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.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
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...
Obama net approval index at 0
Stongly approve minus strongly disapprove = 0; GM bailout to blame.
*****************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Voters put president's approval index at 0
Poll shows opposition to GM takeover pushing popularity to lowest level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 05, 2009
4:31 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports shows a new surge of disapproval for the way President Obama is performing, pushing his approval index to zero, the lowest overall rating yet.
The poll today showed 34 percent of the nation's voters strongly approve of Obama's performance and the same number strongly disapprove, the highest level yet for strong disapproval.
A previous assessment showed two of every three voters oppose government bailout plans for General Motors, and the newest assessment cited the high level of dissatisfaction.
(Story continues below)
"The president's ratings have slipped since General Motors filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover. Just 26 percent of Americans believe the GM bailout was a good idea and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products. It remains to be seen whether the dip in the president's numbers is a temporary reaction to recent news or something more substantive," the newest report said.
The company's approval index is calculated by subtracting those who strongly disapprove of the president from those who strongly approve.
The assessment showed, overall, 54 percent of voters say they at least somewhat approve of Obama's work, and 46 percent disapprove.
Only 21 percent expect peace is likely between the Palestinians and Israel despite Obama's Middle East trip this week, while 66 percent see Israel as an ally of the U.S. and 29 percent say the same thing of Egypt.
Fewer than three in 10 voters nationwide expect U.S. relations with Muslim countries to be better in coming months, and just about the same number (21 percent) expect things to worsen, the survey said.
The results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 likely voters is plus or minus three percentage points. The results contain a 95 percent level of confidence.
Rasmussen Reports said it weights its data to reflect the population at large.
*****************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
Voters put president's approval index at 0
Poll shows opposition to GM takeover pushing popularity to lowest level
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 05, 2009
4:31 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
A tracking poll by Rasmussen Reports shows a new surge of disapproval for the way President Obama is performing, pushing his approval index to zero, the lowest overall rating yet.
The poll today showed 34 percent of the nation's voters strongly approve of Obama's performance and the same number strongly disapprove, the highest level yet for strong disapproval.
A previous assessment showed two of every three voters oppose government bailout plans for General Motors, and the newest assessment cited the high level of dissatisfaction.
(Story continues below)
"The president's ratings have slipped since General Motors filed for bankruptcy to initiate a new government bailout and takeover. Just 26 percent of Americans believe the GM bailout was a good idea and nearly as many support a boycott of GM products. It remains to be seen whether the dip in the president's numbers is a temporary reaction to recent news or something more substantive," the newest report said.
The company's approval index is calculated by subtracting those who strongly disapprove of the president from those who strongly approve.
The assessment showed, overall, 54 percent of voters say they at least somewhat approve of Obama's work, and 46 percent disapprove.
Only 21 percent expect peace is likely between the Palestinians and Israel despite Obama's Middle East trip this week, while 66 percent see Israel as an ally of the U.S. and 29 percent say the same thing of Egypt.
Fewer than three in 10 voters nationwide expect U.S. relations with Muslim countries to be better in coming months, and just about the same number (21 percent) expect things to worsen, the survey said.
The results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 likely voters is plus or minus three percentage points. The results contain a 95 percent level of confidence.
Rasmussen Reports said it weights its data to reflect the population at large.
Gallup: Cheney and Pelosi similar approval ratings?
Wow. Pelosi really suffered from the CIA incident.
***********************************
June 5, 2009
Cheney and Pelosi Have Poor Ratings in CommonPelosi’s ratings down, while Cheney’s improved from record lowby Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Dick Cheney have little in common politically, but they receive almost identical image ratings from the American public. According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans.
The similarity between Cheney's and Pelosi's ratings is notable given that the two have emerged as the leading voices on either side of this year's debate over whether the government's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against terrorist suspects constitutes torture.
Cheney came out of his brief vice presidential retirement in March to publicly defend the Bush administration's support of CIA interrogation policies, and on May 21 went head-to-head with President Barack Obama on the issue in separate national security speeches. Pelosi has condemned "waterboarding" and earlier this year supported a call to investigate Bush administration officials who authorized it; however, she recently fell into a public battle with the CIA over whether she was previously briefed on the agency's use of the coercive technique.
Trends
Pelosi's current image rating is more negative than positive by a 16 percentage point margin: 34% favorable and 50% unfavorable. Six months ago about equal percentages held favorable and unfavorable views of her.
While still negative, Cheney's image today (with 37% viewing him favorably and 54% unfavorably) is improved compared with his ratings in March of this year. At that time, only 30% viewed him favorably and 63% unfavorably, his worst ratings on balance since he was nominated as George W. Bush's vice presidential candidate in July 2000 (although his ratings were nearly as bad when previously measured in 2007).
Cheney's improved ratings are mainly due to the views of independents: the percentage viewing him favorably rose from 21% in March to 37% today. There was also a slight increase in his favorable rating from Republicans, from 64% to 70%.
Pelosi's decline since last fall is seen equally in her ratings from Republicans and independents, with little change in the views of Democrats. The percentage of Republicans viewing her favorably fell 12 points, from 21% to 9%; the same drop in favorability was seen among independents, from 37% to 25%. Sixty-two percent of Democrats now view her favorably, down just slightly from 66% in November.
A Polarizing Pair
As a result of the changes, both Cheney and Pelosi are now positioned as highly polarizing figures on the political landscape; both are viewed favorably by the large majority of their own party members, and unfavorably by most members of the opposing party.
To the extent either one influences voters' views about the two major political parties, particularly looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections, Cheney may be less problematic for his party than Pelosi might be for hers. He currently has a slight edge in intra-party popularity: 70% of Republicans view him favorably compared with 62% of Democrats viewing Pelosi favorably. Also, more independents view Cheney favorably than view Pelosi favorably: 37% vs. 25%.
Bottom Line
After President Obama, Pelosi and Cheney are arguably the next most prominent political figures active in the two major parties today. Both have attracted significant news coverage in the mainstream press this year, most recently for their positions on the government's interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.
That coverage appears to have helped Cheney -- at least modestly -- in the image department. Given Americans' concern about closing Guantanamo Bay, his improved ratings since March are arguably related to his ongoing outspokenness on waterboarding, tying it in with U.S. national security.
Pelosi has had a major, high profile role in the legislative agenda of Congress all year, most notably with passage of Obama's economic stimulus package in January; however the recent controversy over her possible knowledge of waterboarding -- and her claim that the CIA misled Congress about briefing her -- may have more to do with her depressed favorable ratings, which are down eight points since November.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 29-31, 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.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
***********************************
June 5, 2009
Cheney and Pelosi Have Poor Ratings in CommonPelosi’s ratings down, while Cheney’s improved from record lowby Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and former Vice President Dick Cheney have little in common politically, but they receive almost identical image ratings from the American public. According to a May 29-31 Gallup Poll, 37% of Americans have a favorable view of Cheney and 34% have a favorable view of Pelosi. Both Cheney and Pelosi are viewed unfavorably by at least half of Americans.
The similarity between Cheney's and Pelosi's ratings is notable given that the two have emerged as the leading voices on either side of this year's debate over whether the government's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" against terrorist suspects constitutes torture.
Cheney came out of his brief vice presidential retirement in March to publicly defend the Bush administration's support of CIA interrogation policies, and on May 21 went head-to-head with President Barack Obama on the issue in separate national security speeches. Pelosi has condemned "waterboarding" and earlier this year supported a call to investigate Bush administration officials who authorized it; however, she recently fell into a public battle with the CIA over whether she was previously briefed on the agency's use of the coercive technique.
Trends
Pelosi's current image rating is more negative than positive by a 16 percentage point margin: 34% favorable and 50% unfavorable. Six months ago about equal percentages held favorable and unfavorable views of her.
While still negative, Cheney's image today (with 37% viewing him favorably and 54% unfavorably) is improved compared with his ratings in March of this year. At that time, only 30% viewed him favorably and 63% unfavorably, his worst ratings on balance since he was nominated as George W. Bush's vice presidential candidate in July 2000 (although his ratings were nearly as bad when previously measured in 2007).
Cheney's improved ratings are mainly due to the views of independents: the percentage viewing him favorably rose from 21% in March to 37% today. There was also a slight increase in his favorable rating from Republicans, from 64% to 70%.
Pelosi's decline since last fall is seen equally in her ratings from Republicans and independents, with little change in the views of Democrats. The percentage of Republicans viewing her favorably fell 12 points, from 21% to 9%; the same drop in favorability was seen among independents, from 37% to 25%. Sixty-two percent of Democrats now view her favorably, down just slightly from 66% in November.
A Polarizing Pair
As a result of the changes, both Cheney and Pelosi are now positioned as highly polarizing figures on the political landscape; both are viewed favorably by the large majority of their own party members, and unfavorably by most members of the opposing party.
To the extent either one influences voters' views about the two major political parties, particularly looking ahead to the 2010 midterm elections, Cheney may be less problematic for his party than Pelosi might be for hers. He currently has a slight edge in intra-party popularity: 70% of Republicans view him favorably compared with 62% of Democrats viewing Pelosi favorably. Also, more independents view Cheney favorably than view Pelosi favorably: 37% vs. 25%.
Bottom Line
After President Obama, Pelosi and Cheney are arguably the next most prominent political figures active in the two major parties today. Both have attracted significant news coverage in the mainstream press this year, most recently for their positions on the government's interrogation policies for suspected terrorists.
That coverage appears to have helped Cheney -- at least modestly -- in the image department. Given Americans' concern about closing Guantanamo Bay, his improved ratings since March are arguably related to his ongoing outspokenness on waterboarding, tying it in with U.S. national security.
Pelosi has had a major, high profile role in the legislative agenda of Congress all year, most notably with passage of Obama's economic stimulus package in January; however the recent controversy over her possible knowledge of waterboarding -- and her claim that the CIA misled Congress about briefing her -- may have more to do with her depressed favorable ratings, which are down eight points since November.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,015 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 29-31, 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.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009: Anti Catholic?
Leave it to the 9th Circuit to give a bad name to progressives.
*******************************
Court to government: OK to diss Catholics
San Francisco officials say calling church 'hateful,' 'callous' serves 'secular' purpose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The Vatican
Authorities in San Francisco who called the beliefs of the Catholic Church "hateful," "callous," and an "insult," – and urged members to disobey them – have been given the go-ahead by a panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to express such hate because it serves a "secular" purpose.
"It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco Board's actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of 'Gleichschaltung:' vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination," said Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the Catholic League and several individuals in the church in their complaint against the city.
"The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct," Thompson continued. "My concern is that if this ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden anti-Christian attacks."
In fact, WND has reported in recent days on a campaign to notify members of the U.S. Senate of the problems that could come from a bill that already has passed the U.S. House and is pending in the Senate. Critics confirm that it would allow the actual criminalization of criticism when it is directed to homosexuality.
(Story continues below)
The campaign, which allows a reader to send overnight letters of opposition to the so-called hate crimes plan to all 100 U.S. senators for only $10.95, continues.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexual people but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person. Sen. Jim DeMint., R-S.C., today confirmed he'll formally oppose the plan in the Senate.
The current opinion from the court stemmed from a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors for the city in 2006. In it, officials formally condemned the Vatican's statement that placing children under the control of homosexuals in adoption cases should not be done because such situations "actually mean doing violence to these children."
Such statements, the board said, are "hateful and discriminatory," "insulting and callous," and "shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this board…"
Further, it insisted "same-sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples," and the Catholic archdiocese should "defy all discriminatory directives."
The Thomas More Law Center said it would seek en banc reconsideration of the case and if needed, go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"There is no doubt it sets a tone for people to vilify and attack the church," Brian Rooney, a spokesman for the law center, told WND. "That can easily lead to violence.
"This was a call to action to all San Francisco Catholics to disobey the teachings of the church," he said.
The anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, condemned the Vatican as a "foreign country" and accused it of meddling in the affairs of the city. It said the church's moral teachings on homosexuality are "insulting to all San Franciscans," "defamatory," and "insensitive."
The law center's lawsuit said the resolution violated the First Amendment, which "forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general."
In defending its statement, the city argued in court that it was pursuing the "secular" purpose of advocating for same-sex adoptions. The court simply agreed.
"To be sure, the board could have spoken with a gentler tone, but the strength of the board's language alone does not transform a secular purpose into a religious one," the court's opinion, written by Judge Richard Paez and joined by Procter Hug Jr. and Marsha Berzon, said.
Catholic League spokesman Bill Donohue told WND the comments denouncing church doctrine were "incredible invective and bigoted comments."
"This is beyond belief. It clearly is a hostile environment," he said. He said it also, just as clearly, is a tolling of what will be happening under "hate crime" laws.
"No question about it. The Mormons spoke out on Prop 8 (a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman), as did evangelicals (and were attacked)," he said.
"If you had a Catholic using this type of inflammatory language maligning the character of the government, the entire city would be up in arms," he said.
According to Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to the children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development, the law center explained. Such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households, it continued.
The "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community," the law firm said.
The organization noted that in her concurrence, Berzon expressed concern that the Constitution "assures religious believers that units of government will not take positions that amount to the establishment of a policy condemning their religious belief."
"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," said Robert Muise, the law center attorney who argued the case. "In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal circuit court. This decision must be reversed. Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases."
The court, however, saw the issue through a different lens.
"An objective observer would conclude that the board's purpose was to champion needy children, gays, lesbians, and same-sex couples within its jurisdiction; not to officially disapprove of the Catholic faith or its religious tenets," the opinion said.
The ruling cited from its own earlier decision in a case where city officials criticized other Christian organizations.
"We concluded that the defendants' actions had a plausible secular purpose and the primary effect of the documents in question was 'encouraging equal rights for gays and discouraging hate crimes,'" the court said.
The fact that San Francisco's "secular" position regarding homosexuality is "at odds with certain religious views," isn't a factor.
"It is well within the board's secular purview to promote adoptions of children by same-sex couples and denounce discrimination for the 'general welfare of society,'" the court said.
The pending "hate crimes" plan in the Senate is the target of an organized letter-writing campaign that has already generated more than 560,000 individual letters sent by Fed Ex to all 100 U.S. senators. The effort, organized by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry, permits activists to send individually addressed letters to all 100 senators over their own "signature" for only $10.95.
WND has provided multiple reports on what is at stake when the Senate considers a national hate crimes proposal that is to add special penalties against individuals guilty of crimes based on ethnic, religious and racial hatred – and new classifications based on sexual orientation. The legislation has been described by critics as "The Pedophile Protection Act."
Barack Obama recently promised homosexual murder victim Matthew Shepard's mother fast action in the U.S. Senate to approve the bill. Judy Shepard visited the White House to lobby for Senate approval after it cleared the House with opposition from many Republicans.
The White House issued an official comment on the meeting: "The President thanked Ms. Shepard for her work on the hate crimes bill and reiterated his commitment to ensuring that the Senate finalize the bill and act swiftly.
It's not too late to take advantage of the opportunity to overnight letters of opposition to the hate crimes bill to all 100 U.S. senators for only $10.95.
Sources working with senators opposing the legislation say the campaign has shaken up the dynamics of the debate.
"This bill was supposed to sail through the Senate, but it suddenly has become much more controversial as a result of all these letters," one source said. "Still, not a single Republican senator has yet stood up in open, public opposition to the bill."
As WND has reported, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexual people but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their statements be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person.
Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.
"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," Gohmert said on a radio program with Porter. "It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country. If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."
An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."
Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.
"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.
He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.
"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."
He said he fought in committee and in the House to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."
Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" that would be protected.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"
Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.
"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.
But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.
"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.
During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
Porter cited the amendment offering from King in committee that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."
But majority Democrats refused to accept it.
"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."
*******************************
Court to government: OK to diss Catholics
San Francisco officials say calling church 'hateful,' 'callous' serves 'secular' purpose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 05, 2009
12:00 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
The Vatican
Authorities in San Francisco who called the beliefs of the Catholic Church "hateful," "callous," and an "insult," – and urged members to disobey them – have been given the go-ahead by a panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to express such hate because it serves a "secular" purpose.
"It is not a stretch to compare the San Francisco Board's actions to that of the Nazi Germany policy of 'Gleichschaltung:' vilifying Jews as an auxiliary to and laying the groundwork for more repressive policies, including the final solution of extermination," said Richard Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the Catholic League and several individuals in the church in their complaint against the city.
"The policy of San Francisco is one of totalitarian intolerance of Christians of all denominations who oppose homosexual conduct," Thompson continued. "My concern is that if this ruling is allowed to stand, it will further embolden anti-Christian attacks."
In fact, WND has reported in recent days on a campaign to notify members of the U.S. Senate of the problems that could come from a bill that already has passed the U.S. House and is pending in the Senate. Critics confirm that it would allow the actual criminalization of criticism when it is directed to homosexuality.
(Story continues below)
The campaign, which allows a reader to send overnight letters of opposition to the so-called hate crimes plan to all 100 U.S. senators for only $10.95, continues.
The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexual people but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their teachings be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person. Sen. Jim DeMint., R-S.C., today confirmed he'll formally oppose the plan in the Senate.
The current opinion from the court stemmed from a resolution adopted by the board of supervisors for the city in 2006. In it, officials formally condemned the Vatican's statement that placing children under the control of homosexuals in adoption cases should not be done because such situations "actually mean doing violence to these children."
Such statements, the board said, are "hateful and discriminatory," "insulting and callous," and "shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this board…"
Further, it insisted "same-sex couples are just as qualified to be parents as are heterosexual couples," and the Catholic archdiocese should "defy all discriminatory directives."
The Thomas More Law Center said it would seek en banc reconsideration of the case and if needed, go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"There is no doubt it sets a tone for people to vilify and attack the church," Brian Rooney, a spokesman for the law center, told WND. "That can easily lead to violence.
"This was a call to action to all San Francisco Catholics to disobey the teachings of the church," he said.
The anti-Catholic resolution, adopted March 21, 2006, condemned the Vatican as a "foreign country" and accused it of meddling in the affairs of the city. It said the church's moral teachings on homosexuality are "insulting to all San Franciscans," "defamatory," and "insensitive."
The law center's lawsuit said the resolution violated the First Amendment, which "forbids an official purpose to disapprove of a particular religion, religious beliefs, or of religion in general."
In defending its statement, the city argued in court that it was pursuing the "secular" purpose of advocating for same-sex adoptions. The court simply agreed.
"To be sure, the board could have spoken with a gentler tone, but the strength of the board's language alone does not transform a secular purpose into a religious one," the court's opinion, written by Judge Richard Paez and joined by Procter Hug Jr. and Marsha Berzon, said.
Catholic League spokesman Bill Donohue told WND the comments denouncing church doctrine were "incredible invective and bigoted comments."
"This is beyond belief. It clearly is a hostile environment," he said. He said it also, just as clearly, is a tolling of what will be happening under "hate crime" laws.
"No question about it. The Mormons spoke out on Prop 8 (a definition of marriage as being between one man and one woman), as did evangelicals (and were attacked)," he said.
"If you had a Catholic using this type of inflammatory language maligning the character of the government, the entire city would be up in arms," he said.
According to Catholic doctrine, allowing children to be adopted by homosexuals would actually mean doing violence to the children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development, the law center explained. Such policies are gravely immoral and Catholic organizations must not place children for adoption in homosexual households, it continued.
The "anti-Catholic resolution sends a clear message to plaintiffs and others who are faithful adherents to the Catholic faith that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message that those who oppose Catholic religious beliefs, particularly with regard to homosexual unions and adoptions by homosexual partners, are insiders, favored members of the political community," the law firm said.
The organization noted that in her concurrence, Berzon expressed concern that the Constitution "assures religious believers that units of government will not take positions that amount to the establishment of a policy condemning their religious belief."
"Our Constitution plainly forbids hostility toward any religion, including the Catholic faith," said Robert Muise, the law center attorney who argued the case. "In total disregard for the Constitution, homosexual activists in positions of authority in San Francisco have abused their authority as government officials and misused the instruments of the government to attack the Catholic church. Their egregious abuse of power now has the backing of a federal circuit court. This decision must be reversed. Unfortunately, all too often we see a double standard being applied in Establishment Clause cases."
The court, however, saw the issue through a different lens.
"An objective observer would conclude that the board's purpose was to champion needy children, gays, lesbians, and same-sex couples within its jurisdiction; not to officially disapprove of the Catholic faith or its religious tenets," the opinion said.
The ruling cited from its own earlier decision in a case where city officials criticized other Christian organizations.
"We concluded that the defendants' actions had a plausible secular purpose and the primary effect of the documents in question was 'encouraging equal rights for gays and discouraging hate crimes,'" the court said.
The fact that San Francisco's "secular" position regarding homosexuality is "at odds with certain religious views," isn't a factor.
"It is well within the board's secular purview to promote adoptions of children by same-sex couples and denounce discrimination for the 'general welfare of society,'" the court said.
The pending "hate crimes" plan in the Senate is the target of an organized letter-writing campaign that has already generated more than 560,000 individual letters sent by Fed Ex to all 100 U.S. senators. The effort, organized by WND columnist Janet Porter, who also heads the Faith2Action Christian ministry, permits activists to send individually addressed letters to all 100 senators over their own "signature" for only $10.95.
WND has provided multiple reports on what is at stake when the Senate considers a national hate crimes proposal that is to add special penalties against individuals guilty of crimes based on ethnic, religious and racial hatred – and new classifications based on sexual orientation. The legislation has been described by critics as "The Pedophile Protection Act."
Barack Obama recently promised homosexual murder victim Matthew Shepard's mother fast action in the U.S. Senate to approve the bill. Judy Shepard visited the White House to lobby for Senate approval after it cleared the House with opposition from many Republicans.
The White House issued an official comment on the meeting: "The President thanked Ms. Shepard for her work on the hate crimes bill and reiterated his commitment to ensuring that the Senate finalize the bill and act swiftly.
It's not too late to take advantage of the opportunity to overnight letters of opposition to the hate crimes bill to all 100 U.S. senators for only $10.95.
Sources working with senators opposing the legislation say the campaign has shaken up the dynamics of the debate.
"This bill was supposed to sail through the Senate, but it suddenly has become much more controversial as a result of all these letters," one source said. "Still, not a single Republican senator has yet stood up in open, public opposition to the bill."
As WND has reported, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 would provide special protections to homosexual people but leave Christian ministers open to prosecution should their statements be linked to any subsequent offense, by anyone, against a homosexual person.
Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas, and Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said the only chance to defeat the legislation was for a massive outpouring of opposition from the American people.
"If you guys don't raise enough stink there's no chance of stopping it," Gohmert said on a radio program with Porter. "It's entirely in the hands of your listeners and people across the country. If you guys put up a strong enough fight, that will give backbone enough to the 41 or 42 in the Senate to say we don't want to have our names on that."
An analysis by Shawn D. Akers, policy analyst with Liberty Counsel said the proposal, formally known as H.R. 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act bill in the House and S. 909 in the Senate, would create new federal penalties against those whose "victims" were chosen based on an "actual or perceived ... sexual orientation, gender identity."
Gohmert warned Porter during the interview that even her introduction of him, and references to the different sexual orientations, could be restricted if the plan becomes law.
"You can't talk like that once this becomes law," he said.
He said the foundational problem with the bill is that it is based on lies: It assumes there's an epidemic of crimes in the United States – especially actions that cross state lines – that is targeting those alternative sexual lifestyles.
"When you base a law on lies, you're going to have a bad law," he said. "This 'Pedophilia Protection Act,' a 'hate crimes' bill, is based on the representation that there's a epidemic of crimes based on bias and prejudice. It turns out there are fewer crimes now than there were 10 years ago."
He said he fought in committee and in the House to correct some of the failings, including his repeated requests for definitions in the bill for terms such as "sexual orientation."
Majority Democrats refused, he said. He said that leaves the definition up to a standard definition in the medical field, which includes hundreds of "philias" and "isms" that would be protected.
Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., a "hate crimes" supporter, confirmed that worry, saying: "This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these 'philias' and fetishes and 'ism's' that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule…"
Obama, supported strongly during his campaign by homosexual advocates, appears ready to respond to their desires.
"I urge members on both sides of the aisle to act on this important civil rights issue by passing this legislation to protect all of our citizens from violent acts of intolerance," he said.
But Gohmert pointed out that if an exhibitionist flashes a woman, and she responds by slapping him with her purse, he has probably committed a misdemeanor while she has committed a federal felony hate crime.
"That's how ludicrous this situation is," Gohmert said.
During arguments in the House while the plan was being adopted, lawmakers pointed out the representatives were voting for protection for "all 547 forms of sexual deviancy or 'paraphilias' listed by the American Psychiatric Association."
Porter cited the amendment offering from King in committee that was very simple: "The term sexual orientation as used in this act or any amendments to this act does not include pedophilia."
But majority Democrats refused to accept it.
"Having reviewed cases as an appellate judge, I know that when the legislature has the chance to include a definition and refuses, then what we look at is the plain meaning of those words," explained Gohmert. "The plain meaning of sexual orientation is anything to which someone is orientated. That could include exhibitionism, it could include necrophilia (sexual arousal/activity with a corpse) ... it could include urophilia (sexual arousal associated with urine), voyeurism. You see someone spying on you changing clothes and you hit them, they've committed a misdemeanor, you've committed a federal felony under this bill. It is so wrong."
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Harvard Bus Review: Target's ClearRx great design
My wife would agree - Target is her preferred pharmacy.
*****************
Four Customer Experience Lessons from Target's ClearRx
4:47 PM Monday June 1, 2009
Tags:Customers, Design, Marketing
Among my favorite examples of great customer experience is Target's ClearRx pharmacy system. Introduced 4 years ago, it provided a radical departure from the standard design of pill bottles, setting Target apart from their competition. ClearRx sports an excellent design, with clear typography, smart color coding, and flat surfaces for easier reading.
What many people might not realize is that good design work happens all the time inside companies, even companies that you would never associate with great design. The difference is that Target is able to get this great design out into the world. In looking at the ClearRx story, there are a number of lessons for anyone wanting to deliver a great experience.
1. Prototype Early
The ClearRx story begins in designer Deborah Adler's time at the School of Visual Arts. For her masters thesis, she hit upon the idea of redesigning the pill bottle, after hearing of her grandmother taking her grandfather's medicine by mistake. The result of her efforts was a design she called SafeRx. After graduating, she shopped her idea around until she found a willing partner in Target.
Had Deborah Adler presented a business plan, with a set of bullet points in a PowerPoint deck outlining functional characteristics of a new pill bottle, she would gotten no traction. By manifesting her vision in a well-executed prototype, she appealed to an emotional and visceral sense of what the pill bottle could (and should) be. Good prototypes get people to rally around an idea.
They also serve as a beacon, a north star for the product development process. Though the final bottle design appears substantially different, it embodies all the essential design criteria of the original work.
2. Gird yourself for a slog
Because ClearRx looks exactly like the kind of thing Target would create, you might assume it was a fairly speedy process. In fact it took a year, and required the coordination of a remarkable number of resources.
The bottle needed to be redesigned and refined to work within what Target's supply chain could execute -- which meant things like removing the color-coding from the label (color printers are too expensive to have in every pharmacy) and instead go with the colored rings. IT systems, particularly around CRM and point-of-sale, required significant upgrading to handle the personalized information shown on each bottle. Hundreds of pharmacists had to be trained on the new system. Marketing had to ramp up, explaining this new approach.
I've seen numerous attempts at customer experience improvement fail because of a company's unwillingness to dig in and really do what it takes to deliver. Sometimes this is because of a simple lack of momentum, but most often the cause is an organization's decision-making process. For something like ClearRx, there were dozens (if not hundreds) of decision points and "stage gates" along the way, and at any one of those, this initiative could have died or been severely compromised. I'm in awe that something this good was able to be released. One reason, already stated, was the power of the prototype. Another reason, essential for successful customer experience delivery, was...
3. Align efforts with your brand values
Target's mission is: "To make Target the preferred shopping destination for our guests by delivering outstanding value, continuous innovation and an exceptional guest experience, and consistently fulfilling our Expect More. Pay Less.® brand promise." ClearRx would not have succeeded at a Wal-Mart or CVS. It fed off Target's distinct personality, and such strong alignment gave ClearRx the momentum it needed to propel through the arduous process of going from prototype to delivered service.
You can't simply try to deliver any good customer experience. Because of the difficulty you'll face in getting any great new experience out into the world, you have to figure out the nature of a great experience that is appropriate to who you are.
4. Customer experience is made of people!
In an interview about what it took to make ClearRx real, Deborah commented, "[The pharmacists] were the most important people to us, they were the front line. They had to explain how to use this new system." To me, this paralleled a quote from Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher: "If you create an environment where the people truly participate, you don't need control. They know what needs to be done and they do it. And the more that people will devote themselves to your cause on a voluntary basis, a willing basis, the fewer hierarchies and control mechanisms you need."
Many, if not most, service organizations are unwilling to cede control of the experience to those people who directly interact with the customer. This is because front-line staff are usually the lowest on the totem pole, and such "individual contributors" can't be trusted to do the right thing. As such, they're given scripts to follow, and policies to adhere to, treated as automatons executing a program. Organizations delivering great customer experience appreciate the importance of the front-line staff, and empower them to do great work.
For more on the ClearRx story, I suggest reading "The Perfect Prescription", and listening to A Dose Of Design.
*****************
Four Customer Experience Lessons from Target's ClearRx
4:47 PM Monday June 1, 2009
Tags:Customers, Design, Marketing
Among my favorite examples of great customer experience is Target's ClearRx pharmacy system. Introduced 4 years ago, it provided a radical departure from the standard design of pill bottles, setting Target apart from their competition. ClearRx sports an excellent design, with clear typography, smart color coding, and flat surfaces for easier reading.
What many people might not realize is that good design work happens all the time inside companies, even companies that you would never associate with great design. The difference is that Target is able to get this great design out into the world. In looking at the ClearRx story, there are a number of lessons for anyone wanting to deliver a great experience.
1. Prototype Early
The ClearRx story begins in designer Deborah Adler's time at the School of Visual Arts. For her masters thesis, she hit upon the idea of redesigning the pill bottle, after hearing of her grandmother taking her grandfather's medicine by mistake. The result of her efforts was a design she called SafeRx. After graduating, she shopped her idea around until she found a willing partner in Target.
Had Deborah Adler presented a business plan, with a set of bullet points in a PowerPoint deck outlining functional characteristics of a new pill bottle, she would gotten no traction. By manifesting her vision in a well-executed prototype, she appealed to an emotional and visceral sense of what the pill bottle could (and should) be. Good prototypes get people to rally around an idea.
They also serve as a beacon, a north star for the product development process. Though the final bottle design appears substantially different, it embodies all the essential design criteria of the original work.
2. Gird yourself for a slog
Because ClearRx looks exactly like the kind of thing Target would create, you might assume it was a fairly speedy process. In fact it took a year, and required the coordination of a remarkable number of resources.
The bottle needed to be redesigned and refined to work within what Target's supply chain could execute -- which meant things like removing the color-coding from the label (color printers are too expensive to have in every pharmacy) and instead go with the colored rings. IT systems, particularly around CRM and point-of-sale, required significant upgrading to handle the personalized information shown on each bottle. Hundreds of pharmacists had to be trained on the new system. Marketing had to ramp up, explaining this new approach.
I've seen numerous attempts at customer experience improvement fail because of a company's unwillingness to dig in and really do what it takes to deliver. Sometimes this is because of a simple lack of momentum, but most often the cause is an organization's decision-making process. For something like ClearRx, there were dozens (if not hundreds) of decision points and "stage gates" along the way, and at any one of those, this initiative could have died or been severely compromised. I'm in awe that something this good was able to be released. One reason, already stated, was the power of the prototype. Another reason, essential for successful customer experience delivery, was...
3. Align efforts with your brand values
Target's mission is: "To make Target the preferred shopping destination for our guests by delivering outstanding value, continuous innovation and an exceptional guest experience, and consistently fulfilling our Expect More. Pay Less.® brand promise." ClearRx would not have succeeded at a Wal-Mart or CVS. It fed off Target's distinct personality, and such strong alignment gave ClearRx the momentum it needed to propel through the arduous process of going from prototype to delivered service.
You can't simply try to deliver any good customer experience. Because of the difficulty you'll face in getting any great new experience out into the world, you have to figure out the nature of a great experience that is appropriate to who you are.
4. Customer experience is made of people!
In an interview about what it took to make ClearRx real, Deborah commented, "[The pharmacists] were the most important people to us, they were the front line. They had to explain how to use this new system." To me, this paralleled a quote from Southwest Airlines founder Herb Kelleher: "If you create an environment where the people truly participate, you don't need control. They know what needs to be done and they do it. And the more that people will devote themselves to your cause on a voluntary basis, a willing basis, the fewer hierarchies and control mechanisms you need."
Many, if not most, service organizations are unwilling to cede control of the experience to those people who directly interact with the customer. This is because front-line staff are usually the lowest on the totem pole, and such "individual contributors" can't be trusted to do the right thing. As such, they're given scripts to follow, and policies to adhere to, treated as automatons executing a program. Organizations delivering great customer experience appreciate the importance of the front-line staff, and empower them to do great work.
For more on the ClearRx story, I suggest reading "The Perfect Prescription", and listening to A Dose Of Design.
Harvard Bus Review research on Twitter
The research says men follow men disproportionately, unlike in other social networks where everyone follows women. And on Twitter, the average tweet per lifetime is still just one. 10% of Twitter users create 90% of the traffic.
***************
New Twitter Research: Men Follow Men and Nobody Tweets
2:15 PM Monday June 1, 2009
by Bill Heil and Mikolaj Piskorski
Tags:Gender, Social media, Technology
Twitter has attracted tremendous attention from the media and celebrities, but there is much uncertainty about Twitter's purpose. Is Twitter a communications service for friends and groups, a means of expressing yourself freely, or simply a marketing tool?
We examined the activity of a random sample of 300,000 Twitter users in May 2009 to find out how people are using the service. We then compared our findings to activity on other social networks and online content production venues. Our findings are very surprising.
Of our sample (300,542 users, collected in May 2009), 80% are followed by or follow at least one user. By comparison, only 60 to 65% of other online social networks' members had at least one friend (when these networks were at a similar level of development). This suggests that actual users (as opposed to the media at large) understand how Twitter works.
Although men and women follow a similar number of Twitter users, men have 15% more followers than women. Men also have more reciprocated relationships, in which two users follow each other. This "follower split" suggests that women are driven less by followers than men, or have more stringent thresholds for reciprocating relationships. This is intriguing, especially given that females hold a slight majority on Twitter: we found that men comprise 45% of Twitter users, while women represent 55%. To get this figure, we cross-referenced users' "real names" against a database of 40,000 strongly gendered names.
Even more interesting is who follows whom. We found that an average man is almost twice more likely to follow another man than a woman. Similarly, an average woman is 25% more likely to follow a man than a woman. Finally, an average man is 40% more likely to be followed by another man than by a woman. These results cannot be explained by different tweeting activity - both men and women tweet at the same rate.
These results are stunning given what previous research has found in the context of online social networks. On a typical online social network, most of the activity is focused around women - men follow content produced by women they do and do not know, and women follow content produced by women they knowi. Generally, men receive comparatively little attention from other men or from women. We wonder to what extent this pattern of results arises because men and women find the content produced by other men on Twitter more compelling than on a typical social network, and men find the content produced by women less compelling (because of a lack of photo sharing, detailed biographies, etc.).
Twitter's usage patterns are also very different from a typical on-line social network. A typical Twitter user contributes very rarely. Among Twitter users, the median number of lifetime tweets per user is one. This translates into over half of Twitter users tweeting less than once every 74 days.
At the same time there is a small contingent of users who are very active. Specifically, the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets. On a typical online social network, the top 10% of users account for 30% of all production. To put Twitter in perspective, consider an unlikely analogue - Wikipedia. There, the top 15% of the most prolific editors account for 90% of Wikipedia's edits ii. In other words, the pattern of contributions on Twitter is more concentrated among the few top users than is the case on Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia is clearly not a communications tool. This implies that Twitter's resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service more than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network.
Bill Heil is a graduating MBA student at Harvard Business School, and will start at Adobe Systems as a Product Manager in the fall. Mikolaj Jan Piskorski is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at HBS who teaches a Second Year elective entitled Competing with Social Networks. Bill undertook research for parts of this article in the context of that class.
***************
New Twitter Research: Men Follow Men and Nobody Tweets
2:15 PM Monday June 1, 2009
by Bill Heil and Mikolaj Piskorski
Tags:Gender, Social media, Technology
Twitter has attracted tremendous attention from the media and celebrities, but there is much uncertainty about Twitter's purpose. Is Twitter a communications service for friends and groups, a means of expressing yourself freely, or simply a marketing tool?
We examined the activity of a random sample of 300,000 Twitter users in May 2009 to find out how people are using the service. We then compared our findings to activity on other social networks and online content production venues. Our findings are very surprising.
Of our sample (300,542 users, collected in May 2009), 80% are followed by or follow at least one user. By comparison, only 60 to 65% of other online social networks' members had at least one friend (when these networks were at a similar level of development). This suggests that actual users (as opposed to the media at large) understand how Twitter works.
Although men and women follow a similar number of Twitter users, men have 15% more followers than women. Men also have more reciprocated relationships, in which two users follow each other. This "follower split" suggests that women are driven less by followers than men, or have more stringent thresholds for reciprocating relationships. This is intriguing, especially given that females hold a slight majority on Twitter: we found that men comprise 45% of Twitter users, while women represent 55%. To get this figure, we cross-referenced users' "real names" against a database of 40,000 strongly gendered names.
Even more interesting is who follows whom. We found that an average man is almost twice more likely to follow another man than a woman. Similarly, an average woman is 25% more likely to follow a man than a woman. Finally, an average man is 40% more likely to be followed by another man than by a woman. These results cannot be explained by different tweeting activity - both men and women tweet at the same rate.
These results are stunning given what previous research has found in the context of online social networks. On a typical online social network, most of the activity is focused around women - men follow content produced by women they do and do not know, and women follow content produced by women they knowi. Generally, men receive comparatively little attention from other men or from women. We wonder to what extent this pattern of results arises because men and women find the content produced by other men on Twitter more compelling than on a typical social network, and men find the content produced by women less compelling (because of a lack of photo sharing, detailed biographies, etc.).
Twitter's usage patterns are also very different from a typical on-line social network. A typical Twitter user contributes very rarely. Among Twitter users, the median number of lifetime tweets per user is one. This translates into over half of Twitter users tweeting less than once every 74 days.
At the same time there is a small contingent of users who are very active. Specifically, the top 10% of prolific Twitter users accounted for over 90% of tweets. On a typical online social network, the top 10% of users account for 30% of all production. To put Twitter in perspective, consider an unlikely analogue - Wikipedia. There, the top 15% of the most prolific editors account for 90% of Wikipedia's edits ii. In other words, the pattern of contributions on Twitter is more concentrated among the few top users than is the case on Wikipedia, even though Wikipedia is clearly not a communications tool. This implies that Twitter's resembles more of a one-way, one-to-many publishing service more than a two-way, peer-to-peer communication network.
Bill Heil is a graduating MBA student at Harvard Business School, and will start at Adobe Systems as a Product Manager in the fall. Mikolaj Jan Piskorski is an Assistant Professor of Strategy at HBS who teaches a Second Year elective entitled Competing with Social Networks. Bill undertook research for parts of this article in the context of that class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
