Michelle Duggar and Jim Bob have managed to make baby making into a media news item, having had so far 17 babies and being prominently featured in many well known news articles, including Discovery Health.

What most people don’t seem to know is that in India someone has 19 babies and that was in 1997 but they are Indians living in the slums of Bangalore! What is however astounding is that an American family with 17 gets press and notoriety vs. an Indian couple does not, is this once again an example of how life is valued higher in other parts of the world because of the priviledge they have?

 I repost the article here:

19 babies: Some moms do have ‘em

ASIA NEWS INTERNATIONAL

BANGALORE, May 4: Even as India grapples with its ever-increasing population, a few families in the Gauripalya slum in the metropolis of Bangalore are defying all laws of family planning. The news that Noorjahan Begum, one of the residents of the slum, is expecting her 19th child does not surprise anyone.

The concept of having large families is a tradition here and most families have an average of six to seven children. Married at the age of 19, Noorjahan, now 40, has nine sons and nine daughters. Two sons are already married, with children.

Noorjahan says she is scared of having a sterilisation operation. She adds that it goes against the teachings of her religion. “I din’t want to have a (sterilisation) operation. I was scared of undergoing it,” Noorjahan said. “Our religion forbids the concept, also, our priest was against the idea.” While her grown-up sons earn their living by driving autorickshaws, the younger ones have the responsibility of cleaning the vehicles. The average daily income of the entire family is about Rs 70.

Noorjahan, who frequently gets her children’s names confused, makes a living by making hand-made cigarettes and incense sticks. None of her children has been to a school.

Copyright © 1997 Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd.

Happy July 4th Holiday!

Ying writes about how someone got fined a lot of money for hyperlinking somewhere inappropriate.

The case appears to be an open and shut case where as long as you did, it’s a penalty despite the fact that the other link may or may not be harmless or could be changed. Website’s are incredibly fluid and that to me is a kind of censorship that should be resisted. The entire WEB is a series of hyperlinks, so shall we next sue Google for providing links to potentially inappropriate materials? Somehow, I think, Google would resist it and so probably it would not even be considered.

This move is dangerous and sets a precedent about hyperlinks, to restrict it is to be an enemy of free speech. A hyperlink on the web is like referencing a conversation, just that the audience is much bigger. So if I show a group of friends some obscene material in a dinner table should I be fined for that for simply sharing it to a bunch of qualified people?

By allowing the removing of a reference i.e. hyperlink as a penalty is censorship, pure and simple.

Amazing…

The democractic primer….is interesting how much money is raised for this, this will be a real fight…

and about time it is too…..Hilary Clinton has obliterated fund raising records and will likely go in as a democratic favorite. America may be conservative but this is as good as any chance to finally have a Woman in the helm of politics….and I hope she succeeds!