UN agencies constantly use the number 500,000+ as the number of women worldwide who die each year from complications from pregnancy. They go on to use that number as a reason for abortion to be legalized. The problem is the number cannot be substantiated since most countries do not report data on deaths at all let alone deaths from maternal causes. Even these UN agencies admit that mortality figures are almost universally unavailable yet they insist on using this phony number.¹

More accurately, polygyny is already there, the question is whether or not it will become officially legal.¹ I am disgusted almost beyond words. The one comment worthy aspect of the article is the trenchant observation that freedom of religion would have to give way if this were a question of homosexual rights or marriage, but is held up as absolute when it comes to polygynous marriage. It is almost beyond belief. How can a people that celebrates the value of women allow this‽

According to coupons.com it does.¹ Mr. John Stottlemire figured out that deleting some files and registry keys off of his computer would allow him to print unlimited coupons from coupons.com, and posted instructions on how to duplicate the effect, and a program to do so automatically for those unable to follow the instructions.

He had to expect that he would be sued, the idea that they would see this as a reason to give him a job is ludicrous. That being said, I agree with Mr. Kravets that the idea that the DMCA considers this hacking a program to circumvent copy protection is worrisome. I should have the right to delete anything on my computer without fear of suit.

If Mr. Pat Buchanan is summarizing the work of Dr. Robert Putnam accurately, then we have a valuable clue to how our cultural “melting pot” has worked in the past.¹ According to this summary, the major effects of massive immigration are mostly negative, more mistrust, less civic virtue, less hope and less trust. How then can we say that immigration has benefited us? How, from this morass of distrust did we (re)develop a unified American culture?

The answer, according to this summary, is that the wave of massive immigration was followed by a long period of very low immigration. It is over this period that the diversity settled out, melted and flowed together. The action then is much like a crock pot, which takes hours to cook something.

From this example, I can infer how previous waves of immigration must have worked. For while we have had significant bursts of this population or that population, bursts from Ireland, from Italy, from Norway, from Germany, or Poland, they did not all come at once. They grew, they peaked, they fell off. And so you see a growth of distrust against a group, followed by a period of simmering, melting together, as the two groups face some third group.

Immigrants are an important part of this country. I do not know that we need to cut back on it, nor am I confident that doing so would be good for this country. We must assimilate them though. We must forge bonds of unity with them, and this process will not work by accentuating our differences, celebrating them as a people distinct from ourselves. We cannot preserve their culture and ours, we must merge the two. There must be give and take.

This will not be easy. My fear though is that it will not even be possible, because they will not give, and will be encouraged in that intransigence by our own elite.

Note that I have not mentioned race once in this thought processes until now. I do not think it belongs, because I believe that there is much that separates the protestant from the Catholic, the German from the Pollack, the Italian from the Irish. I do not buy the idea that there is this “anglo-saxon” majority that is all the same inherently. If we are (IF!!), then it is because we have experienced a melting pot effect that other cultures present here in the United States have experienced less fully, if at all.

If you take a careful look at the numbers and the polls, it appears that support for the pro-life position is gaining support across the United States.¹ While a huge majority will (unfortunately) respond that they are in favor of abortion being legal in most cases, a smaller but still significant majority would ban it except to save the life of the mother. How can this discrepancy be resolved?

Ms. Wills claims that it is due to the fact that most Americans will say “most” over “all,” and that others get confused over whether the word “most” means “most abortions” or “most reasons for abortions.” The latter they would support, even though only a tiny fraction of those reasons represent most abortions.

This is not unmixed news. It represents a great deal of work left for those attempting to battle for the lives of the most defenseless and innocent among us. Still, it does appear the situation is improving, and it is good to be aware of just how problematic polls on the subject can be.

Boundless’ The Line hosts some odd topics for a Christian site now and then. Not odd in that as Christians we do not have something to offer on such topics as the war in Iraq, but odd in that you would think that a Focus on the Family site would be more focused than, say, mine site is.

Today, one of their authors has a series of quotes from an article in which some surprising news from Iraq is reported.¹ According to this post, we appear to be moving towards a sustainable situation in Iraq, with at least some potential to improve still further. Mr. Brown, the author, asks “Will the “administration’s critics” in Congress ever be able to see beyond their own hatred of Bush to do what’s right for the good of the country?” The answer, I am sad but certain, is “No.”

The Democrats in congress have, as a party, disliked the military at least since Vietnam, if not longer. They would have no interest in seeing our military succeed, being ideologically committed to the idea that it is impossible for the military to do good, even if they had not invested so heavily in saying that the war was a mistake and is not winnable.

That is really all an irrelevant side point though, because the Democrats have invested quite heavily in campaigning against the war, and to admit otherwise would be politically unthinkable. Nor will the Republicans, who are running over each other to flee out of Bush’s unlucky shadow, have any interest in forcing these forward strides into the debate, and the public’s notice.

As has so often been the case, our military will suffer, and our foreign policy fail, not because the course we took was an impossible one, but because Congress is too corrupt to carry it out.

Mr. Edward Lucas of the Daily Mail in the United Kingdom brings us frightening news of a strong tendency back towards invasive and pervasive government.¹ Looking at the activities of a state sponsored youth group, the author makes comparisons to Hitler’s rise to power and the Hitler youth.

While the bulk of the article focuses on this comparison, the top few paragraphs talk about one of the odder aspects of the youth group. Apparently, the Kremlin is very concerned about Russia’s demographics and, unlike many other European countries, is trying to do something about it. The summer camp features mass weddings and procreation is strongly encouraged, attempting to offset population losses projected to drop by a million a year in the next decade.

They put up a flier advertising their group as “a forum for people of Faith to express their views on the contemporary issues of the day,” operating “with respect for the natural family, marriage and family values.” They said they opposed efforts “to redefine the natural family and marriage,” and noted that California law acknowledged marriage as “the union of a man and a woman.”

And then they got in trouble.

A lesbian co-worker complained to the city that the flier made her feel “targeted” and “excluded.” A supervisor quickly pulled it down for violating city rules against “discrimination,” and announced that the women could only advertise their group’s existence if it removed “verbiage that could be offensive to gay people” — like marriage, natural family, family values and union of a man and a woman.¹

This is not fiction; it is political correctness taken to its logical conclusion. It is political correctness with the full force of law, one that has been held up by the Ninth Circuit Court. While that is the most overturned Circuit court, it is still uncertain if the United States Supreme Court will take the case. So for now at least, the law of the land on the west coast is that it is perfectly legal to deny people any right to participate in the political process, so long as those people are Christians.

For as Mr. Kaufman says, if we cannot talk about our positions, we can hardly expect to achieve anything.

“[T]he temptation to use power to secure the faith has arisen again and again in various forms throughout the centuries, and again and again faith has risked being suffocated in the embrace of power. The struggle for the freedom of the Church, the struggle to avoid identifying Jesus’ Kingdom with any political structure, is one that has to be fought century after century. For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.” - Pope Benedict XVI

Fr. Frank Pavone, M.E.V. shares my excitement and reasoning.^[1] He goes on at much greater length, emphasizing the importance of electing pro-life officials, and looking ahead at some of the hints on future progress the decision gives.

Mr. Wesley J. Smith is cautiously pleased.^[2] He is concerned that this ruling can be seen as a affirmation of Roe and Casey. His legal analysis is not entirely gloomy though; he sees this as a step up, despite the affirmation.