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.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
