Do Your Part to Help Stop Pornography

I just got an e-mail from a friend of mine who works for Christian Brothers Investment Services about the firm's latest initiative to try to stop the distribution of pornography.

It's summarized in the essay "Pornography and Socially Responsible Investing", which appeared yesterday on Public Discourse:

Recently, Dan Nielsen, the Director of Socially Responsible Investing at Christian Brothers Investment Services (CBIS) released an “Action Alert” encouraging people to sign a letter to media companies asking these companies to stop distributing pornography. CBIS is an investment management firm with approximately $3.6 billion in assets under management for more than 1,000 Catholic institutions worldwide. In the letter, Mr. Nielsen cites the Witherspoon Institute’s study on “The Social Costs of Pornography.” Nielsen asks companies such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DIRECTV, Dish Network, and Cablevision to “1) Stop distributing pornographic programs, and 2) Improve public disclosure of potential business risks and revenues earned from distributing pornography.” This letter serves as a warning to these media companies about the growing legal and reputational risk that pornography production and distribution will face as the information in the Witherspoon report becomes more widely known. Not everyone may have the money or time to have an impact through socially responsible investing, but signing onto the letter represents an excellent opportunity to bolster CBIS’s efforts to encourage publicly-traded media companies to stop distributing pornography.

I just signed on to the letter, and you should too. But don't wait — the deadline to sign on is today, Friday, October 29.

Experts, Shmexperts

If you've ever thought that the word "expert" is bandied about way too much, and that many of the people who are commonly regarded as experts are, uh, well, not experts, you're right:

To read the factoids David Freedman rattles off in his book Wrong is terrifying. He begins by writing that about two-thirds of the findings published in the top medical journals are refuted within a few years. It gets worse. As much as 90% of physicians' medical knowledge has been found to be substantially or completely wrong. In fact, there is a 1 in 12 chance that a doctor's diagnosis will be so wrong that it causes the patient significant harm. And it's not just medicine. Economists have found that all studies published in economics journals are likely to be wrong. Professionally prepared tax returns are more likely to contain significant errors than self-prepared returns. Half of all newspaper articles contain at least one factual error. So why, then, do we blindly follow experts?

Because that's what a Herd of Independent Thinkers does.

When Everyone In the Room Tells You You're Drunk, It's Time to Sit Down

Even Frances Kissling & Kate Michelman and the New York Times Editorial Page think it's folly to try and pressure CBS to censor the Tim Tebow ad during the Super Bowl.

Who's Afraid of a Super Bowl Ad?

It's been widely reported recently that pro-choice groups have worked themselves into a lather over a pro-life ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mother that is set to air during the Super Bowl.

Chief among the handwringers is the National Organization for Women, whose president, Terry O'Neill, noted that she has "respect for the private choices made by women such as Pam Tebow", but has "condemned the planned ad as 'extraordinarily offensive and demeaning.'"

She further commented:

That's not being respectful of other people's lives. It is offensive to hold one way out as being a superior way over everybody else's. [emphasis added]

Yes, because everyone knows it's "offensive" when someone has the audacity to opine that civilization is superior to barbarism. Or that perseverance is superior to sloth. Or that freedom is superior to slavery.

To her credit, O'Neill's comments are nothing if not clarifying, for they make plain the fact that to the pro-choice mind, there is no objective moral distinction between, on the one hand, allowing a baby to be born, and, on the other, aborting her. Indeed, there can't be; otherwise, the pro-choice argument collapses in on itself.

It's because of comments like these that I've often thought that one of the best things that could happen to the pro-life movement is for the pro-abortion choice movement to get its own 24-hour cable channel.

Just give them a camera, give them a microphone, and let them talk. And talk. And talk some more.

The more they seek to rationalize their beliefs, the more self-evidently repulsive their arguments become to The Average Person.

It's no wonder, then, that the number of pro-abortion choice Americans continues to dwindle.

Law & Order: "Anti-Choice Propaganda"?

Last week I found out via my friend Jill Stanek (you know, Jill "Worst Person in the World" Stanek) that Friday's "ripped from the headlines" episode of Law & Order was to deal with the murder of a late-term abortionist in his church.

For several years, I used to watch Law & Order quite a bit, until I realized that there are Much Better Things To Do than watch TV with any frequency. But since this episode dealt with work, I decided to watch it.

Now, bearing in mind the Gomer Pyle Axiom of High and Low Expectations, I'm of the opinion that whenever the MSM deals with abortion, we have to set the bar very low.

That said, going into it, I feared Jill would be right—i.e., that "the show will throw ideological bones to both sides but ultimately come down favoring pro-aborts".

Yet after watching it, I don't think pro-lifers could have expected to have as many bones thrown to us as there were. I posted a comment on Jill's blog indicating as much, and noted that I'd also be curious to see what strident pro-aborts have to say about it—suspecting that the episode may cause not a few of them to work themselves into a lather about how Law & Order is "selling out" or something.

Sure enough, today, in a post titled "Is Pro-Life the New Gay?" (which includes the episode itself) Jill notes that indeed, some pro-choicers aren't happy.

Quoth Kate Harding at Salon:

"Law & Order's" anti-choice propaganda

On Friday night's "Law & Order," the abortion debate was represented by two separate, yet equally important, groups: The anti-choicers, who believe fetuses' rights trump women's, and the pseudo-pro-choicers, who are conveniently persuaded to agree with them by the end of the episode.

That sound? It's my head exploding.

To which Jill responds:

Kind of like a late-term baby being aborted, Kate? Not quite. Read Kate's review for descriptions of more surprising pro-life apologetics in the show, even on minor rape.

What's up? In a town bent on stirring controversy, does Hollywood now think the pro-life view is in, hot - the new gay?

Or perhaps NBC is trying to recoup lost mainstream viewers?

Or most likely, since L&O's previous 2 episodes dealing with abortion slanted way left, this was its attempt at balance?

Whatever, I'll take it.

Me too.

FDA Puts the Brakes on Embryonic Stem Cell Research Trial

Earlier this year I wrote about the FDA's decision to approve a Geron Corporation embryonic stem cell trial in humans, for which I was interviewed by CBS2 News. (You can see the hopelessly biased story here.)

After the interview, off-camera, I remarked to the reporter that I hoped no spinal cord injury patients would end up getting hurt as a result of this trial, but given the tendency of embryonic stem cells to form tumors, I couldn't see much reason for optimism.

Now we find out that the trial is being "delayed". And, given Geron's history of snake oil salesmanship, the rapacious hucksters may never get their chance.

Meanwhile, advances in adult stem cell research continue apace.

Worst Person in the World

Our friend Jill Stanek was proud to be named "Worst Person in the World" by Keith Olbermann last week.

Since he referred to her readers as "crazy", she wonders if that means she'll have to share her award.

As for me, I'd be happy to settle for a T-shirt that says, "Keith Olbermann named Jill Stanek 'Worst Person in the World' and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

Trotting out the Tired Old Overpopulation Myth

The more things change...

...the more they stay the same.

Quoth Qoheleth: "There is nothing new under the sun." —Ecclesiastes 1:9


HT: JivinJ

Christopher West

I first heard about Christopher West's appearance on Nightline a few weeks ago, but it wasn't until last week that I (a) saw the actual segment for myself, and (b) learned that many in the Catholic blogosphere have subsequently released the hounds on him.

Here's the segment in question:



Contrast that with this:



West has been getting pilloried by many fellow Catholics — treatment which is, in my opinion, grossly unfair.

If ABC's portrayal of West and his understanding of Catholic theology and sexuality were accurate, and if none of his statements had been taken out of context, it would be justified to give him Hail Columbia.

But it's not, and many of them were; and thus it isn't.

Recently Professor David Schindler offered a strong critique of West here, to which Professor Janet Smith (for whom I personally have tremendous respect as a Catholic moral theologian) and Professor Michael Waldstein offered their respective responses in defense of West's work here and here.

The best critique I've come across is from Jimmy Akin, who rightly cuts West a lot of slack:

Christopher West has a difficult job. As a chastity speaker, he's got to juggle several things at once:

1) He's got a very sensitive subject
2) On which different audiences have different sensibilities
3) The audience that most needs his message is very hard to reach
4) Part of the reason why they're so hard to reach is that they have a pre-existing stereotype of Christian sexual morality that they think gives them a license to tune out anything a Christian says on the subject
5) To reach this group you have to effectively batter your way past this anti-Christian prejudice and get them to take you seriously while simultaneously
6) Not offending the sensibilities of those who already take Christian sexual morality seriously
7) Some of whom have rigorist views on the topic

Through my job, I occasionally give chastity talks to junior high and high school teenagers, and thus I found myself nodding my head repeatedly as I read through this list.

Communicating the message of chastity takes a lot of thought and preparation — not to mention prayer — and figuring out the best way to do so is something I'm continually revisiting. (It's for this reason that when I do give chastity talks, I prefer that kids' parents be present also. Aside from the fact that parents are their children's primary educators — especially when it comes to such a crucial subject matter as sex — it also gives me a chance to hear feedback from moms and dads, which greatly helps me assess the degree to which I was able to "juggle" the various things on the aforesaid list.)

While I think it could be said that there are some "issues" with some aspects of Christopher West's speaking style — referring to Song of Songs as the "centerfold" of the Bible, for example, which Jimmy Akin addresses in his critique — in the end I agree with him that "West is a man on the side of the angels, and he's an effective speaker who has done a great deal of good."

Oh, the Hubris!

Sean Dailey wrote yesterday about what he called — quite rightly, in all possibility — "the most clueless sentence of the last decade", which appeared in an article in the current issue of Newsweek, titled "Sexual Masters of the Universe":

The article, by a fellow named Andrew Romano, is about Bill Masters and Virginia Johnson, the Masters & Johnson of Sexual Revolution fame, using a new biography of the pair, Masters of Sex by Thomas Maier, as a springboard.

Anyway, early in the article, Romano drops this bomb, "As the story of Masters and Johnson makes clear, rescuing sex from the ancient mists of myth, mystery and religiosity left America a happier and healthier place."

Oh, the hubris!

Contrast that last sentence with this excerpt from an article that appeared in an article in First Things last year:

When I’ve taken retreats to Catholic monasteries, I’ve been aware of how surprisingly, and even frighteningly, erotic they seem. The Trappists of Mepkin Abbey in Moncks Corner, South Carolina, worship in an exquisitely beautiful place: high white walls, cold stone floors, a slit in the side of the main sanctuary like a split in the universe through which the reserved sacrament is always visible. The great stone altar is big enough to sacrifice Isaac on. Candles flicker on the bronze face of Our Lady during Compline, and dozens of men chant the Salve Regina before the abbot dismisses with a flick of his wrist and a sprinkling of holy water. Pure desire for God could be wrung from the place like a wet towel. And one can begin to see how sex with another person could be given up for desire for God or made better by mutual longing for God.

There are treasures here with which we can become reacquainted to combat pornography, if we dare. And we may not: Moderns flinch when St. Bernard of Clairveaux seeks to progress up Jesus’ body, kissing his way up to his lips; when Bernini sculpts St. Theresa in the posture of orgasm; when ancient Christians stripped and spit and had their faces hissed at in exorcism before submerging, nude, to be born again.

One commenter, the sui generis Blog Nerd, noted:

Eros, demasked, has once again fled. And now we are left with a religion slowly divested of its blood and guts.

It is no coincidence that the sensual opulence of our Churches started to disappear at the same time as the sexual revolution gathered its strength. The advent of casual contraceptive sex dissipated us. And we lost that longing ache for union in proper order.

When the uninitiated glimpse the erotics of religious ardor in traditional Catholicism they mistake it for "repressed sexuality" -- they couldn't be more wrong if they tried.

Quite so.

I remember hearing Scott Hahn give a talk a few years ago on the Church's teachings about sex. He pointed out that it's not enough to speak of sex as "good"; after all, that puts it at merely the same level as Campbell's soup. Neither is it enough to speak of sex as "great", for that puts it at merely the same level as Frosted Flakes.

Nay, so much more than "good" or "great", sex is holy, because by it and it alone, husband and wife express complete and total self-sacrificing, self-donating mutual love in a way that uniquely allows human beings to reflect the inner life of God.

If one believes sex to be anything less, he gets it hopelessly wrong.

I Wonder Which Is Greater

The brilliance behind this ad:



Or the stupidity of NBC's explanation as to why they're refusing to show it during the Super Bowl:

NBC Sacks Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad

Network Nixes Commercial Celebrating Potential of Life

CHICAGO, Jan. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- NBC has rejected an uplifting and positive pro-life ad submitted for its Super Bowl broadcast this Sunday. After several days of negotiations, an NBC representative in Chicago told CatholicVote.org today that NBC and the NFL are not interested in advertisements involving "political advocacy or issues."

Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org reacted: "There is nothing objectionable in this positive, life-affirming advertisement. We show a beautiful ultrasound, something NBC's parent company GE has done for years. We congratulate Barack Obama on becoming the first African-American President. And we simply ask people to imagine the potential of every human life."

"NBC told CatholicVote.org that they do not allow political or issue advocacy advertisements. But that's not what they told PETA," said Burch. "There's no doubt that PETA is an advocacy group. NBC rejected PETA's ad for another reason altogether."

According to an email posted on PETA.org, Victoria Morgan, Vice President of Advertising Standards for Universal, said: "The PETA spot submitted to Advertising Standards depicts a level of sexuality exceeding our standards." Morgan even detailed "edits that need to be made" in order for the spot to run during the Super Bowl.

"NBC claims it doesn't allow advocacy ads, but that's not true. They were willing to air an ad by PETA if they would simply tone down the sexual suggestiveness. Our ad is far less provocative, and hardly controversial by comparison," said Burch.

"The purpose of our new ad is to spread a message of hope about the potential of every human life, including the life of Barack Obama," said Burch. "We are now looking at alternative venues to run the ad over the next several weeks."

The ad aired on BET in Chicago on Inauguration Day. It has become an Internet hit with over 700,000 views in seven days. The ad was in the top 10 "most viewed" category on YouTube on Inauguration Day last week.

The ad reads: "This child's future is a broken home. He will be abandoned by his father. His single mother will struggle to raise him. Despite the hardships he will endure...this child...will become...the 1st African-American President." The ad concludes with the tagline, "Life: Imagine the Potential." The ad is the first of several ads in new campaign launched by CatholicVote.org.

The ad can be viewed at www.CatholicVote.org -- a project of the Fidelis Center for Law and Policy.

Excommunicated No More, But...

The eminently-qualified-to-comment-on-these-sorts-of-issues Fr. John Zuhlsdorf clears up some misconceptions surrounding the lifting of the excommunications of the Society of St. Pius X's bishops.

Mark Shea throws in his $.02 on the matter:

One of the thorny difficulties of trying to heal schism in the Church is that schismatics aren't always brave and plucky rebels whose noble purity of heart led them to bravely oppose grave evil in a Church that Just Didn't Understand Them.

Sometimes, the schismatics are dim-witted, self-aggrandizing, anti-semitic jerks like Bp. Richard Williamson.

So why would the Pope want reunion with them? Well, because the excommunication was never about Williamson's dim-witted, self-aggrandizing, anti-semitic jerkness, but about the consecration of bishops in defiance of communion with the Catholic Church. Likewise, the goal of reunion is not to bless the jerkness of Williamson, but to make it possible for people in need of salvation to return to union with Christ's saving Church. Naturally, the Andrew Sullivans and Little Green Footballs types of the world are, for the sake of various agendas, painting this as "the Nazi Pope returns to his Hitler Youth roots", but it's nothing of the kind. Indeed, no small part of Williamson's agenda is to hold onto his little fiefdom by embarrassing the Church with his antics and keeping his SSPX followers with him and not with Rome. But the sooner sane Trads can get out of the hothose of baleful influence, the better off they will be.

Some Jews are, naturally, upset by Williamson's loony ravings. But I think the Pope is basically operating on the principle that it is the sick that needeth the physician, not the healthy. He can let the SSPX go on being a hothouse presided over by a nut like Williamson, or he can do what he can to bring them into full communion with the Church and hope that the blood of Christ will wash away the toxins of Jew-hatred that have been building up in the system. I will not be at all surprised to hear a) that Williamson takes a retirement after a short interval or B) that Williamson hives off into schism again, but only manages to take a small nucleus of embittered Jew-hating malcontents with him, while most of the rest of the SSPX people stay in communion with Rome.

And, on a related note, the Society of St. Pius I still remains, uh, just as far from full communion with Rome as ever.

Never Say No to the Media

After flying back from Washington this morning after the March yesterday — which was HUGE, btw — I came directly into the office, and five minutes later got a call from CBS2 News asking if they could interview someone about this story.

Nearly all of my co-workers are still in Washington, so it fell on me as to whether to accept the interview or not.

My boss, Joe Scheidler, has always said that we should never turn down an interview request by the media, so even though I hadn't even heard about the story, I agreed to do it.

That gave me about an hour to read up on it.

The pro-life blogosphere's go-to guys on stem cell research matters are JivinJehoshaphat and Wesley Smith. True to form, Smith had already blogged about this story this morning, which was a big help to me.

I just finished the interview, which will supposedly air at 5:00pm tonight on CBS2 News.

So You Thought Fox News Was Conservative, Did You?

This...

I almost never watch Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends.” This past Sunday, however, I turned on the television for two minutes before leaving for church. The three hosts were reporting about a Chicago couple who had remained chaste until their wedding, and who had decided to save their first kiss for the wedding ceremony itself.

This was reported with the incredulity with which one might report a Wiccan moondancing ritual. The discussion went beyond the kiss question to chastity itself, with one of the talking heads announcing, “Try it before you buy it.”

..reminds me of this:

Kent Brockman is out of a job and is staying at the Simpsons' home. Homer, Lisa and Kent are watching FOX TV; a new reality show is being released.

NEW ON FOX. See if fifteen strippers can fly their own aircraft in the new reality series: Landing Strip!

Hey Laaaadies! Look what i can do with the airbags (attached to her push-up bra)

Homer: wow, this is what TV is all about. Real people with real problems.

(Changes the channel to FOX News)

Today on FOX News with the latest LIBERAL OUTRAGE. In Washington today, LIBERALS want to CHANGE the rules to allow NASA astronauts to ABORT space missions whenever they feel like it!

Homer: Ooh! Liberals ... I hate them so much.

Lisa: Kent, I've never understood why FOX can have such conservative views yet air such raunchy shows.

(Changes to Landing Strip)

Homer: Woo Hoo!

(Changes to FOX News)

LIBERALS HATE FAMILIES!

Homer: Liberals!

(Changes to Landing Strip)

Homer: Woo Hoo!

Think "Wayne's World" — Only Completely Different

A few months ago, our office got a call from a woman named Rebecca Marcovitz, who had several questions about the legality of abortion in our country. Like so many Americans, she was incredulous that late-term abortions are legal, and I confirmed that despite how unbelievable it sounds, abortion is effectively legal at any point during pregnancy.

We had a long conversation, during which she asked many questions and during which I had the chance to tell her about the grassroots pro-life activism the Pro-Life Action League helps people to get involved with.

After talking with her for a while, she mentioned that she produces a Christian program called "A Fork in the Road" on a local cable access channel, and she asked if I would like to be on the show some time, where I would have 30 minutes to talk about whatever I felt inspired to talk about pertaining to the pro-life cause.

Even though I'd never done anything quite like this before, I told her I was flattered by invitation, and that I would gladly accept. (My boss, Joe Scheidler, always recommends to pro-lifers that they accept without hesitation any invitation from the media to share the pro-life message.)

In preparation for the show, I asked Joe if I could "borrow" the talk he's given hundreds of times on the spiritual underpinnings of the pro-life movement. The outline for his talk provided the basis for the first part of what I would talk about, after which I went into a discussion of one of the more controversial activist tactics we employ, and about which I have written previously herein—that of showing graphic abortion pictures in public.

The show was taped yesterday at a studio in Highland Park, IL, and I was happy with how it went. I'm told it will run once a week for two weeks (or more?) in numerous suburban markets in Chicagoland—mostly in the north and northwest suburbs, but apparently also some in and around Naperville as well—and, interestingly enough, 540 miles away in Hibbing, MN, which is right next to Chisholm, the town where I was born.

And Still She Remains

There's a touching article in yesterday's Chicago Tribune that beautifully captures the continually enduring popular piety in the neighborhood surrounding the former site of Our Lady of Good Counsel Parish on Western & Walton Avenues on the Near West Side:

The massive red-brick church has been converted into condos. The choir loft is now a dining room. The altar has been replaced by a kitchen island. Even the towering steeple has been transformed. It's a rooftop patio, suitable—the developer suggests—for a Jacuzzi.

Nothing is sacred anymore at Our Lady of Good Counsel. Nothing, that is, except a small white statue of the Virgin Mary, at the corner of Western Avenue and Walton Street, which was left in its original spot and continues to draw steady visits from the faithful. Some people lay flowers. Others kneel and pray.

"The first time I saw someone stop, it was an older gentleman," said Nathan Skillicorn, 28, whose second-floor balcony overlooks the statue. "He was just walking by like everyone else. Then he stopped and made the sign of the cross. It looked like he said a quick prayer, and then he walked on. It was kind of weird to see, but it was also nice."

There's nothing new about churches turning condo. ...

But the red brick church on Western Avenue was different. Even after the building was desanctified (the altar and tabernacle were removed, and the archdiocese released a written decree that "what was sacred is no longer sacred"), even after the pews were taken away and the tall stained glass windows were hauled off, people still came to pray.

Today, the faithful often pause before the concrete, 3-foot statue of Mary, which has watched over the bustle on Western Avenue for decades.

"Living in the neighborhood, you go by her so many times. You just look at her and feel like she's looking right back at you with a smile," said Lillian Penar, 91, a white-haired great-grandmother who passed the statue several times a week for many decades, before moving to the suburbs. Every time Penar went by, she said a prayer, even after the church was shuttered.

"Think of how many people have prayed to her," said Penar.

Read the whole thing.

It seems to me that grassroots devotional practices like these are what Mark Shea has in mind when, in response to the question, "Do you belong to an organized religion?" he says, "Nope. I'm Catholic."

Devout What?

Since the term "devout Catholic" is all but devoid of any real meaning anymore thanks to the Herd of Independent Thinkers in the mainstream media, perhaps we would do well to give over the term entirely to ironic usage.

E.g., "John Doe, a devout Catholic, was convicted on nine charges of embezzlement in federal court yesterday."

Or, "Jane Doe, a devout Catholic, was caught on camera desecrating a statue of the Virgin Mary last night."

White People Like Being Offended

Watching this:

...when she said this:

It's very, very shocking and very unsettling and one of those moments where, you know, as like a female, you're not sure if you want to cry, if you want to get really mad.

...I couldn't help but call to mind Example #101 of Stuff White People Like—Being Offended:

To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended. ...

White people also get excited at the opportunity to be offended at things that are sexist and/or homophobic. Both cases offering ample opportunities for lectures, complaints, graduate classes, lengthy discussions and workshops.

And then, of course, there's the reporter's transparently patronizing tone about the pharmacist and his wife having—gasp!—nine children!

I mean, like, doesn't it make you want to cry, or get really mad at them, for exercising their freedom of choice to have nine kids?

[HT: Newsbusters via Jill Stanek]

Our Tax Dollars at Work

There's a humdinger of a piece of investigative reportage in Sunday's Chicago Tribune about a whole bunch of $20,000 grants sponsored by State Sen. Rickey Hendon (D-Chicago) given to West Side after-school programs that, um, weren't after-school programs:

Powerful Senate Democrats quietly gave out the money to handpicked nonprofits, schools, businesses and churches. The lawmakers funneled the money through the Illinois State Board of Education, which rubber-stamped the choices.

But a Tribune investigation found that nearly half of the 48 groups that got money this past school year were running dubious programs, or declined to show how they spent the money. Only 11 of the grants went to established programs with a history of tutoring or mentoring school-age children...

The state board tried to tighten the grant process after the Tribune first raised questions about it two years ago. But lawmakers and education officials have continued to award the grants.

So, how bad is it?

The oversight remains so feeble, in fact, that education officials in three cases handed out money to programs where felons, one a convicted murderer, worked with children. The state contract bars such convicts from doing so.

Education officials also didn't heed red flags in the applications. One grantee promised to tutor on a "dailey bases," another to teach "fluenty in speaking." [emphasis added]

"Fluenty in speaking" ... reminds me of this.

Forgotten Chicago

I've just spent the last ten minutes starting to peruse a website called Forgotten Chicago.

I never knew this site existed until this morning, when I looked at today's Chicago Tribune; it gets front-page treatment in the Tempo section — well deserved, I might add.

If I don't blog for a while, it's probably becuase I'm continuing to peruse it.

I'm a total nerd when it comes to the history of big cities and their neighborhoods, industries, streets, architecture, signage, etc. — the sorts of things Forgotten Chicago highlights.

At the site, I feel like a kid in a candy store: there's so much great stuff, I scarcely know where to begin.

As I was reading the Tribune article, I was wondering if Forgotten Chicago had some connection to the website Forgotten New York, which I had first heard about a while ago — via Dawn Eden's blog, I think. (Upon first learning of that site, I was similarly agog, as not only am I an urbanophile, if you will, but I am also a Gothamophile. Although I've never lived in New York myself, I've thrice visited, and find the city utterly fascinating.)

Later, the article explains:

The site took some of its inspiration from Forgotten New York, probably the granddaddy of such city sites. It conducts occasional flesh-and-blood tours in good weather, something Forgotten Chicago also hopes to do this year. (They'd also like to do a Forgotten Chicago book.)

Would that they do!