Veritas Rex

It took this long?

After walking  by dozens of Victoria's Secret display windows, I am surprised it took this long for people to complain.  Personally, several of the displays over the last years have made me uncomfortable.  Do we absolutely need to display thong underwear and other lingerie on mannequins that look like they are being used for a how-to video on pleasing your spouse?

Mannequins wearing racy lingerie in the window of Victoria's Secret might lure customers to the popular retailer at Carmel's Clay Terrace, but to some residents the display is a turn-off.

A window display at Victoria's Secret in Clay Terrace fits the store's image of "sexy, sophisticated and forever young," said Tammy Roberts Myers, a spokeswoman for Limited Brands, which owns Victoria's Secret. Shoppers passed by the store Tuesday. - Steve Sanchez / The Star

A group of residents has spearheaded a campaign to remove the lingerie displays from the upscale outdoor mall's windows. They've sent letters to city leaders and executives at Simon Property Group, which owns Clay Terrace, and Limited Brands, which owns Victoria's Secret.

The campaign to remove the displays started two years ago and resurged in the last month.
Mall operators plan to discuss the concerns with Victoria's Secret managers.

Representatives of the group say teenagers and younger children should not be able to see the sexually charged images. The display faces Clay Terrace Boulevard, a city street that connects 146th Street to U.S. 31 and lies a block away from several children's stores.

The article lists some other efforts that were unsuccessful in getting Victoria's Secret to tone down their displays. 

"Support slipping for gay-wed ban"

This was the headline on the front page of the Indianapolis Star on Tuesday.  What is often missed is the sub-heading "But more Hoosiers than not still want constitutional amendment, poll finds."  However, the more important issue is:  What is the Star's motivation behind the poll and why won't they publish the details?  In the print article they say that you can go to www.indystar.com and find the details of the poll, including the wording of the question. 

However, when you go to their website or their polling company's website, Selzer and Co., no details are available.  This is not a new occurrence for the Star.  There have been several other polls in the past on this and other issues that matter to social conservatives.  When I email or call for details of the poll...shocker...no one responds.  What do they have to hide?

Here is an excerpt from the Indianapolis Star article, written by Bill Ruthhart:

Support among Hoosiers for a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage appears to be on the decline, according to an Indianapolis Star-WTHR (Channel 13) poll.

The poll, based on the responses of 600 people statewide, found that 49 percent of Hoosiers supported the amendment. That number is down from 56 percent in a March 2005 survey by The Star.

Of the respondents, 44 percent said they opposed a constitutional ban, up from 40 percent in 2005.

About the poll

The poll was conducted by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, from Nov. 13-16 and is based on interviews with 600 Indiana residents. Interviewers contacted households using randomly generated telephone numbers. Those age 18 and older were eligible to participate.

The poll is weighted to reflect the 8 percent of the Hoosier population who are 18 years and older and African-American, based on U.S. Census population estimates from the 2006 American Community Survey.

Percentages based on the full sample have a maximum margin of error of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points. Among voters who say they will definitely vote in the 2008 election, the margin of error is plus-or-minus 4.6 percentage points.

How was the question worded?  What was the make-up of the 600 people (isn't that a pretty small sample?)?  Where do they live?  What is the percentage Republican vs. Democrat?  Were they likely voters?  Did they ask how many of the respondents were homosexual themselves?  They could easily answer these and many more questions if they would just give the public access to the poll details. 

It would be pretty foolish to put much stock in any poll if we don't have the details.  At first blush it looks like the Star has an axe to grind.

I know many gay activists will jump in and want to get us mired in questions we have answered numerous times.  However, lets take a different tact in the comments this time.  If you support homosexual marriage, you should be able to explain how it would benefit our state.  There is ample scientific research that points to marriage, as it has always been defined, as incredibly positive to our society in a number of ways.  Please explain how homosexual marriage will benefit society and pull marriage out of the mess heterosexuals have put it in, as is often inferred by gay activists.   

New Lie Detector TV Show will examine our ability to be shamed

When I first read this, I imagined that the prize money must be pretty large for anyone to be willing to submit themselves to this. 

“This is going to be the talk of the town and knocked out of the park. You’re either going to love it, or think it’s the end of Western civilization. And that’s the stuff that works.”

Fox’s president of alternative entertainment is referring to “The Moment of Truth,” the network’s sure-to-be controversial game show in which contestants are asked a series of highly personal questions while connected to a polygraph machine.

The show’s international format first gained notice Stateside in August when Fox ordered a pilot. Last month, a popular Colombian version of the series (called “Nothing But the Truth”) made headlines when a contestant confessed to hiring a hit-man to murder her husband (an attempt that failed). The show was, at least temporarily, taken off the air.

Fox’s version works like this: Before the show is taped, a contestant is given a polygraph test and asked 75 questions. Samples include: “Do you really care about the starving children in Africa?” “Are you sexually attracted to one of your wife’s friends?” “Do fat people repulse you?” and “Do you think you’ll still be with your husband five years from now?” Unlike the Colombian version, the show avoids asking about felony-level activities and sticks to revealing family secrets and unearthing private opinions.

I wonder how a person "wins" at this game.  Do you win by having the most embarrassing secrets?  Or perhaps by having the least developed sense of shame.

In the end, I expect it's the latter.  That seems to be the main characteristic for those who excel in reality TV.  They are willing to, without hesitation, share their ugliest traits with the entire world.

Pop Quiz Today, Class

     We are having a pop quiz this morning, class, but there's only one question.  Who made the statement below?

       "The family is the corner stone of our society. More than any other force it shapes the attitude, the hopes, the ambitions, and the values of the child. And when the family collapses it is the children that are usually damaged. When it happens on a massive scale the community itself is crippled. So, unless we work to strengthen the family, to create conditions under which most parents will stay together, all the rest - schools, playgrounds, and public assistance, and private concern - will never be enough."

     Post your answer with a comment (should you choose), and later today I'll reveal the source.

     If you need a multiple choice prompt, here are some possible sources:

     A.)  James Dobson, Ph. D.

    B.)   The Rev. Ted Haggard

    C.)  Mother Theresa

    D.)  US Sen. Dan Coats

    E.)  Pope John Paul II

    F.)  Ronald Reagan

    G.)  Lyndon Baines Johnson

    H.)  The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

     Blog away friends, critics and friendly critics alike.  There is a point to this exercise I'll make later today.

   

A new conspiracy

Check out the Advent Conspiracy.  The Crux, a Fishers church, is sponsoring a major fund raising drive.  They are encouraging Christians to worship Jesus through compassion, not consumption.  They are looking for 2,000 Indianapolis Christians to give away $200 of their normal Christmas consumption to a number of worth causes.

From the site:

What is the Advent Conspiracy?

Here in Indianapolis, we are hoping to raise $400,000 dollars for local and global charities.  There will be no funds from the donations kept by the crux ministries for administering and promoting this effort.  The power of numbers allows us to make a massive impact across the world by inspiring 2000 to give away 200 dollars of their Christmas budget.  Advent conspiracy can make Christmas change the world…again.

It's the abusers, stupid.

She went home to known abusers and they killed her.  Three-year old Tajanay Bailey died Tuesday in Indianapolis in what apparently was a gruesome, suffering death.

Point of personal privilege: I've had it.  It's not 'the system' I'm after anymore, it is women who get with these guys and then subject their children to this abuse, whether at their own hands or that of a boyfriend.  It has to stop.

Personally, I've trashed "the system" over the years but I've got to honestly applaud Governor Daniels and his folks for their strong efforts to turn around the Titanic of bureaucracies - they're doing a good job (although not fast enough if you ask them).  But that only goes so far - judges make the final decisions and they don't have a crystal ball to see who is going to get killed.

It's the abusers, stupid.  It is often the "mom's-boyfriend-syndrome".  Drugs or criminal activity are usually involved.  Stereotypes, you say?  You bet.  And I place the blame squarely at the feet of the mothers. 

I'm burning up with questions.  Do you have any answers?

• When do we get to talk about this honestly with sexism, race, poverty, etc., issues aside?  We can't excuse this abuse anymore; it is flat-out selfishness and disease.
• When do we get to say aloud that these folks are not fit to parent and do something about it?
• When do we admit that our social service programs don't measure up to such narcissistic behavior and deep-seeded dysfunction? Aren't dead children enough for us to say that maybe we should try some vigilante interventions?
• When can we impose our values on them?  

Oh sure, slippery slope and all.  Get over it...we have to drastically change our expectations of each other and lower the level of tolerance for abhorrent behavior. 

And I'm the most liberal of the Rex crew.

Thankful For Thanksgiving

     Thanks to all who posted a Thanksgiving comment.

    The smattering of comments confirms much about the blogosphere for me.  I will add that, in retrospect, the term "narcissistic sex" was too provocative.  Again, as I understand this emerging medium, you need to be a bit edgy to spark "conversation."  But that term -- while accurate -- went against the tone of the post and may have pushed some away.

      Today's Indianapolis Star reports Indiana has a growing number of children at or near poverty, based on Census Bureau data recently reviewed by a researcher for the Annie E. Casey Foundation (www.indystar.com).  Failure to form families and lack of parental participation (for whatever reason) in the labor force are the two main drivers of poverty in America.  And while we've posted before on what poverty truly means (it doesn't mean everyone in that circumstance is hungry, homeless and hopeless), this is bad news for kids and Indiana any way you interpret it.   For those of you who don't see the relationship between a lack of sexual ethics and family/child well-being, I wonder what else you are missing.  This kind of willful ignorance reminds me of the words of the prophet of old, "See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction." (Deuteronomy 30:15)  And then the writer adds, "Now choose life..." (Deuteronomy 30:19) 

     As a society, increasingly our choices in public life are toward what the prophet calls death and destruction.  The daily headlines confirm this.  Or, you can just ask the kids across Indiana who are growing up outside healthy families and without loving parents.  That's what I'll be focused on today after a much-needed break.  Life and prosperity.  Family formation.  It's what we do at the Indiana Family Institute, but I, for one, see very little of that in this new space we call the blogosphere.   

Government 1 Church 0

Government’s gone and done it again.  Local government, no less.  Stepped out in front of the church to serve family needs in a tangible, meaningful way.  Today’s Indianapolis Star reports that the city of Carmel will help its employees with the cost of adopting a child as part of its employee benefit package  - up to $500 per child with a maximum of $10,000 per employee.

This is one in a string of creative policies by the city of Carmel to build a cutting-edge community and a progressive local government approach.  But should tax dollars go toward government employees’ adoption costs? 

Conservatives will tell you no. Churches will say the demand is too great and costs too high. Liberals will want higher dollar thresholds (and throw in a puppy).  Gay activists will demand to be included.  Business leaders will say it is a competitive move to attract workforce. 

I suggest that the responsibility to care for abandoned children lands squarely on the doorstep of the church.  Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. –James 1:26-27

But until the church re-calibrates its priorities and steps up in greater numbers, children languish in state custody and foster care, which is both harmful to them and costly for us.  Last I checked, the average waiting time for not-cute-babies awaiting adoption in Indiana was seven years!

There are state tax incentives to adopt.  Let the city of Carmel sweeten the benefit and assist in the effort. 

Just one caveat:  adoptions must be from Indiana. 

FCC ownership regulations have outlived their usefulness

This comes to us courtesy of the Indianapolis Star's Anthony Fargo:

Congress and the FCC have been whittling away at the rules limiting the number of stations one company may own for years, most notably in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which eviscerated the FCC’s ownership rules and allowed greater concentration of ownership, particularly in radio.

Martin’s proposal is modest compared to the FCC’s failed attempt earlier this decade to greatly reduce FCC oversight of ownership, but it is controversial nonetheless. It may be the first step toward allowing TV/newspaper or radio station/newspaper combinations in smaller markets as well, where the financial pressures on newspapers are just as intense as in the big markets.

But to get back to my student’s question: In a time when we can get news and other information from thousands of Web sites, delivered to our cell phones and beamed to our homes via satellite, have the FCC ownership regulations outlived their usefulness?

To answer Mr. Fargo's question:  Yes.  And they outlived their usefulness years ago. 

Current technological advances have provided news readers with a variety of internet options.  Blogs,  news websites, and others are in some ways providing more comprehensive coverage than ever.  However, even before the advent of blogs and news feeds, the market had already provided solutions to monopoly ownership- it's called Fox News.

We have these laws because we are worried about news being slanted towards a viewpoint advocated by large corporate owners.  In many ways this was true prior to Fox News.  Conservatives were rightly disturbed by the left-wing domination of ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN.  So an enterprising individual provided a market solution- a competitor that appealed to a conservative audience.  And he was clearly rewarded.  Fox News is, by far, the most watched news station in the USA.

Now the free market has evolved to include a whole new selection of alternative media.  It's time the federal government recognized that and got out of the regulation business.

Bush on judiciary

Happy Thanksgiving, Rex readers!  Take some time to be thankful for the many blessings God has bestowed upon us.

This is one of the best quotes from Bush I've seen in a long time.

From AdvanceUSA's blog:

At yesterday evening’s Federalist Society meeting President Bush spoke on constitutional interpretation, the proper role of judges, and the over-politicization of confirmation hearings.  Excerpt:

“Advocates of a more active role for judges sometimes talk of a ‘living constitution.’  In practice, a living Constitution means whatever these activists want it to mean.  They forget that our Constitution lives because we respect it enough to adhere to its words.”

Here, here, Mr. President!  To read a transcript of the entire speech click here.

It's worth making the larger point that this also is true of the "tolerance is king" crowd.  If everything is true, then nothing is.  I'm thankful the Lord is true.