Terence Jeffrey has uncovered some of the horrors that the National Academy of Science has cooked up and called “ethics.”[1] They recommend creating human clones. Since that is not palpable to the majority of us (for now at least, a majority of us are not that confused and insane), they then recommend killing those babies when they reach 14 days old. And then they re-assure us that they do not want to be injecting human stem cells into animal embryos, which could result in a human brain “trapped” in an animal body, “for now,” and expect we will be satisfied.

[1] http://www.townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/tj20050511.shtml

Lately I have taken to glancing at the articles on Focus On The Family’s Boundless website.[1] Even though aimed at college kids, and protestant in tone, some of its articles remain thought provoking and pertinent. This week they have posted an article talking about the “two income trap.” More and more, you see both parents working. This has been noticeable in a variety of ways, for example, schools are now more likely to close than to risk needing to close early. For some reason an employer is more willing to accept that you cannot come in at all than that you must leave unexpectedly early. Similarly, the number of two hour delays have gone down. This last winter highlighted the ridiculousness of this when schools were closed several days that they need not have been.

Returning to topic, another way in which the two income trap shows up is that couples often find that they “cannot” do without both incomes. Far from one of them being “extra,” they come to find that loosing either would constitute an emergency. This article[2] talks about that. It sketches, in reference to a full book on the topic, how couples come to depend on that second income. They buy a more expensive house, in a school district that everyone wants to be in (more competition means higher prices). They buy more expensive cars (cars with televisions in them‽). They pay for day care, they eat out more. Perhaps, like my aunt and uncle, neither knows how to cook much or well. They thus introduce expenses they would not have with a single income, and then cannot afford to loose either.

My parents avoided this differently. By refusing to take a job outside the home, working only with day care, my parents choose less costly vacations, less fashionable clothes (not that we kids particularly noticed or cared). We still go out less than many (most?) people I know, and go out more simply, so that I know rather less about the area restaurants than many of my friends. We had a garden, and my dad worked other jobs. We got by, with Catholic schooling, even in this super-expensive area. So I tend to look questioningly at people who think they need two incomes, and the boundless article comes to a similar conclusion.

[1] http://www.boundless.org/
[2] http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/a0001084.cfm

In New York, a woman was advised, and attempted, a “chemical abortion.”[1] They apparently injected something that should have killed the baby. Instead, it left the baby alive, but with severe physical and mental deformities. The mother tried to sue on her own behalf, claiming emotional injury. I understand why an “emotional injury” tort (is that the right word, I think it is) exists, because sometimes people do things that they should be held accountable for even when no physical injury exists, or beyond what the physical injury costs. But I think that its existence only feeds the tendency to sue far too much.

Returning to more important matters here, clearly the doctors are not liable for the deformities of the baby. They may be liable that the abortion failed (ironically enough), and they should be criminally liable for recommending one (though they are not). But clearly the deformities are the woman’s own fault for choosing to attempt to kill her child.

This also clearly shows the power of life. This baby survived despite the attempted abortion, and despite the mother’s fibroid tumors, which her doctors thought would cause her to loose the baby. Once they would have told her what could be done to improve her chances. Once they would have fought by her side to help save the baby’s life. Now they recommend an abortion. Sad.

[1] http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1115802312256

Legal news run down.

• “Iris Scanning To Begin At Orlando International Airport” not quite legal news, but not quite not legal news either. This is not a development I particularly like to see.
• “Senators debate merits of Patriot Act while agreeing no abuses have been documented” Quite a few of these clauses need to go. The EFF has details on this bill.
• “Judge Rejects DMV Practice on Licenses” This comes right as the REAL ID Act passes in Congress and awaits the President’s signature.
• “Judge OKs Day Care Center for Blind Couple” Sad to see the government bullying people like this. I would tend to think that parents can decide this one, and beyond that, this couple has apparently been doing daycare, as employees of someone else, for some time now. Surely they would be aware of their ability, or lack there of, to take on the whole job. Also, how would their blindness “adversely affect” children? I could see the agency saying that they would not be able to do the work, I could see them saying the children would suffer neglect, but if that is what they meant, why not just say so?
• “Calif. Panels Reject Gay Marriage Ban” I am not giving this one a post of its own since homosexual “marriages” are still banned in California. But it is sad to see one more protection for marriage and the family denied.
• “Marijuana, Ten Commandments and Retirement Questions Await Supreme Court” offers a brief look at some of the cases that will be heard in the United States Supreme Court this year.

The New York times is featuring an article on a robot not much more expensive than the average middling-high end computer.[1] For a little under $2000, its basically a computer case on wheels, from the sounds of it, with some fancy optical gear built in. The company selling these is White Box Robotics[2]. Ederlyn might be interested in this sort of thing, she has a fascination with robots.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/12/technology/circuits/12white.html?ex=1273550400&en=e966db94684d1aa6&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
[2] http://www.whiteboxrobotics.com/2005/

It is hard to believe the level of arrogance when, right after discovering a new species, scientists are talking about how this might be the last such discovery ever.[1] As if they would not have said a month ago that they would never make such a discovery! Rather than realizing how little they know, they insist this is a fluke, they cannot allow there to be even the smallest chink in their claims of having all the answers. At least, until the next time the rain forest is threatened, then they will remember that there are things out there they have not discovered yet. ;-)

[1] http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/05/12/news/rodent.php