It's the serial-murder trial you've probably never heard of

This week, a wealthy Philadelphia doctor has been on trial for the murder of eight people. The case has numerous elements that each by itself could make the trial a big news story: infanticide, the apparent gross incompetence of government oversight officials, a clear tie-in to a hot-button political issue, unlicensed medical practices, body parts found in a refrigerator, incredible amounts of cash found in a raid on the defendant's home, accusations of prosecutorial lynching, even an undeniable gross-out factor. Yet chances are — unless you happen to pay attention to Philadelphia-area news media or read certain niche online journals such LifeNews — that you haven't heard of the trial. It's as if there were a media blackout against it.

The trial: Dr. Kermit Gosnell, operator of a women's clinic, is accused of third-degree murder for the death of a 41-year-old patient as well as murders for seven instances of infanticide, all (according to the grand jury) related to live births after induced delivery in what were supposed to be late-term abortions.

It's as sensational of a case as can be; if you want nightmares while in bed tonight, try reading the grand jury report. It is certainly more interesting than the Jodi Arias trial going on in Arizona and countless other criminal cases that are covered ad nauseam by the national media until the next one comes along. Yet a study a few days ago found that the trial hadn't even been mentioned on NBC, ABC or CBS, and that it had barely been mentioned on Fox and CNN. Coverage of major newspapers has been almost nonexistent; only in the last few days have the major news purveyors been saying much of anything — and those have been opinion pieces questioning where the coverage is rather than news coverage itself.

Partly because they see the trial has highlighting the lack of a clear moral line that separates infanticide from at least some abortions, some anti-abortion activists have been pressuring media in recent days to give the trial the coverage it deserves. But I'm not convinced that the reason for the news "blackout" has much to do with undeniable sympathy among journalism's elite for legalized abortion. After all, the politics of the trial cuts both ways: If anything, the existence of clinics such as the one Gosnell ran could be used to argue the case that he could do his dirty business only because these women didn't have ready access to earlier, safer procedures.

I'm not saying that the media aren't gun-shy about covering the trial because of the abortion connection. What I am saying is that I believe a much bigger reason for the lack of coverage is simple racism and classism: Dr. Gosnell's patients, and therefore the his purported victims, were primarily nonwhite (usually black or Asian) and/or drawn from Philly's struggling immigrant community.

I can't help but think of the woman Gosnell (through his staff) allegedly murdered: 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, a Nepalese immigrant. To be blunt about it, pictures of Mongar show her as being not only nonwhite, but also not meeting our cultural standards of beauty. Imagine, instead, that a doctor had been accused of murdering an attractive, young white woman — say, someone who looked like Natalee Holloway or Chandra Levy or Elizabeth Smart. Would the major news media stay silent? I doubt it. It's easy to imagine seeing the woman's family and friends on TV talking about how great of a person she was. But who has there been to speak for Karnamaya Mongar?

No, Mongar was just one of those all-but-nameless immigrants that we, and the major news media, tend to look down on. And Gosnell's other alleged victims were literally nameless, and were conceived to women who were every bit as unimportant to society as Mongar was.

According to the grand jury, Gosnell provided his white patients with better facilities than those in which Mongar and the seven babies (or fetuses if you prefer the term Gosnell's attorney uses) died. By all indications, Gosnell lavished attention on his white patients but didn't give the lowly nonwhite and immigrant women who came to see him the dignity that they deserved. By ignoring this case, neither are the major news media.

SendMe sends me a scam

Is is possible to sign up for a $9.99/month cell phone "Music Fan Club" simply by receiving a cryptic text message? That's what the folks at SendMe Mobile seem to be telling me.

I've heard of people getting cell phone spam, but yesterday marked the first time I've received any. Or at least that's what I thought it was.

Here's what the message from 77899 said: SendMe:Music fan Club:Ringtones & trivias@sendmemobile.com 10 credits & alerts $9.99/month+msg&data rates may apply txt help4help.txt stop2end. Download Now!

I didn't think much of it until I received a second text message today that appeared to be some sort of celebrity quiz. And then the alarm bells rang: A number of years ago when I did some contract for Google I ran across numerous attempts by companies to rip off consumers with worthless cell phone services such as celebrity quizzes.

I wasn't about to pay $9.99 per month for such garbage, and I wasn't about to send these folks a text message that would viewed as consent of some sort. So I called the company's customer service line.

To my surprise, a woman answered.

I told her I didn't want any more spam, and she looked up my "account" — and told me I would be charged $9.99 by Verizon for the service I had signed up for.

I told her I didn't sign up for such service, and she said she had confirmation from Saturday morning — at the time SendMe sent me the message I never responded to.

Once I apparently had her convinced that I hadn't confirmed any order for such a "subscription," she told me that someone who borrowed my phone must have done so. But not only did no one else have possession of my phone, but my phone also keeps track of text messages sent — and there was none to SendMe.

The woman ultimately did offer to send me a refund — a move I interpreted as an attempt to get me off the line. Not believing I'd ever see such a refund, I told her not to bill Verizon in the first place (after all, it was a weekend when I had supposedly confirmed the subscription).

But that would be against the law, she told me. Once her company bills the phone carrier, she said, it has no ability to reverse the charges.

But SendMe shouldn't be billing the phone company for services never ordered, I told her. But she said I did — probably while online. Where online? I asked her. She said she couldn't say. I've done enough research to know how this company operates — usually by getting people to take quizzes and the like and expecting that they won't read the fine print when they provide their cell phone number in order to get the results. But I always read the fine print, because I know how these scams work. In any case, it has been months since I've taken any online quiz or anything like that, and neither have I provided my cell phone number to any strangers other than prospective employers.

And so it went. Next step: I wrote to Verizon to make it clear that such charges were never authorized. I expect Verizon will do the right thing, but we'll see what happens next.

Update: As promised, Verizon responded to my e-mail within 24 hours. The person I talked to said the $9.99 charge would be removed even before the bill comes, so kudos to the phone company. And while he couldn't say anything specifically about SendMe, he did say that Verizon is investigating various "premium text" companies to make certain they're dealing in an honest manner.

I assured him that SendMe is not.

Punctuation matters

What a difference a quotation mark makes!

I was one of countless thousands who were fooled yesterday by the following quote attributed to Martin Luther King Jr.:

I will mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.

Because it expresses the sentiment of many of us who found ourselves at unease over some of the celebrations of Osama bin Laden's death, the quote rapidly spread. And I do mean rapidly — although its first appearance on the Web was sometime yesterday, by today it can be found on literally thousands of web sites and probably even more tweets and Facebook posts.

As it turns out, the first sentence wasn't written or uttered by King at all. So where did it come from? Apparently — and if this turns out to be a hoax I'll admit I was fooled a second time — it came from a Facebook user who was commenting on the celebrations and then backed up her comments with an accurate quote from King:

(Image and text copyright by Martin Luther King Jr., Facebook and Jessica D.; published here under fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law.)

Notice the quote marks around the quotation (you can click on the image to make it readable). Yet when Jessica's friends reposted her comment, they apparently left off the quotes. It was Jessica who mourned the loss of thousands, not the slain civil-rights leader.

Quotes are tiny, but they make a huge difference.

Why can't they do something about the "Cardholder Services" scam?

Still again today, I got a phone call from someone at "Cardholder Services," the company that wants to help me lower my interest rate on my credit card. I don't know exactly what "Cardholder Services" is offering, but there's no doubt it's a scam.

And again today, I filed a complaint with the National Do Not Call Registry, a program of the Federal Trade Commission.

Under federal law, the call was illegal, both for violating the do-not-call law and for using deception in the form of a spoofed caller ID number (this time the number was that of a condo maintenance office in Orlando). So was the call I received a month or so ago, and a month or so before that and a month or so before that. And so, likely, were the ones I have received at work, and the ones my co-workers have received. And so were the calls made to hundreds of people who have reported their misfortune to sites such as 800notes.com.

There have been times I've tried to find out who was making these rogue calls, but it isn't easy. What they want before they'll say much of anything is your credit-card number. If you start asking questions at all, they hang up. I did find out once (or at least I was told once) that the person I talked to was in Florida. I'm pretty sure, in any case, that they're based in the United States, since the operators speak with a standard Midwest U.S. accent.

Right now, though, my complaint isn't with the scammer, but with the federal authorities. Why can't they do something about this? Practically everyone in my office has been bothered by these people (a robocaller typically goes through the office numbers one by one), and I know others who have received calls at home. I had no trouble finding a dozen blog posts and newspaper articles from people who also had received calls. This isn't a small-scale, fly-by-night operation, and it has been going on for at least two years.

Pity the poor people who fall for the pitch, whatever it is (probably something that requires a hefty upfront fee for dubious services). Where is the FTC when we need it?

That's a nice way of puting it

After a jetliner ended its flight more than 600 feet beyond the end of a snowy runway at the Jackson, Wyo., airport today (nobody was hurt), American Airlines spokesman explained what happened: The plane "had a long rollout," he said.

Fired for sound bites

Have we become so dependent on sound bites that we're incapable of listening to anything in context? It seems like it.

The most recent example, of course, is this week's firing of Juan Williams by NPR. Out of context, yeah, his fears about riding on planes with those in "Muslim garb" are indeed offensive, and his feelings were awkwardly stated. But in context, it's clear that Williams wasn't advocating religious profiling or suggesting discriminatory public policies. The personal feelings he expressed weren't rational ones, but they were human. The appearance is that NPR was looking for an excuse to fire and Williams and found one.

Williams' sacking isn't all that much different than the U.S. administration's firing of Ag employee Shirley Sherrod last summer. Yes, she admitted to what appeared to be a discriminatory episode, but the context was one deploring just that kind of thinking.

We live in an era where leaders, celebrities and even we regular folk are encouraged to be candid and honest, yet we pounce on people based on out-of-context remarks. (Another victim: Christine O'Donnell. There's no doubt she's unqualified to become a U.S. senator. And she may be loony — just not as loony as the out-of-context clips might indicate.) If we want openness, that's counterproductive.

It's time to start listening more carefully.

There's a reason we have hyphens

One of the unfortunate trends in modern written English is avoiding the use of hyphens. Why unfortunate? Used properly, especially in compound modifiers, they can eliminate ambiguity such as that present in the dominant headline on this week's cover of Time magazine.

The headline: The Only Child Myth. What is that supposed to mean? That there's only one child myth? That's the way I read it when I first saw it.

Much improved would have been this: The Only-Child Myth. That's clear, and that's what the author meant.

Christian symbolism abounds in final season of Lost

When ABC used da Vinci's famous painting of the Last Supper as a model for a publicity photo for Season 6 of Lost, fans should have expected that Christian symbolism would be a part of the show's final season. And indeed that has been the case — although, perhaps, it's Christian symbolism being used in a reverse way, having a Christ figure that becomes a symbol of evil rather than of goodness. But as can be expected with Lost, it's too soon to tell: What looks evil may turn out to be good, although more likely we'll end up with a tale of moral complexity.

Much has been written, on Lostpedia and elsewhere, about the use of Christian symbolism in Lost (although certainly not exclusively, as much of the show appears to be rooted in Egyptian mythology). Many of the characters have Biblical names — Jacob, Benjamin, John and James are just a few — and there's even a Christian, the father of a main character, a Shephard, a possible allusion to the Good Shepherd. There are frequent allusions and even outright mention of Bible verses (one episode was titled "The 23rd Psalm"), many of the characters have been identified as Christian and can be seen praying in flashbacks, and one former main character was a Catholic priest. None of this is extraordinary; those Biblical names are fairly common in our culture, as are Christian-like themes of sacrifice and redemption. But Lost is one of the most carefully crafted shows ever shown on American TV and is full of rich symbolism and more than a whiff of spirituality, so any reference to Christianity is more likely intentional than not.

Interestingly, the show appears to be headed toward equating evil with the Christ character, John Locke. The evidence that Locke is a Christ character goes beyond his portrayal in the position of Jesus in the "Lost Supper" photo:

• Locke once was dead, but he has now been resurrected.


• The "new Locke" (sometimes referred to by fans as the Man in Black) seems to have, or at least claims to have, extraordinary powers, and his possibly now-scarred body is apparently incapable of being killed.


• The invasion of the smoke monster (another form of the Locke character) into the temple was vaguely reminiscent of the Biblical account of Jesus cleansing the temple of those who had made it a den of thieves.


• Locke (the former Locke, that is) has always been one of the most spiritual people on the island and has often seemed to be in touch with some sort of a higher power.

Another example of Christian symbolism can be seen in the character of Sayid. In the first episode of this season, he was "baptized." Just as in Christianity a person is immersed in water as a symbol of death to self and the beginning of a new life in Christ, so was Sayid fully immersed in the temple pool during the first episode this season. And now, it appears, after dying underwater, that he has a new life as a follower of the Christ character Locke.

But the symbolism is neither complete nor consistent. Sayid, too, has been resurrected. And in one striking scene in "Sundown," the most recent episode, Locke tells Sayid that Locke can give him anything he wants — very similar to the New Testament account of the devil tempting Jesus by promising Jesus anything a person might want. Could this be a hint that the reincarnated Locke is actually a Satan character, a Jesus wannabe? Perhaps. But as with all things Lost, it's hard to tell anything for sure at first.

(Photo copyright ABC and used under fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law.)

Nigerian scammers don't give up easily

It's surprising that people fall for these e-mail scams, but apparently they do. Some of the e-mail headers suggest the following one came out of Nigeria, but I'm not sure. In any case, it came from an sbcglobal.net address. Real persons' names and addresses have been replaced by xs and hash marks; my e-mails are in italics.

The bait:

I'm writing this with tears in my eyes, I came down here to Wales,United Kingdom for a short vacation unfortunately i was mugged at the park of the hotel where i stayed,all cash,credit card and cell were stolen off me but luckily for me i still have my passports with me. I've been to the embassy and the Police here but they're not helping issues at all and my flight leaves in less than 3hrs from now but am having problems settling the hotel bills and the hotel manager won't let me leave until i settle the bills, I'm freaked out at the moment.

XXXXX X. XXXXXXXX
#### N. ##th Street
XXXXXXXXX, Wi #####

The above name and address were of a real person, someone I've never met, although it appears likely that the person's whose name was being used had my business e-mail address for legitimate reasons. I decided to find out what else he has to say:

I can't get $1,300 right away. Would $500 be of help?

Could you fax me a copy of your passport so I know you are who you say you are?

I didn't really expect to get a copy of a passport, but we'll see:

Glad you replied back, I still need help, I have nothing left on me right now and I am lucky to have my life and passports with me it would have been worst if they had made away with me passports.

Well all I need now is just $1,300 you can have it wired to my name via Western Union i'll have to show my passport as ID to pick it up here and i promise to pay you back as soon as I get back home. Here's my info below:

XXXXX X. XXXXXXXX
XXX XXXXXXX Lane
London W10 4AH, United Kingdom

As soon as it has been done, kindly get back to me with the confirmation number. Let me know if you are heading to the WU outlet now???

This time, the address was of a recording studio in London, and the e-mail came from a yahoo.com address. Anyway, he didn't say anything about faxing me his passport, so I'll try again.

Would you be able to fax me a copy of your passport? I want to make sure you are who you say you are. Thanks!

This time, the scammer answers my query:

my passport was with the hotel manager right now am at the public liberty talking to you.So you can call the hotel manager on the line +############# his name James smith

Well, there's a clue. I didn't call the number, but I did find out that the prefix used is most likely a cell phone number, not the number of a hotel. And several scam-busting sites reported that that particular prefix is often used by Nigerian e-mail scams. Before I had waited long, I got this:

Please ignore an e-mail requesting money to me! I have been hacked, and I'm working with SBC to resolve. Sorry for the worry and concern! I am at home and well!

XXXX


XXXXX X. XXXXXXXX
#### N. ##th Street
XXXXXXXXX, Wi #####

Well, I'm glad he got his sbcglobal.net e-mail address back under his own control. I thought this might be the end of it, but no. Another letter came from the yahoo.com address.

Am waiting for the confirmation from western union because my flight leaves in 1 hour 30min time i will surely refund your money once i get back home.

My response:

I'm not sure you have enough time to catch the plane. You need to be at the airport about two hours in advance.

About 15 minutes later, another response:

Once the hotel bill is sort out i will be leaving to the airport.that is why you have to wired the money now so i can pickup the money here.

He doesn't give up, that's for sure. Maybe if he were to put that kind of effort into making a legitimate living ...

Let's see how he answers my next question:

I still need to make sure you are who you say you are. I'm more than happy to send you the money if I know you're legitimate. Could you please tell me where I know you from? Thanks!

No surprise, but he ignores the question:

Just want to know if you have wired the money.

I respond:

No, I've withdrawn money from the bank and am all ready to send it. I just need to make sure you're legitimate. Where do I know you from?

And that was all I heard from him.

The iPad: What is it?

There's quite a discussion going on at the Crave blog over just what the new iPad is: Is it a computer, or is it something else?

Well, of course it's a computer. But so is my hopelessly outdated cell phone, which lets me do little more than make calls and maintain a basic calendar but still has more computing power than the computers aboard the first manned spacecraft. When they ask whether the iPad is a computer, what they're really asking is if it's a portable substitute for a desktop computer with all the flexibility that such as device has.

My conclusion: No, it's not a portable desktop. It's more akin to a netbook except that its form factor is that of a tablet rather than of a small, foldable laptop computer.

Although the iPad undoubtedly is cool-looking and has some neat features — the thinness, low weight and 10-hour battery life are incredible — I can't say that I'm all impressed by what Apple is offering. I have a Linux netbook that I recently purchased, and there's plenty that it will do that the iPad won't, such as:

• Connect to USB devices including external drives and flash memory gizmos.
• Easily connect to my digital camera via USB (or by inserting its memory card) and manage its photos.
• Run Skype or its competitors using a built-in webcam.
• Display web sites that use Flash, and that's a lot of them.
• Run more than one application at a time. If I'm writing a document and need to look something up on the Net, I can do so while still keeping the document open.
• Basically do anything that a desktop computer will do, although a bit slower.
• Let me freely change software and even the operating systems.

All that, and it cost me less than $300.

Despite the limitations of the iPad, I expect it will sell well. The coolness factor will be a big selling point, and with an optional external keyboard it is easily capable of performing office tasks.

And as to what label the iPad and the soon-to-come imitators should be called: My vote is for netpad.

A cop film for grammar nuts?

Who would have thought they'd make a police film for grammar aficionados? I haven't seen it yet, so I can't make a recommendation, but today's New York Times has an intriguing review of Police, Adjective. I must confess I'm a bit skeptical of how well a film that focuses at least in part on language could fare through the subtitling process, but we'll see.

The Blind Side — mostly a true story

I can't help it: Whenever I see a movie that is promoted as "based on a true story" — or, more nebulously, "inspired by a true story" — it doesn't take me long afterward to try to find out how much was really true and how much was Hollywood.

And such was with Hollywood's latest feel-good blockbuster, The Blind Side, featuring Sandra Bullock in a dramatic role (she's the best I've ever seen her here) telling the story of Michael Oher, a societal nobody who seemed destined to be a another grim statistic of the slums before he was taken in by the Sean and Leigh Ann Tuohy family of Memphis, Tenn., and eventually became an all-star football player.

As it turns out, the film, as unbelievable as it may seem, isn't embellished all that much from what really happened. The story of Oher is told in "The Ballad of Big Mike," a New York Times Magazine book excerpt well worth the read. Most of the differences between the film and the book account are minor, or are details that are alluded to in the film but not spelled out in detail:

• Sean Tuohy actually had some connection with Oher before they brought him to their home for the first time, and he had long taken an interest in poor children.
• The Tuohys' daughter, Collins, was quite an athlete in her own right and certainly was a more interesting person than the portrayal in the film would suggest.
• Although it is clear from the film that the Tuohys were active Christians, they're a bit more than that, being among the early backers of a major evangelical church in Memphis, and Sean Tuohy is currently on the evangelical Christian speaking circuit.
• The conservative religiosity of the school is downplayed in the film as well. Here's what Oher's tutor had to say about the school's employment application form: "The application did not have one question about education. It was all about religion and what I thought about homosexuality and drinking and smoking."
• The name of the school used in the film is the fictional Wingate Christian School; Oher actually attended Briarcrest Christian School.
• In the film, Oher needs a 2.5 grade-point average and ekes out with 2.52. The part about a 2.52 is correct, but in fact he needed a 2.65 average. He was able to raise his grades to that average by getting high school credits through a remote-education program sponsored by Brigham Young University. "The Mormons may be going to hell. But they really are nice people," Sean Tuohy is quoted as saying in the book excerpt.
• A last-minute snag in getting Oher's BYU grades accepted by the NCAA is omitted in the film, possibly because it wouldn't have seemed believable to have another obstacle to overcome. When Oher's BYU grades were misplaced, Sean Tuohy threatened to fly in his personal plane to the NCAA offices with the BYU papers and sit in the lobby himself until they were accepted.
• In the film, Sean Tuohy seems like milquetoast compared to his overpowering wife. His life story makes that seem improbable.
• The years that it took Oher to be transformed from an ignorant slum kid into someone capable of legitimately graduating from high school seem shortened in the film, probably because of the difficulty of portraying the changes in physical maturity for the young characters.
• In the film, Oher is correctly portrayed as having tested with an IQ score of around 80, well below average. And he had been so neglected he knew nothing about basic facts (such as what an ocean is) or of social niceties (such as what shaking hands is). Left unmentioned in the film is that after receiving plenty of nurturing, his IQ score was raised 20 to 30 points — making him of higher than average intelligence.

Overall, the film is about as close to what really happened as you could reasonably hope for (and the quip about the Tuohys having a black son before knowing a Democrat wasn't made up for the film). Although The Blind Side has its share of underdog-film clichés (my main complaint about the film, and the reason I'd grade it a B instead of an A), most of them are based on events that really happened. It's an inspiring film — but no less inspiring than the events that inspired it.

Another Word of the Year: admonish

Another word, this one coming to us from the folks at Merriam-Webster, has won Word of the Year honors. It's "admonish," a word that resulted in thousands of online lookups after the U.S. House admonished one of its members for calling President Barack Obama a liar during a presidential speech.

That doesn't seem like a word most people would need to look up — but I must confess, I was one of them. I did so for the same reason many others likely did, not to find out its basic meaning, but to see if it had some fine legal distinction to differentiate it from words such as "censure" or "condemn."

The runners-up in the Merriam-Webster "competition" were mostly ones that were also tied to current events: emaciated, empathy, furlough, inaugurate, nugatory, pandemic, philanderer and repose. I'm not sure where "nugatory" came from; it refers to something inconsequential or ineffective.

Word of the Year: "unfriend"

Here's the news language junkies have been waiting for — the New Oxford American Dictionary has selected its Word of the Year for 2009. It shouldn't be surprising that it's associated with social networking, a new activity that has become so much a part of our culture that even my relatives in their 70s and 80s are doing it. When one of my sons signed up for Facebook a couple years ago, he did it because it was the cool thing to do. And now his grandmother is one of his "friends."

And that brings us to the word: It's "unfriend," which means to delist someone as one of your friends on Facebook or another social network.

It's not a bad word, although I think that "defriend" makes a lot more sense. But apparently more folks use the former. And since dictionaries these days reflect language as the way it is used rather than the way it should be, "unfriend" it is.

And it could have been worse. Among the other words considered were "intexticated" (driving while texting, a definite no-no in my book), "deleb" (a dead celebrity) and "death panel" (Sarah Palin's bogus description of what health reform would bring).

Actually, there was one other word Oxford considered that was worthwhile: "netbook," a small, inexpensive laptop computer intended primarily for Internet use. Like "unfriend," "netbook" isn't a novelty word and fits a real need, making it likely to last.

Maybe they should try this in D.C.: It's known as listening

President Obama was elected partly because of his promises that he would seek to bring both sides together, to try to get Republicans and Democrats working together on common ground. So far, his efforts haven't been particularly successful, as evidenced by party-line vote after party-line vote on key issues in Congress.

But something that occurred in Salt Lake City over the past few weeks shows that it is possible for mistrusting opponents to get beyond their differences.

This article in the Salt Lake Tribune describes the series of meetings that led to tonight's stunning announcement by the Mormon church that it would back the city's proposed anti-discrimination ordinance — one that would ban discrimination in housing and employment for gays. Although the church has in the past said that it doesn't oppose that type of legislation, this is apparently the first time it has formally endorsed such a proposal.

While the church's announcement is certainly interesting, the backstory as explained in the Trib article is more so. The story details how midlevel church officials met with some of the city's gay-rights leaders on neutral territory — the home of a Latter-day Saint couple who were good friends with a leading gay activist — to talk about their mutual concerns. Both sides went into the meetings knowing that they would never agree on certain issues, as the church is unequivocally committed to the traditional Christian position on same-sex marriage. But participants, who according to the account started out not trusting each other, were able to move beyond their differences.

Said one of the organizers, Deeda Seed: "What everyone found is that we really liked each other. There was a good rapport. It reaffirmed for me the power of people talking to each other — even if you have incredible differences. You start to see the humanity."

Wise words indeed.

Fight over abortion is far from over

And you thought the fight against abortion was no longer a viable issue.

Tonight's 240-194 vote in the House to impose a quite restrictive ban on subsidized health coverage in the comprehensive health reform package should delight anti-abortion activists — and infuriate those on the other side. It's probably the most meaningful congressional vote on an abortion matter in at least a dozen years.

So what happened? First is that this vote was on using tax money to pay for abortion; presumably, an outright ban would have had less support. Also, in recent years, it has become acceptable within the Democratic Party to be leery of abortion; in contrast with a few years ago, when anti-abortion Democrats were barred from speaking at their national convention, several visible leadership positions have gone in recent years to moderate anti-abortion politicians.

And I suspect, although I couldn't prove, that the strident position taken by many abortion-rights activists — refusing to even look at any compromise that many people in the middle would favor, such as reasonable parental-consent laws — have lost them sympathy with some middle-of-the road people from both sides of the political aisle. And I also suspect that there could be some sort of a backlash to recent gains from the left on social issues.

It's hard to say where it will lead. I don't foresee support for some of the more radical positions of some anti-abortion activists, such as granting all the rights of personhood to fetuses, or to prohibiting abortions in the most difficult cases, such as in the cases of rape and incest. But it's clear that, as bleak as things may have looked a few years ago for opponents of abortion, they are making some noticeable gains, even under a Democratic administration.

Areps.at a Facebook phishing scam

Here I am about as experienced of an Internet user as anyone, and security conscious as well. But I think I may have fallen into a Facebook fishing scam. The culprit: an e-mail from a Facebook friend that said merely this:

"Check areps.at"

The subject line said merely "hello."

And now I can't get into Facebook to try to fix the damage, if I still can.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Updates: Apparently the domains bests.at and kirgo.at are also being used. Despite the Austrian domain, it appears that whoever behind this may be in Russia.

The phishing attack apparently shut down Facebook for a few minutes. In the meanwhile, Facebook send me an e-mail (a legitimate one) so I could reset my password.

There's also a good update here.

How our language may affect how we think

This feature by Robert Krulwich points to an interesting study by a Stanford professor in which native German and Spanish speakers were asked to give words that describe bridges. The Germans describe used words such as "elegant" and "fragile," while Spanish speakers used words such as "strong" and "sturdy."
Why the difference? The theory of the prof, Lera Boroditsk, is that the German speakers have one image because German noun for "bridge" is feminine, while in Spanish the noun is masculine.
I don't know what to make of the argument, but it is interesting.

Spell checkers: Use with care

Here's my pick for the typo of the week. I wish I could say I've never made similar mistakes, but fortunately mine haven't been so conspicuous to so many.

Notes of civility

Not all the activists supporting gay marriage and upset over the approval of Proposition 8 in California are being disruptive or otherwise taking what would seem to be a counterproductive approach if their goal is to change people's minds. Or perhaps there is a backlash to the backlash of the proposition's passage. In any case, there are encouraging signs that some advocates of same-sex marriage prefer to take a constructive, civil approach in the effort to win over hearts and minds:

• One of the key groups organizing demonstrations nationally, Join the Impact, is urging same-sex marriage advocates to be positive in the way they interact with those who disagree: "We stand for reaching out across all communities. We do not stand for bigotry, for scapegoating, or using anger as our driving force. Our mission is to encourage our community to engage our opposition in a conversation about full equality and to do this with respect, dignity, and an attitude of outreach and education. JoinTheImpact, as an entity, will not encourage divisiveness, violence, or disrespect of others and we do not approve of this. We do not stand for pointing the finger at one group and placing blame. The LGBTQ community comes in all different colors, creeds, religious beliefs, and political parties. If we allow ourselves to place blame on one community or another, then we are no better than those who oppose us."
  
• Perhaps there are no stronger words than those of blogger Ryan J. Davis, who says he has long been critical of the Mormon church but nevertheless compares some of those protesting outside Latter-day Saint temples as being comparable to the virulently anti-gay Fred Phelps crowd: "I'm a little scared of the anti-Mormon fervor that I'm seeing in the gay community. ... Seriously guys, cut it out. I know you're angry. I know you need some way to express that anger, but the Mormon Temple in NYC makes no more sense than your grandparents' retirement community in Sacramento or The Apollo Theater in Harlem. Can't we be better than this? ... While thousands and thousands of protesters gather outside the Mormon Temple, evoking scenes of Fred Phelps, we'll still be left with a simple fact: We were out-organized and out-fundraised in California. That's why we lost. ... This protest will just confirm the Mormons' fears about us and will certainly be portrayed negatively in the media. It's old, divisive politics. Politics I'd like to put behind us and had hoped we could after Obama's historic victory. ... It was the people of California who voted to put bigotry on their law books and it's shameful. So let's educate them. Outreach, not Anger. We have to actually spend time on this; we can't solve it screaming for two hours at people walking into a church."
  
• Prop 8 supporter and San Francisco resident Darren Main, in a letter to the Berkeley Daily Planet, wrote: "This week I learned of plans by some in the LGBT community to protest at the local Mormon Church in response to their financial support of Prop. 8. To protest any religion, even those that actively oppose our rights, is counterproductive and harmful to our cause. If we truly want to stand up for our own rights, we can only do so by showing deference toward the rights of others. As much as we might disagree with some people of faith, that doesn't give us the right to disrupt their religious service or suggest that they should not be able to believe what they like, vote how they see fit, and financially support causes in which they feel passionate. ... I hope you will take to the streets and make your voices heard, but never lose sight of the fact that the only way we will lose this fight is if we follow the lead of those whom oppose equal rights by joining them in a shouting match rather than leading the way to a more enlightened future."

What the ultimate goal of civil discourse is, however, remains unclear. Is there any resolution other than the legalization of full-scale same-sex marriage that will please the activists? I'm doubtful. And the same is true for the other side, which appears to have reached its limit of compromise in its hesitant willingness to accept some sort of civil unions (which would have been anathema not all that long ago).

One possibility of compromise has surfaced quite a bit recently in the blogs attracting Mormons is that of basically abolishing marriage as a legal institution and have civil unions for all (see, for example, this comment), leaving the institution of marriage to the churches. (Such proposals have not come the church itself, which has has had a nuanced on civil unions.) Recently, Douglas Kmiec, a constitutional-law professor at Pepperdine University, proposed something very similar, suggesting that the California governor could by executive ruling, at least on a preliminary basis, make the state's civil-union law apply to all. Specifically:

The governor has administrative authority to have regulations issued interpreting family law, and nothing in Prop. 8 precludes him from ensuring that homosexual and heterosexual couples are treated equally under state law so long as he stays clear of "marriage." This could be accomplished by limiting the state of California prospectively to the issuance of civil unions for all couples, rather than marriage licenses, leaving marriage, which in origin is predominantly a religious concept and not the real business of the state, to religion.

A radical move? Certainly, and who knows what its unintended consequences would be? But it seems no less radical than the redefining of marriage as endorsed by the top courts of California, Connecticut and Massachusetts.