Rural tradition eyed after China dead babies

Rural traditions of abandoning dead infants because they're considered bad luck may have played a role in the case of 21 babies' bodies found along a river in eastern China, apparently dumped by hospital mortuary workers.
The little bodies — at least one stuffed in a yellow bag marked "medical waste" — were found floating and strewn along the bank of a river on the outskirts of Jining city in Shandong province last weekend.
Police detained two mortuary workers at a hospital who were paid by the babies' families to dispose of the bodies.
One question that arose Wednesday was why would the parents of so many dead children simply abandon their remains?
Hospital procedures normally call for families to take away dead infants, the Shandong province-based Qilu Evening News reported. However, the death of a young child is considered bad luck among some rural families, and the body is often abandoned or buried in unmarked graves.
"According to customs in some places, dead infants are not considered to be a family member and will not be buried in family tombs," said Cao Yongfu, professor with Medical Ethic Institute of Shandong University.
Some families would rather leave the body at the hospital or pay someone to bury it, Ma Guanghai, deputy dean at Shandong University's School of Philosophy and Social Development, was cited as saying by the official Xinhua News Agency.
Some local customs go even further. When a baby dies, the family burns its clothes, toys and photos — anything that would remind them the child ever existed. The traditions stem from China's agrarian past, where child deaths were common, and not considered something to dwell on.
Though the case has shocked the public, Cao said a more pressing issue was developing clear regulations on how the bodies of infants and fetuses should be disposed.
"It's necessary for China to issue a legal explanation on how to deal with the bodies of dead infants and fetuses, otherwise it is possible there will be loopholes in hospital management," he said.

David Mikael Taclino
Inyu Web Development and Design
Creative Writer

Read More

Moscow Bombings Weren't Breaking News

The news of the subway suicide bombings in Moscow on Monday - Russia's worst terrorist attack in five years - led news broadcasts around the world almost immediately after the event unfolded. But in Russia, viewers who tuned in to the country's three main television networks that morning had little reason to suspect anything was amiss - they were watching shows about cooking and makeovers.
The networks, all of which are controlled by the government or state-owned companies, stayed with their regularly scheduled programming as the tragedy unfolded, waiting for up to two hours to provide their first substantive reports on the attacks, which killed at least 39 people. Bloggers and political commentators say the slow response of the networks - Channel One, Rossia 1 and NTV - is indicative of the state of television journalism in Russia today: the major broadcasters have been so cowed by the Kremlin over the past decade, they're incapable of effectively covering events of vital national importance. (See pictures of the suicide bombings in Moscow.)
"This is a city with millions of people," says Arina Borodina, a television critic with the independent-minded Kommersant newspaper in Moscow. "Can you imagine an attack during rush hour in New York or Paris, and a television channel doesn't show anything for two hours?"
Channel One was the first to air a short announcement on the bombings at 8:30 a.m. Monday, about a half hour after the attacks, followed by a brief update at 9 a.m. But the network then proceeded to go back to its three hours of regularly scheduled broadcasting, which included a show about healthy living and another in which women get makeovers under the watchful eye of a prominent designer, before finally covering the tragedy live from the scene at noon. In an e-mail message, Channel One spokeswoman Larisa Krymova said the entertainment shows were not pulled because "they are not humorous programs, which are typically canceled in such events." (See pictures of Russia celebrating Victory Day.)
The other networks were even more delayed. State-owned Rossia 1 broadcast a short news report about an hour after the bombers struck, followed by a documentary about a famous folk singer and a police drama. NTV, which was once the benchmark for Russian television journalism and is now controlled by the state-owned gas giant Gazprom, was last to report on the bombings at 10 a.m. - a full two hours after the first blast. The story came "as soon as [the channel] had video footage from the scene of the tragedy," network spokeswoman Maria Bezborodova said in an e-mail. NTV's report was preceded by a cooking show called Culinary Competition and, curiously, a weekly crime wrap-up that did not mention the subway bombings.
Critics of the networks' coverage said news anchors could have at least advised viewers to refrain from taking the notoriously packed Moscow subway, particularly when it was unclear if there could be subsequent attacks. Russians increasingly rely on television for this type of information - according to a 2006 survey by the state-friendly polling agency VTsIOM, in fact, 85% of people prefer to get their news from the TV. But in the network vacuum of information Monday, millions of Russians turned to the Internet or radio for news on the bombings instead. (Read: "Moscow Bombings: Are Islamist Rebels Behind Them?")
Ever since then-President Vladimir Putin came to power a decade ago, the Kremlin has steadily reined in the coverage of the main television networks. In the 1990s, the channels tended to slant their coverage in favor of their oligarch owners, but they also produced incisive investigative reports previously unknown to a population raised on Soviet propaganda. The Kremlin has repeatedly denied dictating to the networks how major events should be covered, but Channel One, Rossia 1 and NTV almost never stray from the official line these days and often provide fawning coverage of Putin, now the Prime Minister, and the current President, Dmitri Medvedev.
Borodina said that Monday's delayed coverage was reminiscent of the networks' initial handling of the Beslan school crisis in 2004, when terrorists took hundreds of people hostage in a school in southern Russia. After a standoff of three days, security forces stormed the building, resulting in a gun battle that left more than 300 people dead, many of them children. For 30 minutes after the security forces' assault, however, Channel One continued to broadcast a film called Lady With a Parrot, while Rossia aired a travel show called In Search of Adventures. Of the three national networks, only NTV carried live reports from the scene right away. (See pictures of the aftermath of the Moscow bombings.)
Anna Kachkayeva, a professor at Moscow State University and television critic with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, says the reluctance of the networks to broadcast breaking coverage of Monday's attacks was only partially due to the pressure they feel to produce reporting acceptable to the Kremlin. She says the art of live coverage has also disappeared in the past 10 years as news broadcasts have become more and more scripted. "There just aren't very many people around anymore who can do live television," Kachkayeva says.
But not all television critics believe the networks botched the coverage of the suicide attacks. Anatoly Lysenko, a pioneer in contemporary Russian television who ran the station banned by the leaders of the 1991 coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, says he thought the channels reported responsibly and helped avoid a citywide panic. "All terrorist attacks are done with the goal of getting news coverage and scaring society," Lysenko says. As to whether the networks likely consulted with senior government officials before airing their reports, he added: "Of course there was an exchange of opinions. Television in our country is too powerful to not be controlled."

David Mikael Taclino
Inyu Web Development and Design
Creative Writer

Read More

Dad of a fallen Marine perseveres against protests at military funerals

A father of a Marine killed in Iraq says he won't pay the legal fees of a protest group who picketed at his son's funeral in 2006 – at least not until he hears from the US Supreme Court on the matter.
Albert Snyder, whose son, Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq, learned Friday that a federal appeals court is requiring him to pay more than $16,000 in legal fees to the Westboro Baptist Church, a Christian fundamentalist group that demonstrates during military funerals to gain attention for its antigovernment, antihomosexual message. The group rallied at Matthew Snyder’s funeral in March 2006 in Westminster, Md., chanting antigay slogans and carrying signs such as “Thank God for dead soldiers,” says Albert Snyder’s attorney, Sean Summers.
The group was protesting about 30 feet from the church’s main entrance, and Mr. Snyder had to enter through a separate entrance, Mr. Summers says.
Snyder subsequently sued the Westboro group for emotional distress and won a $5 million judgment. But on appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding in favor of protecting the protesters' free-speech rights. About three weeks ago, the Supreme Court agreed to take the case and is expected to hear it in the fall. (Last year, the high court had declined to take up the issue.) Meanwhile, the circuit court has ordered Snyder, a salesman, to pay the church’s court expenses.
Snyder, of York, Pa., told Fox News on Tuesday that he would not pay the Westboro Baptist Church "until I hear from the Supreme Court."
“It’s fair to say that they are not getting any Christmas cards from Mr. Snyder,” adds Summers, in a phone interview. “He obviously thinks they are despicable and doesn’t understand why they would target him.”
The Westboro group has been protesting at military members’ funerals for years. The church leader, Fred Phelps, preaches that American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for the nation’s tolerance of homosexuality. (He was among those banned from Britain last year for fostering hatred or extremism.) The protests have nothing to do with the fallen service members' sexual orientation, and the church says its protests are held within a “lawful distance” of the funerals.
Ultimately, say some, the church protests are a matter of constitutionally protected free speech.
“I really don’t see that [the protest] was a violation of the First Amendment [principles]. It was a violation of decorum and good taste and all sorts of other things, but not a violation of the First Amendment,” says Charles Gittins, a civilian lawyer in Virginia.
But Summers argues that his client’s right to peaceful assembly and freedom of religion were infringed by the protests and that, unlike at a public park where people are free to express themselves, a funeral setting draws a “captive audience” that requires attendees to be in a particular location – they can’t simply walk away.
Westboro Baptist Church, which is based in Kansas, plans to protest in Florida on Wednesday, outside a funeral for a Marine killed in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan on March 22.
“Military funerals have become pagan orgies of idolatrous blasphemy, where they pray to the dunghill gods of Sodom and play taps to a fallen fool,” states a press release posted on the church’s website, announcing the rally at a memorial service for Lance Cpl. Justin Wilson. At the bottom of the press release are printed the words “Thank God for IEDs,” referring to the roadside bombs that have killed thousands of troops in both wars.

David Mikael Taclino
Inyu Web Development and Design
Creative Writer

Read More

Obama agreed for oil drilling off coasts

Reversing a ban on oil drilling off most U.S. shores, President Barack Obama on Wednesday announced an expansive new policy that could put oil and natural gas platforms in waters along the southern Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and part of Alaska.
Speaking at Andrews air base outside Washington, Obama said, "This is not a decision that I've made lightly." He addressed the expected outcry from disappointed environmentalists by saying he had studied the issue for more than a year and concluded it was the right call given the nation's voracious thirst for energy and the need to produce jobs and keep American businesses competitive.
"We're announcing the expansion of offshore oil and gas exploration but in ways that balance the need to harness domestic energy resources and the need to protect America's natural resources," Obama said, according to his prepared remarks released in advance by the White House. "This announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy. And the only way this transition will succeed is if it strengthens our economy in the short term and long term."
He added: "To fail to recognize this reality would be a mistake."
Obama made no secret of the fact that one factor in his decision was securing Republican support for a sweeping climate change bill that has languished in Congress. But Obama has long stated his support in favor of the "tough decision" to expand offshore drilling
The plan modifies a ban that for more than 20 years has limited drilling along coastal areas other than the Gulf of Mexico. It allows new oil drilling off Virginia's shoreline and considers it for a large chunk of the Atlantic seaboard. At the same time, he's rejecting some new drilling sites that had been planned in Alaska.

David Mikael Taclino
Inyu Web Development and Design
Creative Writer

Read More

Hutchison ends back and forth on her career plans

Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison said Wednesday she is staying in the U.S. Senate, ending a series of back and forth announcements during the last year about her career plans.
The state's senior senator, flanked by Republican leader Mitch McConnell and junior Texas Sen. John Cornyn, told reporters in San Antonio that she will serve out her third term, which ends in 2012. She had previously said she would resign her seat in 2010 regardless of the outcome of the March primary battle for governor against incumbent Rick Perry, which she lost.
"Something has happened in our country that no one could anticipate," she said, noting "massive debt," health care legislation she opposed and the general direction of the nation. "It has caused me to look at the resignation in a different way."
The 66-year-old had previously cited her young children as motivation for returning to Texas full time, but she said Wednesday that her concern for the nation led her to believe her children were better served by her staying in the U.S. Senate and fighting for what she believes in.
She ended the 10-minute news conference, hastily called in San Antonio because McConnell was in town, without taking questions.
The decision comes after Republican Senate colleagues urged her to stay and 20 Texas Republican House members signed a letter lauding her years of service, which they said were needed in this period of "sweeping change."
"If you sense an audible sigh of relief in the air, it's every single Republican in the U.S. Senate," said McConnell, calling her an invaluable member. "These are unusual and unique times, and we need Kay Hutchison in the Senate."
Cornyn agreed, saying Hutchison could do greater good by staying and fighting.
"The easiest thing for her to do would have been to quit. The hardest thing for her to do was put her family and other considerations in the background and say 'I stayed when my country needed me,'" he said.
Hutchison said last year that she would step down by the end of 2009 to concentrate on her run for governor.
Then, in late fall, she said she felt she needed to remain in the Senate to battle President Barack Obama's health care initiative. She said she would stay until after the March 2 primary. And on the campaign trail in Texas in late February, Hutchison continued to say she would resign after the health care debate and that she would be gone by November 2010.
Her announcement Wednesday was not her first reneging on a decision to leave the Senate. When elected in 1994, she said she would limit herself to no more than two terms, but she sought a third term in 2006, saying she wanted to stay in the Senate to work on homeland security and tax issues. She also publicly toyed with running for governor twice before entering the 2010 primary.
Perry, who shaped his primary re-election fight against Hutchison railing against her as a Washington insider, now faces Democrat Bill White in the November general election.
Perry said Wednesday that he's glad she's there to fight health care and cap-and-trade energy legislation.
"I am pleased that Sen. Hutchison has decided to complete her term in the Senate and remain in the fight against Washington's imprudent, harmful policies," he said in a statement.
Hutchison was elected to the Senate in 1993 after serving as state treasurer and as a Texas legislator. She's the only woman elected to represent Texas in the U.S. Senate.
Several Texas politicians from both parties have been waiting to run for Hutchison's seat. A Republican candidate would be favored to win that seat if she left, but Democrats saw it as a possibility to win back a Senate seat they haven't had for 17 years.
Roger Williams, a Republican running for the seat, said Hutchison's announcement wouldn't change his plans.
"Our campaign has more money, more volunteers and more momentum than anyone else. I have said from the beginning that I would be ready to run a campaign whether it was this year or in 2012," Williams said.
Democrat John Sharp also plans to stay in the race for 2012, said his spokesman Kevin Cecil.
"I certainly enjoyed visiting with Texans for the last year and a half and learning about their concerns as we waited for Kay Bailey Hutchison to resign," Sharp said in a statement."
In the governor's race, Hutchison initially was seen as a real threat to Perry because of her long tenure in office and her popularity in Texas.
Perry's campaign attacked her from the start as "Kay Bailout" and a Washington insider — a strategy she acknowledged late in the campaign had damaged her chances of winning the governorship.
"I didn't think that anyone could turn my success in producing results for Texas into a negative, but I think that he has attempted to do that and that is what I've been having to fight against," she said shortly before the primary.
She continually accused Perry of being arrogant and staying in office too long. He took over as governor in December 2000 when George W. Bush resigned to become president.

David Mikael Taclino
Inyu Web Development and Design
Creative Writer

Read More