Thanks to Steve and ZK overnight. Something that’s being talked about in both China and Burma right now is “What about the children?”
James Reynolds reported about quake orphans in China yesterday, and although I can’t find the video on the site (help anyone?) you can read about it on his blog; and Mark has been told by a member of the Burmese Service at a World Service breakfast that the children are the talking point in Burma too.
Senators Obama and Clinton split yesterday’s primaries in Oregon and Kentucky, each winning one by a big margin. Obama seems confident but Kentucky struck a big blow for Clinton, who is now saying that sexism rather than racism is casting the biggest shadow over the Democratic contest. Is she right?
What about the children? – What about the fathers? As part of the voting in the UK parliament that sparked our abortion debate yesterday, MPs decided that fertility clinics no longer had to consider a child’s need for a father when providing treatment. Does a child need a father?
It’s become an issue in Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005, and here a Florida newspaper gets a ticking off for forgetting about fathers. And Michael White in the Guardian worries that a law declaring fathers further speeds the decay in society. Is it setting the wrong example?
And as Steve pointed out overnight, the US Treasury has failed to overturn a court ruling that said dollar bills discriminate against blind people because the denominations are only visually different. Is this discrimination? Should the US change its money?