So Obama is proclaiming the recession over, and taking credit for it.
"Thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink…. A full and vibrant recovery is still many months away." Obama said.
The United States has been in recession since December 2007. There is dispute between economists as to whether or not it is actually over.
And one has to wonder if it is really even in Obama’s best interests for the economy to go on the upswing?
One of Obama’s mentors while he was working as an “agitator” in the South Side of Chicago in 1985, was Mike Kruglik . He was a devout follower of Saul Alinsky, whose Rules for Radicals method of politics, teaches how to destroy political adversaries. In it, he refers to the Cloward/Piven Strategy as a method, which is used by the radical Left to create crisis.
The Cloward/Piven Strategy
So what exactly is this strategy? Well, the goal is to make an already weak economy even worse. This strategy explains why the Democrats’ plan to "stimulate" the economy involves massive deficit spending projects. It includes 100s of millions for ACORN and its subgroups such as SHOP and the Neighborhood Stabilization Program. Expanding the S-Chip Program through deficit spending in a supposed effort to "save the children" only makes a faltering economy worse. Rahm Emanuel has said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
The agitator's job is to spark such crises. According to The American Thinker, Alinsky teaches that an agitator is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are miserable, through no fault of their own, the unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then band them together to demand what they deserve (to "rub raw the sores of discontent”), to cause such a pubic media uproar that governments and corporations will bow to their demands just to make them go away.
The strategy's ultimate goal is to bring about the fall of capitalism by overloading and undermining government bureaucracy to bring about a need for government intervention, eventually ushering in a new wave of socialism.
We must now view the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan's spending on items like food stamps, jobless benefits, and health care with the knowledge of this end goal in mind.
If Congress were to allow a robust economy, parents would be able to provide for their children themselves by earning and keeping more of their own money. And Democrats would consider that a lost opportunity.
The Cloward/Piven Strategy is named after Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven. Their goal was to overthrow capitalism by overwhelming the government bureaucracy with entitlement demands. The created crisis provides the impetus to bring about radical political change.
Obama the Agitator?
And Obama seems just the guy to get the job done. One of his early mentors in the Alinsky method was Mike Kruglik, who was quoted as saying to Ryan Lizza of The New Republic, about Obama:
"He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better."
Their main goal is to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income by redistributing existing income.
Since Conservative Republicans are always ready to proclaim the evils of public welfare, the authors figured they would get closer to their goal by creating disruption within the Democrats. They say, "Whites - both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class - would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”
Do any of the following tactics sound familiar? Flooding government with impossible demands until it slowly halts to a stop; overloading electoral systems with waves of new and bogus voters; shaking down banks, politicians in Congress, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development for affirmative-action borrowing; and, now, pulling down the national financial system by demanding subprime mortgages for low-income Americans who won’t be able to repay their loans. You don’t have to be a financial expert to know that it was these helpless mortgages that are responsible for the entire financial bailout.
But the prime example of the results of the Cloward-Piven strategy was demonstrated in 1975, when more and more people demanding welfare flooded New York City thus bankrupting the government. This caused a financial crisis that affected the whole state, and required a government bailout.
A key element of the recent crisis certainly represents many years of a "backward economic philosophy and culture of corruption" cited by the Obama camp. However, much of the backwardness and deception were promoted by the Institute for Policy Studies. Its war against the financial system used improvised non-ethical devices (INEDs) designed to destroy capitalism and support Mr. Obama. One of those roadside INEDs was the Cloward-Piven strategy.
Cloward and Piven were inspired and mobilized by the Watts race riot to develop a strategy for social change. In November 1965, they began privately distributing copies of an article they had written called Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done. It was published six months later on May 2, 1966, in The Nation, under the title, The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty.
The article served its intended purpose. The Left was sufficiently fired up. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect.
Cloward and Piven noted that the 8 million Americans who are on welfare probably represented less than half the number that was technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." They calculated that if even a fraction of potential welfare recipients were to demand their entitlements it would bankrupt the system. In the end, they predicted, would produce "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces… for major economic reform at the national level."
Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Politicians would be intimidated by black violence and would appeal to the federal government for help. Leftwing media campaigns would promote the idea of "a federal program of income redistribution," in the guise of a guaranteed living income for all. Local officials would apply pressure on politicians to implement it. Chaos would ensue, and Washington would respond out of necessity.
The Cloward-Piven strategy hasn’t gotten its intended results quite yet. But it can serve as a warning of the Left's scariest agenda. Especially since George Soros funds both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements. He has refined the strategy into a modern and more efficient plan to gain control.
c. 2009
Monday, September 6, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
NAOMI CAMPBELL HOLDS THE KEY?
In a twist of irony, Naomi Campbell is making war crimes allegations against former Liberian President, Charles Taylor, yet doesn’t want to talk about it. In an interview with ABC News, she stormed out, knocking over a camera, just for good measure.
“Even prosecutors in the Hague for the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone say Campbell has refused their requests to be interviewed about the allegations that they say could help directly link Taylor, the former president of Liberia, to the possession of uncut diamonds used to fuel a campaign of terror in Sierra Leone between 1997 and 2001.”
Diamonds are big business in Sierra Leone. Blood diamonds are diamonds which serve wartime purposes. Specifically used to finance insurgencies or warlords’ activities.
In fact, former Liberian president Charles Taylor was accused by the UN in 2000 of supporting the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) insurgency in neighboring Sierra Leone with weapons and training in exchange for diamonds. Now that he is facing trials charging him with 11 counts of murder, torture, rape, sexual slavery and the use of child soldiers and terrorism, he has stepped down as president.
So where do the supermodel and the actress fit into all of this? Taylor allegedly gave Campbell blood diamonds at a party in South Africa in 1997. Mia Farrow also attended the party, and claims that Campbell told her about the gift later. Prosecutors say the testimony would give “direct evidence of Taylor’s possession of rough diamonds from a witness unrelated to the Liberian or Sierra Leone conflicts.”
Taylor was once one of West Africa’s most powerful men. An estimated 500,000 people were the victims of killings, systematic mutilation or other atrocities in that war, with some of the worst crimes committed by child soldiers who were drugged to desensitize them.
I don’t blame her. I don’t think I’d want to testify either.
c. 2010
“Even prosecutors in the Hague for the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone say Campbell has refused their requests to be interviewed about the allegations that they say could help directly link Taylor, the former president of Liberia, to the possession of uncut diamonds used to fuel a campaign of terror in Sierra Leone between 1997 and 2001.”
Diamonds are big business in Sierra Leone. Blood diamonds are diamonds which serve wartime purposes. Specifically used to finance insurgencies or warlords’ activities.
In fact, former Liberian president Charles Taylor was accused by the UN in 2000 of supporting the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) insurgency in neighboring Sierra Leone with weapons and training in exchange for diamonds. Now that he is facing trials charging him with 11 counts of murder, torture, rape, sexual slavery and the use of child soldiers and terrorism, he has stepped down as president.
So where do the supermodel and the actress fit into all of this? Taylor allegedly gave Campbell blood diamonds at a party in South Africa in 1997. Mia Farrow also attended the party, and claims that Campbell told her about the gift later. Prosecutors say the testimony would give “direct evidence of Taylor’s possession of rough diamonds from a witness unrelated to the Liberian or Sierra Leone conflicts.”
Taylor was once one of West Africa’s most powerful men. An estimated 500,000 people were the victims of killings, systematic mutilation or other atrocities in that war, with some of the worst crimes committed by child soldiers who were drugged to desensitize them.
I don’t blame her. I don’t think I’d want to testify either.
c. 2010
FERGIE’S WHITE TRASH MOMENT
How white-trash is Sarah Ferguson?
Something I never thought I would say about the red-haired Duchess, who in years prior had been described as a “breath of fresh air” at the palace.
I remember when she married Prince Andrew. It took a while for her to break in to her new royal shoes. At first, the tabloids made fun of her “ginger” hair and freckles. News of her latest exploits were littered across the checkout line at the grocery store. She soon calmed down, as grown folks tend to do.
Her amiable divorce was uneventful. She and the prince still lived together until 2004. Her post-royal career has been nothing less than admirable. She has been an inspiration to many as the spokesperson for Weight Watchers. She also has a splendid relationship with Prince Andrew. They are still very close.
More recently, she is caught on tape asking an undercover reporter posing as a wealthy businessman for a $40,000 cash down payment in return for an introduction to the Prince, as well as a $724,000 fee wired directly into her bank account.
Oh, but there’s more. She also insists on one percent commission from any of the profits the businessman/reporter makes as a result of meeting the Prince.
She does maintain his innocence in all of this, claiming he knows nothing about the situation, and would never ask for money, because he is “Whiter than white.”
So, what’s the deal here? Why is former royal hurting for money? She has a known shopping problem.
Fergie once told an interviewer that the late Princess Diana walked away from her divorce with $28 million, while she received nothing. She claims to have been dirt poor even while living in the palace. The queen was quite stingy with her money, that she often had to rely on her daughters for spare cash. The girls both have trust funds, from which they pay their mom a weekly allowance.
The word on the street is that Andrew has forgiven this latest exploit. I have a feeling that he will make sure she is in the money, so to speak, if only to keep her quiet and unseen.
c. 2010
Something I never thought I would say about the red-haired Duchess, who in years prior had been described as a “breath of fresh air” at the palace.
I remember when she married Prince Andrew. It took a while for her to break in to her new royal shoes. At first, the tabloids made fun of her “ginger” hair and freckles. News of her latest exploits were littered across the checkout line at the grocery store. She soon calmed down, as grown folks tend to do.
Her amiable divorce was uneventful. She and the prince still lived together until 2004. Her post-royal career has been nothing less than admirable. She has been an inspiration to many as the spokesperson for Weight Watchers. She also has a splendid relationship with Prince Andrew. They are still very close.
More recently, she is caught on tape asking an undercover reporter posing as a wealthy businessman for a $40,000 cash down payment in return for an introduction to the Prince, as well as a $724,000 fee wired directly into her bank account.
Oh, but there’s more. She also insists on one percent commission from any of the profits the businessman/reporter makes as a result of meeting the Prince.
She does maintain his innocence in all of this, claiming he knows nothing about the situation, and would never ask for money, because he is “Whiter than white.”
So, what’s the deal here? Why is former royal hurting for money? She has a known shopping problem.
Fergie once told an interviewer that the late Princess Diana walked away from her divorce with $28 million, while she received nothing. She claims to have been dirt poor even while living in the palace. The queen was quite stingy with her money, that she often had to rely on her daughters for spare cash. The girls both have trust funds, from which they pay their mom a weekly allowance.
The word on the street is that Andrew has forgiven this latest exploit. I have a feeling that he will make sure she is in the money, so to speak, if only to keep her quiet and unseen.
c. 2010
NON PROFIT RESTAURANT?
This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
The St. Louis-based Panera Bread Co. opened the first (of what they hope to be many) “pay what you want” restaurants, where customers are told to donate what they want for a meal, whether it’s a penny or $100.
This in a world where people think nothing about paying for their coffee from the tip/give-a-penny jar. I can guarantee that it wasn’t anyone who actually worked in the restaurants who came up with this idea.
Ronald Shaich, Panera’s CEO explains:
“The pilot restaurant is run by a nonprofit foundation. If it can sustain itself financially, Panera will expand the model around the country within months. It all depends on whether customers will abide by the motto that hangs above the deli counter: “Take what you need, leave your fair share.”
OK, for one thing, this is in Clayton, MO., a high-end suburb of St. Louis, where the people aren’t really watching their pennies as much as, say, East St. Louis, where the actual need might be more prominent.
While I agree that there are some people who would want to pay, the majority are going to want to take full advantage of the free food. Perhaps placing these non-profit stores in richer suburbs is part of a marketing strategy that will “guilt” patrons into paying a lot, but then the people who really need the food will miss out.
My economist boyfriend explains that this system is more in line with classic economics, where the buyer sets the price. However, my experience working in the food industry tells me they ain’t going to last.
It seems to me that if Panera is concerned about charity, they would do better just to donate food to a shelter or open a soup kitchen of their own.
c. 2010
The St. Louis-based Panera Bread Co. opened the first (of what they hope to be many) “pay what you want” restaurants, where customers are told to donate what they want for a meal, whether it’s a penny or $100.
This in a world where people think nothing about paying for their coffee from the tip/give-a-penny jar. I can guarantee that it wasn’t anyone who actually worked in the restaurants who came up with this idea.
Ronald Shaich, Panera’s CEO explains:
“The pilot restaurant is run by a nonprofit foundation. If it can sustain itself financially, Panera will expand the model around the country within months. It all depends on whether customers will abide by the motto that hangs above the deli counter: “Take what you need, leave your fair share.”
OK, for one thing, this is in Clayton, MO., a high-end suburb of St. Louis, where the people aren’t really watching their pennies as much as, say, East St. Louis, where the actual need might be more prominent.
While I agree that there are some people who would want to pay, the majority are going to want to take full advantage of the free food. Perhaps placing these non-profit stores in richer suburbs is part of a marketing strategy that will “guilt” patrons into paying a lot, but then the people who really need the food will miss out.
My economist boyfriend explains that this system is more in line with classic economics, where the buyer sets the price. However, my experience working in the food industry tells me they ain’t going to last.
It seems to me that if Panera is concerned about charity, they would do better just to donate food to a shelter or open a soup kitchen of their own.
c. 2010
COUGARS DIE YOUNG
The recent cougar trend may be dying early on. Literally.
I’ve always admired cougars. Kind of like, “hell with the world, I’m going to marry my boy toy.” Hollywood cougars like Madonna, Courtney Cox and Demi Moore have made it fashionable to marry young. I, myself, have known plenty of successful cougar marriages.
However despite all the positive emotional research, recent findings have shown that society’s response to cougars is more stressful than not, and
that stress can apparently cause them to die early. The younger the boy, the earlier the death, German researchers say.
The trends were identified by an analysis of marriage and death records of almost two million Dutch men and women, Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper reported. Ironically enough, men don’t experience this phenomenon, as it is apparently reversed. The younger the wife, the longer his lifespan.
But lest you think that marrying an older man would be better, research shows that to be no good as well. The best choice for a woman who wants to live a long life is to marry someone within three years of her age.
c. 2010
I’ve always admired cougars. Kind of like, “hell with the world, I’m going to marry my boy toy.” Hollywood cougars like Madonna, Courtney Cox and Demi Moore have made it fashionable to marry young. I, myself, have known plenty of successful cougar marriages.
However despite all the positive emotional research, recent findings have shown that society’s response to cougars is more stressful than not, and
that stress can apparently cause them to die early. The younger the boy, the earlier the death, German researchers say.
The trends were identified by an analysis of marriage and death records of almost two million Dutch men and women, Britain’s Daily Mail newspaper reported. Ironically enough, men don’t experience this phenomenon, as it is apparently reversed. The younger the wife, the longer his lifespan.
But lest you think that marrying an older man would be better, research shows that to be no good as well. The best choice for a woman who wants to live a long life is to marry someone within three years of her age.
c. 2010
SLAVES IN AMERICA
I was telling a co-worker about this article I was writing on sex trafficking, sharing some of the disturbing statistics and stories, to which her reply was,
“Yeah, but I don’t think that happens here in North Carolina.”
She, like probably the majority of Americans, doubt that it even happens in this country, when they don’t realize it could be happening in their neighborhood.
I have to admit, I was a little shocked when I found out that Charlotte is a major sex trade hub for the East Coast.
Sure, there have been a few stories here and there. I remembered the Shaniaya Davis story a few years ago. I remember seeing the beautiful 5-year-old girl from a nearby town in the newspaper, shocked and appalled that her conscienceless mother could do such a thing.
Shaniaya was a 5-year-old girl, who’s life ended way before her premature death. She lived life as a normal child until she moved in with her “recovered” mother, who sold her into sex slavery for drug money. Gotta love the American court systems.
Even though that one made the papers, there are countless other stories that go unheard because people simply don’t know. The people who do know, certainly don’t want to talk about it, so these girls slip under the radar and live a tortured life without a face or a voice, often right under our noses.
The sex trade is a lucrative industry here in America as well as internationally. To say the world is full of heartless people without a conscience is a huge understatement. These girls can testify firsthand to that.
Jaycee Duggard
Jaycee Duggard is one of the lucky ones. She got out. Her story was featured on Good Morning America recently. She had been waiting for a school bus when she was kidnapped in 1991, outside her home in California by Phillip and Nancy Garrido. She was 11. For 18 years, she lived in a tent outside of their house in Berkeley California. She gave birth to two girls of Phillip Garrido’s, who she claimed were her sisters.
The neighbors of the Garrido’s, were mildly suspicious, but probably gave it little thought. Jaycee was allowed to live an outwardly “normal’ life. She even worked in her “father’s” print shop as a graphic designer.
Tina Frundt shared her story to the Women’s Funding Network. She was 14 when she ran off with an older man who had been brainwashing her for months. He was a ready ear when she had complaints about her parents, and soon became ‘the only one who got her.” Soon she fell in love and was more than willing to run off with him to Ohio.
He introduced her to a world of prostitution [“How else would they build their dream home?” he asked], abuse and self-blame.
When she didn’t make her quota of $500 a night, he would beat her in front of the other girls.
She says, “This is the same man that took me out to eat, listened to me when I wanted to complain about my parents, gave me words of advice. I was now seeing a side of him that I never saw before — a brutal side where he repeatedly hit me in front of the other girls to teach us all a lesson.”
He would lock her in the closet for hours, break her fingers, deprive her of food and water as tools of submission.
These girls are brainwashed, deprived of dignity and basic love for so long that often they have no idea that there is a better way of living.
It’s easy to want to judge these girls for what we imagine is their choice, but in reality, it is their doom. They don’t want this life, but for some, it is the only life they know. Many have been sold into this lifestyle at a young age by their parents or someone else close to them.
Imagine being sold into slavery at a child; you simply don’t know any other way. So, you adapt.
It’s amazing, I was reading the subsequent blogs to some of these articles, the hateful sentiment was amazing. People clearly blame the victims. I only hope that these people never have to undergo the hell that these girls have had.
Linda Smith of Shared Hope International, says,
“The biggest problem we have is perception. That they’re just bad girls. They don’t see the beatings, the rapes, the violations, the threats. “We’ll distribute these pictures at your school, at your middle school, we’ll go to your family’s house, we’ll get your mother.”
Ernie Allen, President and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, says, “These kids are victims. They lack the ability to walk away. This is 21st century slavery.”
A girl from Seattle, named Briana narrowly escaped a horrible fate. Some nice looking guys lured her to their home, and talked her in to spending the night.
Thanks to a massive effort by friends and family, Briana was saved from her horror. Though she has some inklings as to what would have happened to her, had they not acted. To say she is fortunate is an understatement.
These guys are pros. They know just how to entrance these vulnerable women they prey upon.
“It shocked me how somebody in three days could take 18 years & just turn that upside down,” said Briana’s father.
c. 2010
“Yeah, but I don’t think that happens here in North Carolina.”
She, like probably the majority of Americans, doubt that it even happens in this country, when they don’t realize it could be happening in their neighborhood.
I have to admit, I was a little shocked when I found out that Charlotte is a major sex trade hub for the East Coast.
Sure, there have been a few stories here and there. I remembered the Shaniaya Davis story a few years ago. I remember seeing the beautiful 5-year-old girl from a nearby town in the newspaper, shocked and appalled that her conscienceless mother could do such a thing.
Shaniaya was a 5-year-old girl, who’s life ended way before her premature death. She lived life as a normal child until she moved in with her “recovered” mother, who sold her into sex slavery for drug money. Gotta love the American court systems.
Even though that one made the papers, there are countless other stories that go unheard because people simply don’t know. The people who do know, certainly don’t want to talk about it, so these girls slip under the radar and live a tortured life without a face or a voice, often right under our noses.
The sex trade is a lucrative industry here in America as well as internationally. To say the world is full of heartless people without a conscience is a huge understatement. These girls can testify firsthand to that.
Jaycee Duggard
Jaycee Duggard is one of the lucky ones. She got out. Her story was featured on Good Morning America recently. She had been waiting for a school bus when she was kidnapped in 1991, outside her home in California by Phillip and Nancy Garrido. She was 11. For 18 years, she lived in a tent outside of their house in Berkeley California. She gave birth to two girls of Phillip Garrido’s, who she claimed were her sisters.
The neighbors of the Garrido’s, were mildly suspicious, but probably gave it little thought. Jaycee was allowed to live an outwardly “normal’ life. She even worked in her “father’s” print shop as a graphic designer.
Tina Frundt shared her story to the Women’s Funding Network. She was 14 when she ran off with an older man who had been brainwashing her for months. He was a ready ear when she had complaints about her parents, and soon became ‘the only one who got her.” Soon she fell in love and was more than willing to run off with him to Ohio.
He introduced her to a world of prostitution [“How else would they build their dream home?” he asked], abuse and self-blame.
When she didn’t make her quota of $500 a night, he would beat her in front of the other girls.
She says, “This is the same man that took me out to eat, listened to me when I wanted to complain about my parents, gave me words of advice. I was now seeing a side of him that I never saw before — a brutal side where he repeatedly hit me in front of the other girls to teach us all a lesson.”
He would lock her in the closet for hours, break her fingers, deprive her of food and water as tools of submission.
These girls are brainwashed, deprived of dignity and basic love for so long that often they have no idea that there is a better way of living.
It’s easy to want to judge these girls for what we imagine is their choice, but in reality, it is their doom. They don’t want this life, but for some, it is the only life they know. Many have been sold into this lifestyle at a young age by their parents or someone else close to them.
Imagine being sold into slavery at a child; you simply don’t know any other way. So, you adapt.
It’s amazing, I was reading the subsequent blogs to some of these articles, the hateful sentiment was amazing. People clearly blame the victims. I only hope that these people never have to undergo the hell that these girls have had.
Linda Smith of Shared Hope International, says,
“The biggest problem we have is perception. That they’re just bad girls. They don’t see the beatings, the rapes, the violations, the threats. “We’ll distribute these pictures at your school, at your middle school, we’ll go to your family’s house, we’ll get your mother.”
Ernie Allen, President and CEO of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, says, “These kids are victims. They lack the ability to walk away. This is 21st century slavery.”
A girl from Seattle, named Briana narrowly escaped a horrible fate. Some nice looking guys lured her to their home, and talked her in to spending the night.
Thanks to a massive effort by friends and family, Briana was saved from her horror. Though she has some inklings as to what would have happened to her, had they not acted. To say she is fortunate is an understatement.
These guys are pros. They know just how to entrance these vulnerable women they prey upon.
“It shocked me how somebody in three days could take 18 years & just turn that upside down,” said Briana’s father.
c. 2010
BREW WITH A BEAT
There is a new brew from the tea party movement. According to FOX News, conservative singer-songwriter, Lloyd Marcus, is putting together a charity album featuring some of the more musical tea-partiers. Take Back America is the theme song that a group which could include, Ted Nugent and Victoria Jackson to name a few.
The group has a “USA for Africa” feel to it, but will not feature many big names, focusing on more unknown acts instead.
“I love the fact that we’re going to have a bunch of unknown singers and bands,” Marcus said. “It’s not about getting celebrities to do it. This is about pulling musicians from all walks of life….”
“What will be wonderful is to have a rock guy with his hair down to his butt and a ring in his nose singing a duet with a guy in a business suit. There is just something fantastic about that. This album is about all the different kinds of voices in the Tea Party.”
It would seem that the tea party is the perfect place to bring such personalities together for a common purpose. Where else can you find someone like Ted Nugent partying alongside Mike Huckabee?
c. 2010
The group has a “USA for Africa” feel to it, but will not feature many big names, focusing on more unknown acts instead.
“I love the fact that we’re going to have a bunch of unknown singers and bands,” Marcus said. “It’s not about getting celebrities to do it. This is about pulling musicians from all walks of life….”
“What will be wonderful is to have a rock guy with his hair down to his butt and a ring in his nose singing a duet with a guy in a business suit. There is just something fantastic about that. This album is about all the different kinds of voices in the Tea Party.”
It would seem that the tea party is the perfect place to bring such personalities together for a common purpose. Where else can you find someone like Ted Nugent partying alongside Mike Huckabee?
c. 2010
A PUZZLING DIRECTION IN MEXICO
Mexican females have never allowed government or church to impose laws on their bodies. Not sure why the doctors are now allowing it.
In Mexico, abortion was just legalized in 2007, yet it has been available, and presumably safe, for years. I think it is safe to say that senoritas are aware of this option.
On April 22, the third anniversary of the legalization of abortion, a proposal was introduced, in which Mexican doctors will be under the gun, literally, to inform pregnant ladies about this “new,” now legal option.
Mexico is currently debating this proposed law. Devout Catholics are shocked and dismayed.
I was curious why the government would feel the need to enact such extreme measures. I originally thought it was because of said heavy Catholic influence; that as a result of the influential church opposition to the practice, maybe they were ignorant of the availability of it, or were too ashamed to even think about such a procedure.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. A study shows that during the 16 years before it was legalized, the number of abortions that occurred in Mexico was more than 40% higher than that in the United States, where it is legal.
Though the legislator who introduced the bill, Beatriz Rojas, says the law is needed because “moral or religious concepts intend to influence the decision of the woman, misinforming her or deceiving her, regarding the decision to interrupt the pregnancy.”
The director of the Center for Women’s Studies and Comprehensive Formation in Cancun, Patricia Lopez Mancera says, “This is absurd and stupid. They say doctors should tell the pregnant women about it and recommend abortion — can you imagine?”
So, it seems that Mexico has a pretty even split between pro- and anti- abortion, that does what they want regardless of law.
I’m not entirely sure what this bill will accomplish.
c. 2010
In Mexico, abortion was just legalized in 2007, yet it has been available, and presumably safe, for years. I think it is safe to say that senoritas are aware of this option.
On April 22, the third anniversary of the legalization of abortion, a proposal was introduced, in which Mexican doctors will be under the gun, literally, to inform pregnant ladies about this “new,” now legal option.
Mexico is currently debating this proposed law. Devout Catholics are shocked and dismayed.
I was curious why the government would feel the need to enact such extreme measures. I originally thought it was because of said heavy Catholic influence; that as a result of the influential church opposition to the practice, maybe they were ignorant of the availability of it, or were too ashamed to even think about such a procedure.
I couldn’t have been more wrong. A study shows that during the 16 years before it was legalized, the number of abortions that occurred in Mexico was more than 40% higher than that in the United States, where it is legal.
Though the legislator who introduced the bill, Beatriz Rojas, says the law is needed because “moral or religious concepts intend to influence the decision of the woman, misinforming her or deceiving her, regarding the decision to interrupt the pregnancy.”
The director of the Center for Women’s Studies and Comprehensive Formation in Cancun, Patricia Lopez Mancera says, “This is absurd and stupid. They say doctors should tell the pregnant women about it and recommend abortion — can you imagine?”
So, it seems that Mexico has a pretty even split between pro- and anti- abortion, that does what they want regardless of law.
I’m not entirely sure what this bill will accomplish.
c. 2010
EXTREMISTS SLAY SACRED COW SLAYERS
Nothing and no one is sacred enough to be exempt from Southpark Creators’ mocking. They describe themselves as “equal-opportunity offenders.” Everyone knows that. Everyone, that is except for militant Muslims, who not only don’t find them funny but don’t realize that the more upset they get, the more they egg Stone and Parker on.
Mohammed actually appeared in the Super Best Friends episode, which had Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Krishna, Sea Man, and the founder of Daoism come together as friends.
Stan says, “So you mean to tell me that even though people fight and argue over different religions you guys are all actually…friends?”
“More than friends, young boy, “ Mohammed answers, “we are super best friends with a desire to fight for justice.”
“We all believe in the power of good over evil…” Joseph Smith adds.
Stone and Parker are known for pushing the envelope, so to speak. They thrive on shock value. The holier the cow, the funnier the laughs, it seems. Tom Cruise, and Kanye West have been previous targets. Jesus is even a regular character. You don’t see Christians demanding censorship.
However they may be treading on dangerous ground this time. An earlier episode in 2001 that starred the prophet Mohammed dressed up as a bear has sparked death threats from Muslims. It was to reappear again in 2006, but Comedy Central censored the episode.
The Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, says on their site, RevolutionMuslim.com [which is now offline],
“We have to warn Matt [Stone] and Trey [Parker] that what they are doing is stupid,” a posting on the Web site stated on Tuesday, according to reports.
“They will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show,” it said.
Van Gogh, was a Dutch filmmaker who made a documentary addressing violence against Muslim women. He was stabbed to death by Muslims in 2004.
“This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them,” the threat concluded.
Despite repeated, nonsensical claims that they did not wish any harm to Stone and Parker, the site allegedly revealed where the “South Park” creators work, and included a sermon calling for punishments for blasphemy against the Muslim religion.
Parker and Stone responded, “We would be so hypocritical against our own message thoughts if we said well let’s not make fun of them because they might hurt us. That’s messed up.”
“It’s our whole world so it matters to us.”
In the end, it seems that it was Comedy Central who bowed to the threats. They edited and took out a majority of the show, including the ending. This angers me greatly. Freedom of the Press, not to mention freedom of religion is a fundamental right of America. We are fighting Islamic terrorists overseas in their land. Now it seems they are fighting us in our land… and winning.
c. 2010
Mohammed actually appeared in the Super Best Friends episode, which had Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Buddha, Krishna, Sea Man, and the founder of Daoism come together as friends.
Stan says, “So you mean to tell me that even though people fight and argue over different religions you guys are all actually…friends?”
“More than friends, young boy, “ Mohammed answers, “we are super best friends with a desire to fight for justice.”
“We all believe in the power of good over evil…” Joseph Smith adds.
Stone and Parker are known for pushing the envelope, so to speak. They thrive on shock value. The holier the cow, the funnier the laughs, it seems. Tom Cruise, and Kanye West have been previous targets. Jesus is even a regular character. You don’t see Christians demanding censorship.
However they may be treading on dangerous ground this time. An earlier episode in 2001 that starred the prophet Mohammed dressed up as a bear has sparked death threats from Muslims. It was to reappear again in 2006, but Comedy Central censored the episode.
The Islamic group, Revolution Muslim, says on their site, RevolutionMuslim.com [which is now offline],
“We have to warn Matt [Stone] and Trey [Parker] that what they are doing is stupid,” a posting on the Web site stated on Tuesday, according to reports.
“They will probably end up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show,” it said.
Van Gogh, was a Dutch filmmaker who made a documentary addressing violence against Muslim women. He was stabbed to death by Muslims in 2004.
“This is not a threat, but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them,” the threat concluded.
Despite repeated, nonsensical claims that they did not wish any harm to Stone and Parker, the site allegedly revealed where the “South Park” creators work, and included a sermon calling for punishments for blasphemy against the Muslim religion.
Parker and Stone responded, “We would be so hypocritical against our own message thoughts if we said well let’s not make fun of them because they might hurt us. That’s messed up.”
“It’s our whole world so it matters to us.”
In the end, it seems that it was Comedy Central who bowed to the threats. They edited and took out a majority of the show, including the ending. This angers me greatly. Freedom of the Press, not to mention freedom of religion is a fundamental right of America. We are fighting Islamic terrorists overseas in their land. Now it seems they are fighting us in our land… and winning.
c. 2010
MICROSOFT SKINPUT
If there was ever any question that we were in the future, I think we can put that doubt to rest. Computers run everything. We’ve got such an array of computer hardware, there’s always a shape and size to fit your unique lifestyle.
But this is truly unprecedented. My Inspector Gadget dreams can finally be realized.
Chris Harrison, former Microsoft Research intern, has put a new spin on the idea of a “touch-screen.” He has created a working prototype of a system called Skinput, which actually turns a person’s hand and forearm into a keyboard and screen.
If you happened to be listening to NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me quiz show,
where they initially started the buzz this weekend, you may have heard it as the answer to one of the questions.
I thought it was a joke. Seriously, though, this one-upping between computer companies is a bit out of control. How will Apple top this?
Harrison said in a interview at the recent Computer-Human Interaction conference, “People don’t love the iPhone keyboard. They use them. But they don’t love them, if you could make the iPhone keyboard as big as an arm — that would be huge.”
A series of customizable sign-language-like movements, controls a gadget in a person’s pocket through a Bluetooth connection.
A person could tap their thumb and middle finger together to answer a call; touch their forearm to go to the next track on a music player; or flick the center of their palm to select a menu item.
Fitted with a pico-projector, the Skinput system displays an image of a digital keyboard on a person’s forearm. So, using Skinput, someone could send text messages by tapping his or her arm in certain places — without pulling the phone out of a pocket or purse. So it will be important to watch your gestures, lest you unwittingly call someone you don’t want to.
Never one to pass up an opportunity for an obvious joke,
Wait, Wait host Peter Sagal joked, “At long last the Internet will be used primarily by people who are touching themselves.”
c. 2010
But this is truly unprecedented. My Inspector Gadget dreams can finally be realized.
Chris Harrison, former Microsoft Research intern, has put a new spin on the idea of a “touch-screen.” He has created a working prototype of a system called Skinput, which actually turns a person’s hand and forearm into a keyboard and screen.
If you happened to be listening to NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me quiz show,
where they initially started the buzz this weekend, you may have heard it as the answer to one of the questions.
I thought it was a joke. Seriously, though, this one-upping between computer companies is a bit out of control. How will Apple top this?
Harrison said in a interview at the recent Computer-Human Interaction conference, “People don’t love the iPhone keyboard. They use them. But they don’t love them, if you could make the iPhone keyboard as big as an arm — that would be huge.”
A series of customizable sign-language-like movements, controls a gadget in a person’s pocket through a Bluetooth connection.
A person could tap their thumb and middle finger together to answer a call; touch their forearm to go to the next track on a music player; or flick the center of their palm to select a menu item.
Fitted with a pico-projector, the Skinput system displays an image of a digital keyboard on a person’s forearm. So, using Skinput, someone could send text messages by tapping his or her arm in certain places — without pulling the phone out of a pocket or purse. So it will be important to watch your gestures, lest you unwittingly call someone you don’t want to.
Never one to pass up an opportunity for an obvious joke,
Wait, Wait host Peter Sagal joked, “At long last the Internet will be used primarily by people who are touching themselves.”
c. 2010
SARAH RETURNS TO SNL
I’ve always wondered how SNL cast members felt about retiring their best caricatures. I, for one, am really stoked that former cast member, Tina Fey is bringing back her Emmy winning Sarah Palin character, if only for one episode.
Fey, who has gone on to starring in Thirty Rock, [which apparently you can’t pay anyone to watch], will be hosting this week and bringing back an old favorite. She no doubt wants to go back to doing something successful.
This also gives SNL a chance to revisit success. It is Sweeps month, so they’re pulling out all the stops. Fey’s Palin character was definitely a favorite, for fans and haters alike; with what Chatterbox Media calls her “twangy Palin voice and over-the top folksy and “mavericky” mannerisms.”
I wasn’t a fan of her as a snarky Weekend Update correspondent. I felt like she constantly had to get her partisan digs in. [Something that hits too close to home for me, perhaps?] No, the Sarah Palin caricature was the gem of her SNL career.
With Palin’s new book and TV show, there will be plenty of material for Fey to work with; plenty of Palin-isms for Fey to mock. There is even talk of having her be a weekly presence. People will continue to laugh at things like her claim that she could see Russia from Alaska.
She will continue to provide them with comic gold, because it is easier to laugh at her than to admit that she might be relevant, with her counter-culture, un-PC ideals.
Things like not aborting your baby with Downs Syndrome and being a Christian who walks the talk.
Fey will have to beef up on her Palin-ese. She admits,
I haven’t been watching her on television lately because I’ve been working on 30 Rock,” Tina Fey said.
But she’s back doing something she’s really good at. You know you’re successful when the object of your jokes thinks they’re funny. Sarah admitted that it was “hilarious.”
In a poll asking if they should bring back a Palin character on SNL, played by cast member Kristen Wiig, people polled responded with a resounding:
“You betcha!”
c. 2010
Fey, who has gone on to starring in Thirty Rock, [which apparently you can’t pay anyone to watch], will be hosting this week and bringing back an old favorite. She no doubt wants to go back to doing something successful.
This also gives SNL a chance to revisit success. It is Sweeps month, so they’re pulling out all the stops. Fey’s Palin character was definitely a favorite, for fans and haters alike; with what Chatterbox Media calls her “twangy Palin voice and over-the top folksy and “mavericky” mannerisms.”
I wasn’t a fan of her as a snarky Weekend Update correspondent. I felt like she constantly had to get her partisan digs in. [Something that hits too close to home for me, perhaps?] No, the Sarah Palin caricature was the gem of her SNL career.
With Palin’s new book and TV show, there will be plenty of material for Fey to work with; plenty of Palin-isms for Fey to mock. There is even talk of having her be a weekly presence. People will continue to laugh at things like her claim that she could see Russia from Alaska.
She will continue to provide them with comic gold, because it is easier to laugh at her than to admit that she might be relevant, with her counter-culture, un-PC ideals.
Things like not aborting your baby with Downs Syndrome and being a Christian who walks the talk.
Fey will have to beef up on her Palin-ese. She admits,
I haven’t been watching her on television lately because I’ve been working on 30 Rock,” Tina Fey said.
But she’s back doing something she’s really good at. You know you’re successful when the object of your jokes thinks they’re funny. Sarah admitted that it was “hilarious.”
In a poll asking if they should bring back a Palin character on SNL, played by cast member Kristen Wiig, people polled responded with a resounding:
“You betcha!”
c. 2010
ANGELINA JOLIE : BACK FROM BOSNIA
While I was celebrating Easter in a safe place with my basket and chocolate eggs, Angelina Jolie (though probably not giving much thought to the true meaning) was actually living out Easter. She and husband Brad Pitt went to Bosnia to help refugees. [I just hate it when I feel shamed by the Hollywood elite].
Jolie, the most notable Hollywood “do-gooder,” who seems to collect children from far off lands, has been a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Ambassador since 2001. She has made prior humanitarian trips to Haiti, Syria and Kenya, and helped with some of the projects of the agency that deals with the 117,000 refugees in Bosnia whose homes were destroyed or lack adequate infrastructure in their villages due to the war 15 years ago.
The war, which lasted from 1991 until America stepped in, as President Clinton said, “make the United States the catalyst for a collective stand against aggression,” calling an end to the mass rapes and genocide.
Jolie says,”[I am] so inspired by these families. Despite the grim realities of their unsettled existence, they have an incredible determination to make a better future for their children. I hope we can find solutions for the remaining tens of thousands of displaced people… only then can we really close one of the most tragic chapters in modern history.”
“[I hope] to return to this beautiful country soon and meet with political representatives to further discuss the solutions that are so badly required.”
I have to applaud Jolie for using her stardom for good. So many don’t. I don’t know if I would. I think she is a great example. There are those who protest, this is merely a publicity stunt. So what? It doesn’t matter what the reasons behind her actions are, it just matters that she is doing something.
c. 2010
Jolie, the most notable Hollywood “do-gooder,” who seems to collect children from far off lands, has been a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Ambassador since 2001. She has made prior humanitarian trips to Haiti, Syria and Kenya, and helped with some of the projects of the agency that deals with the 117,000 refugees in Bosnia whose homes were destroyed or lack adequate infrastructure in their villages due to the war 15 years ago.
The war, which lasted from 1991 until America stepped in, as President Clinton said, “make the United States the catalyst for a collective stand against aggression,” calling an end to the mass rapes and genocide.
Jolie says,”[I am] so inspired by these families. Despite the grim realities of their unsettled existence, they have an incredible determination to make a better future for their children. I hope we can find solutions for the remaining tens of thousands of displaced people… only then can we really close one of the most tragic chapters in modern history.”
“[I hope] to return to this beautiful country soon and meet with political representatives to further discuss the solutions that are so badly required.”
I have to applaud Jolie for using her stardom for good. So many don’t. I don’t know if I would. I think she is a great example. There are those who protest, this is merely a publicity stunt. So what? It doesn’t matter what the reasons behind her actions are, it just matters that she is doing something.
c. 2010
SAY IT AIN’T SO! LUKE WILSON, A DIVA?
Rumor has it that nice-guy, Luke Wilson is a [gasp] diva. The rumors are with regard to the AT&T commercials. Luke wants to make movies. Apparently, according to the entertainment blog on FoxNews.com, Wilson is annoyed that he is stuck with the commercials as his source of income, and he’s ended up making others unhappy as well.
This is a classic stress response, straight from the reptilian brain. Who hasn’t behaved this way on some level? I would imagine that anyone who has ever been unhappy with their job, has behaved in a “diva-like” manner to some extent. I know I have.
He’s talking back to the director, insisting that his lines be rewritten and refusing to shoot scenes with other actors, according to FoxNews.com.
“There were some lines meant to direct the commercial in a certain way, but Luke downright refused to say the lines at all. Luke kept saying, ‘I would never say that and I will not say that!’” the source tells FoxNews.com. “It’s unprofessional and unpleasant.”
AT&T and Verizon who have spent a combined $4 billion on the ads, vehemently deny this rumor.
“We’re very pleased with our relationship,” a spokeswoman for Atlanta-based AT&T Mobility told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
While Luke’s behavior is perhaps understandable, it will get old after a while. People will tire of catering to him and eventually stop hiring him for roles.
So Luke, if you’re listening, please heed my warning. You are too good an actor to become a has-been, but if you are miserable to work with on the small stuff, people will think twice about hiring you for the big stuff.
c. 2010
This is a classic stress response, straight from the reptilian brain. Who hasn’t behaved this way on some level? I would imagine that anyone who has ever been unhappy with their job, has behaved in a “diva-like” manner to some extent. I know I have.
He’s talking back to the director, insisting that his lines be rewritten and refusing to shoot scenes with other actors, according to FoxNews.com.
“There were some lines meant to direct the commercial in a certain way, but Luke downright refused to say the lines at all. Luke kept saying, ‘I would never say that and I will not say that!’” the source tells FoxNews.com. “It’s unprofessional and unpleasant.”
AT&T and Verizon who have spent a combined $4 billion on the ads, vehemently deny this rumor.
“We’re very pleased with our relationship,” a spokeswoman for Atlanta-based AT&T Mobility told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
While Luke’s behavior is perhaps understandable, it will get old after a while. People will tire of catering to him and eventually stop hiring him for roles.
So Luke, if you’re listening, please heed my warning. You are too good an actor to become a has-been, but if you are miserable to work with on the small stuff, people will think twice about hiring you for the big stuff.
c. 2010
ALL WE HEAR IS RADIO GAGA
So Lady Gaga has apparently “outed’ herself. Is anyone surprised? Is this really news? Does anyone really care?
I don’t know of anyone who really gave it a second thought when she said she was bisexual. I don’t understand why she feels the need to air her sex life on the tabloids.
It would make more sense, perhaps, if she were making up for a lack of talent by constantly doing over the top things to keep newsworthy. But she’s not a bad musician, [I must admit I do like Paparazzi].
The most recent picture of the gay activist floating about the internet is disgusting and a total PR stunt. Why she feels she must stoop to these levels is beyond me, but it says more about our culture. She does it because it works. I should say, it works with gay men. Gay women, seem not as impressed.
She is a total publicity whore. She’s made sure that even if we are not smitten with her, we are smitten with what she’ll do next. Either way, she’s guaranteed to be in the news.
Ironically her name, “Lady GaGa” is an inadvertent reference to the Queen song Radio Gaga. I find that to be very telling. Do we really have nothing better to talk about than whether or not she is gay or a hermaphrodite?
She actually attended New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. How is anyone supposed to recognize her talent when it is her shameless PR stunts that are making headlines? And even if they do recognize that she is talented, how can they not be alienated by the antics?
As annoying as she is, the more confounding thing is that people are eating it up. I suppose these are the same audiences as reality shows have. Kind of like a bad wreck; you can’t NOT look.
“Stephanie Germotta, We see you!” quoth fellow Parcbench writer, Don Smith, with empathetic pity.
Despite my disgust for her antics, throughout the course of writing this article, I really got in to her music. Because it’s good, catchy, fun music. Well done, Lady Gaga!
c. 2010
I don’t know of anyone who really gave it a second thought when she said she was bisexual. I don’t understand why she feels the need to air her sex life on the tabloids.
It would make more sense, perhaps, if she were making up for a lack of talent by constantly doing over the top things to keep newsworthy. But she’s not a bad musician, [I must admit I do like Paparazzi].
The most recent picture of the gay activist floating about the internet is disgusting and a total PR stunt. Why she feels she must stoop to these levels is beyond me, but it says more about our culture. She does it because it works. I should say, it works with gay men. Gay women, seem not as impressed.
She is a total publicity whore. She’s made sure that even if we are not smitten with her, we are smitten with what she’ll do next. Either way, she’s guaranteed to be in the news.
Ironically her name, “Lady GaGa” is an inadvertent reference to the Queen song Radio Gaga. I find that to be very telling. Do we really have nothing better to talk about than whether or not she is gay or a hermaphrodite?
She actually attended New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts. How is anyone supposed to recognize her talent when it is her shameless PR stunts that are making headlines? And even if they do recognize that she is talented, how can they not be alienated by the antics?
As annoying as she is, the more confounding thing is that people are eating it up. I suppose these are the same audiences as reality shows have. Kind of like a bad wreck; you can’t NOT look.
“Stephanie Germotta, We see you!” quoth fellow Parcbench writer, Don Smith, with empathetic pity.
Despite my disgust for her antics, throughout the course of writing this article, I really got in to her music. Because it’s good, catchy, fun music. Well done, Lady Gaga!
c. 2010
HOME EC FOR THE MODERN TIMES
Japan’s Home Ec classes are a tad more modern than ours. Instead of egg babies, they have robot babies.
These are especially popular now, as Japan is trying to encourage it’s females to have babies. You see, the once booming Japan is suffering dire economic consequences because their population is at an all time low, with a birthrate at 1.37%. Compare that to 2.12% in the U.S. Put simply, people are not having babies. This is causing severe economic problems for the country, which doesn’t allow immigrants.
They are especially feeling the pinch in the 15-65 age group. These are the producers, the earners. They are losing the money-makers, while the more dependent elders seem to be on the rise.
According to a ministry of labor and welfare report, Japan expects over a quarter of its citizens to be aged over 65 by 2015.
In an effort to encourage procreation, and ultimately, industry, the students of the Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences at The University of Tsukuba, created a robo-baby last year, called Yotara.
Yotara is very lifelike. He actually has facial features which are projected onto his little warm silicon balloon face.
He has very lifelike baby reactions. He actually giggles and “wakes up” when a rattle is shaken. He sulks and dozes off like a real baby and smiles when his stomach is rubbed. He can also sneeze and have a runny nose, thanks to a heated water pump system.
Project leader Hiroki Kunimura, says,
“Through this experience, it would be great if some people started feeling that they wanted to have their own baby, if they started feeling that working is not everything.”
Japan’s population is expected to shrink by a third within 50 years if the birth rate does not increase. I guess if worse came to worse, they could always repopulate with the baby robots.
c. 2010
These are especially popular now, as Japan is trying to encourage it’s females to have babies. You see, the once booming Japan is suffering dire economic consequences because their population is at an all time low, with a birthrate at 1.37%. Compare that to 2.12% in the U.S. Put simply, people are not having babies. This is causing severe economic problems for the country, which doesn’t allow immigrants.
They are especially feeling the pinch in the 15-65 age group. These are the producers, the earners. They are losing the money-makers, while the more dependent elders seem to be on the rise.
According to a ministry of labor and welfare report, Japan expects over a quarter of its citizens to be aged over 65 by 2015.
In an effort to encourage procreation, and ultimately, industry, the students of the Graduate School of Comprehensive Human Sciences at The University of Tsukuba, created a robo-baby last year, called Yotara.
Yotara is very lifelike. He actually has facial features which are projected onto his little warm silicon balloon face.
He has very lifelike baby reactions. He actually giggles and “wakes up” when a rattle is shaken. He sulks and dozes off like a real baby and smiles when his stomach is rubbed. He can also sneeze and have a runny nose, thanks to a heated water pump system.
Project leader Hiroki Kunimura, says,
“Through this experience, it would be great if some people started feeling that they wanted to have their own baby, if they started feeling that working is not everything.”
Japan’s population is expected to shrink by a third within 50 years if the birth rate does not increase. I guess if worse came to worse, they could always repopulate with the baby robots.
c. 2010
PALIN TV
The girl everyone loves to hate is getting her own TV show. The former Vice Presidential candidate, best-selling author, and Fox News Commentator now has another opportunity to annoy her enemies.
TLC has picked up her eight-episode TV series with the working title, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, after the other networks turned it down. She will reportedly earn over a million dollars per episode. It will be a documentary-style travel show which explores the picturesque state of Alaska. The show will fit both Discovery Communications and Palin like Alaskan beaver mittens.
I can guarantee that despite it’s non-antagonizing nature theme, it will be the most polarizing show on the tube. Fans will eat it up, and haters will scornfully despise it. The “environmental extremists” that oppose her because she’s not a proponent of “man-made climate change” will scorn her further. You can bet it will generate a lot of buzz.
The Huffington Post is already baring its claws. In their coverage of the show, they said:
“It is a strange move for Discovery — the purveyor of such classics as “Planet Earth” and “Life” and the parent of Planet Green and Treehugger — to sign with Palin, whose anti-nature stances include denying climate change, supporting aerial wolf-hunting, and, most famously, “Drill baby, drill!”
Then, on a red hyper-link, you can be sure to…
READ ABOUT PALIN’S MOST EGREGIOUS ANTI-NATURE STANCES
But lest you think there will be any agendas, the show will be free of politics. Just an insider’s look into the state she loves so dearly.
“Discovery Communications is so excited to help Sarah Palin tell the story of Alaska,” said Discovery Communications Chief Operating Officer Peter Ligouri. It is interesting to note that Ligouri used to be the head of Fox Entertainment in the “Family Guy” dispute. He was just the guy that she was crusading against, besides McFarlane, of course.
“Family Guy,” is the Seth MacFarlane series which had Chris date a girl with Down Syndrome. She told him that she is the daughter of a former governor of Alaska. This, of course caused Palin to go on the war path against “Fox Hollywood,” saying the show had slammed her little son Trig, who also has Down Syndrome, and that it was just the latest “kick in the gut” against her, adding on her Facebook page that it “begs the question, ‘When is enough enough?’”
Apparently she’s decided to bury the hatchet. (I have to say, she’s a better woman than I).
While I am very excited about her new show, I hope it doesn’t interfere with her running in the 2012 election. But if anyone can juggle it, Sarah can.
c. 2010
TLC has picked up her eight-episode TV series with the working title, Sarah Palin’s Alaska, after the other networks turned it down. She will reportedly earn over a million dollars per episode. It will be a documentary-style travel show which explores the picturesque state of Alaska. The show will fit both Discovery Communications and Palin like Alaskan beaver mittens.
I can guarantee that despite it’s non-antagonizing nature theme, it will be the most polarizing show on the tube. Fans will eat it up, and haters will scornfully despise it. The “environmental extremists” that oppose her because she’s not a proponent of “man-made climate change” will scorn her further. You can bet it will generate a lot of buzz.
The Huffington Post is already baring its claws. In their coverage of the show, they said:
“It is a strange move for Discovery — the purveyor of such classics as “Planet Earth” and “Life” and the parent of Planet Green and Treehugger — to sign with Palin, whose anti-nature stances include denying climate change, supporting aerial wolf-hunting, and, most famously, “Drill baby, drill!”
Then, on a red hyper-link, you can be sure to…
READ ABOUT PALIN’S MOST EGREGIOUS ANTI-NATURE STANCES
But lest you think there will be any agendas, the show will be free of politics. Just an insider’s look into the state she loves so dearly.
“Discovery Communications is so excited to help Sarah Palin tell the story of Alaska,” said Discovery Communications Chief Operating Officer Peter Ligouri. It is interesting to note that Ligouri used to be the head of Fox Entertainment in the “Family Guy” dispute. He was just the guy that she was crusading against, besides McFarlane, of course.
“Family Guy,” is the Seth MacFarlane series which had Chris date a girl with Down Syndrome. She told him that she is the daughter of a former governor of Alaska. This, of course caused Palin to go on the war path against “Fox Hollywood,” saying the show had slammed her little son Trig, who also has Down Syndrome, and that it was just the latest “kick in the gut” against her, adding on her Facebook page that it “begs the question, ‘When is enough enough?’”
Apparently she’s decided to bury the hatchet. (I have to say, she’s a better woman than I).
While I am very excited about her new show, I hope it doesn’t interfere with her running in the 2012 election. But if anyone can juggle it, Sarah can.
c. 2010
JENNIFER’S REVENGE
Does Jennifer Aniston want to be a cougar?
If she does, she’ll be in good company. Cougars are exceedingly popular in Hollywood, it seems. A cougar is defined as an older woman who dates or marries a younger man. Historically, Tinsel Town has been an environment particularly amenable to cougars, and indeed even today they are stalking and ambushing their prey. (Hey, who isn’t?)
Courtney Cox Arquette, 46 is a cougar of note, both on TV and in real life. However, she married her prey, David Arquette, 39.
Her post-Friends project is Cougar Town, which she not only stars in, but executive produces. The show tells the story about a 40-ish divorcee [Cox], navigating the dating scene. It’s no Friends, but definitely holds its’ own.
She says, “I don’t take offense to the word. David’s much younger than me and he loves older women. I mean, why not date someone younger if you can?” The show definitely adds appeal to the cougars; men want to date them, and women want to be them.
Lisa Kudrow guest-starred on the show, now Cox-Arquette wants her former Friends co-star, Jennifer Aniston to join her ranks.
“She’s younger than me so she can’t play my contemporary even though she did on Friends,” Cox tells ncdailynews, “but I think we can find something great for her to play.”
Aniston has been flirting with cougar-hood at least since Friends, where she once played a cougar. Her most recent beau, John Mayer is several years her junior. While John Mayer’s maturity resembles someone far younger than he, I’m not sure he qualifies. Cougars are generally further apart in age.
She is slated to star in another cougar role, the upcoming Speilberg movie, Pumas.
“It’s sort of a female Wedding Crashers. It’s about these girls who aspire to become cougars. They just paaarty! Young party girls who just find hot young guys to play with and then dump them. Why can’t women do it?”
Indeed.
Sounds like she is well on her way to cougarhood.
c. 2010
If she does, she’ll be in good company. Cougars are exceedingly popular in Hollywood, it seems. A cougar is defined as an older woman who dates or marries a younger man. Historically, Tinsel Town has been an environment particularly amenable to cougars, and indeed even today they are stalking and ambushing their prey. (Hey, who isn’t?)
Courtney Cox Arquette, 46 is a cougar of note, both on TV and in real life. However, she married her prey, David Arquette, 39.
Her post-Friends project is Cougar Town, which she not only stars in, but executive produces. The show tells the story about a 40-ish divorcee [Cox], navigating the dating scene. It’s no Friends, but definitely holds its’ own.
She says, “I don’t take offense to the word. David’s much younger than me and he loves older women. I mean, why not date someone younger if you can?” The show definitely adds appeal to the cougars; men want to date them, and women want to be them.
Lisa Kudrow guest-starred on the show, now Cox-Arquette wants her former Friends co-star, Jennifer Aniston to join her ranks.
“She’s younger than me so she can’t play my contemporary even though she did on Friends,” Cox tells ncdailynews, “but I think we can find something great for her to play.”
Aniston has been flirting with cougar-hood at least since Friends, where she once played a cougar. Her most recent beau, John Mayer is several years her junior. While John Mayer’s maturity resembles someone far younger than he, I’m not sure he qualifies. Cougars are generally further apart in age.
She is slated to star in another cougar role, the upcoming Speilberg movie, Pumas.
“It’s sort of a female Wedding Crashers. It’s about these girls who aspire to become cougars. They just paaarty! Young party girls who just find hot young guys to play with and then dump them. Why can’t women do it?”
Indeed.
Sounds like she is well on her way to cougarhood.
c. 2010
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Family Matters
First rule about the Family is that you don’t talk about the Family….
They prefer to keep things underground. But Jeff Sharlet, Vanity Fair columnist, actually lived among the group for several months, and he’s talking. His book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power is an expose on the group that has perked the ears of Christians in both political parties.
The Family is a group of Jesus ‘Followers.” They dislike the name “Christian,” as it’s a loaded word that alienates themselves from Muslims and Jews who, they say, can also follow Jesus. After all, Jesus wasn’t a Christian.
The group lives in a house on C. Street, in Washington DC. It is a bipartisan group that has been described by prominent evangelical Christians as the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organization in the US. Many high profile names have had some connection to the group. Mark Sanford and John Ensign are a few members of note lately.
This group, which is so covert that it sometimes denies whether it is even a group, is just now receiving media attention, after having been in existence since the 30s. Their underground power is a tad disconcerting, to say the least. Their secrecy has caused all sorts of allegations to be laid upon them; Communists, crusaders for a new world order, elitists, to name a few.
It would be an extreme generalization to dismiss the whole organization as “evil,” for the actions of a few of their members. They do a lot of good. For instance, in 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with unlikely pair, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. A peace treaty soon followed.
In 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a similar meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord.
This interdenominational [and interfaith] group is responsible for organizing the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which every sitting president since 1953 has been a part of, as has many dignitaries from other nations.
Founded in 1935, The Family is a group of mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats, which is currently led by Doug Coe. It’s a forum for public officials to hold Bible studies, prayer meetings, worship services, and just a general support system.
Hillary Clinton, though not a member, has said, the group "is a unique presence in Washington,” and Coe is “a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
The group refers to themselves ‘the new chosen,” believing that all leadership is chosen by God. Most Christians believe this. However, The Family seems to have a strange twist on a works-based salvation that they, the “chosen,” are exempt from.
I quickly found out that The Family incorporates a lot of good things that would seem agreeable with most churches, takes them a little too far.
For instance, they are so focused on the “person of Christ.” Saying they worship a person, not an ideology. But how do they define this Christ? They meet in groups, or “cells,” believing that “Christ speaks directly to his anointed,” all but eliminating the need for scripture or church. Focusing on “the person of Christ” is appropriate. The thing is, different people have different notions of Christ. So it is curious where they are gaining their knowledge of their respective “persons of Christ.” There must be a standard by which to measure.
Sharlet writes extensively about the “secrecy” of the group. Indeed, confidentiality is appropriate in support systems. But as, Rev. Rob Schenck who leads a Bible study on the Hill inspired by C Street, wrote on his blog, “all ministries in Washington need to protect the confidence of those we minister to, and I'm sure that’s a primary motive for C Street's low profile.” But he added, “I think The Fellowship has been just a tad bit too clandestine.” Schenck has himself sent a letter to Sanford calling for his resignation.
•Origins
They are affiliated with the Oxford Group, an organization that strives to reach out to the elites, the rich, the powerful; the “Up and Out,” if you will.
He calls attention to Coe’s references to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Coe claims he was merely using their model of influence to further the Christ’s message.
The Oxford Group seems to have a strange fetish with Communism. They eschew Communism, while deifying dictators, because getting their message out is all about subversion.
Sharlet tells us, “There was bad subversion, like that of the Vietcong, and good subversion, also like that of the Vietcong, only in the name of Jesus. A subtle practice of persuasion.” They were obsessed with obtaining strength, and gaining a stronghold.
They seem to have a somewhat fascist mentality; strength through numbers. Though when I asked Sharlet how they were different, he was quick to point out three distinctions, “The Family doesn't admire violence, it's internationalist, and it doesn't revolve around a hated either.”
They believe the best way to preserve this strength is to be as “underground” as possible.
Frank Buchman founded the Oxford Group. His ideas to transform the government into "a new social order under the dictatorship of the spirit of God,” Vereide took absolutely literally.
After a little more digging on The Oxford Group, and their shadowy past, I realized that though they invoke Christian morality, and may even have the audacity to call themselves “Christian,’ a source tells me they are more about right and wrong, than embracing the entire Christian ideology. He noted that while The Oxford group was bad, that some of the offshoots of the group were positive and good. One of which is Up With People.
He tells us of founder, Abraham Vereide’s vision for The Family. He wanted to be missionaries that focused on the powerful, figuring that if the more powerful lives in leadership were changed, it would ultimately change many others. Sharlet calls this “trickle-down evangelism”
This is not a bad idea in itself. There are groups and Bible studies for all sorts of groups. It would seem a fantastic idea to narrow in on the most powerful. The Bible tells Christians to pray for their leaders because of their huge position of responsibility.
But it was so much more than this. The group takes shady dealings to a whole new level, with the twisting of economics and theology to promote their agenda. Sharlet calls it “the theology of the dollar,” In which, “First comes capitalism then comes Christ.”
Doug Coe and The Family played an integral part in Watergate felon, Chuck Colson‘s conversion. He has since reformed and been a prominent and respected Christian leader. But Colson told WORLD magazine that he now has concerns about politicians using the C Street group, for example, as a replacement for church. "It's a mistake," he said. "A leading figure ought to belong to a church." He is referring to the accountability that a church would provide, instead of an elite group, which might be inclined to interpret scripture very loosely.
Interview with Jeff Sharlet
• How is their idea of government different from Fascism?
There are three important reasons why I argue that the Family isn't and never has been a fascist organization, even as it has involved a number of traditional fascists (American fascist sympathizer Merwin K. Hart, "Hitler's banker" Hermann Abs) and de facto fascists (Siad Barre, the Somali dictator; Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova): The Family doesn't admire violence, it's internationalist, and it doesn't revolve around a hated either.
There are some qualifiers to those points, though: Although the Family doesn't admire violence, it has historically tended to support violent regimes, such as Barre's, Suharto's genocidal regime, the junta of generals that ran Brazil for years, Park in South Korea, etc., etc. These have been for the most part regimes that one faction or the other of the American foreign policy establishment thought worth supporting, which points to a flaw in the Family's internationalist logic: They want to be friends with everybody, so long as "everybody" is defined as those who are useful to an aggressively expansionist view of American power. During the Cold War, that meant they often functioned as sort of para-state religious front for what former Family leader Senator Frank Carlson termed "worldwide spiritual offensive."
There are other distinctions: Fascism generally begins in the working class, while the Family has never been anything but upper crust. Fascism has a vaguely socialist element; the Family has never been anything but laissez-faire. "Free market" isn't a really accurate description, though, since members tend to favor strong state support for big business, a corporatist stand that has some overlap with fascism.
There's one last, very important distinction: There have always been a number of people who work with the Family because they genuinely want to help the poor. Their methods leave much to be desired -- helping a dictator win military aid is not helping the poor -- but their intentions are in keeping with Christian tradition.
• How far do you think they will succeed at achieving their goal? Will exposure stop them, or are they too far gone? What is the next step for the Family?
Depends on how you define the goal, which is tricky with an organization that likes to insist it doesn't exist, tax records be damned. But the clearest statement of their goals is the idea of 200 world leaders bound together through the Family, a "new world order," as founder Abraham Vereide liked to call it, that will lead to peace because we'll all be on the same team -- their team. Call me a cynic, but I don't see this happening any time soon. I think Christian Right leader Rev. Rob Schenck is closer to the mark when he calls their theology a "religion of the status quo." The Family, he says, is into things as they are. They're not some kind of theocratic conspiracy -- they're the religion of power as it is. Which is to say, in the hands of an elite. In that sense, they've been remarkably successful.
Will exposure stop them? Sometimes. A story I didn't get to tell in the book is that of Norway, where a reporter for the national daily Dagbladet noticed that the prime minister was jetting off to private prayer breakfasts on the public dime and decided to investigate. Here in the U.S., he discovered Norway's ambassador taking his policy cues from then Attorney General John Ashcroft at the Family's Arlington mansion, The Cedars. Digging deeper, he discovered a deep linkage between the Family and the faction that briefly ran Norway in the middle of the past decade. He and his colleagues put it on the front page for weeks, a sort of Norwegian Watergate. That government was voted out of power, by conservatives and liberals alike.
Here in the U.S. the Family is currently facing the fiercest scrutiny it's had to endure in 70 years, as local reporters all over the country -- in Michigan, Pennslylvania, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and elsewhere -- have begun to ask tough questions of their representatives. The point being that if, say, Rep. Joe Pitts wants to work with this group, as documents show he has since the last 1970s, he should be open with the public about it. Pitts has chosen to deny any links. So now it's not a left/right issue, but a simple transparency issue. (Important to emphasize this isn't just a Republican thing; Democratic Senator Mark Pryor's staff denied that I'd ever spoken to their boss until I offered to make transcripts public.)
•Do you think that this exposure will stop them?
I think it'll change them. For instance, World, a Christian conservative magazine, has been investigating the hell out of them for all the same reasons I do. The difference is that World, as a Christian conservative magazine, will be persuasive to people who won't listen to me. There are a lot of traditionalist Christian conservatives who are as deeply committed to open democracy as anybody else. What I like about them is that they tend to act on their convictions. They're starting to hold the Family accountable.
I've also been impressed with the work of Christian Post writer Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a conservative evangelical in the Roger Williams tradition -- a real man of conscience. Dr. Throckmorton has been very involved with exposing the involvement of some American Christian conservatives with a vicious movement in Uganda -- a major beneficiary of American foreign aid and an increasingly important country on the continent -- to not just criminalize homosexuality but to make it punishable by death. Many of the Ugandans behind this movement are linked to the Family, which has really put the heat on the group. As a result of all this, one Family member, from the "liberal" side of the movement, has decided to be open with me about debates going on within the Family right now. There's a faction that thinks the time has come to go public, to be open about their work.
That faction isn't winning yet, but they might, in the future. Longtime leader Doug Coe is in his early 80s, and his health isn't great. Most Family insiders I've spoken to assume leadership will pass to two of his sons, David and Tim. The problem is that they lack Coe's powerful charisma and his unusual blend of mysticism and golfer's bonhomie. David, in particular, seems like a potential weak link; one person associated with the Family compares David to the emperor's son in "Gladiator." If you haven't seen the movie, trust me: it's scary. So if the Coe family -- there are 11 Coes on the payroll -- loses control, the Family could change pretty dramatically.
• What is the main danger with a group like this? Are they too secretive?
Secrecy. I happen to disagree with a lot of what they try to do -- I think Suharto, for instance, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his fellow Indonesians, was a monster we should have opposed -- but, then, I disagree with most Christian Right groups. The difference is that it's easy to disagree with, say, the Family Research Council, because they're open about their positions. They're playing the rules of democracy, making their case in the public square. The Family doesn't believe in the public square. Not only do they not want to be accountable to it; they want politics to work outside of it.
• Do you think the people in the Family are evil?
There have been evil men associated with the Family, that's for sure, but no, in general people in the Family aren't evil. In fact, that's the tragedy of this movement: most people get involved with the best of intentions. Too often, they're blinded by their good intentions, unable or unwilling to recognize the consequences to which their actions contribute. Those consequences -- I'm thinking not just of their subversion of open democracy but of their crucial support for lunatic regimes such as those of Siad Barre or Papa Doc Duvalier -- often are evil, by anyone's standards. The lesson we learn from the Family isn't so much about the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt put it, as about the evil of banality.
• What do you think their level of influence on the Obama administration is? How do you think the Obama administration will affect The Family?
That's a tough question. The only cabinet member with serious ties that I'm aware of is Ray LaHood, and transportation isn't exactly a make or break position. As I write in the book, Hillary Clinton has long been considered a "friend" of the Family; she calls leader Doug Coe a "genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide," strange words for a man who routinely invokes the leadership lessons to be learned from Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. (When I teamed up with NBC Nightly News to do a segment on her connection, her people told NBC that she'd never given money to the group.) But for her those ties are more about building bridges to conservatives than about the "Jesus plus nothing" agenda of the Family, and I don't think that influence is deep. I'm curious about General James Jones -- he seems to have popped up on the Family's Prayer Breakfast circuit a lot -- but I haven't investigated. That's for some other reporter. My instinct was to say that the level of influence was: Not much. But Family associates have since told me that they have "a lot of friends" in the administration. Bluff? I don't know.
Regardless, I don't think the Obama administration is much of a threat to any powers that be in America. It's a business-as-usual administration. That's the Family's style.
• How do you think the present economy will affect the Family’s efforts ?
Not much. They began in the Depression, as a response to the Depression, and have weathered all the ups and downs -- and political swings -- since. They've endured because they prize power over purity, access over accountability, flexibility over orthodoxy.
That said, if the economy were to get much worse -- or a real populist movement were to develop -- I think a lot of Family politicians would be out of work.
• Why are the foreign policy efforts limited to nations like Uganda, which are under the radar, so to speak? Why not the president of Iraq?
Who says they're not talking to Iraq? The bulk of my book is based on archival records, so it's hard for me to know what's going on right now. Uganda was easy to verify. Maybe Iraq would be too, if someone cared to investigate. But based on their history, they're involved pretty much everywhere. For instance, they're strong in Australia, hardly a country dependent on US aid, like Uganda. But they do tend to look for weaker countries, where it's easier to have an outsized influence. If Senator Jim Inhofe goes to France, he's no big deal. In Uganda, he's a big man. A lot of Family politicians seem to enjoy that. One Family associate spoke of visiting small Pacific nations as being like a "white god," parachuting out of the sky.
• What is the usual response you get from Christians? I would imagine that it kind of transitions between a dubious reluctance to judge them at first, and then a horror of the realization. Have many been reluctant to hear and/or accept your account?
It's been interesting. I've always said that if I'd had my druthers, I would have published my first report on the Family in Christianity Today, the flagship evangelical magazine. But there really has been a "see-no-evil" attitude in some corners. Not all, though. Populist and traditionalist Christian conservatives, including a lot of self-described fundamentalists, were the first to get it. The first organization to buy my book in bulk was a hard right Christian group that is serious about democratic and theological transparency. They sent out copies to their supporters with a note saying that the author is a heathen, but the book is valuable. Leftist Christians and a lot of African American Christians had no problem grasping the facts, either. The biggest resistance has come from the mushy middle, the center-right and center-left folks who are quick to condemn fundamentalism so long as it's poor, tacky, and Southern. They don't like having their cliches overturned. These are folks who like things are they are, people who are constitutionally uncomfortable with democracy, with the idea that neither education nor wealth entitle anyone to "more" citizenship than another.
That changed a bit this summer and fall. First, there were the C Street sex scandals. A lot of folks who tune out when you talk about real abuses of democracy perk right up when you speak of sexual hypocrisy. As my friend JoAnn Wypijewski, a radical journalist put it, "Christians thunder, liberals sneer, but it amounts to the same counting of sins." Be that as it may, that counting of sins led to an accounting for the Family. So now we're starting to see a great Christian response, from the left, right, and middle. Christianity Today still hasn't come around, though.
c. 2009
They prefer to keep things underground. But Jeff Sharlet, Vanity Fair columnist, actually lived among the group for several months, and he’s talking. His book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power is an expose on the group that has perked the ears of Christians in both political parties.
The Family is a group of Jesus ‘Followers.” They dislike the name “Christian,” as it’s a loaded word that alienates themselves from Muslims and Jews who, they say, can also follow Jesus. After all, Jesus wasn’t a Christian.
The group lives in a house on C. Street, in Washington DC. It is a bipartisan group that has been described by prominent evangelical Christians as the most politically well-connected fundamentalist organization in the US. Many high profile names have had some connection to the group. Mark Sanford and John Ensign are a few members of note lately.
This group, which is so covert that it sometimes denies whether it is even a group, is just now receiving media attention, after having been in existence since the 30s. Their underground power is a tad disconcerting, to say the least. Their secrecy has caused all sorts of allegations to be laid upon them; Communists, crusaders for a new world order, elitists, to name a few.
It would be an extreme generalization to dismiss the whole organization as “evil,” for the actions of a few of their members. They do a lot of good. For instance, in 1978 it secretly helped the Carter Administration organize a worldwide call to prayer with unlikely pair, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. A peace treaty soon followed.
In 2001, it brought together the warring leaders of Congo and Rwanda for a similar meeting, leading to the two sides' eventual peace accord.
This interdenominational [and interfaith] group is responsible for organizing the Presidential Prayer Breakfast, which every sitting president since 1953 has been a part of, as has many dignitaries from other nations.
Founded in 1935, The Family is a group of mostly Republicans, but a few Democrats, which is currently led by Doug Coe. It’s a forum for public officials to hold Bible studies, prayer meetings, worship services, and just a general support system.
Hillary Clinton, though not a member, has said, the group "is a unique presence in Washington,” and Coe is “a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."
The group refers to themselves ‘the new chosen,” believing that all leadership is chosen by God. Most Christians believe this. However, The Family seems to have a strange twist on a works-based salvation that they, the “chosen,” are exempt from.
I quickly found out that The Family incorporates a lot of good things that would seem agreeable with most churches, takes them a little too far.
For instance, they are so focused on the “person of Christ.” Saying they worship a person, not an ideology. But how do they define this Christ? They meet in groups, or “cells,” believing that “Christ speaks directly to his anointed,” all but eliminating the need for scripture or church. Focusing on “the person of Christ” is appropriate. The thing is, different people have different notions of Christ. So it is curious where they are gaining their knowledge of their respective “persons of Christ.” There must be a standard by which to measure.
Sharlet writes extensively about the “secrecy” of the group. Indeed, confidentiality is appropriate in support systems. But as, Rev. Rob Schenck who leads a Bible study on the Hill inspired by C Street, wrote on his blog, “all ministries in Washington need to protect the confidence of those we minister to, and I'm sure that’s a primary motive for C Street's low profile.” But he added, “I think The Fellowship has been just a tad bit too clandestine.” Schenck has himself sent a letter to Sanford calling for his resignation.
•Origins
They are affiliated with the Oxford Group, an organization that strives to reach out to the elites, the rich, the powerful; the “Up and Out,” if you will.
He calls attention to Coe’s references to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Coe claims he was merely using their model of influence to further the Christ’s message.
The Oxford Group seems to have a strange fetish with Communism. They eschew Communism, while deifying dictators, because getting their message out is all about subversion.
Sharlet tells us, “There was bad subversion, like that of the Vietcong, and good subversion, also like that of the Vietcong, only in the name of Jesus. A subtle practice of persuasion.” They were obsessed with obtaining strength, and gaining a stronghold.
They seem to have a somewhat fascist mentality; strength through numbers. Though when I asked Sharlet how they were different, he was quick to point out three distinctions, “The Family doesn't admire violence, it's internationalist, and it doesn't revolve around a hated either.”
They believe the best way to preserve this strength is to be as “underground” as possible.
Frank Buchman founded the Oxford Group. His ideas to transform the government into "a new social order under the dictatorship of the spirit of God,” Vereide took absolutely literally.
After a little more digging on The Oxford Group, and their shadowy past, I realized that though they invoke Christian morality, and may even have the audacity to call themselves “Christian,’ a source tells me they are more about right and wrong, than embracing the entire Christian ideology. He noted that while The Oxford group was bad, that some of the offshoots of the group were positive and good. One of which is Up With People.
He tells us of founder, Abraham Vereide’s vision for The Family. He wanted to be missionaries that focused on the powerful, figuring that if the more powerful lives in leadership were changed, it would ultimately change many others. Sharlet calls this “trickle-down evangelism”
This is not a bad idea in itself. There are groups and Bible studies for all sorts of groups. It would seem a fantastic idea to narrow in on the most powerful. The Bible tells Christians to pray for their leaders because of their huge position of responsibility.
But it was so much more than this. The group takes shady dealings to a whole new level, with the twisting of economics and theology to promote their agenda. Sharlet calls it “the theology of the dollar,” In which, “First comes capitalism then comes Christ.”
Doug Coe and The Family played an integral part in Watergate felon, Chuck Colson‘s conversion. He has since reformed and been a prominent and respected Christian leader. But Colson told WORLD magazine that he now has concerns about politicians using the C Street group, for example, as a replacement for church. "It's a mistake," he said. "A leading figure ought to belong to a church." He is referring to the accountability that a church would provide, instead of an elite group, which might be inclined to interpret scripture very loosely.
Interview with Jeff Sharlet
• How is their idea of government different from Fascism?
There are three important reasons why I argue that the Family isn't and never has been a fascist organization, even as it has involved a number of traditional fascists (American fascist sympathizer Merwin K. Hart, "Hitler's banker" Hermann Abs) and de facto fascists (Siad Barre, the Somali dictator; Salvadoran general Carlos Eugenios Vides Casanova): The Family doesn't admire violence, it's internationalist, and it doesn't revolve around a hated either.
There are some qualifiers to those points, though: Although the Family doesn't admire violence, it has historically tended to support violent regimes, such as Barre's, Suharto's genocidal regime, the junta of generals that ran Brazil for years, Park in South Korea, etc., etc. These have been for the most part regimes that one faction or the other of the American foreign policy establishment thought worth supporting, which points to a flaw in the Family's internationalist logic: They want to be friends with everybody, so long as "everybody" is defined as those who are useful to an aggressively expansionist view of American power. During the Cold War, that meant they often functioned as sort of para-state religious front for what former Family leader Senator Frank Carlson termed "worldwide spiritual offensive."
There are other distinctions: Fascism generally begins in the working class, while the Family has never been anything but upper crust. Fascism has a vaguely socialist element; the Family has never been anything but laissez-faire. "Free market" isn't a really accurate description, though, since members tend to favor strong state support for big business, a corporatist stand that has some overlap with fascism.
There's one last, very important distinction: There have always been a number of people who work with the Family because they genuinely want to help the poor. Their methods leave much to be desired -- helping a dictator win military aid is not helping the poor -- but their intentions are in keeping with Christian tradition.
• How far do you think they will succeed at achieving their goal? Will exposure stop them, or are they too far gone? What is the next step for the Family?
Depends on how you define the goal, which is tricky with an organization that likes to insist it doesn't exist, tax records be damned. But the clearest statement of their goals is the idea of 200 world leaders bound together through the Family, a "new world order," as founder Abraham Vereide liked to call it, that will lead to peace because we'll all be on the same team -- their team. Call me a cynic, but I don't see this happening any time soon. I think Christian Right leader Rev. Rob Schenck is closer to the mark when he calls their theology a "religion of the status quo." The Family, he says, is into things as they are. They're not some kind of theocratic conspiracy -- they're the religion of power as it is. Which is to say, in the hands of an elite. In that sense, they've been remarkably successful.
Will exposure stop them? Sometimes. A story I didn't get to tell in the book is that of Norway, where a reporter for the national daily Dagbladet noticed that the prime minister was jetting off to private prayer breakfasts on the public dime and decided to investigate. Here in the U.S., he discovered Norway's ambassador taking his policy cues from then Attorney General John Ashcroft at the Family's Arlington mansion, The Cedars. Digging deeper, he discovered a deep linkage between the Family and the faction that briefly ran Norway in the middle of the past decade. He and his colleagues put it on the front page for weeks, a sort of Norwegian Watergate. That government was voted out of power, by conservatives and liberals alike.
Here in the U.S. the Family is currently facing the fiercest scrutiny it's had to endure in 70 years, as local reporters all over the country -- in Michigan, Pennslylvania, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and elsewhere -- have begun to ask tough questions of their representatives. The point being that if, say, Rep. Joe Pitts wants to work with this group, as documents show he has since the last 1970s, he should be open with the public about it. Pitts has chosen to deny any links. So now it's not a left/right issue, but a simple transparency issue. (Important to emphasize this isn't just a Republican thing; Democratic Senator Mark Pryor's staff denied that I'd ever spoken to their boss until I offered to make transcripts public.)
•Do you think that this exposure will stop them?
I think it'll change them. For instance, World, a Christian conservative magazine, has been investigating the hell out of them for all the same reasons I do. The difference is that World, as a Christian conservative magazine, will be persuasive to people who won't listen to me. There are a lot of traditionalist Christian conservatives who are as deeply committed to open democracy as anybody else. What I like about them is that they tend to act on their convictions. They're starting to hold the Family accountable.
I've also been impressed with the work of Christian Post writer Dr. Warren Throckmorton, a conservative evangelical in the Roger Williams tradition -- a real man of conscience. Dr. Throckmorton has been very involved with exposing the involvement of some American Christian conservatives with a vicious movement in Uganda -- a major beneficiary of American foreign aid and an increasingly important country on the continent -- to not just criminalize homosexuality but to make it punishable by death. Many of the Ugandans behind this movement are linked to the Family, which has really put the heat on the group. As a result of all this, one Family member, from the "liberal" side of the movement, has decided to be open with me about debates going on within the Family right now. There's a faction that thinks the time has come to go public, to be open about their work.
That faction isn't winning yet, but they might, in the future. Longtime leader Doug Coe is in his early 80s, and his health isn't great. Most Family insiders I've spoken to assume leadership will pass to two of his sons, David and Tim. The problem is that they lack Coe's powerful charisma and his unusual blend of mysticism and golfer's bonhomie. David, in particular, seems like a potential weak link; one person associated with the Family compares David to the emperor's son in "Gladiator." If you haven't seen the movie, trust me: it's scary. So if the Coe family -- there are 11 Coes on the payroll -- loses control, the Family could change pretty dramatically.
• What is the main danger with a group like this? Are they too secretive?
Secrecy. I happen to disagree with a lot of what they try to do -- I think Suharto, for instance, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of his fellow Indonesians, was a monster we should have opposed -- but, then, I disagree with most Christian Right groups. The difference is that it's easy to disagree with, say, the Family Research Council, because they're open about their positions. They're playing the rules of democracy, making their case in the public square. The Family doesn't believe in the public square. Not only do they not want to be accountable to it; they want politics to work outside of it.
• Do you think the people in the Family are evil?
There have been evil men associated with the Family, that's for sure, but no, in general people in the Family aren't evil. In fact, that's the tragedy of this movement: most people get involved with the best of intentions. Too often, they're blinded by their good intentions, unable or unwilling to recognize the consequences to which their actions contribute. Those consequences -- I'm thinking not just of their subversion of open democracy but of their crucial support for lunatic regimes such as those of Siad Barre or Papa Doc Duvalier -- often are evil, by anyone's standards. The lesson we learn from the Family isn't so much about the banality of evil, as Hannah Arendt put it, as about the evil of banality.
• What do you think their level of influence on the Obama administration is? How do you think the Obama administration will affect The Family?
That's a tough question. The only cabinet member with serious ties that I'm aware of is Ray LaHood, and transportation isn't exactly a make or break position. As I write in the book, Hillary Clinton has long been considered a "friend" of the Family; she calls leader Doug Coe a "genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide," strange words for a man who routinely invokes the leadership lessons to be learned from Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. (When I teamed up with NBC Nightly News to do a segment on her connection, her people told NBC that she'd never given money to the group.) But for her those ties are more about building bridges to conservatives than about the "Jesus plus nothing" agenda of the Family, and I don't think that influence is deep. I'm curious about General James Jones -- he seems to have popped up on the Family's Prayer Breakfast circuit a lot -- but I haven't investigated. That's for some other reporter. My instinct was to say that the level of influence was: Not much. But Family associates have since told me that they have "a lot of friends" in the administration. Bluff? I don't know.
Regardless, I don't think the Obama administration is much of a threat to any powers that be in America. It's a business-as-usual administration. That's the Family's style.
• How do you think the present economy will affect the Family’s efforts ?
Not much. They began in the Depression, as a response to the Depression, and have weathered all the ups and downs -- and political swings -- since. They've endured because they prize power over purity, access over accountability, flexibility over orthodoxy.
That said, if the economy were to get much worse -- or a real populist movement were to develop -- I think a lot of Family politicians would be out of work.
• Why are the foreign policy efforts limited to nations like Uganda, which are under the radar, so to speak? Why not the president of Iraq?
Who says they're not talking to Iraq? The bulk of my book is based on archival records, so it's hard for me to know what's going on right now. Uganda was easy to verify. Maybe Iraq would be too, if someone cared to investigate. But based on their history, they're involved pretty much everywhere. For instance, they're strong in Australia, hardly a country dependent on US aid, like Uganda. But they do tend to look for weaker countries, where it's easier to have an outsized influence. If Senator Jim Inhofe goes to France, he's no big deal. In Uganda, he's a big man. A lot of Family politicians seem to enjoy that. One Family associate spoke of visiting small Pacific nations as being like a "white god," parachuting out of the sky.
• What is the usual response you get from Christians? I would imagine that it kind of transitions between a dubious reluctance to judge them at first, and then a horror of the realization. Have many been reluctant to hear and/or accept your account?
It's been interesting. I've always said that if I'd had my druthers, I would have published my first report on the Family in Christianity Today, the flagship evangelical magazine. But there really has been a "see-no-evil" attitude in some corners. Not all, though. Populist and traditionalist Christian conservatives, including a lot of self-described fundamentalists, were the first to get it. The first organization to buy my book in bulk was a hard right Christian group that is serious about democratic and theological transparency. They sent out copies to their supporters with a note saying that the author is a heathen, but the book is valuable. Leftist Christians and a lot of African American Christians had no problem grasping the facts, either. The biggest resistance has come from the mushy middle, the center-right and center-left folks who are quick to condemn fundamentalism so long as it's poor, tacky, and Southern. They don't like having their cliches overturned. These are folks who like things are they are, people who are constitutionally uncomfortable with democracy, with the idea that neither education nor wealth entitle anyone to "more" citizenship than another.
That changed a bit this summer and fall. First, there were the C Street sex scandals. A lot of folks who tune out when you talk about real abuses of democracy perk right up when you speak of sexual hypocrisy. As my friend JoAnn Wypijewski, a radical journalist put it, "Christians thunder, liberals sneer, but it amounts to the same counting of sins." Be that as it may, that counting of sins led to an accounting for the Family. So now we're starting to see a great Christian response, from the left, right, and middle. Christianity Today still hasn't come around, though.
c. 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Hammer-Time
Tom Delay’s third career as a dancer was short-lived. After a career in pest control, he turned to politics. After 2 years as Republican House Majority Leader, “the Hammer” decided to try a foray into something a little more glitzy.
Decked out in a red outfit with a prominent Republican elephant on his back, he strutted his stuff, showing that conservative politics and the arts do mix. He wanted to show that he is more than just a stuffed suit by being a contestant on Dancing With the Stars. I think he surprised everyone with his moves. He’s actually very light on his feet, even in his high heels.
DeLay said that while it may have surprised many that he was a contestant, it wouldn’t have surprised the people who knew him well. “They know that I like to have fun. I like to push the envelope.”
DeLay was partnered with two-time Dancing with the Stars professional champ Cheryl Burke, who apparently had to Google him to find out who he was.
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel asked her if their pairing was a result of her being “punished by the producers.”
“Tom’s a great guy and I learned a lot from him. We had a lot of fun together,” she said.
Tom got along famously with everyone, despite their differences.
“The thing that surprised me the most were the people on the show … I didn’t know what to expect coming to this show and Los Angeles and being amongst the more creative people. I found that even as liberal as some are, they were very open and very warm. The professional dancers were just amazing. The kind of people they are, their work ethic, how smart they are, how talented they are — I was blown away. I made some very good friends,” DeLay said.
While not the most polished dancer, Tom held his own. It was fun and impressive just to see him in this context. At one point, DeLay admits he panicked when he almost dropped Cheryl – but it was either grab onto her or let her fall “on her rear end.” They say recovery is the most important aspect of talent.
Tom, who had been diagnosed with a pre-stress fracture in his right foot, decided to ignore doctor’s advice not to perform.
“What’s a little pain when we can party?”
He eventually was forced to withdraw due to stress fractures on both of his feet.
“Does that embarrass you at all?” asked Jimmy Kimmel.
“Frankly, a little bit,” answered DeLay. “A boy from Texas breaking his feet dancing?”
DeLay reportedly asked Kimmel, “can you could shake your booty like I can?”
“I want to dance no matter what,” the 62-year-old former House Republican Whip said Monday, but he reconsidered on Tuesday.
His partner, Cheryl said, “I told him over a million times not to dance. I told him you’ve already gone out there and shocked America, showed them what you can do already. But he’s a stubborn man, and he’s very determined!” she added.
A polarizing figure, some just can’t separate politics from entertainment. His elimination sparked some venom from the Left on the Huffington Post’s site. His opponents were celebrating his injuries.
c.2009
Decked out in a red outfit with a prominent Republican elephant on his back, he strutted his stuff, showing that conservative politics and the arts do mix. He wanted to show that he is more than just a stuffed suit by being a contestant on Dancing With the Stars. I think he surprised everyone with his moves. He’s actually very light on his feet, even in his high heels.
DeLay said that while it may have surprised many that he was a contestant, it wouldn’t have surprised the people who knew him well. “They know that I like to have fun. I like to push the envelope.”
DeLay was partnered with two-time Dancing with the Stars professional champ Cheryl Burke, who apparently had to Google him to find out who he was.
Comedian Jimmy Kimmel asked her if their pairing was a result of her being “punished by the producers.”
“Tom’s a great guy and I learned a lot from him. We had a lot of fun together,” she said.
Tom got along famously with everyone, despite their differences.
“The thing that surprised me the most were the people on the show … I didn’t know what to expect coming to this show and Los Angeles and being amongst the more creative people. I found that even as liberal as some are, they were very open and very warm. The professional dancers were just amazing. The kind of people they are, their work ethic, how smart they are, how talented they are — I was blown away. I made some very good friends,” DeLay said.
While not the most polished dancer, Tom held his own. It was fun and impressive just to see him in this context. At one point, DeLay admits he panicked when he almost dropped Cheryl – but it was either grab onto her or let her fall “on her rear end.” They say recovery is the most important aspect of talent.
Tom, who had been diagnosed with a pre-stress fracture in his right foot, decided to ignore doctor’s advice not to perform.
“What’s a little pain when we can party?”
He eventually was forced to withdraw due to stress fractures on both of his feet.
“Does that embarrass you at all?” asked Jimmy Kimmel.
“Frankly, a little bit,” answered DeLay. “A boy from Texas breaking his feet dancing?”
DeLay reportedly asked Kimmel, “can you could shake your booty like I can?”
“I want to dance no matter what,” the 62-year-old former House Republican Whip said Monday, but he reconsidered on Tuesday.
His partner, Cheryl said, “I told him over a million times not to dance. I told him you’ve already gone out there and shocked America, showed them what you can do already. But he’s a stubborn man, and he’s very determined!” she added.
A polarizing figure, some just can’t separate politics from entertainment. His elimination sparked some venom from the Left on the Huffington Post’s site. His opponents were celebrating his injuries.
c.2009
Like a Virgin
Here’s one to be filed under the “absurd,” except for it’s frighteningly real. There is now a “solution” for Muslim women that are raped (losing their virginity before their wedding night) and can face death because of it.
For Americans, in our more modern, not to mention, sexually-charged society, this will be hard to fathom. In Egypt, and many Muslim countries, women are expected to stay pure for their wedding night…under threat of death. In fact they are still required to show their blood-stained sheet as proof of their purity.
While Egypt tends to be a little more liberal (though still a constitutional theocracy), a 2005 UN report estimated that 52 out of a total 819 murders in the country in 1995 were, so called, “honour killings.”
These folks take keeping the marriage bed pure to the extreme. While there are many good reasons to stay pure, theirs are for the express purposes of control, which is not love. The fact that this is a huge double standard is notwithstanding. (Men don’t have to do any such thing). But this isn’t even an accurate portrayal of virginity.
Well you don’t even have to be a particularly randy female to have a problem with this. Women have been forced to turn to surgery to repair damage, in many cases, caused by rapes. The surgical procedure is called hymenorraphy. A doctor will recreate the hymen by piecing together its remnants. It can also include inserting a gelatin capsule filled with a blood-like substance that will burst during intercourse, simulating bleeding. If there is not enough hymen left, or if the woman was born without one, part of the vaginal wall is used to recreate this thin tissue.
The operation, which is considered relatively simple and performed on an outpatient basis in western countries, is illegal in Muslim countries. The surgeries tend to be “back alley” procedures in terms of cleanliness and credentials. Though pricey at 1000 Egyptian pounds, the cost of not having it is often far worse.
But finally, now there is an alternative. Muslim women everywhere are breathing a collective sigh of relief. The Chinese company, Gigimo, (a company known for their sex toys.), has invented an artificial virginity hymen kit. For much less money and trouble, the device leaks out a red substance when inserted and broken. So on your wedding night, your husband will think you are a virgin still.
Conservative Egyptian lawmakers, with laws on many female bodies, have banned the product, calling it a “mark of shame.”
Now, I’m the farthest thing from a feminist, but I have a huge problem with the incredible double standard this presents. I’m surprised that more women, and especially the feminists haven’t spoken out about this. I find it so sad to see women abused and reduced to objects. The fact that they don’t know any other way, because, “that’s the way it is” just makes it even worse.
Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood political party, said: “This product encourages illicit sexual relations. Islamic culture forbids these relations except within the confines of marriage.”
[Somehow I get the impression that it is more permissible if you happen to be a male.]
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a prominent Islamic scholar, agrees. He said: “I think this should absolutely not be allowed to be exported because it brings more harm than benefits. Whoever (imports it) should be punished.”
But I ask you, which is more shameful: making a mistake, or the negligent punishment of the mistake. Declaring only one of the two parties involved as guilty, and deserving of death.
Support for the product, includes, Marwa Rakha, an Egyptian blogger and activist for women’s rights, said “the Artificial Virginity Hymen ‘sticks it in the face of every male hypocrite’ in an Arab culture that condemns women’s sexuality but turns a blind eye to male promiscuity.”
I think that about sums it up. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.
c.2009
For Americans, in our more modern, not to mention, sexually-charged society, this will be hard to fathom. In Egypt, and many Muslim countries, women are expected to stay pure for their wedding night…under threat of death. In fact they are still required to show their blood-stained sheet as proof of their purity.
While Egypt tends to be a little more liberal (though still a constitutional theocracy), a 2005 UN report estimated that 52 out of a total 819 murders in the country in 1995 were, so called, “honour killings.”
These folks take keeping the marriage bed pure to the extreme. While there are many good reasons to stay pure, theirs are for the express purposes of control, which is not love. The fact that this is a huge double standard is notwithstanding. (Men don’t have to do any such thing). But this isn’t even an accurate portrayal of virginity.
Well you don’t even have to be a particularly randy female to have a problem with this. Women have been forced to turn to surgery to repair damage, in many cases, caused by rapes. The surgical procedure is called hymenorraphy. A doctor will recreate the hymen by piecing together its remnants. It can also include inserting a gelatin capsule filled with a blood-like substance that will burst during intercourse, simulating bleeding. If there is not enough hymen left, or if the woman was born without one, part of the vaginal wall is used to recreate this thin tissue.
The operation, which is considered relatively simple and performed on an outpatient basis in western countries, is illegal in Muslim countries. The surgeries tend to be “back alley” procedures in terms of cleanliness and credentials. Though pricey at 1000 Egyptian pounds, the cost of not having it is often far worse.
But finally, now there is an alternative. Muslim women everywhere are breathing a collective sigh of relief. The Chinese company, Gigimo, (a company known for their sex toys.), has invented an artificial virginity hymen kit. For much less money and trouble, the device leaks out a red substance when inserted and broken. So on your wedding night, your husband will think you are a virgin still.
Conservative Egyptian lawmakers, with laws on many female bodies, have banned the product, calling it a “mark of shame.”
Now, I’m the farthest thing from a feminist, but I have a huge problem with the incredible double standard this presents. I’m surprised that more women, and especially the feminists haven’t spoken out about this. I find it so sad to see women abused and reduced to objects. The fact that they don’t know any other way, because, “that’s the way it is” just makes it even worse.
Sheik Sayed Askar, a member of the conservative Muslim Brotherhood political party, said: “This product encourages illicit sexual relations. Islamic culture forbids these relations except within the confines of marriage.”
[Somehow I get the impression that it is more permissible if you happen to be a male.]
Abdel Moati Bayoumi, a prominent Islamic scholar, agrees. He said: “I think this should absolutely not be allowed to be exported because it brings more harm than benefits. Whoever (imports it) should be punished.”
But I ask you, which is more shameful: making a mistake, or the negligent punishment of the mistake. Declaring only one of the two parties involved as guilty, and deserving of death.
Support for the product, includes, Marwa Rakha, an Egyptian blogger and activist for women’s rights, said “the Artificial Virginity Hymen ‘sticks it in the face of every male hypocrite’ in an Arab culture that condemns women’s sexuality but turns a blind eye to male promiscuity.”
I think that about sums it up. Maybe it’s not so absurd after all.
c.2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
