said Cavuto.
Farrell quickly added: "I don't think that I have the right or anybody has a right to tell somebody who they can or can't love. And I think that this is a civil rights issue. And I think that the right thing to do is let the voters decide."
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Carrie Prejean swan song
Her enemies will regret this.
*******************************
by Carrie Prejean
Let me begin by saying I treasure the opportunity I’ve had to represent the great State of California, and I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the thousands of Californians, and other Americans, I have met and who have stood with me through this controversial firestorm. One of the many enduring things about being Miss California USA was the opportunity to get to meet and know so many wonderful people. I would not be the strong, courageous woman I am today without your support, and prayers.
I would like to thank Mr. Donald Trump and his organization for his support and defending me through the most challenging time of my life. I am so grateful for him, and the opportunity I’ve had to get to know him. I admire, and respect him. I wish Tami Farrell the best; I know she will do a great job.
I hope Americans watching this story unfold, take away the most important lesson I have learned through all of this: nothing is more important than standing up for what you believe in, no matter what the cost may be. I’ve done my best under the difficult circumstances to handle the vicious attacks with integrity and show respect to others, even those who don’t agree with me.
I worked in good faith to meet my responsibilities as Miss California USA. I have met every scheduled appearance, and responsibility, as recently as May 31st. I have followed the proper protocol requested of me and haven’t made any appearances or speaking engagements without the consent or approval from the Miss California USA or Miss Universe Organizations. I have not signed with any book publisher or taken on any business proposals. As of today, June 11, 2009, I have done everything possible to honor my contract.
I am proud to be an American, and blessed to have had the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech. I am excited and looking forward to where God leads me in the future. I know He has big plans for me. I am proud to be the strong woman God has molded me to be. I will always stand for the truth, respectfully, and never back down.
Thank you and God Bless,
Carrie Prejean
*******************************
by Carrie Prejean
Let me begin by saying I treasure the opportunity I’ve had to represent the great State of California, and I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the thousands of Californians, and other Americans, I have met and who have stood with me through this controversial firestorm. One of the many enduring things about being Miss California USA was the opportunity to get to meet and know so many wonderful people. I would not be the strong, courageous woman I am today without your support, and prayers.
I would like to thank Mr. Donald Trump and his organization for his support and defending me through the most challenging time of my life. I am so grateful for him, and the opportunity I’ve had to get to know him. I admire, and respect him. I wish Tami Farrell the best; I know she will do a great job.
I hope Americans watching this story unfold, take away the most important lesson I have learned through all of this: nothing is more important than standing up for what you believe in, no matter what the cost may be. I’ve done my best under the difficult circumstances to handle the vicious attacks with integrity and show respect to others, even those who don’t agree with me.
I worked in good faith to meet my responsibilities as Miss California USA. I have met every scheduled appearance, and responsibility, as recently as May 31st. I have followed the proper protocol requested of me and haven’t made any appearances or speaking engagements without the consent or approval from the Miss California USA or Miss Universe Organizations. I have not signed with any book publisher or taken on any business proposals. As of today, June 11, 2009, I have done everything possible to honor my contract.
I am proud to be an American, and blessed to have had the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech. I am excited and looking forward to where God leads me in the future. I know He has big plans for me. I am proud to be the strong woman God has molded me to be. I will always stand for the truth, respectfully, and never back down.
Thank you and God Bless,
Carrie Prejean
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Shep Smith on right-wing crazies
Unbiased media?
******************
Shep Smith attacks right-wing 'crazies'
Rips people questioning eligibility as being 'out there in a scary place'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 10, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Fox News' Shepard Smith
Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, host of the top-rated evening cable newscast, believes Americans challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president are "crazies," saying "there is no truth whatsoever" to the suggestion Obama is not a "natural born citizen."
Smith made the remark during analysis of today's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, where an elderly gunman opened fire with a rifle, killing a security guard before himself being shot. Police were probing an alleged white supremacist, James von Brunn, as the assailant.
During his interview with Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Smith said:
"There are these crazies out there who want to pretend [Obama's] not a citizen of the United States, who want to pretend that his religion is something they see as in some way troublesome to them and all of us. And there is a group perpetuating this thought, and there is a culture to which you can attach yourself very easily through the Internet. ... We know it's absolutely – there is no truth whatsoever – zero – to any of those ideas, yet they live within the computer and they fester in people's minds."
Beirich agreed completely with Smith's remarks, as she responded:
"You're hitting the nail on the head about these kinds of crazed conspiracies whether they're about the president, or we're hearing things like FEMA setting up camps to round up Americans and put them in. I'm getting bad sort of deja-vu from the 1990s when anti-government militias were on the rise, when Tim McVeigh committed that [bombing] in Oklahoma City and I really am hoping that we're not going through a repeat of that."
Are you motivated yet to join the billboard campaign and clear up the air of mystery surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve?
Smith made numerous references to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of potential violence from "right-wing extremists," and said he's been personally disturbed by an increase in e-mail to him from people "who are way out there on a limb ... out there in a scary place."
He read what he called a representative message that asked, "How dare you tell us to get over the birth certificate ... ?"
Shepard Smith's 2000 mugshot
Ironically, Smith himself allegedly engaged in activity some might deem "out there in a scary place."
As WND reported in November 2000, during the Florida presidential election fiasco, Smith was arrested for allegedly driving his Mazda Millenia into another reporter who was standing in a parking space she attempted to save for a friend. The victim, freelance journalist Maureen Walsh of Tallahassee, was hospitalized and released later the same day with bruises on her knees and legs.
The St. Petersburg Times reported Tallahassee Police Sgt. Edwin Maxwell said Smith drove up and "shouted some profanities at her and basically just struck her, striking her at the knees, which threw her up on the car."
According to NewsBlues, a witness to the incident said Smith "intentionally ran into her with his car to try and get her to move from the parking spot. She was thrown onto the hood of the car and ended up on the ground. Smith then parked the car, turned off the engine, turned to the crews assisting the reporter and said "f--- you" and walked into the state capital. Police and paramedics were called."
"When arrested on the street outside the capital, Smith said he couldn't understand why this was happening ... they then handcuffed him."
Smith was charged with a felony the day of the offense, but it was later downgraded to a misdemeanor and eventually dropped.
Two hours after Smith's TV remarks about "crazies,", his network colleague Glenn Beck said of the shooting in Washington, "This is not the work of right-wing conservatives."
"This guy is a lone gunman nut job," Beck said. "I'm not stirring the pot. I am pointing out that the pot is boiling and there is trouble in America. ... Common sense tells you that there are very hateful people on the right and on the left."
The museum guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns, died in the hospital. Von Brunn, 89, was listed in critical condition.
Nationwide attention about President Obama's lack of producing a long-form birth certificate proving his eligibility for office got a boost today when top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh joked about the subject in comparing Obama to God.
Asking rhetorically what God has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, "Neither has a birth certificate."
******************
Shep Smith attacks right-wing 'crazies'
Rips people questioning eligibility as being 'out there in a scary place'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 10, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Fox News' Shepard Smith
Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, host of the top-rated evening cable newscast, believes Americans challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president are "crazies," saying "there is no truth whatsoever" to the suggestion Obama is not a "natural born citizen."
Smith made the remark during analysis of today's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, where an elderly gunman opened fire with a rifle, killing a security guard before himself being shot. Police were probing an alleged white supremacist, James von Brunn, as the assailant.
During his interview with Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Smith said:
"There are these crazies out there who want to pretend [Obama's] not a citizen of the United States, who want to pretend that his religion is something they see as in some way troublesome to them and all of us. And there is a group perpetuating this thought, and there is a culture to which you can attach yourself very easily through the Internet. ... We know it's absolutely – there is no truth whatsoever – zero – to any of those ideas, yet they live within the computer and they fester in people's minds."
Beirich agreed completely with Smith's remarks, as she responded:
"You're hitting the nail on the head about these kinds of crazed conspiracies whether they're about the president, or we're hearing things like FEMA setting up camps to round up Americans and put them in. I'm getting bad sort of deja-vu from the 1990s when anti-government militias were on the rise, when Tim McVeigh committed that [bombing] in Oklahoma City and I really am hoping that we're not going through a repeat of that."
Are you motivated yet to join the billboard campaign and clear up the air of mystery surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve?
Smith made numerous references to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of potential violence from "right-wing extremists," and said he's been personally disturbed by an increase in e-mail to him from people "who are way out there on a limb ... out there in a scary place."
He read what he called a representative message that asked, "How dare you tell us to get over the birth certificate ... ?"
Shepard Smith's 2000 mugshot
Ironically, Smith himself allegedly engaged in activity some might deem "out there in a scary place."
As WND reported in November 2000, during the Florida presidential election fiasco, Smith was arrested for allegedly driving his Mazda Millenia into another reporter who was standing in a parking space she attempted to save for a friend. The victim, freelance journalist Maureen Walsh of Tallahassee, was hospitalized and released later the same day with bruises on her knees and legs.
The St. Petersburg Times reported Tallahassee Police Sgt. Edwin Maxwell said Smith drove up and "shouted some profanities at her and basically just struck her, striking her at the knees, which threw her up on the car."
According to NewsBlues, a witness to the incident said Smith "intentionally ran into her with his car to try and get her to move from the parking spot. She was thrown onto the hood of the car and ended up on the ground. Smith then parked the car, turned off the engine, turned to the crews assisting the reporter and said "f--- you" and walked into the state capital. Police and paramedics were called."
"When arrested on the street outside the capital, Smith said he couldn't understand why this was happening ... they then handcuffed him."
Smith was charged with a felony the day of the offense, but it was later downgraded to a misdemeanor and eventually dropped.
Two hours after Smith's TV remarks about "crazies,", his network colleague Glenn Beck said of the shooting in Washington, "This is not the work of right-wing conservatives."
"This guy is a lone gunman nut job," Beck said. "I'm not stirring the pot. I am pointing out that the pot is boiling and there is trouble in America. ... Common sense tells you that there are very hateful people on the right and on the left."
The museum guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns, died in the hospital. Von Brunn, 89, was listed in critical condition.
Nationwide attention about President Obama's lack of producing a long-form birth certificate proving his eligibility for office got a boost today when top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh joked about the subject in comparing Obama to God.
Asking rhetorically what God has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, "Neither has a birth certificate."
Lou Pritchett open letter to Obama
Is this for real?
***************
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
***************
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA
By Lou Pritchett
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.
Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.
Carrie Prejean fired by Trump
I've never seen Trump show such indecisiveness, flipping so quickly.
************************************
Carrie Prejean fires back after losing Miss California crown
Jun 10, 2009, 06:45 PM | by Josh Rottenberg
Categories: News
In an interview with TMZ, deposed Miss California Carrie Prejean said that she was "shocked" at the news she had been stripped of her crown and fired back at pageant owner Donald Trump and the pageant producers. Prejean, who was fired by Trump for failing to get clearance for extracurricular activities, claims in response that pageant head Keith Lewis actually encouraged her to pose for Playboy magazine and appear in the reality series "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" Prejean, who sparked controversy with comments she made against gay marriage, insists the real motivation behind her firing was political: "What's behind this, I think, is a political debate. They don't agree with the stance that I took [on California's Proposition 8].... From day one they wanted me out, and they got what they wanted."
************************************
Carrie Prejean fires back after losing Miss California crown
Jun 10, 2009, 06:45 PM | by Josh Rottenberg
Categories: News
In an interview with TMZ, deposed Miss California Carrie Prejean said that she was "shocked" at the news she had been stripped of her crown and fired back at pageant owner Donald Trump and the pageant producers. Prejean, who was fired by Trump for failing to get clearance for extracurricular activities, claims in response that pageant head Keith Lewis actually encouraged her to pose for Playboy magazine and appear in the reality series "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" Prejean, who sparked controversy with comments she made against gay marriage, insists the real motivation behind her firing was political: "What's behind this, I think, is a political debate. They don't agree with the stance that I took [on California's Proposition 8].... From day one they wanted me out, and they got what they wanted."
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Gays' kids 7 times more likely to be gay
So, is this evidence against homosexuality being genetic? Or for it?
***********************************************
'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual
But report shows researchers concealing information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 08, 2009
10:09 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A licensed psychologist with both clinical and forensic practice outreaches is warning that it appears children of homosexual couples are seven times more likely to develop "non-heterosexual preferences" than other children, but lawmakers establishing policy often don't know that because the researchers have concealed their discoveries.
"Research … although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others," said the online report by Trayce L. Hansen.
Studies she reviewed suggest children raised by homosexual or bisexual parents "are approximately seven times more likely than the general population to develop a non-heterosexual sexual preference."
The "studies thus far find that between 8 percent and 21 percent of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual," the psychologist wrote. "For comparison purposes, approximately 2 percent of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children."
However, those researchers who found such differences "nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found," the report said.
(Story continues below)
"Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas," the report said.
For example, Among the numerous studies Hansen reviewed was the 1996 work by Golombok and Tasker.
The authors of the study specifically looking at children of homosexual parents found "the large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual."
However, Hansen said in the study, in order for an adult child to be classified as non-heterosexual, "the adult child had to currently identify as non-heterosexual and commit to a future identity as a non-heterosexual – a very unusual method for coding non-heterosexuality."
She continued, "The authors didn't mention this point or offer any explanations or comments about it. Nonetheless, 16 percent of those reared by lesbians had homosexual or bisexual levels of same-sex attraction, while 0 percent of the children of heterosexuals did. That's 16 percent compared to 0 percent. Additionally, 67 percent of the children from lesbian family backgrounds said that they had 'previously considered, or thought it a future possibility, that they might experience same-gender attraction or have a same-gender sexual relationship or both' compared to 14 percent of children from heterosexual families. That's 67 percent compared to 14 percent."
Eight percent of adult children reared by lesbians "had a homosexual relationship even though they weren't sexually attracted to same-sex partners," Hansen wrote.
Hansen, who works with marriage, parenting, male-female difference issues, told WND that there is little scientific research on the long-term impact of homosexual parenting on children, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn.
However, she said what information is available suggests children raised by homosexuals have different sexual orientation, gender identity and gender role behaviors from those children raised by heterosexual couples.
The concealment of information is no surprise, either.
"Most of the researchers involved in the study of homosexually-parented children are self-proclaimed pro-homosexual parenting researchers," Hansen told WND. "Many of these researchers, as well as others, admit that acknowledging differences between homosexually- and heterosexually-parented children would be detrimental to their goals of wide-spread social acceptance of same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, etc.
"Concealing and/or downplaying research findings that suggest differences between children reared by homosexuals and those reared by heterosexuals, changes the way some citizens vote and judges rule on issues related to same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, etc. And many of those who conduct those studies know that," she continued.
Policymakers need that information to make reasonable policy, too.
"The circumstances under which children are reared are immensely important to a civilization. Earlier social experiments, such as no-fault divorce and the broad acceptance of single motherhood, resulted in disaster by increasing the number of fatherless children, many who now fill our prisons and welfare rolls. Policy makers, judges, and citizens need to know the truth: children need fathers and changing legal standards such as the definition of marriage will deliberately deprive even more children of them," her report said.
"Homosexuals, and others who support their cause, understandably desire social and legal acceptance of their lifestyles and partnerships. One of the methods for achieving that goal is to convince the public that homosexual parenting isn't detrimental to children. Concealing and/or downplaying research findings which reveal that children raised by homosexuals are different in fundamental ways from other children, is part of that socio-political agenda intended to sway voters and judges," she said.
Hansen suggested all scientists have biases – especially when such an "emotionally-charged" issue is at hand.
But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, "they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings," she wrote.
"No one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, 'Of course our children are going to be different,'" Hansen said. "No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do. The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children."
Hansen's review encompassed nine studies, virtually all of the documentation available on the subject for her selected class of children.
***********************************************
'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual
But report shows researchers concealing information
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 08, 2009
10:09 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A licensed psychologist with both clinical and forensic practice outreaches is warning that it appears children of homosexual couples are seven times more likely to develop "non-heterosexual preferences" than other children, but lawmakers establishing policy often don't know that because the researchers have concealed their discoveries.
"Research … although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others," said the online report by Trayce L. Hansen.
Studies she reviewed suggest children raised by homosexual or bisexual parents "are approximately seven times more likely than the general population to develop a non-heterosexual sexual preference."
The "studies thus far find that between 8 percent and 21 percent of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual," the psychologist wrote. "For comparison purposes, approximately 2 percent of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children."
However, those researchers who found such differences "nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found," the report said.
(Story continues below)
"Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas," the report said.
For example, Among the numerous studies Hansen reviewed was the 1996 work by Golombok and Tasker.
The authors of the study specifically looking at children of homosexual parents found "the large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual."
However, Hansen said in the study, in order for an adult child to be classified as non-heterosexual, "the adult child had to currently identify as non-heterosexual and commit to a future identity as a non-heterosexual – a very unusual method for coding non-heterosexuality."
She continued, "The authors didn't mention this point or offer any explanations or comments about it. Nonetheless, 16 percent of those reared by lesbians had homosexual or bisexual levels of same-sex attraction, while 0 percent of the children of heterosexuals did. That's 16 percent compared to 0 percent. Additionally, 67 percent of the children from lesbian family backgrounds said that they had 'previously considered, or thought it a future possibility, that they might experience same-gender attraction or have a same-gender sexual relationship or both' compared to 14 percent of children from heterosexual families. That's 67 percent compared to 14 percent."
Eight percent of adult children reared by lesbians "had a homosexual relationship even though they weren't sexually attracted to same-sex partners," Hansen wrote.
Hansen, who works with marriage, parenting, male-female difference issues, told WND that there is little scientific research on the long-term impact of homosexual parenting on children, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn.
However, she said what information is available suggests children raised by homosexuals have different sexual orientation, gender identity and gender role behaviors from those children raised by heterosexual couples.
The concealment of information is no surprise, either.
"Most of the researchers involved in the study of homosexually-parented children are self-proclaimed pro-homosexual parenting researchers," Hansen told WND. "Many of these researchers, as well as others, admit that acknowledging differences between homosexually- and heterosexually-parented children would be detrimental to their goals of wide-spread social acceptance of same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, etc.
"Concealing and/or downplaying research findings that suggest differences between children reared by homosexuals and those reared by heterosexuals, changes the way some citizens vote and judges rule on issues related to same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, etc. And many of those who conduct those studies know that," she continued.
Policymakers need that information to make reasonable policy, too.
"The circumstances under which children are reared are immensely important to a civilization. Earlier social experiments, such as no-fault divorce and the broad acceptance of single motherhood, resulted in disaster by increasing the number of fatherless children, many who now fill our prisons and welfare rolls. Policy makers, judges, and citizens need to know the truth: children need fathers and changing legal standards such as the definition of marriage will deliberately deprive even more children of them," her report said.
"Homosexuals, and others who support their cause, understandably desire social and legal acceptance of their lifestyles and partnerships. One of the methods for achieving that goal is to convince the public that homosexual parenting isn't detrimental to children. Concealing and/or downplaying research findings which reveal that children raised by homosexuals are different in fundamental ways from other children, is part of that socio-political agenda intended to sway voters and judges," she said.
Hansen suggested all scientists have biases – especially when such an "emotionally-charged" issue is at hand.
But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, "they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings," she wrote.
"No one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, 'Of course our children are going to be different,'" Hansen said. "No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do. The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children."
Hansen's review encompassed nine studies, virtually all of the documentation available on the subject for her selected class of children.
Obama and the press: Camelot II
This is going to backfire on Obama. It alread has, with the Republicans taking back the senate in New York just months into Obama's term.
**************************
Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room
When Barack Obama decided that questions from the German press about his trip agenda in that country were too pesky, he told the reporters, "So, stop it all of you!" He just wanted them to ask things he wanted to talk about. Well, what politico wouldn't want that?
OK, dad. We'll behave.
And according to a new Pew Research Center poll, we are behaving...like fans. On domestic press, it showed that "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House" with "roughly twice as much" Obama coverage about his "personal or leadership qualities" than was the case for either previous president.
Back in the US, NBC's Brian Williams' two-part "Living Large With the Top Dog" feature on Mr. Obama's life included a plug for Conan O'Brien's new show and mention of cable talkies where Mr. Obama only cited MSNBC personalities. Accident? I don't think so. There were a few probing moments in there, but they were overshadowed by the flash of hanging out in the back of the Auto One limo and having burgers. A little navel-gazing among journalism standards hall monitors about whether the thing had been too soft came and went.
Then, this Sunday in the NYTimes, there was full-on chick-flick swooning over Barack and Michelle Obama's heavily scented "date night" in NY City and its high bar standard effect on our relationship culture, with just a hint of controversy over the taxpayer costs to add some spice. I swear I've seen this movie, only Michael Douglas was the President. Or Harrison Ford. Or one of those cool and languid characters you'd want to like you. George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him.
And in Paris, Mr. Obama talked about how he'd love to take his wife for a romantic tour of the City of Lovers, but couldn't. Then he did. I'm guessing some regular-Joe freedom fries weren't on the menu.
This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not.
You can't blame powerful people for wanting to play the press to peddle self-perpetuating mythology. But you can blame the press, already suffocating under a massive pile of blame, guilt, heavy debt and sinking fortunes, for being played. Some of the time, it seems we're even enthusiastically jumping into the pond without even being pushed. Is there an actual limit to the number of instances you can be the cover of Newsweek?
If I wanted to see highly manicured image management I'd just take some No-Doz and read Gavin Newsom's tweets. But the Obama-press dance is a more consensual seduction where, in the old-fashioned sense, we're the girl. (In California, there's no other option.)
I thought that the Maxfield Parrish, heroic days of the Kennedy Administration PR, where the press and the president were pretty much all in on the same screenplay and the same jokes, couldn't happen in our modern era, what with paparazzi and tabloids and talk shows, citizen sound-bite scavengers and voracious 24/7 news cycles. But now that the stumbling Bushes and smirking Clintons are out of the White House, time has compressed back on itself like the machine in the Denzel Washington movie, "Deja Vu." It's the early 1960s and Camelot all over again:
Very attractive wife, cute, precocious kids and the hopes and dreams of at least 63 percent of the population sitting on the athletic shoulders of a young, charismatic, mold-breaking leader, Blah, blah. (Oh, and a Chicago Mayor Richard Daley helped make it possible. We can play the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels game here.) Only there's a puppy now instead of a pony and it seems like Barack Obama may be less socially, self-destructively libertine than Mr. Kennedy. In fact, he's downright conservative on things like same-sex marriage. (It's smart to have a wholesome life -- though very clearly, in the sinuous world of the Obamas, not to the point of abstinence -- when you're pushing programs that get labeled as socialist.)
So we're in love, lust, or just a whole lot of like. Clearly we get something in exchange, whether it's a little reflected exuberance, a sense of history or just some very minor role in a fun movie. If you want to appear in a movie with John Travolta, you go willingly with him to the LA Scientology Center and are happy about it. "I'm clear, man. Hand me the cans."
I'm not sure Mr. Obama is necessarily getting away with anything here. In Cairo, when he spoke of the "principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," more than a few writers pointed out that this meant unless you're the Egyptian government or two gay people wanting to get married. What the President was saying overseas, to mostly purplish commentators' delight over the symbolic significance of the event, Dick Cheney was actually meaning in his own "freedom means freedom for everyone" speech about same-sex weddings.
The style-over-substance hit followed him from continent to continent. "While the president is popular among Europeans," the Wall Street Journal wrote, "he returned from his second trip to Europe with little more progress on key issues" than he got on his first visit. That's the Journal. But the Washington Post, where the John Kennedy myth was nurtured like a golden statue, managed a cautionary op-ed column from Robert Samuelson warning that "our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power." He meant checks from the press.
Samuelson was one of the few in the media to give some room to the Pew Research Center poll.
So far, this is all about image and character and press "opportunities." But with what CNN financial reporter Elizabeth Cohen called this morning "gazillions of dollars" of our money at stake and crazy people with nukes bristling from around the edges of the world, we can't afford not to keep a closer eye on the substance thing.
**************************
Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room
When Barack Obama decided that questions from the German press about his trip agenda in that country were too pesky, he told the reporters, "So, stop it all of you!" He just wanted them to ask things he wanted to talk about. Well, what politico wouldn't want that?
OK, dad. We'll behave.
And according to a new Pew Research Center poll, we are behaving...like fans. On domestic press, it showed that "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House" with "roughly twice as much" Obama coverage about his "personal or leadership qualities" than was the case for either previous president.
Back in the US, NBC's Brian Williams' two-part "Living Large With the Top Dog" feature on Mr. Obama's life included a plug for Conan O'Brien's new show and mention of cable talkies where Mr. Obama only cited MSNBC personalities. Accident? I don't think so. There were a few probing moments in there, but they were overshadowed by the flash of hanging out in the back of the Auto One limo and having burgers. A little navel-gazing among journalism standards hall monitors about whether the thing had been too soft came and went.
Then, this Sunday in the NYTimes, there was full-on chick-flick swooning over Barack and Michelle Obama's heavily scented "date night" in NY City and its high bar standard effect on our relationship culture, with just a hint of controversy over the taxpayer costs to add some spice. I swear I've seen this movie, only Michael Douglas was the President. Or Harrison Ford. Or one of those cool and languid characters you'd want to like you. George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him.
And in Paris, Mr. Obama talked about how he'd love to take his wife for a romantic tour of the City of Lovers, but couldn't. Then he did. I'm guessing some regular-Joe freedom fries weren't on the menu.
This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not.
You can't blame powerful people for wanting to play the press to peddle self-perpetuating mythology. But you can blame the press, already suffocating under a massive pile of blame, guilt, heavy debt and sinking fortunes, for being played. Some of the time, it seems we're even enthusiastically jumping into the pond without even being pushed. Is there an actual limit to the number of instances you can be the cover of Newsweek?
If I wanted to see highly manicured image management I'd just take some No-Doz and read Gavin Newsom's tweets. But the Obama-press dance is a more consensual seduction where, in the old-fashioned sense, we're the girl. (In California, there's no other option.)
I thought that the Maxfield Parrish, heroic days of the Kennedy Administration PR, where the press and the president were pretty much all in on the same screenplay and the same jokes, couldn't happen in our modern era, what with paparazzi and tabloids and talk shows, citizen sound-bite scavengers and voracious 24/7 news cycles. But now that the stumbling Bushes and smirking Clintons are out of the White House, time has compressed back on itself like the machine in the Denzel Washington movie, "Deja Vu." It's the early 1960s and Camelot all over again:
Very attractive wife, cute, precocious kids and the hopes and dreams of at least 63 percent of the population sitting on the athletic shoulders of a young, charismatic, mold-breaking leader, Blah, blah. (Oh, and a Chicago Mayor Richard Daley helped make it possible. We can play the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels game here.) Only there's a puppy now instead of a pony and it seems like Barack Obama may be less socially, self-destructively libertine than Mr. Kennedy. In fact, he's downright conservative on things like same-sex marriage. (It's smart to have a wholesome life -- though very clearly, in the sinuous world of the Obamas, not to the point of abstinence -- when you're pushing programs that get labeled as socialist.)
So we're in love, lust, or just a whole lot of like. Clearly we get something in exchange, whether it's a little reflected exuberance, a sense of history or just some very minor role in a fun movie. If you want to appear in a movie with John Travolta, you go willingly with him to the LA Scientology Center and are happy about it. "I'm clear, man. Hand me the cans."
I'm not sure Mr. Obama is necessarily getting away with anything here. In Cairo, when he spoke of the "principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," more than a few writers pointed out that this meant unless you're the Egyptian government or two gay people wanting to get married. What the President was saying overseas, to mostly purplish commentators' delight over the symbolic significance of the event, Dick Cheney was actually meaning in his own "freedom means freedom for everyone" speech about same-sex weddings.
The style-over-substance hit followed him from continent to continent. "While the president is popular among Europeans," the Wall Street Journal wrote, "he returned from his second trip to Europe with little more progress on key issues" than he got on his first visit. That's the Journal. But the Washington Post, where the John Kennedy myth was nurtured like a golden statue, managed a cautionary op-ed column from Robert Samuelson warning that "our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power." He meant checks from the press.
Samuelson was one of the few in the media to give some room to the Pew Research Center poll.
So far, this is all about image and character and press "opportunities." But with what CNN financial reporter Elizabeth Cohen called this morning "gazillions of dollars" of our money at stake and crazy people with nukes bristling from around the edges of the world, we can't afford not to keep a closer eye on the substance thing.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Taser not unreasonable search and seizure
This is troubling.
*********************
June 04, 2009 06:05 pm
NIAGARA COURTS RULING: Taser use to obtain DNA not unconstitutional
By Rick Pfeiffer
rick.pfeiffer@niagara-gazette.com
A decision by Falls Police to use a Taser to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect in an armed robbery, shooting and kidnapping is not unconstitutional.
Niagara County Court Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza reached that conclusion in a 16 page decision handed down Wednesday that refused to dismiss an indictment against Ryan Smith and denied his request to have DNA evidence that links him to two separate criminal cases thrown out.
The ruling left Smith’s attorney, Patrick Balkin, stunned and requesting additional time to prepare for a trial that had been scheduled to begin later this month.
“Your honor, I was not expecting this ruling,” Balkin said. “I have not begun to have the DNA evidence analyzed and will need time to do that.”
Sperrazza set a new trial date of Aug. 10.
“I was not surprised. I was confident the judge would rule in our favor,” Assistant District Attorney Doreen Hoffmann said. “Clearly, we are satisfied that the judge heard all the evidence at the hearing and made the correct decision.”
Balkin sharply questioned the ruling.
“She’s the first judge in western civilization to say you can use a Taser to enforce a court order,” Balkin said.
Smith, standing next to his attorney as the decision was announced, showed no reaction. He faces charges of first-degree robbery, burglary, second-degree kidnapping and other crimes stemming from a pair of incidents in 2006.
In July 2006, Smith is accused of being one of four suspects who staged a home invasion in the Falls that involved tying up two children with duct tape and forcing their mother to go to another home where a man was shot in a robbery attempt.
Then on Christmas Eve 2006, Smith is accused of staging the armed hold-up of a gas station and convenience store on Hyde Park Boulevard and Ontario Avenue.
Detectives recovered DNA evidence from a pop can at the home invasion scene and from a glove left behind at the robbery scene and a search of the state’s DNA data base matched that evidence to Smith. Prosecutors asked Sperrazza for an order to get a DNA sample from Smith in August 2008 and he voluntarily gave that sample to police.
In September 2008, prosecutors asked for another DNA sample because the first one had been sent to the wrong laboratory and could not be used. Sperrazza signed the second request and Falls Police went looking for Smith.
When they found Smith and took him to police headquarters, he refused to give another sample, telling the officers that he would have to “be tased” to give one. After detectives and officers tried to get Smith to comply with the court order, and he refused, they drive stunned him with a Taser and then took the DNA sample.
Balkin had argued that the use of the Taser to get Smith to give up the DNA sample violated his constitutional right against an unreasonable search and seizure. Sperrazza ruled that the police action was reasonable.
*********************
June 04, 2009 06:05 pm
NIAGARA COURTS RULING: Taser use to obtain DNA not unconstitutional
By Rick Pfeiffer
rick.pfeiffer@niagara-gazette.com
A decision by Falls Police to use a Taser to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect in an armed robbery, shooting and kidnapping is not unconstitutional.
Niagara County Court Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza reached that conclusion in a 16 page decision handed down Wednesday that refused to dismiss an indictment against Ryan Smith and denied his request to have DNA evidence that links him to two separate criminal cases thrown out.
The ruling left Smith’s attorney, Patrick Balkin, stunned and requesting additional time to prepare for a trial that had been scheduled to begin later this month.
“Your honor, I was not expecting this ruling,” Balkin said. “I have not begun to have the DNA evidence analyzed and will need time to do that.”
Sperrazza set a new trial date of Aug. 10.
“I was not surprised. I was confident the judge would rule in our favor,” Assistant District Attorney Doreen Hoffmann said. “Clearly, we are satisfied that the judge heard all the evidence at the hearing and made the correct decision.”
Balkin sharply questioned the ruling.
“She’s the first judge in western civilization to say you can use a Taser to enforce a court order,” Balkin said.
Smith, standing next to his attorney as the decision was announced, showed no reaction. He faces charges of first-degree robbery, burglary, second-degree kidnapping and other crimes stemming from a pair of incidents in 2006.
In July 2006, Smith is accused of being one of four suspects who staged a home invasion in the Falls that involved tying up two children with duct tape and forcing their mother to go to another home where a man was shot in a robbery attempt.
Then on Christmas Eve 2006, Smith is accused of staging the armed hold-up of a gas station and convenience store on Hyde Park Boulevard and Ontario Avenue.
Detectives recovered DNA evidence from a pop can at the home invasion scene and from a glove left behind at the robbery scene and a search of the state’s DNA data base matched that evidence to Smith. Prosecutors asked Sperrazza for an order to get a DNA sample from Smith in August 2008 and he voluntarily gave that sample to police.
In September 2008, prosecutors asked for another DNA sample because the first one had been sent to the wrong laboratory and could not be used. Sperrazza signed the second request and Falls Police went looking for Smith.
When they found Smith and took him to police headquarters, he refused to give another sample, telling the officers that he would have to “be tased” to give one. After detectives and officers tried to get Smith to comply with the court order, and he refused, they drive stunned him with a Taser and then took the DNA sample.
Balkin had argued that the use of the Taser to get Smith to give up the DNA sample violated his constitutional right against an unreasonable search and seizure. Sperrazza ruled that the police action was reasonable.
On hostility to religion: Katherine Kersten
Very well written. By the comments to her article, people take her for a conservative, but they miss a progressive heart underneath.
*********************************************************
Hostility to religion bodes ill for society
Without belief in a higher truth, people may give way to base impulses.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
Last update: June 6, 2009 - 7:09 PM
Featured comment
"Nietzsche is dead"
-- God
***************
We're increasingly uncomfortable with religion these days.
As a society, we tolerate pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious folks, so long as they confine their message to a vanilla "God is love" theme and bless babies, brides and caskets.
But when religious leaders speak out on the issues of the day -- especially using morally tinged language -- the elite gatekeepers of public opinion in the media, government and academia warn shrilly that a new Dark Age is upon us.
More and more, we see outright hostility to religion -- particularly to Christianity. Consider the wild popularity of a recent spate of best-sellers by "New Atheist" superstars, including Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Far from being dispassionate critics of faith, the New Atheists are zealous crusaders for their own creed: materialism. They are passionately committed to the idea that the universe is a random accident, that transcendent truth is a myth, and that man's life has no inherent purpose or meaning.
Why the growing audience for notions like these?
Religion poses a serious challenge to our cherished idea of personal autonomy. Unlike our forebears, we define freedom as the right to live as we choose -- to "be ourselves" -- unconstrained by social norms or a morally grounded sense of guilt or shame.
Judeo-Christianity throws a wrench in this, teaching that universal standards of right and wrong trump our personal desires.
In addition, it raises troubling questions about the vision of scientific "progress," so central to our modern age. The mere fact that we are capable of, say, genetically altering or cloning human beings doesn't give us moral license to do so, it cautions.
It's tempting to embrace the New Atheist gospel -- that man makes himself and has no higher judge. But before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.
What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.
And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?
We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.
Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?
The signs aren't promising.
Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.
Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"
The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.
Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.
Hart dismisses the New Atheists as intellectual lightweights. They push "attitudes masquerading as ideas" and fail to honestly consider the likely consequences of their creed, he writes. But he takes a different view of Christianity's greatest critic -- philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared in 1882 that "God is dead."
"Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity's enemies, understood the implications of Christianity's withdrawal," Hart has written. "He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat."
Katherine Kersten is a Twin Cities writer and speaker. Reach her at kakersten@gmail.com -- or join the conversation at her blog, www.startribune.com/thinkagain.
What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.
And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?
We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.
Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?
The signs aren't promising.
Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.
Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"
The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.
Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.
*********************************************************
Hostility to religion bodes ill for society
Without belief in a higher truth, people may give way to base impulses.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
Last update: June 6, 2009 - 7:09 PM
Featured comment
"Nietzsche is dead"
-- God
***************
We're increasingly uncomfortable with religion these days.
As a society, we tolerate pastors, priests, rabbis and other religious folks, so long as they confine their message to a vanilla "God is love" theme and bless babies, brides and caskets.
But when religious leaders speak out on the issues of the day -- especially using morally tinged language -- the elite gatekeepers of public opinion in the media, government and academia warn shrilly that a new Dark Age is upon us.
More and more, we see outright hostility to religion -- particularly to Christianity. Consider the wild popularity of a recent spate of best-sellers by "New Atheist" superstars, including Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything."
Far from being dispassionate critics of faith, the New Atheists are zealous crusaders for their own creed: materialism. They are passionately committed to the idea that the universe is a random accident, that transcendent truth is a myth, and that man's life has no inherent purpose or meaning.
Why the growing audience for notions like these?
Religion poses a serious challenge to our cherished idea of personal autonomy. Unlike our forebears, we define freedom as the right to live as we choose -- to "be ourselves" -- unconstrained by social norms or a morally grounded sense of guilt or shame.
Judeo-Christianity throws a wrench in this, teaching that universal standards of right and wrong trump our personal desires.
In addition, it raises troubling questions about the vision of scientific "progress," so central to our modern age. The mere fact that we are capable of, say, genetically altering or cloning human beings doesn't give us moral license to do so, it cautions.
It's tempting to embrace the New Atheist gospel -- that man makes himself and has no higher judge. But before we do, we would be wise to consider the potential consequences.
What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.
And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?
We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.
Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?
The signs aren't promising.
Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.
Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"
The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.
Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.
Hart dismisses the New Atheists as intellectual lightweights. They push "attitudes masquerading as ideas" and fail to honestly consider the likely consequences of their creed, he writes. But he takes a different view of Christianity's greatest critic -- philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared in 1882 that "God is dead."
"Nietzsche was a prophetic figure precisely because he, almost alone among Christianity's enemies, understood the implications of Christianity's withdrawal," Hart has written. "He understood that the effort to cast off Christian faith while retaining the best and most beloved elements of Christian morality was doomed to defeat."
Katherine Kersten is a Twin Cities writer and speaker. Reach her at kakersten@gmail.com -- or join the conversation at her blog, www.startribune.com/thinkagain.
What, for example, is the source of the bedrock American belief in human equality? It has no basis in science or materialism. Some people are brilliant, powerful and assertive, while others can't even tie their shoelaces. If "reason" alone is the standard, the notion of equality appears to be nonsense.
And why should we act with charity toward the poorest and weakest among us? "Reason" -- untempered by compassion -- suggests that autistic children and Alzheimer's sufferers are drags on society. In ancient Rome, disabled babies were left on hilltops to die. Why lavish care and resources on them?
We Americans take the moral principles of equality and compassion for granted. Yet these ideas are deeply counterintuitive. We've largely forgotten that their source is the once-revolutionary Judeo-Christian belief in a loving God, who created human beings in his image and decreed charity to be the first of virtues.
Can we reject belief in such a God and still retain the fruits of faith -- including a belief in the dignity and infinite value of each human being?
The signs aren't promising.
Human beings are prone to selfishness, lust, vindictiveness and cruelty. Once we cease to believe that the moral rules constraining us are rooted in transcendent truth, they become mere preferences -- a matter of personal taste, and so expendable.
Theologian David Bentley Hart, a critic of the New Atheists, puts it this way: "How long can our gentler ethical prejudices ... persist once the faith that gave them their rationale and meaning has withered away?"
The historical record here should give us pause. The French Revolution, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union -- all sought to replace Judeo-Christian ethics with reason, and ended in massive bloodletting.
Nor does science offer moral guidance. That way lies Social Darwinism -- the notion of the survival of the fittest. Unless scientific ambition is constrained by religion, it can come to see humanity as just another form of technology, to be tinkered with and perfected with utility in mind.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
98% of Google employee donations: to Democrats
Wow. How do they accomplish this?
*********************************
On D-Day Google honors video game's anniversary
Rather than memorializing soldiers, Internet giant celebrates … Tetris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 06, 2009
6:40 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
With the world's eyes turned to Normandy as President Obama and European leaders honor the sacrifice of Allied soldiers on June 6, 1944, Internet giant Google chose to honor this 65th anniversary of D-Day by memorializing the birth of a video game.
The search engine's homepage, often the site of commemorative graphics interwoven with its Google name on special occasions, chose this day to display the multi-colored blocks of the classic game Tetris, which was created by Russian computer programmer Alexey Pajitnov and made playable for the first time on June 6, 1984.
Scrolling over the blocks reveals the words, "Celebrating 25 years of the Tetris Effect – courtesy of Tetris Holding, LLC."
And while the anniversary of Tetris' birth finds it unique in popular culture as one of the world's most popular and enduring video games, Google's choice to honor it today has nonetheless been met with sharp criticism.
"Today marks the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny, and what does Google do? Instead of putting up an image to honor the sacrifices made and the triumph of good over evil, they honor Tetris?" comments the writer of A Blog for All. "The world owes a debt of honor to the brave men who stormed ashore at Normandy and parachuted in to roll [back] the Nazi conquest of Europe. This is what they came up with for today?"
Check out the latest patriotic memorabilia from the WND SuperStore.
Don Surber of West Virginia's Charleston Daily Mail wrote of Google in his blog, "Its owners may be multi-billionaires, but homeless guys show more class."
Google's decision to honor Tetris rather than D-Day, however, is only the latest in a string of criticized decisions about how the Internet giant uses its homepage "doodles" to recognize special occasions.
(Story continues below)
As WND has reported, Google has a history of ignoring major American patriotic and religious holidays, while honoring Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom, the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances.
Since it was founded in 1999, Google also has a history of commemorating National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day, while ignoring Christmas, Memorial Day, and – until two years ago – Veteran's Day.
Google has also been frequently criticized for its content policies and one-sided political slant:
Issuing a statement publicly opposing Proposition 8, California voters' attempt to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman
Restricting Christian advertising on the issue of abortion, until a lawsuit compelled Google to amend its policy
Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes
Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.
As WND has also reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees from 2000-2004 went to support Democrats, and Al Gore became a senior adviser to the Internet company.
When asked in the past about its choices on what occasions to commemorate – including a decade of neglecting Memorial Day – Google has explained that it prefers its doodles to be lighter fare.
"Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature," spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger told the Los Angeles Times. "We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day."
Nonetheless, as WND reported, Google chose poppies to honor Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland to honor those nations' war dead. The poppies became associated with Remembrance Day because of the poem written by Canadian physician and Lt. Col. John McCrae in 1915, "In Flanders Fields."
In 2007, for the first time, Google also commemorated Veteran's Day in the U.S.
*********************************
On D-Day Google honors video game's anniversary
Rather than memorializing soldiers, Internet giant celebrates … Tetris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 06, 2009
6:40 pm Eastern
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
With the world's eyes turned to Normandy as President Obama and European leaders honor the sacrifice of Allied soldiers on June 6, 1944, Internet giant Google chose to honor this 65th anniversary of D-Day by memorializing the birth of a video game.
The search engine's homepage, often the site of commemorative graphics interwoven with its Google name on special occasions, chose this day to display the multi-colored blocks of the classic game Tetris, which was created by Russian computer programmer Alexey Pajitnov and made playable for the first time on June 6, 1984.
Scrolling over the blocks reveals the words, "Celebrating 25 years of the Tetris Effect – courtesy of Tetris Holding, LLC."
And while the anniversary of Tetris' birth finds it unique in popular culture as one of the world's most popular and enduring video games, Google's choice to honor it today has nonetheless been met with sharp criticism.
"Today marks the 65th anniversary of the D-Day invasion to liberate Europe from Nazi tyranny, and what does Google do? Instead of putting up an image to honor the sacrifices made and the triumph of good over evil, they honor Tetris?" comments the writer of A Blog for All. "The world owes a debt of honor to the brave men who stormed ashore at Normandy and parachuted in to roll [back] the Nazi conquest of Europe. This is what they came up with for today?"
Check out the latest patriotic memorabilia from the WND SuperStore.
Don Surber of West Virginia's Charleston Daily Mail wrote of Google in his blog, "Its owners may be multi-billionaires, but homeless guys show more class."
Google's decision to honor Tetris rather than D-Day, however, is only the latest in a string of criticized decisions about how the Internet giant uses its homepage "doodles" to recognize special occasions.
(Story continues below)
As WND has reported, Google has a history of ignoring major American patriotic and religious holidays, while honoring Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, Ireland and the United Kingdom, the Chinese New Year, Valentine's Day, Halloween and other observances.
Since it was founded in 1999, Google also has a history of commemorating National Teachers Day, Women's Day, Ray Charles' birthday, World Water Day and St. George's Day, while ignoring Christmas, Memorial Day, and – until two years ago – Veteran's Day.
Google has also been frequently criticized for its content policies and one-sided political slant:
Issuing a statement publicly opposing Proposition 8, California voters' attempt to constitutionally define marriage as between one man and one woman
Restricting Christian advertising on the issue of abortion, until a lawsuit compelled Google to amend its policy
Rejecting an ad for a book critical of Bill and Hillary Clinton while continuing to accept anti-Bush themes
Rejecting ads critical of Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., while continuing to run attack ads against former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
Allowing the communist Chinese government to have the search engine block "objectionable" search terms such as "democracy."
In addition, the company came under fire for an editorial decision giving preferential placement to large, elite media outlets such as CNN and the BBC over independent news sources, such as WND, even if they are more recent, pertinent and exhaustive in their coverage.
As WND has also reported, 98 percent of all political donations by Google employees from 2000-2004 went to support Democrats, and Al Gore became a senior adviser to the Internet company.
When asked in the past about its choices on what occasions to commemorate – including a decade of neglecting Memorial Day – Google has explained that it prefers its doodles to be lighter fare.
"Google's special logos tend to be lighthearted and often scientific in nature," spokeswoman Sunny Gettinger told the Los Angeles Times. "We do not believe we can convey the appropriate somber tone through this medium to mark holidays like Memorial Day."
Nonetheless, as WND reported, Google chose poppies to honor Remembrance Day in Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and Ireland to honor those nations' war dead. The poppies became associated with Remembrance Day because of the poem written by Canadian physician and Lt. Col. John McCrae in 1915, "In Flanders Fields."
In 2007, for the first time, Google also commemorated Veteran's Day in the U.S.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Sotomayor in Belizean Grove
Interrresting. So it's been awhile since Sonia was on the West Side.
*************************************
BELIZE
UnBelizable 2008: Wed Jan 30 - Sun Feb 3, 2008
URGENT - Deposit for UnBelizable Needed
Early Registrations are due by Monday, September 10th in order to receive the $100 discount.
To register, please access the main Belize 2008 website, http://programs.regweb.com/ds/BelizeanGrove2008, then select whether you are a Grover or TARA.
Click the "Registration" link on the top of the website, or contact a representative at Destination Success:
Destination Success/Belizean Grove Travel Headquarters
Belize 2008 VIP Hotline: 1-888-742-9702
Destination Success Contacts:
Carla Dishon,cdishon@aaa-alliedgroup.com
Paula Murphy, pmurphy@aaa-alliedgroup.com
It will have been 4 years since the Grove returned to our home – a special place with magnificent natural attractions such as the largest Barrier Reef in the Western Hemisphere, Great Blue Hole, ancient Maya civilization, rare birds, exotic wildlife, mysterious caves and caverns, and tropical forests. You "Better Belize" it’s wonderful. Please plan to join us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Belizean Grove
Having observed the power of the Bohemian Grove, a 130-year-old, elite old boys' network of former Presidents, businessmen, military, musicians, academics, and non-profit leaders, and realizing that women didn't have a similar organization, Susan Stautberg and 26 other founding members created the Belizean Grove, a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.
Members are highly accomplished leaders in a wide venue of fields, are dedicated to giving back to their communities, have a sense of humor and excitement about life and are willing to mentor and share connections. With this vision in mind, members are invited not only for their professional accomplishments but also for their generosity and compatibility.
The Grove is an international nurturing network that helps women pursue more significant dreams, ambitions, purposes, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment, while also opening up more leadership opportunities to these women of diverse backgrounds, talents, ages, and skills. The Grovers are leaders from 5 continents, from profit, non-profit and social sectors. They are heads of major government agencies, businesswomen, military officers, academics, non-profit leaders, musicians, authors, diplomats, design gurus...
*************************************
BELIZE
UnBelizable 2008: Wed Jan 30 - Sun Feb 3, 2008
URGENT - Deposit for UnBelizable Needed
Early Registrations are due by Monday, September 10th in order to receive the $100 discount.
To register, please access the main Belize 2008 website, http://programs.regweb.com/ds/BelizeanGrove2008, then select whether you are a Grover or TARA.
Click the "Registration" link on the top of the website, or contact a representative at Destination Success:
Destination Success/Belizean Grove Travel Headquarters
Belize 2008 VIP Hotline: 1-888-742-9702
Destination Success Contacts:
Carla Dishon,cdishon@aaa-alliedgroup.com
Paula Murphy, pmurphy@aaa-alliedgroup.com
It will have been 4 years since the Grove returned to our home – a special place with magnificent natural attractions such as the largest Barrier Reef in the Western Hemisphere, Great Blue Hole, ancient Maya civilization, rare birds, exotic wildlife, mysterious caves and caverns, and tropical forests. You "Better Belize" it’s wonderful. Please plan to join us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Belizean Grove
Having observed the power of the Bohemian Grove, a 130-year-old, elite old boys' network of former Presidents, businessmen, military, musicians, academics, and non-profit leaders, and realizing that women didn't have a similar organization, Susan Stautberg and 26 other founding members created the Belizean Grove, a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, non-profit and social sectors; who build long term mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same.
Members are highly accomplished leaders in a wide venue of fields, are dedicated to giving back to their communities, have a sense of humor and excitement about life and are willing to mentor and share connections. With this vision in mind, members are invited not only for their professional accomplishments but also for their generosity and compatibility.
The Grove is an international nurturing network that helps women pursue more significant dreams, ambitions, purposes, transcendence, and spiritual fulfillment, while also opening up more leadership opportunities to these women of diverse backgrounds, talents, ages, and skills. The Grovers are leaders from 5 continents, from profit, non-profit and social sectors. They are heads of major government agencies, businesswomen, military officers, academics, non-profit leaders, musicians, authors, diplomats, design gurus...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
