Obscenity at Barnes & Noble

So this weekend I went shopping at the new Barnes & Noble in my area. Mrs. D.O.T.S. and I were pleased when it opened because there were no other bookstores nearby.

At the front of the store near the checkout counters is a table featuring 2008 box calendars, the kind where you tear off a page each day. There are all manner of such calendars: dogs, cats, cartoons, happy thoughts, etc. I took a picture of it for you. Which one grabs your attention? Keep in mind this is only a few steps away from the children's section of the store.

I dare say most eyes will be drawn straight to the bright red "Sex Every Day In Every Way 2008 Daily Calendar." (Click here for a better look on the B&N web site.) This is just what America needs because, as you know, we just don't think about sex often enough in this country. Having such a daily reminder will be good for everyone.

If people want to buy this thing, so be it, but is it really a good idea to display them out in the open, alongside products that will draw the eyes of small children? There are more than words, too. The box has illustrations that graphically depict people engaged in a variety of (ahem...) acrobatic maneuvers. I don't want to show them on my blog, but you can click here for a small sample.

On the same table was another calendar, shown in the second photo. If you can't read it, the headline reads "The Dictionary of Corporate B------t." This is slightly less offensive than the sex calendar but still not appropriate for public view, in my opinion. Movies that use this word get a PG-13 rating, so parents at least know what to expect. Barnes & Noble doesn't give you the courtesy of a warning.

I took one of the sex calendars to a female store employee and asked her if she thought it was appropriate to display where children would almost certainly see them. She took one look and called the manager.

He offered no regrets whatsoever. All he could say was "People have different tastes" and he would pass on my concern to their corporate office. I again asked, what kind of person could even remotely think that it is appropriate to let children see this product? He would not answer the question. So I wished him a Merry Christmas and left without buying anything.

If B&N is like most large retailers, the store manager is given detailed directions from above on how products are to be displayed. He probably doesn't have authority to move them. This means B&N has made a corporate decision that it doesn't care if young children are exposed to sexually explicit images. Their first priority is to make money however they can. That is their right, of course. It is also my right to not shop at their store. I urge everyone else to do likewise.

One more indication of the priorities at Barnes & Noble: there is a large display of Phillip Pullman's atheism-promoting Golden Compass line of children's books and related merchandise. If they can't corrupt your kids one way, they'll find another way to get the job done. Their persistence is admirable.

You can express your concern to B&N management by using the contact form at the bottom of this page.

UPDATE: Moms go after CVS; Is Barnes & Noble Next?

The True Cost of Freedom

This week I saw two news stories that seem totally unrelated. I'm sad to say they are not. Read on, then think about it.

In Iowa City, a man named Sonny Iovino died on November 7th at the age of 55. Two days earlier the police had found this Vietnam-era veteran lying on the ground, trying to dig himself into a mulched garden near a heating exhaust vent. He was lightly dressed, confused, incoherent and barefoot. Police officers convinced him to put on his shoes and leave the property on which he was trespassing.

After two more calls the same day that found Iovino in various states of undress, police finally took him to see a psychiatrist at the VA Medical Center.

Iovino asked the psychiatrist for medication, but the doctor said he first needed an evaluation. When the doctor asked to take his vital signs, Iovino made what reports called an inappropriate comment. "I take that as a no," UI Police Officer Alton Poole reported the doctor as saying. The doctor released Iovino back to police.

A blood-alcohol test showed Iovino hadn't been drinking, but a medical center social worker said Iowa City's Shelter House wouldn't take him in his condition, reports showed.

The officers arrested Iovino and took him to jail, but deputies there wouldn't take him either. Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek told The Gazette the jail won't admit anyone with an immediate medical need. He said the doctor's note indicated Iovino needed hospitalization for mental illness.

Police cited Iovino for criminal trespass and released him with notice to show up for court on Nov. 20. He signed the charge and left the jail, walking south along Court Street — toward the Benton Street bridge, the reports said. [source]

Two days later Iovino was found under that same bridge, dead of hypothermia.

In the area where I work - which is not at all poor - it's common to see people standing on street corners, holding little signs saying they need money. For a long time I ignored them, other than to make sure my car doors were locked if one of them got too close. Lazy bums, I would think to myself. Why don't they get a job?

A year or two ago I heard a news story where the disguised reporter stood at an off-ramp just to see how much money he could collect. It wasn't much - a few dollars a day. Why would anyone in his right mind do it, then? The answer is these people aren't in their right mind. Most are mentally ill. You can't tell from behind the glass of your comfortably cooled or heated vehicle, but even if someone hired them it's doubtful they could stay employed for long. Years ago they would have been safely institutionalized. Now we abandon them to life on the streets.

So I changed my policy. If I can do it without creating a traffic hazard, I roll down the window and give them whatever spare change I have. Won't they just use it to buy drugs or booze? Probably. But maybe not. If there is any chance I can make a difference for someone in need, shouldn't I try?

Often I give them some money and then feel sad and inadequate. I wonder if I'm just assuaging my own guilt. The fact is I could do a lot more, and I don't. But if I do nothing I feel even worse. If I drive past one of those corners and the "regulars" I've come to recognize aren't standing there, I worry what might have happened to them. If the goal is to make yourself feel good, this isn't the way to do it.

It is, of course, perfectly legitimate to ask why the VA physician wouldn't treat Sonny Iovino, why he couldn't get into a shelter, and why the laws prevented people from helping him unless he wanted it. All are good questions, but answering them now won't help Sonny. We as a society decided that the most important thing was that he have his freedom; never mind that he was incapable of knowing what to do with it.

The rest of us have freedom, too. How do we use it? That brings up the other news story I saw this week. In Mesquite, Texas, a mall opened at 1:00 AM on the the Friday after Thanksgiving to begin the annual consumer spending season. Who would get up at such an hour just to go shopping? Plenty of people, apparently. Watch this video (via Rod) for images of what rampant materialism does to otherwise sane Americans.

How many folks are willing to go out at 1:00 on a cold winter night and bring a little cheer to the people shivering under bridges? Not so many. How many would take 10% of what they spent at the mall that night and give it to people who don't get to go shopping? Again, not many. It's hard to blame them. Guys like Sonny Iovino aren't fun to be around. He was dirty, belligerent, and probably didn't smell very good. You know what else he was? He was a man, created in the image and likeness of God. He was, in that way if no other, like us.

There are people like Sonny Iovino in my city, and in yours. We all have a choice. We can pretend they don't exist. We can assume someone else will help them. We can return to our comfortable homes. Or we can remember what the God who created Sonny, and the rest of us, promised: ...whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.

UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial about Sonny Iovino's death. Read it here.


Related Posts:
Too Many Barns
Pampering The Pooches
Millionaires Everywhere
Real Charity
Making A Difference
Dressed For Success

External Links:
Mobile Loaves & Fishes
Salvation Army
Treatment Advocacy Center

Friendly Advice: Sell The Boat

Health care is a growing political issue in the U.S., and for good reason. Nobody is happy with the system we have and no one can agree how to fix it, either. There are too many competing interests with loads of money at stake. This week I heard a story that illustrates the problem.

A person I know - male, mid-twenties - developed a condition that is very painful. The pain comes and goes. A few days it ago it became so severe he went to the emergency room. The doctor there said he needed to see a specialist, gave him some pain medication and sent him home.

This gentleman is a self-employed craftsman and appears to have a decent income. I know he recently bought a very expensive boat. He does not, however, have health insurance. He also doesn't have the $250 it takes to see the specialist who treats problems like his. How someone can afford a boat but not be able to come up with the cash to get himself out of excruciating pain, I don't know. It makes no sense. But he spent a couple of days at home in agony before his girlfriend finally took him back to the ER again. This time they gave him morphine, again advised him to see the specialist pronto, and told him his life might depend on it.

So what did he do? He went back home and relaxed until the morphine wore off. Then the pain started up again. They finally went to the ER of a much larger hospital which had the necessary specialist on staff. It appears he is bleeding internally and is now scheduled for surgery. It is unclear what this will cost and who is paying for it. Depending what the surgeon finds inside, he may need a lot more treatment.

I tell this story for two reasons. First, this man needs your prayers for healing. Second, it illustrates that the so-called health care crisis in the U.S. isn't always the fault of "the system." This guy isn't poor. He could have afforded health insurance, but like a lot of people his age he goes without because he thinks he is indestructible. He gambled and lost. He figured "somebody" would always be there to take care of him. "Somebody" means all the rest of us who buy health insurance and pay taxes.

This doesn't mean he will be off the hook. With this condition in his medical history, he will probably be uninsurable for the rest of his life. He works in a field where most people are self-employed and group medical coverage is hard to find. He'll need insurance if he decides to marry and start a family, yet he'll be too "rich" to qualify for Medicaid and still unable to get insurance privately. His best bet will be to change careers and go to work for a big company or a governmental agency. That will be a shame because he's very good at what he does.

I believe we all have a moral obligation to help the sick. What do we do, though, with people who have the ability to take care of themselves and simply don't? This guy made a mistake by not insuring himself when he had a chance. He knows that now - or at least he will very soon when he starts getting the bills. Multiply this story by a few thousand times every day throughout the U.S. and you start to see the magnitude of the problem. I don't have a good answer. I think an excellent start would be to do something about the trial lawyers whose frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of health care for everyone. Beyond that, I don't know.

No More Miller Time

This story has been all over the blog world the last few weeks but I'll pass it on anyway, in case some people missed it.

In San Francisco the gay and lesbian community has an event each year called the Folsom Street Fair. It includes a wide variety of sexual acts that normally occur behind closed doors between consenting adults. Here are some very graphic images of the event. Prepare to be shocked.

Disgusting as this is, it would not be so bad if these people would simply practice their lifestyles among themselves. For some reason, however, they feel compelled to use the opportunity to attack the religion most Americans hold dear. Their promotional poster is a satire of Leonardo Da Vinci's Last Supper, featuring a table covered with sexual devices. You can see it here.

The fair also features a group called the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, the purpose of which seems to be mocking the dedication and sacrifice of Catholic nuns. Clearly the Folsom Street Fair is an anti-religious event. In particular, it is an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic event. (For some reason Islam gets a pass, despite its history of violence toward homosexuals.)

The Folsom Street Fair is supported by numerous local businesses in San Francisco and one national sponsor: Miller Brewing Company. After complaints, Miller had its logo removed from the Last Supper poster but continued to sponsor the main event.

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League is leading a campaign to boycott of all Miller products until the company promises to no longer sponsor such anti-religious events. I think it's a great idea. Miller can't have it both ways; if they want Christians to buy they products, they need to stop funding events that insult us and degrade our culture.

So next time you feel like it's Miller time, find something else to drink. A company that supports obscenity and religious bigotry does not deserve your business.

Does Poverty Cause Abortion?

Surveys of women who have had abortions reveal that many of them felt they simply "couldn't afford" to have a child. Darwin responds to a Christian blogger who made this argument:

We live in the most wealthy country in the world, with one of the highest abortion rates in the world. Is our problem really that we're not wealthy enough?

Not only the average citizen of our country, but the poor of our country are far, far wealthier than they were 100 years ago. And yet, as we have become wealthier, the institution of the family has collapsed, illegitimacy has become a pandemic in the lower economic reaches of society, divorce has become commonplace, abortion is common -- used by some parts of society as a last resort, and by others almost as backup-birth control. (The stats I've seen on abortion repeat customers are pretty terrifying.)

And yet the problem, we are told, is that our country is still too poor to have a lower abortion rate? The claim is, quite frankly, so ludicrous that it's hard to believe the author even means it seriously. Sadly, though, I think he does. MORE

I agree - the idea is simply laughable. The fact that people take it seriously says a lot about the rampant materialism of Americans. When these women - and the men who impregnate them - say "I can't afford to have a child," what they really mean is "I can't afford to have a child without giving up my life of fun, frolic, and freedom."

Contrast this with of Third World countries where people who have far less than even the poorest Americans continue to view children as a blessing, and do whatever it takes to care for them. For that matter, right here in America we have parents who figure out ways to afford five, ten or more children on a typical middle-class income.

So the question is not really about money; it is a question of priorities. People whose highest priority is their own pleasure naturally regard children as a burden to be avoided. That's why we have DINKs and pampered pooches. Children are, quite literally, the future. If your focus is on the present, it's much easier to flush your future down the drain.

A Healthy Lifestyle That Isn't Promoted

Reports show that one in five youths (age 15-24) in California are infected with some kind of sexually transmitted disease - genital herpes, gonorrhea, HIV, etc.

I do not know what the rates are in other states. Given the licentious nature of that state's culture it wouldn't be surprising if the STD rate is higher there. In any case, this figure illustrates just how "effective" modern sex education is. In California middle schools are required by law to teach HIV prevention techniques. It seems clear that whatever they are teaching is not working very well, while the only 100% effective technique, abstinence, is actually banned from public schools.

The ironic thing is that the people who nag the rest of us to live "healthy lifestyles" very frequently come from California. Yet it seems that at least 1 out of 5 of their own young people are living a lifestyle that is anything but healthy.

The behavior that spreads STDs is almost always voluntary. It is a choice that carries a cost to one's health, similar to smoking. Insurance companies know this - which is why people who smoke have to pay more for their life and health insurance. Many employers encourage their workers to eat healthy foods, exercise, stop smoking, lose weight, etc. It has nothing to do with morality. It's all about the money.

This brings up an idea: maybe those who choose to live promiscuous lives, and allow their children to do so, should pay for this privilege. Is it really fair that people who live in chastity or monogamy be forced to underwrite the inevitable costs of other people's choices? That is what happens, either through higher insurance rates or higher taxes.

I'm not saying anyone should be prevented from fooling around however they wish. I am simply suggesting that they pay for the consequences of their choice and not expect other people to subsidize them. With freedom comes responsibility, right?

This is, of course, not what will happen as a result of this data. What will happen is that the citizens of California will get more and more explicit sex education that is introduced at younger and younger ages and is less and less effective. Where it will end, I don't know. Many people will die -or live their lives with awful afflictions that render them unable to enjoy true intimacy and union with another. This is the cost of so-called "freedom."



Hat tips: Mark Shea and Darth Beckman

So Much For Growing Up

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What's Up at ORU?

A scandal is brewing at Oral Roberts University. The founder's son, now president of ORU, is accused of financial misconduct.

Richard Roberts is accused of illegal involvement in a local political campaign and lavish spending at donors' expense, including numerous home remodeling projects, use of the university jet for his daughter's senior trip to the Bahamas, and a red Mercedes convertible and a Lexus SUV for his wife, Lindsay.

His wife is accused of dropping tens of thousands of dollars on clothes, awarding nonacademic scholarships to friends of her children and sending scores of text messages on university-issued cellphones to people described in the lawsuit as "underage males."

At a chapel service this week on the 5,300-student campus known for its 60-foot-tall bronze sculpture of praying hands, Roberts said God told him: "We live in a litigious society. Anyone can get mad and file a lawsuit against another person whether they have a legitimate case or not. This lawsuit . . . is about intimidation, blackmail and extortion." MORE

The ORU web site has statements from Roberts and the ORU board chairman. It will be interesting to how this develops. Usually these sort of accusations are easily proven, or disproven, with financial records. If it is just a matter of lavish spending then there may not be anything illegal. It certainly sounds inappropriate, though.

Coincidentally, just this week David Kuo had an interesting story on his blog:

One friend of mine in Texas recently inquired to see if a prominent preacher could speak at her conference. The minister’s assistant faxed back a list of requirements that had to be met in order to book a speaking engagement. The demands included:
- a five-figure honorarium
- a $10,000 gasoline deposit for the private plane
- a manicurist and hairstylist for the speaker
- a suite in a five-star hotel
- a luxury car from the airport to the hotel (2004 model or newer)
- room-temperature Perrier

While ministers should obviously be paid fairly for their efforts, I have to wonder about the sincerity of a "preacher" who insists on such luxuries. Spreading the message of Christ is its own reward. This sort of this is apparently not that unusual among the "celebrity" evangelical and fundamentalist preachers. Steven Taylor at Poliblog had this to say about the ORU situation:

The whole thing has the feel of sultanistic dictators and their families, like the Somozas in Nicaragua or the Duvaliers in Haiti, wherein the leader runs a situation (a university or country) like it is their own personal piggy bank while all the while pretending like they are serving some greater good.

Of course, the fact that Oral Roberts thought it was a good idea to name the university after himself in the first place underscores that perhaps he wasn’t as interested in glorifying God as he claimed.

Sad to say, I can't disagree too much.

Strange Place To Make A Stand

President Bush promises to veto expansion of children’s health care program.

I don’t doubt for a minute that the Democrats are using this issue to score political points. If they really want to make health care affordable, they can start with reining in the trial lawyers whose frivolous lawsuits force physicians to spend half their income on liability insurance and order all kinds of needless tests. Of course they won't, because the trial lawyers are among their biggest contributors.

Nonetheless, this is a strange place for Bush to suddenly draw the line. How many spending bills has he vetoed in the last seven years? None. Zero. For six years the GOP-controlled Congress spent money like drunken sailors and handed out billions in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, who also happen to be major donors to Republican campaigns. Bush signed off on all of it. He especially liked the vastly more expensive prescription drug benefit for retirees. (The fact that senior citizens vote, while children do not, had nothing to do with this dichotomy, of course.) Bridges to nowhere and $900 hammers also received the president's signature.

The SCHIP spending bill Bush now intends to veto costs $35 billion. Not chump change, but it’s a drop in the bucket for our Brobdingnagian federal government. Along comes a bill to provide health care for children of the poor, though, and the White House decides we just can't afford it. Are there better ways to help poor kids? Of course. There is good reason to veto this bill. But why this one and none of the others?

The fact that the Bush Administration allowed itself to be backed into this corner is a sign of remarkable, almost unprecedented political blindness. The Democrats will bring it up again, and force Bush to veto it again, probably several more times in the next year. George W. Bush will now go down in history as the president who was willing to spend any amount of the taxpayer’s money on anything for anyone – except health care for kids. Some legacy.

It will be a long time before any GOP candidate will again be able to convince the nation that he represents the party of fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile the Democrats will have loads of fun portraying Republicans as greedy, heartless Scrooges who hate poor kids. I'm not so sure they will be wrong.

Any Republican who still supports this president needs to have his head examined. Bush's arrogance and stupidity have destroyed your party as a viable force for change. Congratulations. Get ready for a long time in the wilderness.

Too Many Barns

This weekend my Dad was here helping me with some household projects. Of course we had to go to Home Depot on Saturday. In the course of this we saw a massive new subdivision full of the big homes I like to call "McMansions." Dad remarked that these were expensive homes and it was remarkable so many people are able to afford them. I said that it is ironic how families are getting smaller and smaller while houses are getting bigger and bigger.

Now I suspect that many of those who inhabit McMansions really can't afford them. Their dreams will end unhappily. But clearly there are substantial numbers of people who have no problem buying $400,000 houses. Here in Texas the property taxes can be as almost much as your principal and interest payments, too.

Then on Sunday I heard yesterday's Gospel reading, Luke 12:13-21. Christ tells the story of a rich man who probably lived in a sort of ancient McMansion:

Then he told them a parable.
“There was a rich man whose land produced a bountiful harvest.
He asked himself, ‘What shall I do,
for I do not have space to store my harvest?’
And he said, ‘This is what I shall do:
I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones.
There I shall store all my grain and other goods
and I shall say to myself, “Now as for you,
you have so many good things stored up for many years,
rest, eat, drink, be merry!”’
But God said to him,
‘You fool, this night your life will be demanded of you;
and the things you have prepared, to whom will they belong?’
Thus will it be for all who store up treasure for themselves
but are not rich in what matters to God.”

"I shall tear down my barns and build larger ones." Hits a little close to home, doesn't it? It's exactly what we in America have been doing in the real estate boom of the last few years. This parable warns us that a time will come when our treasures will be useless. Earlier in the passage Christ says it is fine to be wealthy, as long as your life does not consist of your possessions. It's all a matter of priorities - which for all too many of us are frequently misplaced. I'm guilty of it as much as anyone.

With that in mind, consider this video clip of Wall Street pundit Jim Cramer going nuts on a live news program. Cramer is mad because the mortgage bond market is blowing up. He wants Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to bail out all the poor millionaires for whom losing money is apparently an unfamiliar experience. Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for those guys.

Taxing The Rich

Bill Gross is the head guy at PIMCO Advisors and manages billions in bond portfolios. Wall Street listens keenly when he talks about the economy and interest rates. The Dow fell 226 points on Tuesday in part because Gross said some bearish things during a mid-day appearance on CNBC.

Despite being very wealthy himself, Gross apparently has little patience for rich people who pat themselves on the back for their philanthropic activities.

Of course the wealthy fire back in cloying self-justification, stressing their
charitable and philanthropic pursuits, suggesting that they can more efficiently
redistribute wealth than can the society that provided the basis for their
riches in the first place. Perhaps. But with exceptions (and plaudits) for the
Gates and Buffetts of the mega-rich, the inefficiencies of wealth redistribution
by the Forbes 400 mega-rich and their wannabes are perhaps as egregious and
wasteful as any government agency, if not more. Trust funds for the kids,
inheritances for the grandkids, multiple vacation homes, private planes,
multi-million dollar birthday bashes and ego-rich donations to local art museums
and concert halls are but a few of the ways that rich people waste money – and I
must admit, I am guilty of at least one of these on this admittedly short list
of sins. I have, however, avoided the last one. When millions of people are
dying from AIDS and malaria in Africa, it is hard to justify the umpteenth
society gala held for the benefit of a performing arts center or an art museum.
A thirty million dollar gift for a concert hall is not philanthropy, it is a
Napoleonic coronation. MORE

I disagree with the solution he offers, which is that the government should use tax policy to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots. His broader point isn't far off, though. Wealthy people who support opera, ballet, symphony, etc, and then pat themselves on the back for their "generosity" are being a little disingenuous. These may be worthy causes, but they aren't "charity."

Horrors, We're Losing Money

WSJ reports that Hollywood's recent fixation with intense blood and gore is not paying off as hoped.

Wedbush Morgan Securities analysts William Kidd and Jung Hwang argue in a research note today that movie maker Lions Gate Entertainment needs to branch out. Its core horror franchises — “Saw” and “Hostel” — may be running out of steam. Also, and more interestingly, they argue there may be too many horror movies on the market.

They say 25 horror films are being released this year, compared with an average of 8.5 horror films a year from 1982 to 2006. They note recent films are generally more gory and sadistic than in years past. Unfortunately, they say, more and more gruesome film-making doesn’t translate into additional buckets of box-office blood. They estimate the 2007 horror picture slate will generate about $600 million from 25 films; in 1999, the box-office take was $611 million from only 11 films. more

Here we have powerful evidence that money doesn't necessarily outweigh ideology in Hollywood. Check out this list of the top grossing films of all time, adjusted for inflation. Notice a trend? Here are the top five: Gone With The Wind, Star Wars, The Sound of Music, E.T., The Ten Commandments. The rest of the list is much the same.

The fact is that decent family films tend to make a lot more money for the studios and producers than adult-oriented horror, violence and sex-themed movies. Yet Hollywood continues to push out blood, gore, and soft-core porn. This tells me they are less interested in making money than in pushing their own twisted visions onto society.

When the public doesn't buy it, what's the response? Push the envelope by getting bloodier, gorier, and sexier. It still doesn't work, but the idea of making movies that normal people might want their kids to see still doesn't occur to many producers.

This sort of thing drives economists crazy, because it proves that business people aren't always rational. The ideology motive can often outweigh the profit motive.

Pampering the Pooches

Carter, in a royal blue rugby shirt and tie, was ready for his first birthday party. A 6-foot poster bearing his likeness marked the gathering spot at Allyne Park in San Francisco, where 60 of his closest friends dipped their toes in an inflatable pool and noshed on beach-themed cupcakes designed by a food stylist.

Yes, it was a bit over the top for a Yorkshire terrier, but his parents were so proud.

Nobody beats San Francisco when it comes to doting on dogs. It's a city with luxury dog hotels, rooftop dog cocktail parties, a pet cemetery and City Hall plans to turn dog droppings into alternative energy. And the urban legend is actually true: Dogs outnumber children in the City by the Bay. MORE

It is not especially surprising that San Francisco contains more dogs than children. Many inhabitants of that city have through a variety of methods prevented normal human reproduction from taking place. Yet apparently the parental instinct is not so easily suppressed and emerges in canine form.

I have nothing against dogs, though I personally find cats more interesting. In my household we have three of each species. Yet the kind of doting described in the article disturbs me. Read on:

Capitalizing on the dog worship is Ritu Raj, who just opened one of his posh pet resorts, Wag Hotel, in San Francisco. Vacationing owners can leave their beloved dogs and cats in suites with faux leather beds, flat-screen TVs and Webcams, knowing their animals will get daily play dates, organic meals and, for an extra fee, swim time in the pool, pedicures and blueberry facials.

I wonder if the folks who spend this kind of money on their animals realize that there are humans right in their own city who don't have any bed, much less a faux leather one. Saint Francis himself was an animal lover, but somehow I think he would be mightily displeased to see pets so pampered while people are so neglected in the city that bears his name.

Related article: Rise of the DINKs

Hat tip: Mark Shea

Who Needs College II

Professor Sees Parallels Between Things, Other Things:

AUSTIN, TX—University of Texas professor Thom Windham once again furthered the cause of human inquiry in a class lecture Monday, as he continued his longtime practice of finding connections between things and other things, pointing out these parallels, and then elaborating on them in detail, campus sources reported.

"By drawing parallels between things and other, entirely different things, I not only further my own studies, but also encourage young minds to develop this comparative methodology in their own work," said Windham, holding his left hand up to represent one thing, then holding his right hand up to represent a separate thing, then bringing his hands together in simulation of a hypothetical synthesis of the two things. "It's not just similarities that are important, though—the differences between things are also worth exploring at length."

Fifteen years ago, Windham was awarded tenure for doing this.

The above story is satire. Surprised? It sounds all too real about what brilliant professors do at most colleges today. For this wisdom, they are paid handsomely; families save and sacrifice so that their children may study at the feet of such genius. Do the students learn much of anything useful? No. They do, however, if they persist long enough, get a piece of paper that unlocks the door to career success. Or so we think.

James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal had a fascinating story this week about the reasons this situation came to be. As so often seems to be the case, we can blame the lawyers. He begins by reviewing the Marilee Jones case at MIT, which I also wrote about recently. Jones, as you recall, was the successful, widely respected Dean of Admissions who resigned after it was discovered she herself had no college degrees.

Jones had to go, not because she was unqualified for her job (she had done it well for years) or because she exaggerated her credentials decades ago (Congress would be empty if this was our standard). She was fired because her very presence at MIT proved that places like MIT are not necessary for career success.

Taranto argues that colleges serve as a screening mechanism for employers. A 1971 court decision prevents employers from administering IQ tests to potential hires because the tests might "discriminate" against minorities. So, high school diplomas being widely regarded as meaningless these days, the best way to make sure that your workers possess some minimal standard of intellectual quality is to insist they have a college degree.

This suggests to me that employers who whine about not being able to find good workers are probably overlooking many outstanding candidates who had better things to do in their youth than sit in classrooms listening to professors compare things with other things.

Note that I said above college doesn't teach much of anything useful. This does not mean that it teaches nothing at all. Young minds are like sponges and will absorb whatever is around them. They are, unfortunately, absorbing things that are even worse than useless - habits that must be painfully un-learned later in life. All at enormous expense.

Notice also that we haven't even talked about the moral debasement that occurs during the college years. Is gaining a degree worth losing your soul? Don't fool yourself into thinking your kid is immune. He's not.

Gary North has some interesting resources about how to make college work for you instead of against you. If you or your child are heading toward college, you must read what he says.

Millionaires Everywhere

A new study reveals that millionaires are far more common than you might think. There are 9.3 million of them in the U.S. That's one out of every 10 households. Los Angeles County alone has 268,136 millionaire households. And this is excluding the value of the family's primary residence.

For all you millionaires, congratulations. I'm sure you have worked very hard to get where you are and you try to use your wealth responsibly. However I do have a few questions amid all this money.

• Why is it that mentally ill people are standing on street corners begging for money?
• Why are young women aborting their babies because they think they can't afford to raise them?
• Why do our great cities have luxurious symphonies and opera houses while homeless people sleep in dingy shelters on cold nights?
• Why do thousands of African children die every day from malaria, a disease we know how to prevent and cure?

I think these are good questions and unfortunately I don't have the answers. Leave a comment if you want to add to the list.

Earth Daze

I've just learned that Sunday was Earth Day and I missed it. I feel bad now. Sorry, Earth. I hope you had a nice day.

While I have the utmost respect for nature and believe we should preserve and protect it, the people who make environmentalism into their religion bug me. The logical end of their arguments seems to be that this would be a great planet if we could just get rid of all the people.

It is no accident that the folks who are so eager to protect the planet are often the same ones who want to restrict population growth, use abortion as birth control, promote euthanasia and encourage gay and lesbian relationships. All have the same end result: fewer people wandering around the planet messing it up.

Of course, they never include themselves in plans to reduce the population. It's always the other guys whose existence is deemed unnecessary. Jen has a great post about an Sierra Club member reacting to a pregnant woman with several kids in tow who came upon his Zero Population Growth display:

The man behind the table was pacing and silently counting heads. He looked at my children like they were sucking his air. As the message his organization was presenting sank in I said, "My goodness! We must be your worst nightmare then, huh?" He didn't say no. In fact what he did say, looking at my belly, was, "It's not to late to stop!" I try not to think of what he was implying.

I think it is clear what he was implying: "Kill that kid before he gets out, lady!" No doubt he would also suggest that handicapped people are also an unnecessary drain on the planet and should be eliminated.

Fortunately it is possible to care for the environment without going to such extremes. The Nature Conservancy has a good strategy: buy the land you want to preserve. Then let nature take its course. Simple, effective, and no one has to be coerced into cooperation.

Cho's Coin Toss

The media and blog world is breathlessly trying to figure out what drove Cho Seung-Hui to kill so many people at Virginia Tech, and what to do about it.

First, as tragic as it is let's keep this incident in perspective. This morning on Fox News I heard that in a normal year about 20 people a year die violent deaths on American college campuses. This year's total will be higher, obviously. Meanwhile about 1700 college students die every year from alcohol-related incidents. If the goal is to save as many lives as possible, which problem should we focus on - guns or booze? For that matter, how many babies are aborted by Virginia Tech students each year? I'm guessing it is more than 33.

I've come to the conclusion that Cho's killing spree resulted from a series of coin tosses. Can you flip a coin and get heads ten times in row? Probably not. However, if we put a thousand people in a room and have them all start flipping coins, we can say with statistical near-certainty that one person will get ten heads in a row. The rub is we can't know in advance who it will be.

So what were Cho's coins? Here's what we know.

• He was, according to relatives, afflicted with some sort of mental illness from early childhood. After the family came to the U.S. he was diagnosed with autism.
• For whatever reasons, the family did not get Cho any treatment for this condition.
• He had to make a transition from Korean culture to American culture.
• He was unable to relate to his peers during his school years. He may have been shunned and bullied.
• Both his parents worked long hours trying to establish new lives in the U.S.
• Cho's older sister graduated from Princeton, maybe creating unrealistic academic expectations.
• His creative writing involved dark, violent themes.
• At college his social awkwardness continued and intensified.
• He was referred for psychiatric care, but a judge determined he was not an imminent threat to himself or anyone else.
• From what we know, he was not given (nor did he ask for) any psychiatric medications that might have helped his condition.
• He was able to buy two guns and learn how to use them.
• He did not have any sort of religious faith or firm moral principles.
• He was surrounded by the violent, relativistic modern American culture.

Many people face several of these challenges and do not become killers. We can't pull out one of them in isolation and say that it was the deciding factor. Lot of kids have trouble adjusting to a new school; usually, they get past it. Kids is creative writing classes often write creepy stories; should every young Stephen King be hospitalized? The vast majority of people who buy guns do not use them to kill anyone.

Most of these conditions are innocuous until they combine to strike the same person. All the coins came up heads for Cho. If one or two of them had rolled the other way, maybe 33 people would be alive right now. We can't know.

I'm not suggesting it was all just fate, and none of this relieves Cho of moral responsibility for what he did. My point is that the frantic search for "answers" is ultimately pointless. The answers are clear. We just don't want to hear them, and we don't want to accept that these events can't always be stopped. We want a perfect world.

Our efforts to prevent such incidents in the future will probably have unintended consequences and ultimately not accomplish the goal we want. Yes, there are lessons to be learned and things we should change: better mental health care, for one. At the end of the day, however, we have to accept that we live in a fallen world and evil will always be with us.

Evil came to Virginia Tech this week. It will strike again.

Real Charity

It's tax time, and many Americans are totaling up last year's contributions to charity. Some of us will pat ourselves on the back for being so generous. Others will feel a little guilty for not doing more. Most, sadly, won't think about it at all.

What, exactly, is "charity?" Most would say it is gifts to help the poor, sick, hungry, etc. In fact, according to a study noted in the Wall Street Journal last week, most of our so-called charitable contributions don't go to charity at all. Where do they go?

The analysis, carried out by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, concluded that only 8% of donations provide food, shelter or other basic necessities. At most, an additional 23% is directed to the poor -- either providing other direct benefits (such as medical treatment and scholarships) or through initiatives creating opportunity and empowerment (such as literacy and job training programs). It's just not true, in other words, that the major beneficiaries of charity and philanthropy are the disadvantaged.

The "charity gap" is even wider among the affluent. Wealthy individuals claim, according to a Bank of America Study, that their giving is driven by a "feeling that those who have more should give to those with less." But people who earn more than $1 million per year give only 4% of their donations for basic needs and an additional 19% to other programs geared toward the poor. MORE (subscription may be required).

How can this be? Simple - the IRS defines "charity" to include most anything non-profit. Museums, universities, ballet, think tanks, opera - all these things are "charity" for tax purposes. Of course they are important and useful, but they don't offer any immediate help to the needy.

Here's an idea: what if we removed or reduced the tax deduction for gifts to these less-than-charitable groups? People would then be encouraged to donate to organizations like the Salvation Army that are far more efficient and compassionate than government agencies that try to help the poor.

Of course, this will never happen because the same people who like to donate to the opera also give to politicians. Most of them sincerely believe they are being generous and helping build a better world. I suppose they are. Do all those the folks living under bridges enjoy opera? Somehow I think they would be happier with a decent meal.

Girls Gone Wild vs. IRS

Lost in all the Don Imus news this week was the downfall of another cultural icon. Joe Francis, founder of the "Girls Gone Wild" video empire, is behind bars. He was initially jailed for contempt of court in a civil case filed by some of his underage photographic subjects. Two days later he was hit with an indictment by the IRS alleging he deducted $20 million in phony business expenses from his 2002 and 2003 tax returns.

The Smoking Gun has Francis' mug shot and a copy of the indictment. It's interesting reading if you are a tax nerd. Among other things, he disguised about $4.7 million in construction expenses for a house in Mexico as "consulting services."

No doubt Francis will hire the best lawyers money can buy, but the IRS is not an organization to be tangled with. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Girls Gone Wild business. Could the IRS end up owning the whole company? Stranger things have happened.

Making A Difference

Sister Maria Rosa Leggol is a nun in Honduras who sounds like she ought to be the next Mother Teresa. Here is one story among many others. She was trying to line up funds to buy ten houses for a new orphanage. In fact, she had already bought the houses before she went looking for money. The U.S. government offered partial funding:

To finalize the grant, Leggol had to secure commitments from sponsors to fund the rest of the cost of the homes. She eventually lined up enough wealthy Hondurans willing to help. When the day came to turn in the paperwork to the U.S. embassy, however, she was missing one signature from a sponsor, so she asked a taxi driver to take her to this Honduran businessman's home, even though she couldn't afford the fare. Once there, however, she was told that the businessman had gone to the airport to leave for a business trip. In a panic, Leggol begged the taxi driver to take her to the airport, and he agreed. Leggol sped to the ticket counter, where she was informed that the plane had already boarded and was taking off.

For most people the story would end there, a tale of what might have been.

Leggol, however, refused to surrender. In full habit, her blood coursing with adrenaline, she promptly ran onto the runaway. (This was the early 1960s, before today's security measures at airports). Waving her arms like a banshee, she forced the plane to stop and demanded that they lower a staircase. She then marched back to the flabbergasted businessman's seat, and extracted his signature. At that moment, she laughed, he probably would have signed anything she put in front of him.

Naturally, she got the grant, bought the 10 homes, and the rest is history. MORE

What amazing faith. The Catholic church is often accused of oppressing and ignoring women. Nothing could be further from the truth - women like Sister Maria are critical to everything the church does. They are its heart and without them it would crumble quickly.