You need one of these DVD Rewinders.

Interesting:

THE Chernobyl nuclear disaster has spawned a generation of ‘mutant’ super-brainy children.

Kids growing up in areas damaged by radiation from the plant have a higher IQ and faster reaction times, say Russian doctors.

They are also growing faster and have stronger immune systems.

Caffeinated Cola May Make Kids Hyperactive.

If your youngster is sassy, squirmy, or just plan hyperactive, caffeinated cola drinks could be to blame, a new study suggests.

…

“First-graders manifested behavioral problems when presented with caffeinated cola, suggesting that consumption of this should be minimized,” concludes the study.

I wonder who paid for this study.

Michelle: Mommy, What’s a Rainbow Party?

For once, I agree with Stern, who points out a glaring regulatory double standard. Oprah’s broadcast (on daytime network TV, accessible to children) was as indecent and titillating as anything Stern puts on the air. Why should she be allowed to hide behind the disingenuous guise of “education” while Stern faces a crackdown for vulgar entertainment?

And…

If “proper socialization” means teaching 14-year-olds about group oral sex, we can only pray that more parents choose to raise social misfits.

Here’s the book cover.

Pajama Editors: Homeschooling it is.

Mark in Mexico is talking about Saran Wrap.

Citzcom warns parents. And points out the following:

You think this is being made up? Read inside the book at Amazon. Here’s the USA Today article.

If you haven’t seen it yet, check out the text of John Conyers’ religious tolerance resolution.

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives condemning bigotry and religious intolerance, and recognizing that holy books of every religion should be treated with dignity and respect.

Whereas believers of all religions, including the Abrahamic faiths of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, should be treated with respect and dignity;

Whereas the word Islam comes from the Arabic root word meaning “peace” and “submission”;

Whereas there are an estimated 7,000,000 Muslims in America, from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds, forming an integral part of the social fabric of America;

Whereas the Quran is the holy book for Muslims who recite passages from it in prayer and learn valuable lessons about peace, humanity and spirituality;
Whereas it should never be official policy of the United States Government to disparage the Quran, Islam, or any religion in any way, shape, or form;

Whereas mistreatment of prisoners and disrespect toward the holy book of any religion is unacceptable and against civilized humanity;

Whereas the infringement of an individual’s right to freedom of religion violates the Constitution and laws of the United States: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

This is just nutty. Here’s why on a point by point basis.

(1) condemns bigotry, acts of violence, and intolerance against any religious group, including our friends, neighbors, and citizens of the Islamic faith;

A bigot is: “A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own.”

On who is intolerant is “unwilling to tolerate difference of opinion”

So here we have the first point seemingly running directly counter to the first ammendment. I’m not saying bigotry and intolerance are good things necessarily, but at the intellectually and verbal level they are protected by the first ammendment. This first point does not even say acts of bigotry or intolerance. The only action it condemns is that of violence, and what is the point of a resolution that condemns violence? (I am not even going to try to deconstruct the irony of a resolution supporting the Koran and condemning violence - it’s been done in many other places prior).

Second point.

(2) declares that the civil rights and civil liberties of all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith, should be protected;

Isn’t this what we already have a Bill of Rights for? Seems like a waste of ink and a silly PR play.

And here’s one that’s causing the big uproar over at LGF (tip: Basil), some of the responses are rational, some not.

(3) recognizes that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, as any other holy book of any religion, should be treated with dignity and respect; and

First, what does “treated” mean? Is that a physical act? Or is portraying something artistically a treatment of it? Or speaking about it? If the bully shouts mean things to my kid on the playground, is he treating him with dignity and respect? I think not. What about if he draws a picture of his teacher with a voice bubble saying something obnoxious, is that treating the teacher with respect? I think not.

So it seems to me this is a very clear attempt at limiting the first ammendment and preventing speech that would be disrespectful of the Koran.

And what business does the government have making resolutions on manners in the first place? But more importantly, consider all of the potential ways in which this could be violated.

Obvious:
- Koran flushed at Gitmo

Maybe not so obvious:
- Korans destroyed in the bombing of a weapons cache in a mosque.
- Terrorist holding a Koran gets shot as he’s committing an act of violence.

Really scary:
- Discussions parsing the theology of the Koran which argue that it advocates violence and argue that it is not a true holy book or not the book of a true ROP.

And, “as any other holy book.” Nice bone he threw to those who were not singled out. What about sacred figures, symbols or beliefs? Would the outrage be there if a picture of the the Koran was shown immersed in a jar of urine?

Does this painting violate the Conyers resolution?

Or how about this? (Elephant dung smeared on virgin Mary).

Or would sites like these be prevented from existing?

And I wonder if Conyers has seen this article, which would encourage him to include the Bible in the list.

Hopefully the point has been made and I don’t need to elaborate further. Let’s look at the final bullet point.

(4) calls upon local, State, and Federal authorities to work to prevent bias-motivated crimes and acts against all individuals, including those of the Islamic faith.

Leaving aside the fact that hate-crime legislation in itself is nuts, the wording on this one is even worse. What is the definition of “bias?” Essentially, it is a point of view. A personal perspective. So one could easily argue that any crime or act is one made from bias. If I rob a convenience store, there is bias. I chose that one over another one for a reason. If I speak unkindly to my neighbor, there is bias. And while he doesn’t say “especially those of the Islamic faith,” that is really the transparent purpose of this resolution.

Oh, and what about shooting someone who is wearing a suicide bomb vest and walking toward you? That is definitely a biased action - the perspective of the shooter is strongly in play here. What if the shootee was Islamic? Would that violate Conyers’ resolution?

In summary, I realize Conyers is trying to show the world we are a nation who welcomes people of all faiths, and he’s trying to counter the unsubstantiated Newsweek claims. I’m sure his motives are good, but the results are silly. And scary to those who would preserve free speech.

As a side thought, I wonder if Conyers will push for changes at the National Endowment for the Arts, if that organization funds art that is intolerant or bigoted.

Others are also commenting.

The autonomist thinks he’s shilling for CAIR.

Dangerous Dan agrees with me.

Condemning prejudice is fine and endorsing tolerance is fine, but I certainly don’t want the government doing either. Reason being that the government, of all social entities, has the power of forced coercion. There’s a fine line between merely condemning or endorsing and making laws that enforce either or both. What was once condemned becomes banned and what was once endorsed becomes legally obligatory. Doing so comes at the expense of First Amendment liberties. Flushing a Koran down a toilet is abhorrent and should be condemned, but I … have a right to put so many holy books down the john that the plumber who gets called out will be a Religion scholar by the time he’s done unclogging the toilet.

Pirate’s Cove has some thoughts.