The Blinne Blog

The New York Times Then and Now

Here's is an excerpt of a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times concerning abortion.

"Forbidding abortion doesn't save anyone or anything," said Sonia Fertuzinhos, a member of the Portuguese Parliament. "It just gets women arrested and humiliated in the public arena."

The upshot is that many Portuguese seem to be both anti-abortion and pro-choice. They are morally uncomfortable with abortion, especially late in pregnancies, but they don't think the solution is to arrest young women for making agonizing personal choices to end their pregnancies.

As one sensible woman put it in her autobiography: "For me, abortion is a personal issue - between the mother, father and doctor." She added, "Abortion is not a presidential matter."

President Bush, listen to your mother.

That is now. Now, consider the New York Times of August 23, 1871.

THE EVIL OF THE AGE

Slaughter of the Innocents — Open Trade in Crime — Where Vice is Nurtured — The Moral and Physical Nature Both Destroyed — Scenes Described by Eye-Witnesses

The enormous amount of medical malpractice that exists and flourishes, almost unchecked, in the City of New York, is a theme for most serious consideration. Thousands of human beings are thus murdered before they have seen the light of this world, and thousands upon thousands more of adults are irremediably ruined in constitution, health and happiness. So secretly are these crimes committed and so craftily do the perpetrators inveigle their vicitims, that it is next to impossible to obtain evidence and witnesses. Facts are so artfully concealed from the public mind, and appearance so carefully guarded, that very meagre outlines of the horrible truth have thus far been disclosed. But could even a portion of the facts that have been detected in frightful profusion, by the agents of the TIMES, be revealed in print, in their hideous truth, the reader would shrink from the appalling picture.

More than once, some of the fearless and eminent of the clergy have spoken upon this theme from their pulpits. They have declared the existence of these great evils in social life — alike denounced and forbidden by the law of God and man. The records of our criminal courts also occasionally afford indications of the horrible degree and amount of depravity already referred to. Indeed, language can scarcely exaggerate the actual facts. There is a systematic business in wholesale murder conducted by men and women in this City, that is seldom detected, rarely interfered with, and scarcely ever punished by law.

-- New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 23, 1871; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 6 [Note: ProQuest reprints may be purchased off the New York Times website.]

The crusade by the New York Times was a defining one for this paper. This article along with other exposés invariably focused on the abortion providers. We do know what it was like when abortion was outlawed and it was not the women patients — whom Nicholas Kristof is most concerned about — who were considered the murderers. For example, the so-called trunk murder was described as follows a few days later in the Times:

This woman, full five feet in height, had been crammed into a trunk two feet six inches long. . . . Seen even in this position and rigid in death, the young girl, for she could not have been more than eighteen, had a face of singular loveliness. But her chief beauty was her great profusion of golden hair, that hung in heavy folds over her shoulders, partly shrouding the face. . . . There was some discoloration and decomposition about the pelvic region. It was apparent that here was a new victim of man’s lust, and the life-destroying arts of those abortionists.

-- New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1871; ProQuest Historical Newspapers pg. 1

As a result of all this the New York Legislature passed more stringent laws in 1872 with punishments of up to twenty years in prison and easier evidence rules. Enforcement was also increased. The Times continued their crusade throughout the end of the Nineteenth Century. The Times have indeed changed.

A Liberal Who Gets It

New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof, correctly identifies what bothers Evangelicals about Liberals. Namely, they claim tolerance but show very little tolerance of conservative Christianity. Here is part of what he said:

Hug an Evangelical

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

I've argued often that gay marriage should be legal and that conservative Christians should show a tad more divine love for homosexuals.

But there's a corollary. If liberals demand that the Christian right show more tolerance for gays and lesbians, then liberals need to be more respectful of conservative Christians.

One of the most ferocious divides today is that between evangelical and secular America. Some conservative Christians are all too quick to sentence outsiders to hell. And liberals denounce stereotypes of Muslims but not of "Christian nuts."

It's encouraging that the right is less hostile to gays and lesbians than it used to be. President Bush argued in his 1994 run for governor that gay sex should be illegal, while now he feels comfortable hitting up gays for campaign contributions.

On the other hand, the left seems more contemptuous than ever of evangelicals. Sensitive liberals who avoid expressions like "ghetto blaster," because that might be racially offensive, blithely dismiss conservative Christians as "Jesus freaks" or "fanatics."

...

That scorn is deeply resented. A poll this month found that three-quarters of evangelicals believe "the mass media is hostile," and nearly half agreed that "evangelical Christians are looked down upon by most Americans."

This resentment is global. In a Tyndale Lecture in England last year, Cristina Odone complained: "The chattering classes . . . pride themselves on being tolerant. . . . Yet they share one prejudice that turns them into rabid persecutors: Christians."

...

Moreover, saying that one will tolerate evangelicals who do not evangelize — well, that's like Christians saying they have nothing against gays who remain celibate.

It's always easy to point out the intolerance of others. What's harder is to practice inclusiveness oneself. And bigotry toward people based on their faith is just as repugnant as bigotry toward people based on their sexuality.

Here's my response on Mr. Kristof's forum:

This Evangelical Would Like a Hug

I truly appreciate the effort shown by Nicholas Kristof in promoting respectful dialog between Evangelicals and theological Liberals. (It is possible to be a political Liberal and an Evangelical. So, from now one when I use the word Liberal I am implying the theological sense.) Furthermore, he also sees the appropriate path to get there, mutual understanding.

Nobody wants to be tarred by the nuts on our "side". The goal ought to not be the eschewing of labels but to strive for accurate ones. On this score, Mr. Kristof has to travel down this road a little farther. Namely, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not Evangelicals. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the effort and realize Evangelicals need to be clearer on who we are and who we are not. Thus, it easy for outsiders to get confused.

Towards this end, in every forum I am in I disavow Fred Phelps. He is not an Evangelical or even a Christian and to put a point on it, positively evil.

There is hope for Mr. Kristof's approach. If Liberals want to give Evangelicals a hug, not only might we stand still to receive it we might just return in kind.

May Your Money Perish With You

The Apostle Peter confronted Simon where he refused to betray the Gospel for money (this is the origin of the word simony). Here's the confrontation between Peter and Simon:

Acts 8

18When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles' hands, he offered them money 19and said, "Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit."
20Peter answered: "May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the gift of God with money! 21You have no part or share in this ministry, because your heart is not right before God. 22Repent of this wickedness and pray to the Lord. Perhaps he will forgive you for having such a thought in your heart. 23For I see that you are full of bitterness and captive to sin."

A similar confrontation is now between another Peter -- Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria -- and the ECUSA. The Anglican archbishops of most of the Developing World are rejecting the money from the ECUSA over the consecration of an openly gay bishop. This is what Archbishop Akinola has to say about the American money:

"If we suffer for a while to gain our independence and our freedom and to build ourselves up, I think it will be a good thing for the church in Africa," said Akinola, who also is chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, which represents 12 national and regional churches plus the diocese of Egypt.

"We will not, on the altar of money, mortgage our conscience, mortgage our faith, mortgage our salvation," he said.

It Rolks!

Helsinki University of Technology has developed a robot that doesn't walk and doesn't roll. It rolks! Here's a picture of the robot. Click for a larger view.

It Was All A Bad Memory

It appears that there are two ways that memories are recalled. The first is consolidation, the first recollection. The second is reconsolidation, the re-recalling of a memory. There is a controversial theory that this latter recollection is labile and subject to manipulation because that memory is in effect re-written. A new study published in Science Express lends credence to this theory. Here the study shows that there are two pathways for the two kinds of memories. Researcher Jonathan Lee is quoted in the 17 April 2004 print edition of New Scientist stressing that this could be used to possibly treat phobias and PTSD by blocking the reconsolidation pathways.

Independent Cellular Processes for Hippocampal Memory Consolidation and Reconsolidation

Jonathan L. C. Lee 1, Barry J. Everitt 1, Kerrie L. Thomas 2*

1 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK.
2 Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EB, UK; Present address: Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3US, UK.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Kerrie L. Thomas , E-mail: thomaskl5@cf.ac.uk

The idea that new memories undergo a time-dependent consolidation process after acquisition has received considerable experimental support. More controversial has been the demonstration that established memories, once recalled, become labile and sensitive to disruption, requiring "reconsolidation" to become permanent. By infusing antisense oligodeoxynucleotides into the hippocampus we show that consolidation and reconsolidation are doubly dissociable component processes of memory. Consolidation involves brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) but not Zif268, whereas reconsolidation recruits Zif268 but not BDNF. These experimental findings confirm a requirement for BDNF specifically in memory consolidation, and also resolves the role of Zif268 in brain plasticity, learning and memory.

African Bishop Warns U.S. Church

The AP is reporting that the Archbishop of the largest Anglican province is warning the Episcopal Church that its days may be numbered as part of the greater Anglican Communion.

The spokesman for bishops who claim leadership of a majority of the world's Anglican Christians denounced the gay-rights policies of America's Episcopal Church on Saturday, following a two-day caucus in Atlanta with U.S. conservatives.

Archbishop Peter Akinola said the future of true Anglicanism in the United States lies with conservative minority opposition groups within the Episcopal Church who oppose gay marriage and the church's approval of an openly gay bishop. The Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch of the Anglican Communion.

The conservatives discussed here are the American Anglican Council. They are establishing a network of conservative churches within the Episcopal Church. It is this network that Archbishop Akinola is recognizing.

Akinola also said in a telephone interview that unless conditions change, he will not attend meetings alongside the leader of the Episcopal Church, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold, or attend the 2008 meeting of the world's Anglican bishops if the U.S. hierarchy participates.

Akinola leads Nigeria's Anglican church, with its 17.5 million members, and the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, a continent that includes half the world's 77 million Anglicans. He is also spokesman for "Global South" archbishops who have severed normal ties with the Episcopal Church.

This is a continuation of the "impaired communion" promised when Presiding Bishop Griswold went ahead with the canonization of V. Gene Robinson. Most of the Anglican Communion warned if he went ahead with this that there would be serious consequences. Bishop Griswold ignored their counsel.

Episcopal Church spokesman Daniel England said Saturday that Griswold understands that Akinola has strong feelings on the issue.

"I'm sure the presiding bishop will be disappointed if the archbishop cannot join him at the communion table," he said.

This is not just strong feelings. One of things promised by Bishop Griswold when the Primates last met was to provide adequate alternative oversight for disaffected conservatives. The House of Bishops just produced a different standard called delegated oversight where people have to go through extensive bureacratic hoops in order to get orthodox oversight.

Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane of Cape Town has criticized Akinola's strong stand against the U.S. church. But the archbishops announced jointly March 29 that they agree with the stand against gay clergy and blessing of same-sex couples taken by the world's bishops at their 1998 meeting.

Stop the presses! This is a very big deal. As I reported here, Archbishop Ndungane had been supporting ECUSA's stand on homosexuality. Now he aligned himself with Archbishop Akinola. Things are getting pretty lonely now for ECUSA.

The dispute over the American church's acceptance of gay activity became a major world issue when it approved an openly homosexual bishop, V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire.

Akinola underscored his support of the conservative minority over the weekend when he met in Atlanta with leaders from the two main U.S. organizations that oppose toleration of homosexual activity: the American Anglican Council and the recently formed Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes.

Akinola said the Episcopal Church "is trying to redefine Christianity and rewrite Scripture, and we have no right to do that. The historic faith of the church is what we stand by, and there is no going back."

In the archbishop's view, although those who favor liberal policies on homosexuality have a clear operating majority in the U.S. church, he strongly backs the minority and its new network.

"It's either repent and come back to the fold, or give up on the Anglican family," he said.

But England, the Episcopal Church spokesman, said the church's position stands.

"If he's waiting on the network to replace the Episcopal Church, I think he's in for a long wait," he said.

Archbishop Akinola's predictions have come to the pass while Presiding Bishop Griswold's have not. It may be that the ECUSA is whistling in the dark here.

African Anglicans Unite

Nigerian Primate, Archbishop Peter Akinola, flexed his political muscle uniting African Anglicans behind his traditionalist position concerning homosexuality. There had been one holdout and that was Cape Town Primate, Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane. Archbishop Ndungane had favored the canonization to the office of bishop for active homosexual V. Gene Robinson. This provoked an angry exchange of letters between the archbishops. Now, it seems the archbishops have resolved their differences and have united behind Akinola's position. The story as reported by The Church of England Newspaper follows:

The Archbishop of Cape Town has agreed to ‘strengthen’ the traditionalist position of the African Church on homosexuality in return for the backing of other African Provinces for the next Lambeth Conference to be held in South Africa in 2008.

African Primates had contemplated boycotting the planned Lambeth Conference in protest at Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane’s support for the consecration of a practising homosexual bishop in the United States. But after a meeting with the Primate of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, a statement was released which revealed a deal had been struck between the two leaders.

The meeting was held last week in Pretoria to discuss “the way forward for the Anglican Church in Africa and globally.”

It was held following a high profile exchange of angry letters between the two leaders last year when Archbishop Ndungane criticised Archbishop Akinola, chairman of the Council of African Provinces in Africa, for declaring broken communion with the American Episcopal Church.

In a press statement the two leaders said: “We agreed that there had been a communication gap between the leadership of the Church and this meeting resolved to remove obstacles that make communication impossible and thereby be able to fight against any forces that seek to divide us.”

The most significant aspect of the agreement was a pledge from the two leaders to “work together to strengthen the position of the Church in Africa on the issue of human sexuality.” They said that they both upheld the 1998 Lambeth resolution on human sexuality in which homosexual unions and marriages were categorically banned.

They also committed themselves to working together with political leaders on conflict prevention, and on the goals of eradicating poverty and disease.

In the statement Archbishop Peter Akinola backed off from the growing mood among African Primates to refuse to attend the Lambeth Conference in Cape Town in 2008.

Anglican liberals and gay rights activists will be disheartened by the Archbishop of Cape Town’s apparent change of heart.

Archbishop Ndungane has often been cited as the only African Primate who was sympathetic to the election and consecration of a practising homosexual.

Rupee Valuation May Help Outsourcing Situation

Much has been made of outsourcing lately. In fact, it has been become a hot campaign issue. Outsourcing should be viewed however as a trade issue. As trade becomes imbalanced the relative value of currencies change. This appears to be the case with respect to Indian outsourcing. Note the following from Briefing.com's In Play from today:

11:06 ET Strong Indian currency poses potential risk to Outsourcing names -- Brean Murray : Breen Murray states that the Indian rupee (INR) has advanced an alarming 3.6% against the U.S. dollar since 3/18 and 4.4% Q/Q. Firm believes that possible explanations include capital inflows driven by upcoming IPOs/privatizations and double-digit GDP growthin the DecQ. This currency swing has injected an element of uncertainty into future financial results at Offshoring companies. In the absence of an INR retracement and/or other offsetting factors (higher revenue baseline), firm's fiscal 2005 EPADR est could be at risk for a 5-10% reduction. Firm states that stocks with such currency exposure include INFY (gross margin reduction of 100 basis points = $0.10 EPADR impact within the framework of firms model), WIT ($0.05) and SAY ($0.04). Firm believes CTSH appears best positioned to withstand this test, based on: 1) geographical split of its cost structure; and 2) historical practice of overinvesting in the business.

In the end, markets have a way of working these things out.