Disney California Adventure: Little Mermaid dark ride nears completion

Walt Disney Imagineering has begun installing the audio-animatronic figures in the new $100-million Little Mermaid dark ride at Disney California Adventure in advance of the attraction's June 3 debut.

The Ursula audio-animatronic character is programmed at Walt Disney Imagineering for the Little Mermaid dark ride at Disney California Adventure. (Disney)

Photos: Concept art for the Little Mermaid dark ride

In the last few weeks, crews installed a version of the evil sea witch, Ursula, which at 7 1/2 feet tall and 12 feet wide is one of the largest animatronics ever created by WDI.

Located in the marquee scene of the dark ride, the Ursula figure can squash, stretch and bounce along to the music as she sings her big diva musical number, "Poor Unfortunate Souls." Ursula's flexible rubber skin allows for a wide range of motions and emotions, said Ethan Reed, senior show animator for the Little Mermaid ride.

"She has analog eyelids so she can squint her eyes," Reed said. "You can really get some fun play in her eye area because that's where guests are going to look first."

In late February, crews installed more than 100 green, orange and yellow clamshell ride vehicles, which are similar to the Haunted Mansion "doombuggies." Most of the props and scenery inside the ride have been in place since January. Work is nearly complete on the building's exterior, inspired by the Dragon Gorge scenic railway at the long-gone Ocean Park amusement zone in Southern California.

An identical version of the ride, called Under the Sea: Journey of the Little Mermaid, is expected to open at the Magic Kingdom in Florida in 2013. The DCA ride will be officially titled The Little Mermaid: Ariel’s Undersea Adventure. 

 

http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/themeparks/la-trb-little-mermaid-disney-03201117,0,4741598.story

Who Actually Wrote The Bible & Why It Matters

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."

And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.

The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.

This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

Largely on the basis of this passage, the apostle Paul has been branded, by more liberation minded people of recent generations, as one of history's great misogynists. The problem, of course, is that Paul never said any such thing. And why does it matter? Because the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women. Why are there no women priests in the Catholic Church? Why are women not allowed to preach in conservative evangelical churches? Why are there churches today that do not allow women even to speak? In no small measure it is because Paul allegedly taught that women had to be silent, submissive and pregnant. Except that the person who taught this was not Paul, but someone lying about his identity so that his readers would think he was Paul. 

It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the "Paul" of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as "the word of truth" (1:13); he indicates that the "truth is in Jesus"; he tells his readers to "speak the truth" to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to "fasten the belt of truth around your waist" (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul. 

It appears that some of the New Testament writers, such as the authors of 2 Peter, 1 Timothy and Ephesians, felt they were perfectly justified to lie in order to tell the truth. But we today can at least evaluate their claims and realize just how human, and fallible, they were. They were creatures of their time and place. And so too were their teachings, lies and all.

Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and the New York Times bestselling author of 'Misquoting Jesus' and 'Jesus, Interrupted'. His latest book, 'Forged: Writing in the Name of God -- Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are', is now available from HarperOne.

They Can't Marry; Ailing Couples Face A Lengthy Appeals Process

Judges last week extended a stay on same-sex marriage until higher courts rule on Prop. 8. Derence Kernek and Ed Watson hope that process will move faster than the advance of Watson's Alzheimer's disease.

Ed Watson, left, and Derence Kernek of Palm Springs have been together for more than 40 years. (Glenn Koenig / Los Angeles Times)

 

Reporting from Palm Springs—

Derence Kernek and Ed Watson live together each day in fear that they won't be able to pledge "till death do us part" before it's too late.

Watson, 78, is in rapidly failing health, afflicted with Alzheimer's disease, obesity, diabetes and hypertension.

A federal appeals court ruled last week that same-sex marriage will remain on hold in California until a judge's ruling striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional makes its way through the higher courts — reviews expected to take a year or more.

"We don't have the money to travel to a state where it's legal," said Kernek, 80, observing dejectedly that the travel would probably be too grueling for his partner of 40 years. "Besides, we wanted to do it in California, where our friends are, where we live. Now I don't think we'll be able to, not while Ed can still remember."

The ticking clock on Watson's awareness was one of a chronicle of arguments presented to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in an unsuccessful bid to convey the urgency of letting same-sex marriage resume during the protracted appeals process.

A 9th Circuit panel made up of Judges Stephen Reinhardt, Michael Daly Hawkins and N. Randy Smith denied the request Wednesday without explanation.

Proposition 8 proponents had argued that the voter initiative's restriction of marriage to one man and one woman should remain in place pending the appeal. They said the stay was necessary to avert social chaos if, as they insist is likely, the courts decide that the voters of California had the right to outlaw same-sex marriage.

The Aug. 4 ruling by U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker in San Francisco striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional buoyed hopes across the national lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities that their rights to marry and raise families would eventually earn full legal recognition.

But for some, including Kernek and Watson, "eventually" could come too late.

In response to an online appeal by the Hollywood-based Courage Campaign for testimony to back the legal challenge of Proposition 8 and other gay-rights litigation, more than 3,000 couples came forward with their stories about why they believe marriage can't wait.

"Life is not eternal — sometimes it is tragically short — and courts should not act as if it were otherwise," said Chad Griffin, board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights and a key strategist in the legal campaign to scuttle Proposition 8.

The anecdotes of fatal illness and faltering minds were intended to put human faces on gay- and lesbian-rights advocates' arguments that continuing to prohibit same-sex marriage after Walker's ruling inflicts irreparable harm on many.

The Proposition 8 opponents argued that Walker's ruling recognized marriage as a fundamental right for all Americans, and their veteran lawyers, David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, cited case law dictating that a court should suspend a judge's ruling only when the party seeking that stay shows that it is likely to win on appeal and be irreparably harmed in the meantime.

"Each day plaintiffs, and gay men and lesbians like them, are denied the right to marry — denied the full blessings of citizenship — is a day that never can be returned to them," two same-sex couples who brought the successful lawsuit against Proposition 8 argued in their motion.

Those who will be harmed, Courage Campaign chairman Rick Jacobs argued in an accompanying letter to the court, are couples like Kernek and Watson and San Diego residents Jerry Peterson and Bob Smith, both in their 70s and longing to marry before the end of an appeals process that could outlive them. Shane Mayer and John Quintana, 28-year-olds from San Francisco, want to marry while Mayer's cancer-stricken father can still take part, the friend-of-the-court letter testified.

Andrew Pugno, a lawyer for Proposition 8 backers, hailed the panel's ruling as "a victory for Proposition 8 supporters and the initiative process as a whole."

In his appeals court filings, Pugno had argued that the same-sex couples' claim of urgency "rings hollow." He pointed out that they waited six months after the initiative passed to bring their lawsuit and failed to challenge the stay when the 9th Circuit first decided last fall to keep the ban in place while the appeal was being expedited.

Pugno's opponents say they didn't make an issue of the stay when Walker imposed it or when the 9th Circuit agreed it should remain in place because the appeals court said the case would be fast-tracked, Jacobs said. But when the 9th Circuit on Jan. 4 asked the California Supreme Court to decide whether the Proposition 8 architects have the legal right to appeal Walker's ruling, it became clear that the process would drag on until the end of this year, if not longer, Jacobs said.

That outlook is dispiriting for Kernek and Watson, who don't like to contemplate their prospects for surviving the appeals process intact.

"I can't even say how many times I've had to call 911 when he falls or gets into a position where I can't lift him," Kernek says of his partner.

The two retired to this gay-friendly desert oasis five years ago, after their eclectic college pursuits — horticulture, social work and engineering — took them from the Bay Area to Kansas City, then an Oregon farm that was their home and livelihood for a decade.

They registered as domestic partners when they arrived in California, and after the state legalized same-sex marriage three years ago, they thought they could make the ultimate commitment to each other when the time was right. The passage of Proposition 8 in November 2008 shocked them, as did Watson's diagnosis of Alzheimer's a few months later.

Kernek is more confused than bitter about the legal obstacles preventing them from taking vows before Watson's memory recedes to a point of no return.

"Why is it important to anybody else who you are devoted to?" Kernek asks. "I just don't see how who I love hurts anybody else's marriage."

carol.williams@latimes.com

First Monday-Night-Supper-Scene At diPiazza's!

Man Dies Performing CPR On Wife, Who Died Too

A 61-year-old man who called 911 to report that his wife had a heart attack apparently died while trying to perform CPR to save her life, authorities said. His wife died too.

His wife also died, Clallam County Sheriff's Sgt. Nick Turner told AOL News. The couple's names were released today, identified as Charles Lorme and his wife, Geraldine, 59, from the town of Joyce, on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington, Turner said.

"We have no indication of foul play," Turner said. Lorme called 911 at about 9:45 p.m. Wednesday and told the dispatcher that his wife had collapsed and wasn't breathing, adding that he was going to start CPR, the sheriff's department said. The line then went silent.

The man was found slumped over his wife's body when paramedics and sheriff's deputies arrived at the home about eight minutes later, Sheriff's Sgt. John Keegan told the Upper Peninsula Daily News.

"Usually, events like this don't happen in pairs," Keegan told the newspaper.

Rescuers -- who had to break into the home -- found the couple on the floor and performed CPR for about 40 minutes without success, The Seattle Times reported. Leonard Pierce, owner of Joyce General Store, told the Times the couple had just moved to Joyce and built a home.

"It's terrible," he said. 

http://www.newser.com/story/114995/husband-in-washington-state-charles-lorme-suffers-fatal-heart-trying-to-revive-his-collapsed-wife.html 

7 Signs You're in a Manipulative Relationship

Christine Donovan knew something wasn't right in her relationship when she didn't want to go home from work. "I felt anxious all the time," she says. "I never knew what kind of mood he would be in, or if I had unknowingly done something that would have upset him." But Christine wasn't in an abusive relationship -- at least none that she had ever seen. "He didn't hit me or get violently angry. I just thought we were having normal relationship problems that we needed to work through," she says.

The type of guy Christine was dealing with is all too common, but there's nothing "normal" about it, says Dr. Mary Casey, author of "How to Deal With Master Manipulators". "Manipulators aim to control their partners by pressing the buttons that get them emotional, whether it be making them feel afraid, unworthy, stupid, insecure, angry or frustrated," she says. But because manipulators are typically passive-aggressive in their tactics, unlike domestic abuse, it can be difficult to tell when you're in a manipulative relationship. "While abuse is obvious, victims of manipulation don't even realize they are being manipulated because the manipulator masks their behavior as positive, caring and nurturing," she says.

If you're sad more often than happy in your relationship and something feels wrong but you just can't put your finger on it, read on to see if you might be shacking up with a manipulative partner -- and what you can do about it.

7 Signs You Might be Dating a Manipulator :

1. You're always falling short of your partner's expectations.
In an argument, the person being manipulated is often made to feel they are the ones at fault all of the time, says Casey. But what's really going on is the manipulator is shifting the blame onto them and detracting in subtle, hard-to-detect ways. They'll commonly say things like, "So we're going to have the big interrogation are we?" or "Are you going to get all emotional again?"

2. You often feel guilty in your relationship and are always looking to repair the "damage."
The manipulator is skilled at making people feel this way by saying things like "I spent all this money on this gift for you, and look how you thank me" or "You have trust issues -- why don't you trust me?"

3. You don't often know where you stand with your partner.
A manipulative partner often uses concealed or open threats to keep his girlfriend anxious and holding onto the relationship, says Casey. He might use statements such as "I don't even know why I'm here anymore; this isn't working for me."

4. You often feel like you're walking on eggshells around him (or her).
Maybe sometimes you're given lots of love and affections; at other times you're given the cold shoulder for no apparent reason, says Casey.


5. You feel confused in the relationship and keep questioning or blaming yourself for making your partner angry or frustrated. Manipulators are skilled at never being to blame for any problem in a relationship.

6. You're unhappy in your relationship at least 90 percent of the time.
This is a big red flag for anyone in a relationship -- whether you're with a manipulator or not, it's time to reevaluate why you're with that person.

7. You're anxious about telling your partner your plans or about something you've bought. If this is the case, you're most likely being controlled and manipulated, says Casey.


If a few or more of these statements described your relationship, you're likely with a manipulator, and the bad news is, he is unlikely to change.

"Manipulation is a learned behavior -- no one is born with it. It's very much a survival strategy learned from early childhood and therefore changing the behavior is near impossible," says Casey. "Your time is better invested in developing strategies to protect yourselves, because you can never change a manipulator's actions.

In other words, dump the jerk and then look into how you attracted him in the first place. "Women who attract manipulators tend to lack self-worth and assertiveness, and they tend to be people pleasers," says Casey. "They trust to the point of ignorance and therefore do not realize that they are being manipulated until they have been in emotional turmoil for some time. It can often be years before they see the situation for what it really is."

But once you do recognize it, you can put a stop to it. "First, take responsibility and own up to being a victim and a target," says Casey. "Admit your flaws to yourself. And most importantly, get out of the relationship and become who you really are; not something someone else wants you to be."


Colleen Oakley is a freelance writer who is still pretty good at manipulating her dad -- although, he never did buy her a pony. You can find out more about her at her website.

Bishops Reassess Policies After Priest Sexual Abuse Continues

Nine years after a scandal in Boston prompted America’s Roman Catholic bishops to announce sweeping policy changes to protect children from sexual abuse by priests, the bishops are scrambling to contain the damage from a growing crisis in Philadelphia that has challenged the credibility of their own safeguards.

Associated Press

Msgr. William Lynn, center, was indicted by a Philadelphia grand jury on charges of endangering the welfare of children.

When a grand jury in Philadelphia reported last month that the archdiocese there allowed 37 priests accused of abuse or inappropriate behavior to remain in ministry, it came as a complete surprise to the local and national “review boards” that the bishops have put in place to help keep them accountable, members of those boards said.

Church officials are also deeply troubled by how it is possible that in the bishops’ most recent annual “audit” — conducted by an outside agency to monitor each diocese’s compliance with the policy changes — Philadelphia passed with flying colors, said Teresa M. Kettelkamp, executive director of the bishops’ Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection, which issues the annual audit reports.

“To have that level of compromise of our programs and our process, I was totally shocked,” said Ms. Kettelkamp, who spent 30 years in law enforcement and corruption investigations before she was hired by the bishops.

The revelations in Philadelphia have called into question the efficacy of the bishops’ reform plan, unveiled in 2002 under the intense spotlight cast by the Boston scandal and called, “The Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.”

The church says it has spent tens of millions of dollars to fingerprint volunteers, organize “safe environment” prevention programs in parishes and schools, reach out to victims and deal with accusations. At least 1,000 workers nationwide are employed in carrying out the charter’s mandates, church officials say. Now the bishops are hearing parishioners, abuse victims and the church’s own child protection workers voicing a sense of betrayal.

“This is confusing and demoralizing to many people,” said Bishop Blase J. Cupich of Spokane, Wash., chairman of the bishops’ committee for the protection of children and young people, who said he recently met with a large group of these workers at a convention in Los Angeles. “Everybody is very saddened by this because people are working very hard, each and every day, to implement the charter. And to have this happen is really just painful for all of us.”

The main governing committee of bishops took up the issue this week at a regularly scheduled meeting in Washington, and late on Thursday issued a statement that sought to convey reassurances that the bishops are still committed to their policies.

The core of the charter was a “zero tolerance” pledge to remove from the ministry any priests credibly accused of abuse. So the grand jury’s charge that the Philadelphia Archdiocese allowed as many as 37 priests to continue serving, despite an array of charges against them, has provoked the most searing questions.

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia at first rebutted the grand jury’s findings, then changed course, suspended three priests and ultimately suspended 21 more — the largest mass suspension by a diocese in the three-decade history of the abuse scandal.

A Philadelphia grand jury also indicted the former head of the archdiocesan office for clergy, Msgr. William Lynn, on charges of endangering the welfare of children — the first indictment ever of a senior church official in covering up an abuse case.

The statement from the bishops’ committee, signed by the bishops’ president, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, said, “We remain especially firm in our commitment to remove permanently from public ministry any priest who committed such an intolerable offense.”

The bishops’ statement says they have “confidence” that the charter is effective, but will consider whether it needs to be revised or strengthened. A long-planned review of the charter is scheduled for the bishops’ meeting in June.

“We want to learn from our mistakes and we welcome constructive criticism,” the statement says.

In recent interviews with local reporters, Archbishop Gregory M. Aymond of New Orleans, the former chairman of the bishops committee on child protection, and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley of Boston, expressed anguished anger about the developments in Philadelphia. Archbishop Aymond said, “There’s no excuse for cover-up.”

However, the bishops’ committee avoided any direct criticism of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia — even though some had pressed for something more hard-hitting, said some church officials who did not want to be named because they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

Cardinal Rigali worked for many years in the Vatican and still has powerful allies there. A kingmaker among American bishops, he serves on the Vatican’s Congregation for Bishops, the body charged with recommending bishops’ assignments to the pope. (Also serving on that Vatican congregation: Cardinal Bernard Law, who resigned as archbishop of Boston in 2002 during the abuse scandal there.)

Bishop Cupich and other church officials said that the bishops were withholding any judgment about what exactly went awry in Philadelphia and who was responsible, because they did not yet have enough information. Bishop Cupich praised Cardinal Rigali for hiring an investigator, after the news of the grand jury report came out, to go through the files and determine which priests should be suspended from ministry.

But those involved in oversight in the church are asking themselves why the local review board in Philadelphia and the auditors did not know about so many accused priests still in ministry. Did the church staff in Philadelphia fail to show them the files? Were the files scrubbed?

Church officials and those involved in oversight say they do not know. And they said that they are looking to the investigators and prosecutors in Philadelphia to come up with the answers.

The episode identifies a key weakness in the bishops’ charter: neither the bishops’ auditors nor the review boards have the same power as a grand jury or a prosecutor to subpoena witnesses or compel the church to turn over files.

“They can only review the information they’re given,” said Diane Knight, chairwoman of the National Review Board, the advisory and accountability committee appointed by the bishops. “It is startling and discouraging that after nine years of the charter and all of the work that has gone into it, to have this kind of a grand jury report come out is troubling at best.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/us/26bishop.html?_r=1&hp

George Lopez Calls Kirstie Alley A Dancing Pig

George Lopez may or may not be a fan of Kirstie Alley's dancing, but he's made clear his feelings on her body.

On "Lopez Tonight" Tuesday night, Lopez reviewed the first episode of the new season of "Dancing with the Stars." Alley, who has famously struggled with her weight, danced a roundly praised cha-cha performance to Cee Lo Green's "Forget You." Without commenting on her technique, Lopez criticized her physique.

"She did a nice job, her little hooves tapping away," Lopez said, comparing Alley to a pig. "Before the show she went to the market, then she had roast beef, and this is her going all the way home," he continued before cutting to a video of a pig squealing, from a recent Geico commercial.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/23/george-lopez-on-kirstie-alley-pig-dwts_n_839753.html

BREAKING: Apple pulls "gay cure" iPhone app

Amazing! After more than 150,000 petition signatures from Change.org members and saturation media coverage, news outlets worldwide are reporting that Apple has pulled an iPhone application launched by Exodus International that claimed to help "cure" gay and lesbian people.

This is a huge, public victory against the dangerous myth that gay young people can and should be "turned straight" -- a falsehood that contributes to the plague of depression and suicide afflicting these kids and young adults. Our friends at Truth Wins Out, the organization that started the petition on Change.org, are absolutely thrilled.

Apple did the right thing because an incredible 151,125 Change.org members -- including you -- stood together to demand it. We spread the word on Facebook more than 55,000 times. And together we attracted the attention of media around the globe, including CNN, MSNBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, and hundreds of newspapers and blogs. 

It's simply amazing. Thank you for making this victory possible.

- Eden and the Change.org team

Apple Is Under Fire For Approving 'Gay Cure' iPhone App

Apple is under fire for approving a controversial iPhone app created by a religious organization that seeks to help gay individuals become heterosexual.

The application, "Exodus International," was created by a ministry of the same name that says its mission is to "[mobilize] the body of Christ to minister grace and truth to a world impacted by homosexuality."

The app's description notes, "With over 35 years of ministry experience, Exodus is committed to encouraging, educating and equipping the Body of Christ to address the issue of homosexuality with grace and truth."

It received a "4" rating from Apple, which indicates the company considered the app to contain "no objectionable material."

Yet many disagree with Apple's assessment and are demanding that it be removed.

"No objectionable content? We beg to differ," wrote TruthWinsOut.com. "Exodus' message is hateful and bigoted."

Change.org has launched an online petition calling for Apple to remove the app that has garned over 21,000 "signatures."

The app received 85 five-star reviews--the highest rating--from App Store users, but it also received nearly twice as many one-star reviews.

"What a shameful, deceptive app," wrote one user. "Disgusting."

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network posted March 15, Exodus International's Jeff Buchanan said the ministry had not yet had any direct contact with Apple regarding the app.

Apple's approval of the app is particularly noteworthy given that the company requires all apps submitted to the App Store be scrutinized and vetted by Apple itself. Last year, the company removed, without warning, thousands of "sexy" apps from the App Store. (See apps Apple has banned here)

Earlier this year, Apple was criticized for its approval of an application from the Manhattan Declaration, which encouraged users to take a stand against gay marriage. Apple later removed the app.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/18/apple-exodus-international-app_n_837698.html

World's fattest L.A. marathon finisher is criticized for 9+ hour 'long walk'

Kelly Gneiting, the 400-pound sumo wrestler who set a Guinness World Record Sunday for being the largest man to finish a marathon, is having his parade rained on.

Readers of Gneiting's epic journey through the soaked streets of Los Angeles were inspired and congratulatory, but some were decidedly critical about the fact that it took the man with a 60-inch waist 9 hours and 48 minutes to complete the 26.2-mile race.

"What an insult to people who really trained for this event! This was nothing more than a long walk for a big guy!" commented Runner3.

Photos: 400-pound marathoner

"He chased his ego for nine hours, 48 minutes," sniped burningrabbit1.

Another commentor even challenged what Gneiting was actually doing.

" 'Running' constitutes getting both feet off the ground at the same time, something I'm fairly certain Mr Gneiting didn't do," Bassman8 wrote. " No disrespect to Mr. Gneiting, as I'm sure the word running didn't come out of his mouth, but as a runner, it makes me cringe each and every time someone who participates in a marathon at a walking pace states they 'ran' a marathon.  Typically, the worst aspect of these participants is their overall lack of courtesy during the event, as they tend to walk side by side in groups of 3, 4, 5 (or more) and want to start as close to the front of the pack as possible, thus blocking the runners (and joggers) who happen to be behind them, creating a situation that could lead to injury as the faster participants have to swerve to avoid the blockades.  I have no issue with walkers who want to participate, but if you know you are going to walk, please start in the back of the pack, especially at marathons with thousands of participants."

"A marathon is a race. 26.2 miles is a distance. You can't call this bit of lumbering around Los Angeles a marathon any more than you can call a walk across the street and back a 100 meter dash," Mark Spence wrote on the Fabulous Forum blog.

Gneiting did get support from some readers.

"This man beat everyone who stood on the sidelines and just watched," Kristin Schefcick wrote.

Gneiting, who fought the pain of blisters and the discomfort of rain and cold, said he felt delirious after the 10th mile but was determined to finish. "I was really struggling in the last five miles," he said, "but I said to myself, 'If I have to crawl, I will.' "

-- Tony Pierce
twitter.com/busblog

Photo: In the downpour, Kelly Gneiting approaches the 12-mile point of the Los Angeles Marathon on March 20, 2011. Credit: Mariah Tauger / Los Angeles Times

Respecting All Marriages (from the L.A. Times)

The Respect for Marriage Act makes it clear that same-sex couples -- if married in a state that recognizes their unions -- will be eligible for federal benefits. It deserves to pass.

 

Jon Cooper, majority leader, Suffolk County Legislature, Huntington, N.Y, left, kisses his partner Robert Cooper during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 16, 2011, to announce the introduction of a Senate bill to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen)

In the campaign for marriage equality, the courts have been the most conspicuous player. But Congress also matters. A bill to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, wouldn't legalize same-sex marriage — that's beyond the power of the federal government — but it would safeguard the rights of married gay and lesbian couples to federal benefits.

Known as the Respect for Marriage Act, the legislation, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) among others, would undo DOMA. That 1996 law has two parts: It defines marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman" for federal purposes, and it absolves states of any responsibility to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

The Respect for Marriage Act makes it clear that same-sex couples — if married in a state that recognizes their unions — will be eligible for federal benefits ranging from Social Security spousal and survivors' benefits to family leave when a partner is ill.

The conventional wisdom is that the Respect for Marriage Act can't succeed in Congress. Skeptics point to the fact that DOMA passed both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins, and was signed by a Democratic president, Bill Clinton. But 15 years have seen a breathtaking change in public attitudes toward gays and lesbians — and same-sex marriage. A recent Pew poll found that 45% of adults now support same-sex marriage, compared to 46% who oppose it. The same survey noted that opposition to same-sex marriage has declined by 19 percentage points since 1996, when 65% opposed it and only 27% supported it. As for DOMA, a poll this month by the Human Rights Campaign, a gay-rights organization, found that 51% of respondents opposed the law, while 34% supported it.

Even with those numbers, the Respect for Marriage Act faces resistance in Congress, which raises the issue of presidential leadership. President Obama attracted considerable attention when he decided not to defend the constitutionality of DOMA in federal court. He should bring the same passion for equality to the debate over the Respect for Marriage Act.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-doma-20110319,0,7156996.story 

'Manning Up' : Has the Rise of Women Turned Men Into Boys?

Amazon

Men. Who needs 'em? Colleges don't. Employers don't. Women don't. Even their own parents don't. At least, that's how it feels to a lot of guys, according to prominent social critic Kay Hymowitz's controversial new book, "Manning Up."

And those guys may be right, to an extent. Colleges have infamously lowered admission standards for males, young women in major cities earn over fifteen times more than their male peers, the number of "choice mothers" (single women who choose to have and raise a child on their own) is rapidly rising, and couples who are planning a family report a strong preference for baby girls.

Generation Y, which Hymowitz refers to as "preadults," is poised to take over the world. Or ... make that half of Generation Y. Twenty-something women far outnumber their male counterparts in practically every arena that counts. They may even be better at brushing their teeth. Actually, that's pretty much a given.

So where does all this leave guys?

Sitting around a crowded living room strewn with beer cans, playing Halo 34 with their buddies, obviously. (What? You don't think we'll get to Halo 34?)

In other words, failing to man up. And, strikingly, it may be the first time in history that they've had that luxury.

Kay Hymowitz investigates why. A Wall Street Journal excerpt from the book, titled "Where Have the Good Men Gone?", attracted an enormous number of comments, some of them irate, with many commenters accusing Hymowitz of...um... being mean to men. In her Daily Beast response, Hymowitz explained that she definitely wasn't blaming pre-adult men for being confused. Just look at dating. Young women may be earning more, but they still tend to want the guys to pay. Or maybe they're not exactly sure what they want. He pays on the first date and then we split? He pays on the first two dates and then I offer? We split everything, always? Unless he's annoying. Let's just see how funny and fascinating he is first.

MyDaily couldn't wait to find out what's really going on with 20-somethings. We wanted to learn more about the so-called "child-man" and his world. Because, after all, it's our world, too. And it'd be nice to have some decent guys in it. It turned out there was a lot more to the story:

MyDaily: What inspired you to write this book? Did you expect it to be so controversial?
Kay Hymowitz: I was inspired for three reasons. One, I had three children who were either in their twenties or nearing their twenties, and it seemed that they were confronting a very different culture and economy than I encountered at their age. Two, I was aware that something very new to human experience was happening with women, as in, having women who were more educated, earning more (as single, childless woman are) and by all counts more ambitious than the men who were their peers. Three, I started to wonder about this persona that was so popular in the media; the kinda goofy, schlubby young guy. Who was he appealing to and why was he so prevalent? Why were we getting all these movies with stars like Will Ferrell and Adam Sandler?

About the controversial aspect of it -- I think the original excerpt that appeared in the Wall Street Journal gave an impression of the book as more anti-male than it is.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the publicity, and I don't mind people arguing about it, as long as I can get my two cents in.

OK, so since they're at the heart of your book, what exactly is a "pre-adult"?
Pre-adults are young, educated, single people between the ages of about 21 and 35, approximately. Sociologists have come to the conclusion that we are witnessing a new life stage. Most of them refer to it as "emerging adulthood." I thought that a better term was "preadulthood."

It's a new stage because people are reaching the usual milestones of adulthood later than they have in the past. And those milestones, at least in this culture, are usually considered to be independent living, marriage, and children. So those things are happening late, but there's something else that's different, which is that we have this enormous group of young people living on their own, usually in the city (because that's where the jobs are), and creating their own subculture. People have married later at other points in history, but what's different is that they were not able to live on their own or with roommates, because they didn't have their own money, and so they had very little social presence.

What is a child-man?
So the child-man is the young guy who finds himself in this new era of preadulthood and doesn't quite feel himself a man, and is of course not a child, but is still very attached to many of his adolescent pleasures, and hangs out a lot with his bros. He's the audience for a lot of the new media that have arisen to entertain him. And I'm referring to Maxim magazine, plenty of cable channels, and characters played by Seth Rogen and Adam Sandler.

I see the child-man as representing a continuum of characters. On the one hand you have the most noxious versions, like Tucker Max (lest we forget or try to pretend that he doesn't actually exist -- he's selling a million copies of his book about drinking, hooking up, and his bathroom exploits). And then we have the nerds and geeks who are just not quite comfortable with women, who are still a little boyish in their relations with the opposite sex. And then you get another type, which is kind of passive or listless. The guy who just isn't sure what he's supposed to be doing next. The best representation of that is a fictional charter created by Benjamin Kunkel in the novel "Indecision." I don't believe the character is completely fictional...
So the child-man can take varied forms.

What are some of the major characteristics of this day and age that make it possible for pre-adults to exist?
I see most of the background for preadulthood as lying in the massive economic changes of the last thirty years. I'm not talking about the recession. I'm talking about the arrival of what economists sometimes call the "knowledge economy." That economy requires a lot more education. It's a particularly dynamic economy, meaning people change jobs a lot, they move between cities, and from country to country. It's difficult to have a wife and children when you're moving that much.

In addition, of course, women are also pursuing careers, and their own careers require a lot of moving and education. If in the past a man had to move, let's say, to England, his wife would simply have come along with him. That's not as likely to happen these days.

In what ways are women "better at" the knowledge economy than men?
Y'know, it's not a scientific fact that men's and women's brains are so different. But -- women have been attracted to the sorts of jobs and activities that are well-represented in the knowledge economy. For instance, there was an enormous expansion of careers in communications and media. Women are very highly represented in television production and journalism. There was a huge expansion of jobs in what some people call the "design economy," because the consumer is much pickier now, and has much more choice about everything from handbags to iPod cases to gourmet potato chips. And all of that has to be packaged, branded , and designed. And there's every reason to think that women are at least men's equals in all these fields and possibly even better.

Do you think there's something biological going on here?
I do suspect that there are differences between men and women. I do think that biology is having an impact on the conflicts that I'm describing.

I think one of the reasons that women seem to be maturing faster, or at least are ready to settle down faster, is that they have a biological clock ticking in their ear. And I think that creates a different dynamic in the scheduling. I can't tell you the number of men who have said, "I'm a guy, I can wait until I'm thirty or forty." Women don't have that luxury and it changes their thinking.

Speaking of biology, what's the deal with dating today? You suggest that everyone is confused about what everyone else wants. And guys, especially, are confused by women's mixed signals.
Women want, and I'm sure to a great extent are getting, a gender neutral workplace. They want to be treated as equals. When it comes to dating, however, it's not as clear what equality means. A lot of women, and men for that matter, hang on to fairly traditional expectations about the rituals of dating. Women still want a guy to ask them out on a date. There was a post on The Frisky called "Ask me out on a damn date," which captures the frustration that some women have. On the other hand you've got men saying, "OK, we're supposed to be equals, why am I supposed to pay for the date?" She might be making more. So there are all these "ghosts of manhood past," as I call them, that are flying around these interactions, where there are no scripts and no rules.

The point being that there used to be these obvious rules. And it made things simpler for everyone.
It's not my goal to revive those rules. I'm merely describing what happens when cultural norms evaporate. Most people will figure it out. They're probably going to be attracted to people from similar backgrounds, and they'll share expectations.

But for many people, it's a source of confusion. Especially for men who are less socially agile, the "beta" guys. They don't have a script and they don't have a clue.

You say that child-men aren't necessarily born out of the supposed "crisis of masculinity", in which men feel threatened by women's progress. Instead, they're kind of just opting out. But they're often ironic about it, or at least aware of what's going on. Am I getting that right? That seems a little encouraging, at least.
That's my reading of it. But my reading of the child-man is that he's not saying that "you goddamn women have to behave the way I want you to." It's more, "I don't get what I'm here for." Remember that they have heard from when they were quite young that fathers were nice to have around but really optional. And they grew up observing that.

This is very, very different from the way most young men have grown into adulthood. And I'm talking historically and cross-culturally. Men knew that they had that social role to play.
And here I'm not just being descriptive, I'm being prescriptive: I think we have, as a culture, been too dismissive of the male role in the family.

And what do you think we can do about that?
I don't know that anything can be done. I wanted to start a conversation both about the novelty of this new stage of life and some of the problems that it's causing.

I think for women the issue is, if you do think you're going to want to marry and have children some day, it probably is a good idea to give that thought as much attention in your twenties as your future career. The way I see it, your twenties are a time to be accomplishing two major tasks: One is finishing your education and establishing your career, and two is moving towards finding the person that you want to settle down and raise a family with. So that means you need to take your dating life more seriously.

But if there are no good guys...
I think they're out there. I think they get grabbed up. And there are plenty of good guys who are waiting, simply taking advantage of this new stage of life.

So you think the child-men of today will grow up one day?
Yes. Absolutely. I think most child-men will grow up. And they are growing up. I hear stories all the time of the Maxim-reading-beer-pong-playing-frat-boy who turns out by thirty to be a mensch of a guy. But the danger is this: that guy, if he's waiting until his early thirties to become a mensch, the women who are his age are in a different place than he is. Also, to get back to the biology, it is simply a fact that men have an increasing pool of available women as they get older, and women have a diminishing pool. And that's just math. On average, men are more interested in younger women, but not older women.

Another bit of math affecting preadulthood: 58 percent of our college grads are women, which means a great deal of women are going to have a hard time finding a college-educated spouse. And many women don't want to marry "down." Will they do so in the future? I suspect that a lot of them will decide to simply have children on their own.

So men will continue to feel increasingly left out.
This could be a vicious circle, where an increasing number of college educated women will be having children on their own, which is another way of saying to men, "You really aren't necessary." Which will lead to more bad behavior on the part of men.

That paints a sort of depressing picture of the future...
I think these trends are unfolding slowly. However, a lot of the work I've done has been on the breakdown of the family, particularly among lower-income people. And when doing that work, I've concentrated mostly on the effect of marital breakdown on kids. In this book, I'm also suggesting that this can have a very big effect on men.

Is there a way that this future can be avoided?
One thing we have to do, and this may seem a little abstract, is we have to pay a little more attention to how our boys are doing in school. To have over 50% of the college educated population be women is terrible for men, horrible for women, and bad for society as a whole. So we need to figure out what's turning boys off school and try to equalize those numbers.
I think we also really need to have a more serious discussion of fathers in children's lives. We've wanted to embrace all sorts of families. But we have to think about the message we're sending to men about their role in family life. I think the sexes are interdependent. We like to tout our independence.

So true. OK, so to finish up: What do you hope your readers will take away from "Manning Up"?
I hope they'll take away an understanding of this very strange new world of the 20-something. I hope the book will start discussions about the role of marriage and childbearing in our lives and how we're going to help the sexes figure out how to negotiate this new period where people are marrying later and having children later.

And can I just clarify one thing. I'm not saying everyone should marry at twenty-one. I'm not arguing for earlier marriage, I'm arguing for earlier mindfulness about it. Which is a little different. Also, people make the mistake of thinking it's either career or marriage. And it's not.


Kate Fridkis blogs about body image at Eat the Damn Cake and education at Un-schooled. She also writes for The Huffington Post. She lives in Manhattan, and having married young, is not a pre-adult. She is also, somewhat randomly, the cantor at a synagogue in central New Jersey.

Crystal Cathedral Sex Covenant Stirs Controversy

Choir members at the Crystal Cathedral have been asked to sign a statement that God intends sex only for married heterosexuals.

Crystal Cathedral Senior Pastor Sheila Schuller Coleman, shown in a file photo, has apologized for the sex covenant. (Anne Cusack / Los Angeles Times)

The Crystal Cathedral church in Garden Grove is involved in another controversy, this time over a covenant that choir members were asked to sign stating that God intends sex to be between married heterosexuals.

"Crystal Cathedral ministries believes that it is important to teach and model the biblical view," reads the paragraph in the Crystal Cathedral Worship Choir and Worship Team Covenant that has raised the ire of some choir members. "I understand that Crystal Cathedral Ministries teaches that sexual intimacy is intended by God to only be within the bonds of marriage, between one man and one woman."In a statement Tuesday, Senior Pastor Sheila Schuller Coleman said the covenant is meant to clarify expectations placed on choir  members as ministry leaders. But she also offered an apology.

"The church of Jesus Christ at large is grappling with the challenge of reconciling love and adherence to God's word, even those passages that challenge us," she said. "As the church has been engaging in this sensitive dialogue, people that we care for deeply have been hurt. We are sincerely sorry."

DOCUMENT: Read the covenant

On Wednesday, church founder Robert H. Schuller said he strongly disapproved of the covenant because it goes against what he has built his church upon. "I have a reputation worldwide of being tolerant of all people and their views," he told the Orange County Register. "I'm too well-educated to criticize a certain religion or group of people for what they believe in. It's called freedom."

The covenant issue is the latest woe for the embattled church, which filed for bankruptcy protection in October. Financial documents related to the bankruptcy case have revealed that relatives and insiders at the church have received hefty payouts and tax allowances.

"In my opinion, I keep thinking that they've made as many mistakes as they can make and they've sank as low as they can sink — and behold, they sink lower," said Don Neuen, who directed the choir for 10 years but resigned in July after Programming Director Gretchen Schuller Penner said she was going to make sure each person was "spiritually and emotionally fit."

He said he believed that meant excluding those who were gay as well as heterosexuals living together out of wedlock. "I think it's absolutely horrible. It's the antithesis of what Christianity should be," Neuen said. "We should be reaching out and embracing and showing love to all people who are peaceful."
Mindy Kim, a former choir member, said the covenant is an example of how new leadership is eroding the church. Kim, who sang in the choir for 10 years, said she wouldn't have signed the document.

"The thought of signing it wouldn't even enter into my head," she said. "I would leave."
Church spokesman John Charles said the covenant was not meant to exclude anyone. "We're asking people to follow the teachings of Christianity, and this is what we believe," he said. "We take the biblical view."
"I think [choir members] are taking it as anti-gay when that is not the full intent," he said. "It's anyone who has a promiscuous lifestyle."

nicole.santacruz@latimes.com

Catholic Secrecy Won't Heal A Sex Scandal (from the LA Times)

The names of church officials should be included on the confidential documents to make good on the L.A. archdiocese's vow of transparency and accountability in its pledge to help heal old wounds.

New Archbishop Jose Gomez should allow the names of Catholic Church officials to be included on the confidential documents so the L.A. archdiocese can make good on it's vow of transparency and accountability.

After four years of waiting to learn the back story of the sex-abuse scandal that rocked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, victims still face one obstacle — the release of thousands of pages of confidential church documents.

Victims of clergy abuse say that release of the personnel files of dead, convicted or admitted pedophile priests will reveal the truth of the hierarchy's complicity, just as it did in Boston when a court compelled church leaders to turn over a trove of papers that showed how officials protected priests from prosecution and shuffled them from parish to parish.

Survivors of childhood abuse have long held out hope for a similar result in Los Angeles. A series of settlements totaling $710 million between the archdiocese and more than 562 victims was supposed to pave the way for a review of more than 200 priests' files long kept secret.

Last week, however, the victims again were told to wait, this time by a court-appointed referee who said he was inclined to release some of the documents publicly, but only after redacting the names of high-ranking church officials cited in them. His decision follows a request by the archdiocese to edit out the names.
Such a move would only delay justice and raise serious doubts about the Catholic Church's commitment to transparency and accountability in its handling of the decades-long scandal that created a worldwide controversy and eroded the church's moral authority.

Cardinal Roger Mahony has retired as head of the archdiocese. His legacy will be mixed. He has repeatedly said he sought to remove pedophiles from jobs in which they had access to minors and that he adopted new programs to protect children, including fingerprinting and background checks on individuals who work in the church's schools and parishes. But his public apologies and acts of contrition have done little to assuage the anger of hundreds of men and women who say the church did nothing to protect them from sexual abuse and everything to keep the truth hidden.

His successor, Archbishop Jose Gomez, now has an important role to play. He can help restore some credibility to the archdiocese by allowing the release of the documents in full, including the church leaders' names. The move would not be unprecedented. Two judges who oversaw similar settlements against the dioceses of Orange and San Diego never made broad findings that the names of the hierarchy should be redacted from documents that were released.

Such a decision by Gomez would signal that he is not interested in protecting the church over the welfare of its flock, and would go a long way toward making good on the church's promise to help heal old wounds. 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-abuse-20110316,0,4174870.story 

Renting as a Way to Strengthen Your Credit Report

Your dream is to buy a house, but all you can afford to do now is rent. You're wondering if renting can actually help you attain your goal of owning your first home. The answer is a definite yes, if you use the time you rent to build up your credit report and improve your finances so you can qualify for the best mortgage rates.

Paying your rent on time every month certainly helps to prove to a mortgage banker that you will pay your bills on time, especially your mortgage. In today's market that's a big step forward.You also can use your time as a renter to improve your chances of getting an even better deal by taking a number of key steps while  you're renting:

Step 1: Repair Your Credit Report, if Necessary

Get a copy your credit report from each of the three credit reporting agencies, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion. Review all three reports and check for any errors, such as accounts that are not yours, late payments that are not accurate, credit limits that are not right or anything else that may be shown in error.

At the end of the report you'll get a page that allows you to report any errors. Follow the instructions for correcting any errors with each of the credit reporting agencies. Once the credit reporting agency has corrected the errors, it will send you a corrected report. Check it to be sure all the information is now correct. If not, repeat the process. This can be frustrating and take a few tries, but it will be worth it in the end if it improves your credit score and helps you get a better mortgage deal.

Fixing errors on your credit report can take months to do, so start work on it right away. The sooner you repair your credit report, the faster your credit score will start improving.

Step 2: Pay Down Debt Using a Round Robin Approach

If the primary reason you want to pay down debt is to improve your credit score, the best way to do that is with what's called a round robin approach. With this strategy, you start by paying down all your debt to about 30 percent of the credit limit on each of your credit cards. That will help improve your credit score. Then work on getting down to 20 percent of your credit limits and finally down to 10 percent of all your credit limits.

When all your cards have a balance that is about 10 percent of their credit limits, you will likely see your credit score jump dramatically. You can expect to see a jump between 30 and 70 points when you reach this goal. If you've had a history of late payments and now are paying all your cards on time, that alone could increase your credit score by 40 points.

Step 3: Start Saving Your Down Payment

As soon as you have enough cash to work with after starting to pay down your debt, begin saving for the down payment on your new home. While you can set a goal of just 3.5% of the mortgage value to get an FHA loan, you will get a lower interest rate and avoid mortgage insurance costs if you're able to save for a 20 percent down payment. On a $150,000 home, that would be $30,000 plus about $5,000 to $7,000 for closing costs.

If you don't want to wait, you can go ahead when you have enough saved for a 3.5% down payment on an FHA loan and plan to refinance into a less costly loan several years down the road. As house prices recover, you may find that the value of your house increases enough to help you reach your goal of a 20 percent down mortgage, which will give you access to the best interest rates. In that scenario, you also won't have to pay mortgage insurance premiums.

When you do start paying the mortgage each month, remember most of the money goes toward interest in the early years of a mortgage. If you can afford to put an extra $50 or $100 toward principal each month, that will help you build equity faster and get you closer to buying your dream home.

You may not be able to afford that dream home right now, but with interest rates low and houses more affordable in many areas, you can get a head start by paying down the mortgage on a smaller place first. Hopefully as the housing market recovers, you will see your equity grow. Add to that the money you pay toward the principal balance of your current mortgage and you may be able to afford your dream home five to ten years down the road.

The key is to use this time while you're renting to concentrate on getting your credit report in tip-top shape. That way, when you're ready to jump in to the housing market, you'll have access to the best rates possible.

Lita Epstein has written more than 25 books including The Complete Idiot's Guide to Improving Your Credit Score.