Katy Perry’s Musical Influences

Katy Perry

Interviewer’s Question:  I’m sure people ask you all the time if you were influenced by Madonna, but what kind of music did you listen to when you were younger?

Katy Perry”s Answer: My mom would let me listen to, like, Billie Holiday and Etta James and really classic stuff like that. My mom speaks fluent French, so she was also really into Édith Piaf, which she turned me on to—although, I guess she didn’t really look into the lyrics. [laughs].  But as I started to hear different kinds of music, my world got bigger. I got a record by Queen, which was so influential for me. I got all the Beatles’ records, like the “white” album [1968], which was really important to me along with Pet Sounds [1966] by the Beach Boys. Those two records were the only things I listened to for probably two years straight. Then I discovered Patty Griffin, Joni Mitchell, Carole King, Jonatha Brooke—a little bit of the Lilith Fair–esque stuff. And then I got into more electronic music. But I’m just open to everything these days.

Katy Perry’s Speaking Style

As you can see from above, like many of the celebrity interviews, Katy uses casual, natural English to connect with the Listener.  Katy gives the listener a glimpse from her early years to present day.  Her speaking style is ‘rich’ with examples and very clear.  There are examples of musicians, albums, and styles throughout her answer.  Moreover, at first, she describes her mother’s influence on her music ‘tastes’.  Next as the young woman named Katy Perry develops into young adulthood, her musical world expands. 

And like the musical juggernaut she is, her musical influences expanded exponentially.  

Present day, we see a professional woman of music that is well versed in various musical styles and genres. 

Key Phrases for Talking about Music

• My mom would let me listen to, like (like = for example), Billie Holiday and Etta James and really classic stuff like that.  I started to hear different kinds of music, my world got bigger.

• I got a record by Queen, which was so influential for me. I got all the Beatles’ records, like the “white” album [1968], which was really important to me along with Pet Sounds [1966] by the Beach Boys.

• Then I discovered Patty Griffin, Joni Mitchell, Carole King, Jonatha Brooke—a little bit of the Lilith Fair–'esque' stuff. And then I got into more electronic music. But I’m just open to everything these days.

Vocabulary note 

'esque' =
suffix forming adjectives, meaning: indicating a specified character, manner, style, or resemblance, like, similar to.

Example Style 1

My dad would let me listen to, like (like = for example), Al Jolson and Perry Como and really classic stuff like that.  I started to hear different kinds of music, my world got bigger.

I got a record by Aerosmith, which was so influential for me. I got all the Supertramp  records, like the “Breakfast in America” album [1979], which was really important to me along with Close to You [1970] by the Carpenters.

Then I discovered Nora Jones, Elton John, Stevie Wonder, Lionel Richie—a little bit of the Latin–esque stuff. And then I got into more electronic music. But I’m just open to everything these days.

Next Week! Natural and Popular English Expressions from Katy Perry’s Musical Hit “ The One That Got Away!”

Until then, Check out the video "The One That Got Away" and try to answer the following question:

Why did the guy get away?

BONUS!  CHECK OUT some of Katy Perry’s early musical influences.  This LADY knows her MUSIC!

ALEX

http://celebrityenglish-alex.blogspot.com/

http://www.facebook.com/#!/profile.php?id=100002654569713

http://www.myspace.com/browse/people#!/573390781

https://twitter.com/CelebEnglish

http://www.youtube.com/user/blogalexg

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/edit?trk=hb_tab_pro_top

http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/blogalexg

You have read this article Alex / Celebrity English / CELTA / culture / ESL / esque / influence / Interview / Katy Perry / Language / Learn / mom / Music / pop / speaking / style / Talking / TEFL / TESL / The One That Got Away with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/katy-perrys-musical-influences.html?m=0. Thanks!

Matthew Parris, iconoclast once more. But will the gay rights lobby like it?

Mathew Parris has featured on this blog before for his comments about the Christian faith, but last week he once again challenged the dogma of the gay rights lobby that sexual orientation is fixed and unchangeable.

In an iconoclastic piece in the Times, titled ‘Who’s totally gay? There’s no straight answer’(£) the former Tory MP turned columnist provocatively lamented that ‘Same-sex male attraction used to be something you do, not something you are’.

Citing the story of Chris Birch, from Wales, who has testified to turning from being heterosexual to being gay after suffering a stroke, and Anglican Mainstream's controversial bus advert campaign claiming that sexual orientation can change, he takes the cherished belief that sexual orientation is always fixed and unchangeable apart.

‘On one thing, though, these opinions all agree — people can change… I do believe that male sexual orientation is less fixed than we suppose. It may alter. We gays fought that idiotic “section 28” on dishonest grounds. Homosexuality can, as the statute implied, be “promoted”. So can heterosexuality.'

He qualifies this by stressing that for some any change will be very limited if not impossible:

‘At once must come the qualifications. I don’t think that everyone is alterable. I don’t think change is possible without shelving part of one’s nature. I think that it’s generally unwise to fight a strong orientation unless it would lead to hurt. And I absolutely don’t think that homosexuality can be “cured” in the sense of expelling some kind of disease from the system.’

He then presents a popular vision of the Kinsey scale – the observation that some people are neither exclusively homosexual nor heterosexual but somewhere in between:

‘Try an experiment. Imagine that a majority of men are more straight than gay, a minority more gay than straight. Imagine this in terms of a scatter-graph from left (straight) to right (gay), with some very close to one end, some very close to the other and plenty spread between them. Imagine that those at either pole can feel little if any attraction to the other; but that those between the poles can, depending on where they are, feel weakly or strongly the attraction of both poles. Add to this picture a strong and unremitting social pressure to be considered (and consider yourself) as being at the left-hand (straight) end.

What would be the result? Everyone who, without making themselves too frustrated and miserable, could live a straight life would move towards the left in their behaviour and self-description; a minority who felt they just couldn’t would cluster (partly for self-defence) into a sort of ghetto at the right-hand end. And all the pressure would be to “make your mind up”, ie, shift towards the nearest pole.’

He emphasises the need for evidence to support his ‘hypothesis’, but from his own experience as a gay man says:

‘I’ve slept with as many men who considered themselves basically straight, lived basically straight lives and in some cases (I think) really were basically straight, as with men who were self-identifying gays.This is not my experience alone. Most gay men manage the considerable intellectual contortion of believing that there’s nothing they could do to alter their own sexuality while at the same time believing (not without evidence) that there’s quite a lot they might do to alter a straight man’s sexuality (“five pints of lager” is the usual prescription)… Even I, who feel myself to be exclusively gay, know from dreams and from occasional involuntary physical reactions that shelved somewhere in my unconscious must be a strand of heterosexuality. Millions of gay men will have the same experiences.’

His conclusion is iconoclastic to the extreme, and no one but a gay man could have got away with saying it:

‘“I can’t help it”. The very words carry a kind of whimper. I hate this plea. It isn’t accepted as an argument for paedophilia and shouldn’t be. I’d want to be gay whether I could help it or not. The day that the battle for homosexual equality is won and over will be the day a man, straight or gay, can boast that he chose.’

There is of course nothing new in what Matthew Parris is saying and he has said it before as has leading gay rights activist Peter Tatchell.

They are not alone in thinking this way.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has stated, ‘some people believe that sexual orientation is innate and fixed; however, sexual orientation develops across a person's lifetime’. The APA also says that ‘for some the focus of sexual interest will shift at various points through the life span...’

A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health similarly states, ‘For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time’

But whether the general population will come to believe it is another matter entirely.

You have read this article Homosexuality / Matthew Parris with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/matthew-parris-iconoclast-once-more-but.html?m=0. Thanks!

Guilty

 jacket and bag- Winners, pants - GAP, blouse you can't really see- Moon from by The Bay,

 scarf - C'est Moi from Bamboo Ballroom, boots - Spring, rings - H & M, bracelet - Jacob (I think)

Photos by D. 

I admit it. I am guilty of wearing red mixed with black and white way too much this year. (See here, here, here and here.) It's my favorite color combo but I realize I need to get some different colors into my wardrobe or else I'm going to bore you guys to death with these outfit posts! I wore this repeater Friday night when I met my girlfriends for dinner at Tres Carnales. It's a Mexican restaurant downtown that has the most delicious guacamole I've ever tasted. I swear if I had to eat nothing but their tostada chips and guacamole every day I'd be a happy camper. A malnourished happy camper but a happy camper nonetheless ; ).

This weekend I also met with the finalists from the West Edmonton Mall Spring Makeover who I'll be working with, Brenda and Landon. You can read all about them here. As a member of the Fashion to Love Style Team I get to go shopping with them for a whole new wardrobe and pick out a "Reveal Outfit" that they'll wear on Breakfast Television this Friday to show off their new and improved self! It's been really exciting so far. I'll keep you updated on their progress throughout the week! 

You have read this article Outfit Posts with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/guilty.html?m=0. Thanks!

Monday Funday: More Stuff We Missed Earlier! Also Fruitcake.

UPDATE!! New pics tweeted by Victor today! ♥
Tweeted by Victor.

Victor notes: "This photo was taken by the wonderful @vanessaauerswal who trekked far and wide from the Hyatt to take a pic w/ J."

Bon biní! Which means "Welcome!" in Papiamento,the native language of Aruba, where the happy husbandsare vacationing this week. Fabulous fan art tweeted bythe lovely @ayukovon, of course.

So the

You have read this article dear ayukovon without you I wouldn’t even have a post today but I had to blog because I couldn’t not say happy anniversary to our fav married couple so thank you / Johnny Weir / Victor Voronov with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/monday-funday-more-stuff-we-missed.html?m=0. Thanks!

Last day to respond to Margo Macdonald's flawed proposals on assisted suicide

Today is the last day to respond to Margo Macdonald's consultation on assisted suicide. The MSP is planning to bring another bill to the Scottish Parliament in an attempt to legalise assisted suicide just over a year after her last similar bill was overwhelmingly defeated by 85 votes to 16. Essentially this is a rerun of the same flawed and tired arguments.

Alex Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition has published a good overview of her latest proposal's many failings but I suspect most will just be objecting to the bill in principle.

I have reproduced below the submission of the Care Not Killing Alliance, representing over 40 professional groups, faith groups and human rights groups. It says it all. Brief and to the point.

This bill like her last should be given short shrift by Scottish parliamentarians.

Care Not Killing Submission

We are opposed to the general aim of this proposed bill for the following reasons:

1. Just over a year ago, a very similar bill, the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill, was comprehensively defeated in a free vote at the Scottish Parliament in December 2010, by a margin of 85 votes to 16. This should have settled the debate in Scotland for a generation.

2. The previous bill was heavily criticised by MSPs, medical practitioners, palliative care charities, religious groups and legal experts for being both unclear and unethical. Furthermore, 87% of all who made written submissions to the scrutinising committee were opposed to it. The committee also overwhelmingly recommended that it be rejected.

3. The new Bill is to be modelled on a system currently in place in the US state of Oregon where the annual number of assisted suicides has increased dramatically by over 450% since being legalised in 1997, where one in six of those dying are depressed, less than one in 20 receive psychiatric assessments and some patients have actually been denied medical care and offered assisted suicide as a cheaper alternative.

4. The terms in the proposal, especially with regard to those ‘terminal conditions’ to be included in its remit are vague, imprecise and ambiguous.

5. Any change in the law to allow assisted suicide would place pressure on vulnerable people to end their lives for fear of being a financial, emotional or care burden upon others. This would especially affect people who are disabled, elderly, sick or depressed.

6. Persistent requests for euthanasia are extremely rare if people are properly cared for so our key priority must be to ensure that good care addressing people's physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs is accessible to all.

7. The present law making assisted suicide and euthanasia illegal is clear and right and does not need changing. The penalties it holds in reserve act as a strong deterrent to exploitation and abuse whilst giving discretion to prosecutors and judges in hard cases.

8. Hard cases make bad law. Even in a free democratic society there are limits to human freedom and the law must not be changed to accommodate the wishes of a small number of desperate and determined people.

9. The pressure people will feel to end their lives if assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalised will be greatly accentuated at this time of economic recession with families and health budgets under pressure. Elder abuse and neglect by families, carers and institutions is real and dangerous and this is why strong laws are necessary.

10. The number of British people travelling abroad to commit assisted suicide is very small (150 in ten years) compared to numbers in countries and US states that have legalised assisted suicide or euthanasia.

11. If assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalised any ‘safeguards’ against abuse, such as limiting it to certain categories of people, are unlikely to work. Instead, once any so-called ‘right-to-die’ is established we will see incremental extension with pressure being applied to expand the categories of people who qualify for it.

12. The vast majority of UK doctors are opposed to legalising euthanasia along with the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Association for Palliative Medicine and the British Geriatric Society.

13. All major disability rights groups in Britain (including RADAR, SCOPE, UKDPC, NCIL and Not Dead Yet UK) oppose any change in the law believing it will lead to increased prejudice towards them and increased pressure on them to end their lives.

14. Changes to the law of this kind should not be driven by public opinion but by serious informed debate. Public opinion polls can be easily manipulated when high media profile (and often celebrity-driven) ‘hard cases’ are used to elicit emotional reflex responses without consideration of the strong arguments against legalisation.

Conclusion

This proposal is flawed in principle and Care Not Killing calls upon the Scottish Parliament to reject it at the earliest opportunity.

You have read this article Assisted Suicide / Margo MacDonald with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/last-day-to-respond-to-margo-macdonald.html?m=0. Thanks!

Disagreement amongst Christians is normal and unity does not mean uniformity

My father was a Congregationalist and my mother Anglican and after leaving home my brother joined the Baptists and I the Open Brethren. I married my Presbyterian wife in a Christian Missionary Alliance church, and during house-jobs we were members of an Apostolic Pentecostal fellowship. Later whilst working in another city we were members of a charismatic Anglican and then, following another move, went to a house church made up of mainly first generation converts from the 70s hippie movement.

After joining the Africa Inland Mission in Kenya as medical missionaries we spent two years at a multinational Bible college with 170 students from 40 countries and twice as many denominations, during which time we attended an Elim church. Now we are Free Evangelical.

Living in twelve different houses in five cities in three countries in your first ten years of marriage provides an interesting perspective on church culture; but one thing it has taught me is that Christians disagree over doctrine (what they should believe) and practice (how they should behave). In this, and other articles, I will explore why Christians disagree, and consider how they should handle disagreement when it happens.

Belief, behaviour, association, regeneration

What makes a Christian? Is it about belief, behaviour, association or something else? It is clearly important to believe certain things about Jesus Christ, but belief is not enough. After all even the demons believe - and shudder.[1] Also being a Christian does not guarantee that all our beliefs are correct; which is why the apostle Paul had to write so many letters to churches who had it wrong! Being a Christian involves repentance (change in behaviour) but there are people with good behaviour who are not Christians and people with bad (albeit improving) behaviour who are. And whilst Christians should associate with other Christians,[2] going to church does not make a person a Christian. Belief, behaviour and association are important; but it is actually regeneration that makes a person a Christian: that is Christians are people who have been 'born from above',[3] become a 'new creation'[4] and have the Holy Spirit living in them.[5]

Disagreement amongst Christians is normal

No Christian is perfect in either doctrine or practice, and disagreement is an inevitable consequence of imperfect people having to live and work together. We should not be surprised about it, but rather expect it. Our own doctrine and practice may be strongly influenced by selfish desires, pride or other temptations and sins to which we have surrendered. If a person adamantly sticks to a wrong position despite being shown the error of their ways, there will usually be a personal reason for it. This is why it is so important that disagreement is handled with patience, love and care.

Often we are unable to see where we are wrong on an issue because of sin in our own lives or because changing our opinion or actions may be very costly for us. Even leading Christians disagree. Martin Lloyd-Jones and John Stott disagreed over whether evangelicals should leave the Church of England. Luther and Calvin disagreed on a variety of issues. Even the apostles Peter and Paul had a major argument over circumcision,[6] and Paul and Barnabas had such a sharp disagreement about Mark that they had to part company and work independently.[7]

And it was not just the men. In the church of Philippi two women called Syntyche and Euodia had such a disruptive disagreement that Paul had to single them out for rebuke.[8] The Epistles are all about disagreement between Christians. So disagreement is a normal part of church, marriage and family life and we should not be surprised or upset when it happens. Some people try to escape disagreement by trying to live their lives closeted with other Christians who think the same; but, as well as being doomed to failure, this is also failing to acknowledge the diversity of Christ's body the church, and the importance of love and unity.[9]

What do Christians disagree about?

There are some Christian beliefs so fundamental to the faith that it is quite reasonable to assume that a person who doesn't hold them is not a Christian at all: God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit; the life, death, resurrection and return of Jesus Christ; Jesus' death for our sins (the atonement); the last judgment and salvation through faith. These are 'primary issues', but there are also 'secondary issues' on which genuine Christians might disagree:

Baptism: Do you believe in infant baptism or believers' baptism or both? Should you be sprinkled, dowsed or immersed? And should the venue be a lake, river, the sea, or a specially designed and heated sterile bath under some floorboards in the church hall?

Charismata (gifts of the Spirit): Are they for the first century or all centuries, or have they just been restored to the church in the 'last days'? Are they all for everybody, or just for some?

Eschatology (theology of the 'end times'): Do you believe in the rapture, and if so do you think that it will come before, during or after the tribulation, if you believe in that? What about the millennium? Are you pre-mill (dispensational or not), post-mill or a-mill, or perhaps pan-mill (ie it will all 'pan out' in the end)? Or are you just confused?

Creation: Are you a six day creationist, a special creationist or a theistic evolutionist? An old-earther or young-earther?

Worship: Are you more at home with 'happy-clappy' or 'smells and bells'? Do you prefer hymns from a book, or choruses from a data projector, pews or chairs, dancing or quiet? Is it to be the organ, or electric bass and drums?

Ecclesiology (theology of the church): What do you think about synods, councils and bishops? Should women be ordained? Should men? Should there be a clergy at all?

These issues have split churches and created the myriad denominations we have today. And we haven't yet mentioned the Lord's supper, the role of women, Old Testament prophecy, sanctification, predestination, the relation between church and state and the theology of mission.

Then there are ethical issues. Take sex: how far is too far for unmarried couples? Should Christians ever break the law? Is it wrong to lend money at interest? And at the interface of Christianity and medicine there are a huge number of issues about which there is no full consensus, even amongst Christian doctors.

As CEO of CMF I not infrequently receive letters from Christian doctors taking issue with views expressed in CMF literature and often from both sides of a particular issue.

One of the great strengths of CMF is that we are an interdenominational organisation; but this means that we do not agree on everything. Unity does not mean complete uniformity in belief and practice.

References

1.Jas 2:19
2.Heb 10:24,25
3.Jn 3:3
4.2 Cor 5:17
5.Rom 8:9
6.Gal 2:11
7.Acts 15:39
8.Phil 4:2,3
9.Jn 13:34,35, 17:23

Adapted from my previous Nucleus article on ‘Why Christians disagree’

You have read this article Christianity with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/disagreement-amongst-christians-is.html?m=0. Thanks!

Friday Flashback: Vintage VIP

Johnny at the Holiday Dreams on Ice 

VIP party, December 2011.

Photo © David Ingogly.



So I've been trying to find time to process more of our HDOI photos, but what with all the technology travails of late, that's been a bit of a challenge. And when I sat down to go through some of the VIP pics, I found myself frustrated in working with them. I felt like no matter what I did with them,

You have read this article David Ingogly / Johnny Weir / so much happy / Victor Voronov with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/friday-flashback-vintage-vip.html?m=0. Thanks!

Let’s be completely honest, clear and truthful about healing as well as expectant

The May 2012 edition of ‘Christianity’ carries several testimonies of healing after prayer and an article about Christian MPs testifying to God’s power to heal.

Like most Bible-believing Christians the 4,000 Christian doctors who belong to Christian Medical Fellowship believe in God’s power to heal both in response to prayer and through the gift of medicine. We also believe in the positive effect that Christian faith has on health which is supported by scientific research.

Evidence from over 1,200 published academic studies and 400 reviews has shown that faith brings positive health benefits including protection from illness, coping with illness, and faster recovery from it. Christian faith also overall leads to longer life, better physical and mental health, more marital stability, less divorce, less suicide and less abuse of alcohol and other substances.

However, although God chooses to answer prayer in many ways there is very little hard objective evidence that miracles of the sort that Jesus and the apostles performed – instantaneous miraculous reversals of major diseases and disabilities which convinced even sceptical eyewitnesses - are happening with any great frequency in Britain today.

We need to be honest about this and not make exaggerated, misleading or inaccurate claims about specific healings.

I was therefore encouraged to read that Mitra Hajebi, writing in the magazine, who found that she no longer needed to use hearing aids after prayer for healing, went back to have her hearing medically tested and the improvement confirmed. This is crucially important.

If Jesus was not afraid to have his healings examined by the priests then surely Christians today should also seek proper objective verification of any healing claim by medical professionals before stopping any treatment or reporting the claim to others.

Claims of healing made by churches with hazy factual details or without objective verification will only provoke scepticism and encourage criticism or charges of ‘false advertising’.

God heals in different ways – emotionally, spiritually and physically – but often he chooses not to heal physically in this life and death, mourning, suffering and pain are part and parcel of living in a fallen and unredeemed world.

So while we look forward to that great day when these things will be no more let’s be completely honest, clear and truthful about healing as well as expectant.

(There is a much fuller treatment of this issue by Bernard Palmer titled ‘Praying for the Sick’ in the Spring 2012 edition of the CMF Student magazine Nucleus)

You have read this article Healing with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/lets-be-completely-honest-clear-and.html?m=0. Thanks!

And So It Begins...

To dream anything that you want to dream.
That is the beauty of the human mind. To do anything that you want to do. That is the strength of the human will. To trust yourself to test your limits. That is the courage to succeed.— Bernard Edmonds
Photo © David Ingogly

In our ongoing series of hard-hitting investigative journalism, Figure Skating: Is There Any Way to Help It Suck a Little Less

You have read this article 'OUR kind of skating' bears no resemblance to what skating has Chantastasized into / all in favor of skating embracing actual skating pls scream FFS YES / David Ingogly / Denis Petukhov / Johnny Weir / Melissa Gregory with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/and-so-it-begins.html?m=0. Thanks!

David's Bridal and a Giveaway Winner

White by Vera Wang

Galina

 White by Vera Wang

 David's Bridal Collection

 Vera Wang. Recognize this bridesmaid's dress from Gossip Girl, anyone??

More Vera

Yesterday I was invited to take a private tour of the new David's Bridal store that just opened in South Edmonton Common. It's the first store to open in Western Canada after receiving an overwhelming positive response from stores previously opened in Toronto, Ottawa and Winnipeg and of course hundreds across the US. I was in bridal heaven as I walked through the store, "ooohing" and "ahhhing" over wedding gowns, bridesmaid and prom dresses, jewelry and shoes fit for a princess! I'm not gonna lie, I had my eye on a few dresses (2 Vera Wang, one Oleg Cassini!)  I'd like to try on once I get engaged ; ). Georgina, the head of PR asked if I wanted to slip into them then and there but I politely declined and told her I consider it's bad luck to try on wedding gowns before your significant other puts a ring on it!

What I love about David's Bridal is that all of the dresses are affordable. Bridal gowns range in price from $299 to $1600 and carry gowns from size 0 to 26. There's a very good chance a bride-to-be could find her dream wedding dress at David's Bridal, try it on and take it home that same day.

To celebrate the Grand Opening of the South Edmonton Common store, (10185 13th Avenue NW) David's Bridal invites you to a night of entertainment, gifts, hors d'oeurves and a fashion show highlighting the best trends of 2012 this Thursday April 26th from 6-9 p.m. *Please RSVP to Edmonton@dbi.com* And now until April 30th customers can take advantage of a special introductory savings of $50-200 off all bridal gowns (certain exclusions apply) with an additional 10% off any headpiece, bra, veil or slip and $20 off all bridesmaid, party and prom dresses. Also, the first 300 customers who enter the store will get a $50 gift card towards a $299 minimum purchase that can also be used on White by Vera Wang styles. Such great deals!

Thank you to Georgina and David's Bridal for the tour! I'll becoming back, hopefully sooner rather than later ;).

Annnnd, the winner of the Blue Vanilla Giveaway is Sarah from Haus of Sarah Rachel! Congrats! Blue Vanilla will be getting in touch with you shortly! Thank you to all who entered. Stay tuned for another giveaway coming up shortly!

You have read this article Edmonton Events / fashion / Wedding / Wedding Gowns with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/david-bridal-and-giveaway-winner.html?m=0. Thanks!

Random Roundup: A Quick Glide Through Stuff We Missed Earlier

Johnny rehearsing.
Oh look. Skating tights. Photo courtesy of the lovely Junko Mi,
who tweeted it yesterday. ♥


Welcome to Today in Figure Skating!

Well, yesterday, really. But I'm going to be posting this on Facebook, where Timeline—which is neither timely nor linear—will whimsically decide to place it somewhere between Juneuary and Neverember, so whatever.

So I've been busily trying to catch

You have read this article are you there ISU it’s me your sport that you are currently suffocating with a Chillow / Johnny Weir / oh maybe we have to measure PChiddy in Chantimeters and then he’s like the size of Paul Bunyan with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/random-roundup-quick-glide-through.html?m=0. Thanks!

Christian conscience, the Bible and the law

Are there any circumstances in which Christians should disobey the law?

The Bible teaches us in both Old and New Testaments that it is God himself who institutes human authorities:

'..the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.' (Dan 4:25)

'The authorities that exist have been established by God.' (Rom 13:1)

Furthermore he expects us to obey them, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Rom 13:1-7; Tit 3:1; 1 Pet 2:13-14)

This raises the issue of what we should do in circumstances where obeying the governing authority involves disobeying some other command of God. It seems in Scripture that there is a place for godly civil disobedience. Let us consider some examples.

The Hebrew midwives when ordered by the king of Egypt to kill all male Hebrew children refused to do so and as a result we are told that God commended and rewarded them (Ex 1:15-22). Rahab the harlot similarly refused to co-operate with the king of Jericho in handing over the innocent Israelite spies (Jos 2:1-14). She is later praised for her faith in so doing (Heb 11:31; Jas 2:25).

The prospect of death as a consequence of disobedience to state law did not stop Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to bow down to the image (Dan 4:6-8), or Daniel persisting with public prayer (Dan 6:1-10). They were defiant and their obedience was rewarded when God intervened miraculously on both occasions to save them.

In the New Testament when Peter and John were commanded by the Jewish authorities not to preach the Gospel they replied 'We must obey God rather than men' and went right on doing it (Acts 5:29). Many of the prophets and apostles and of course Jesus himself were killed precisely because they chose to obey God in what they said and did, in situations where his commands and those of human authorities conflicted.

In John's vision described in Revelation 13 the beast which is given (by God) authority over every tribe, people, language and nation is clearly not to be obeyed in the matter of receiving a mark to enable buying and selling (Rev 13:15-16). To the contrary, those who take the mark ultimately share the fate of the devil himself (Rev 14:9-12).

So while recognising that we have an obligation to obey the governing authorities God has instituted, our obedience to God himself takes precedence if there is a conflict.

If we decide that as Christians, for example, that we should not be ‘shedding innocent blood’ through abortion or euthanasia (and personally I believe Scripture leaves us no other option) it must follow that in spite of what governments and medical associations may decree, we must obey God first. Any ‘discipline’ that may follow simply has to be accepted as part of the cost of following Christ in an increasingly godless world.

To disobey God for fear of losing career, reputation or respect is surely to make idols of these things. We cannot say that in our hearts we worship God if our actions betray that we don't. Could we imagine Daniel, Shadrach or Jesus himself bottling out at the last moment on the grounds that the cost of obedience to God was too high?

What then of our involvement at other levels? If we decide that as Christian doctors we should not participate in the ‘shedding of innocent blood’, then surely this must have implications for other levels of involvement. If we 'participate' by filling out forms authorising abortions, preparing patients for the procedure or referring to others whom we know will do the same aren't we giving tacit approval to the whole process?

Shouldn't we rather observe the apostolic directive:

'Do not be partners with them' (Eph 5:7)?

Hasn't the time come to:

'Come out of her my people, so that you will not share in her sins' (Rev 18:4)?

Taking innocent human life is contrary to the whole strategy of medicine. It runs not only counter to Christian ethics but to the Hippocratic Oath and the Declaration of Geneva, which the BMA not so long ago embraced.

We must conscientiously object.

The same principles apply when the law commands us to do other things which we believe are wrong or to stop doing things that we believe are our duty before God.

You have read this article Conscientious Objection with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/christian-conscience-bible-and-law.html?m=0. Thanks!

Abortion to save the life of the mother – how common is it?

Abortion to save the life of the mother makes up a miniscule fraction of the 200,000 abortions carried out each year in Britain but it is usually the very first question that people ask.

It is a very common question from doctors who do abortions – as if carrying out an abortion in an emergency to save life somehow justifies abortion for each and every reason.

But how common is it?

Usually when the mother's life is at risk from an ongoing pregnancy, the baby is at a viable age and so can be saved simply by bringing forward the time of delivery. However on very rare occasions it may be necessary to terminate an early mid-trimester pregnancy (13-22 weeks) in an emergency in order to save the life of the mother.

Here we are not saying that the baby's life is less important than that of the mother, but simply (since the baby will die regardless) that it is better to intervene to save one life rather than to stand by and watch two people die. Even in these situations it is often possible to deliver the baby alive in such a way that the parents can have some short time to bond with it and say their goodbyes.

In the UK it was reported in 1992 that in the first 25 years of the operation of the Abortion Act 1967 only 0.013% of all abortions were performed 'to save the life of the mother' and it is even questionable whether many of these required such radical action. The 2009 Abortion Statistics for England and Wales do not record any on these grounds.

Ireland's leading obstetricians stated in 1992: '... we affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of the mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child'. (Letter to Irish Times, 1 April 1992)

This was not unsubstantiated. The National Maternity Hospital in Dublin investigated in detail the 21 maternal deaths which occurred among the 74,317 pregnancies managed in 1970-1979. The conclusion was that abortion wouldn't have saved the mother's life in a single case.[1] And given the improvement in medical care since then we would expect it to even less common now.

Alan Guttmacher, former President of the pro-abortion US Planned Parenthood Federation has said:

'Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life'.[2]

So when people jump immediately to asking about abortion to save the life of the mother there is almost certainly another agenda. They are trying to divert attention from the fact that the overwhelming majority of abortions are not done for this reason.

In fact 98% of abortions in Britain are not even legal under the existing law.

1. Murphy J. Maternal Mortality - is there ever a case for abortion? Irish Medical Journal 1982; 75:304-306 (September)
2.Guttmacher A. Abortion - Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow' The Case for legalised abortion now. Diablo Press.1967

You have read this article Abortion with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/abortion-to-save-life-of-mother-how.html?m=0. Thanks!

Simple Camo

blouse - ONLY from Etzio, trousers - Cassis, army jacket + rings - H & M, shoes - Spring

photos by D.

LOOK - NO SNOW!!! I think spring has finally arrived. And it best not be going anywhere! This past weekend I was able to stuff my winter jacket into the back of the spare room closet and pull out my spring/fall army coat. It's my favorite jacket because it's so versatile - I can dress it up or down and it will never go out of style. Kind of like cake. And who doesn't like cake? Exactly. I hope you all had a nice weekend!

You have read this article Outfit Posts with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/simple-camo.html?m=0. Thanks!

From Our Extreme Déjà Vu Dept...

We Bring You Multimedia Monday. As In, A Bunch of Stuff That May Seem Oddly Familiar Plus a Facebook Page You Could Swear You'd Already "Liked"...

Johnny on the red carpet at Night of a Thousand Gowns. Photo courtesy of the always awesome Neal Bennington of NealBtv.

Oh hai!

So happy to see you!

Yes, I'm sorry I've been out of touch lately. Goodness, it's been nearly two weeks since I wrote

You have read this article Improv-Ice / Johnny Weir / just when you think it’s safe to not completely hate Facebook again / love those vids / Night of a Thousand Gowns / please like us really like us / so at least there’s picspam with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/from-our-extreme-deja-vu-dept.html?m=0. Thanks!

The GMC needs to explain why it is forcing doctors to provide sex change operations

The Mail on Sunday has today quoted my blog in a story titled ‘Doctors “forced to carry out sex-change ops” under rules meant to “marginalise Christian medics”’.

The article picks up on comments I made last week about new draft guidance issued by the General Medical Council which says that doctors who refuse to provide sex-change operations risk being struck off the medical register.

The new draft guidance, ‘Personal beliefs and medical practice’, was issued on Thursday and is subject to consultation. It warns that ‘serious or persistent failure’ to follow it ‘will put your registration at risk’.

The guidance recognises that ‘in some areas the law specifically entitles doctors to exercise a conscientious objection’ and opt out of ‘particular treatments or procedures’. It cites participating in abortion as a specific example.

It also allows doctors to opt out of providing other procedures or treatments provided that they ‘make sure that the patient has enough information to arrange to see another doctor who does not hold the same objection as you’.

However, the GMC makes a clear exception to this rule, with regard to sex-change operations.

Section 5 reads as follows:

‘You may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values.*’

But the asterisk refers to a footnote which states:

‘*The exception to this is gender reassignment since this procedure is only sought by a particular group of patients (and cannot therefore be subject to a conscientious objection – see paragraph 5). This position is supported by the Equality Act 2010 which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment.’

It then goes on to add the following:

‘But you must not refuse to treat a particular patient, or group of patients because of your personal beliefs or views about them†

Another appended footnote reads:

‘†The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation. ‘

The Daily Mail quotes an unnamed GMC spokeswoman saying that the new guidelines only reflected the ‘law of the land’. She said the Equality Act 2010 already prohibited doctors from discriminating against people who are undergoing gender reassignment treatment.

But do you see the problem here? She has not actually addressed the real question.

On the one hand the guidance says that doctors should not refuse to treat people because of their personal beliefs or views about them.

Absolutely right! If I have a patient who needs treating for pneumonia and or diabetes then I must treat them without any partiality or discrimination regardless of their ‘age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation’. It would be profoundly negligent to do otherwise.

But the guidance also says that doctors have no right to opt out of ‘providing’ the ‘procedure’ of ‘gender reassignment’ (ie. A sex change operation). Furthermore it claims that the Equality Act 2010 upholds this duty.

Gender identity disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth). It is classified as a medical disorder by both the ICD-10 CM and the DSM-IV TR and that is how many doctors still regard it.

On the other hand many transgender people and researchers support the declassification of GID as a mental disorder for a variety of reasons.

In other words there is a major debate going on currently between leading professionals about what Gender Identity disorder actually is. But the GMC has disregarded this and instead chosen to take one controversial view held by some people on the subject as the only acceptable view.

Gender reassignment surgery is legal in this country but remains very controversial. Many doctors in this country, for a variety of reasons, do not wish to be part of providing this procedure, either as surgeons or anaesthetists or as part of the referral pathway or pre-operative assessment.

But the GMC is now saying that they have a duty to provide it and have no right to opt out of doing so. It is also threatening them with being struck off if they do not comply.

That is a bridge too far.

This draft guidance not only imposes a duty on doctors which violates their professional freedom. But I suspect it also significantly over-interprets the law.

The GMC has some serious explaining to do. And quickly.

(A much fuller treatment of Gender Identity Disorder is available on the CMF website)

You have read this article Gender Identity Disorder / GMC with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/the-gmc-needs-to-explain-why-it-is.html?m=0. Thanks!

Does every doctor have a moral line he/she will not cross? Twitter discussion thread on conscientious objection

Yesterday I posted a blog on the new GMC draft guidance pointing out that doctors who won't prescribe contraception to unmarried women or provide sex-change operations risk being struck off if it goes through unchanged.

This generated a lot of discussion on twitter and in particular Dr D Jones (aka @welsh_gas_doc), a prominent member of the secular medical twitterazzi, made a critical comment about me which led to a discussion about whether he ever would refuse to carry out a treatment or procedure on moral grounds.

Many British doctors still hold to the Declaration of Geneva (1948) which includes the statement:

'I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity'.

This was historically the position of the British Medical Association (BMA) and the World Medical Association (WMA) but it has since been amended out of recognition.

Doctors who still hold to it refuse to participate in procedures that involve the destruction of human life such as abortion and embryo research.

Dr Jones clearly does not hold to this historic code, but I was interested to see if there was any other moral line he would not cross.

Others joined in, including my old friend Shane McKee (@shanemuk) who eventually said that he would not perform a termination of pregnancy on grounds of sex selection.

Dr Jones, however, seemed unwilling to be drawn on the question and seemed to take offence by my pressing him with extreme examples.

I am still most interested in knowing whether there is actually any procedure he would object to on moral grounds because I would then like to ask him if he would consider it wrong for the GMC, should that procedure become legal, to strike him off for refusing to do it.

I believe that for most doctors there is a moral line, other than the law, that they will not cross as true professionals. But unless they admit that such a line even exists it is not possible to explore the more interesting question of what they would do if they are threatened by some authority with dire consequences should they refuse to cross it.

There are several treatments and procedures that are now part of medicine that I and many others refuse to carry out on moral grounds. But this is creating increasing problems for us in the current regulatory environment.

Anyway here is the thread thus far word for word as it happened. It gets a little lively toward the end. I will add more if Dr Jones comes back to it.

DJ: The "silent majority" need to take part in the current GMC Consultation. It is already being misrepresented by @drpetersaunders and his ilk.

PS: Do you gas for terminations or do you object on moral grounds? http://bit.ly/JT8uNK

DJ: I have no moral objection to abortion; so yes, I can and do provide general anaesthesia for surgical terminations.

PS: About how many surgical terminations have you gassed for in your career thus far? http://bit.ly/JT8uNK

DJ: About 100 probably. Why?

PS: For what indications and what gestations are you willing to carry out terminations? http://bit.ly/JT8uNK

DJ: Indications and gestation for terminations is described as per the Abortion Act. This is what I follow, not my own rules.

PS: Would you gas for a sex selection abortion if all the legal paper work was in order? http://bit.ly/JT8uNK

DJ: Sex selection, in and of itself, is not legal. So - by definition - the legal paperwork would not be in order.

PS: So are you saying that if sex selection abortions were legal then you would have no moral objection to gassing for them?

DJ: I work to UK law as laid down by democratic statute, and within GMC guidance. It's not for me to make my own rules up.

PS: So are you willing to gas for male circumcisions carried out purely for cultural/religious reasons? http://bit.ly/JT8uNK

DJ: As the alternative is that the child has it done without anaesthetic/adequate analgesia - then yes.

PS: If female circumcision were legal in Britain as in many other countries would you refuse to gas for it? http://bit.ly/JT8uNK

DJ: What's your next straw-man argument going to be? Taking part in the death penalty?

PS: I am trying to establish whether you have any moral principles. ie. Are there any procedures you would not gas for if legal?

DJ: The patient is my sole concern; not some wider societal quest to tell others how they should/should not behave.

PS: Thank you. So you would be quite happy then to gas for female circumcision if it was legal and the patient asked for it?

DJ: There's some pretty big "ifs" there, but if you want to put words in my mouth, you go ahead. I don't care.

PS: Neither of you (including Shane McKee on parallel thread) has answered the question as to whether are any treatments/procedures you would not provide if legal

PS: Guys I need to nip out for a wedding but will be back later. Answer my question (you cowards!) Go on say it!

Later…after neither have answered the question

PS: Now answer my question. Is there any treatment or procedure you would refuse to do on moral grounds or are u just a rubber stamp?

SM: My ethics and morality are based on the 4 pillars. Would I ToP purely on grounds of sex? No. But that is not at issue here.

PS: I was simply trying to ascertain if there was any procedure you would refuse to carry out if it was legal. There is! Excellent!

PS (to DJ): You still haven't replied. Is there any treatment or procedure you would refuse to do on moral grounds even if it were legal?

Comments

Dr Jones has, since this dialogue occurred, issued many more tweets both to me and about me but has so far refused to answer the key question about whether there is any treatment or procedure he would refuse carry out on moral grounds even if it were legal to do so.

This is most curious. Is it because that to admit that there was such a treatment or procedure would leave him having to say that he would not like to be forced in such circumstances to do what he believed was morally wrong? I wonder.

Or is he really just a rubber stamp, unlike my atheist friend Shane McKee, who will do anything he is asked to do by a patient? We will have to wait and see.

He has now answered as follows:

DJ: If the procedure is a) Clinically indicated, b) Legal as per current UK law & c) To a competent adult; then I would do it.

DJ: Although that list is not exhaustive, and like a professional, I would consider things on a case-by-case basis.

You have read this article Abortion / Conscientious Objection / GMC with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/does-every-doctor-have-moral-line-heshe.html?m=0. Thanks!

Beauty & Brains: Styling Steph Del Alba

bodysuit - American Apparel

tank - American Apparel, cuff - mine from Banana Republic, jeans - H & M

tank - H & M, jean shorts - American Apparel, bracelet - mine, from H & m

dress - American Apparel, heels - model's own, feet - the photographer's

photographer: Harvey Miedreich

assistant: Yves St. Bass

stylist: me

model: Steph w/ Mode Models

clothing provided by American Apparel 

I loved styling Steph. Not only is she a drop-dead gorgeous model but she has a wicked sense of humor and brains, too! (She's studying neuroscience at the U of A.) 

Have a great weekend!

You have read this article Harvey Miedreich / Mode Models / Styling with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/beauty-brains-styling-steph-del-alba.html?m=0. Thanks!

Doctors who won't prescribe contraception to unmarried women or provide sex-change operations risk being struck off, says GMC

Doctors who refuse to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women or refuse to provide sex-change operations risk being struck off the medical register according to new draft guidance issued by their regulatory body.

The new draft guidance from the General Medical Council, ‘Personal beliefs and medical practice’, has been issued today and is subject to consultation. It warns that ‘serious or persistent failure’ to follow it ‘will put your registration at risk’.

The guidance recognises that ‘in some areas the law specifically entitles doctors to exercise a conscientious objection’ and opt out of ‘particular treatments or procedures’. It cites as examples ‘the right to refuse to participate in terminations of pregnancy’ and ‘participating in any activity governed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990’.

It also allows doctors to opt out of providing other procedures or treatments provided that they ‘make sure that the patient has enough information to arrange to see another doctor who does not hold the same objection as you’.

In other words, they can object, but have a duty to ensure that the patient sees another doctor who does not object.

However, the GMC makes two clear exceptions to this rule, with regard to contraception and sex-change operations.

If a doctor has a conscientious objection to providing contraception per se, then he/she can do so. But he/she ‘cannot be willing to provide married women with contraception but unwilling to provide it for unmarried women. This would be a breach of our guidance…’

Similarly although doctors ‘may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of (their) personal beliefs and values’, the guidance says that ‘the exception to this is gender reassignment since this procedure is only sought by a particular group of patients and cannot therefore be subject to a conscientious objection’.

The guidance claims the support of the Equality Act 2010 for these two positions.

A recent parliamentary enquiry, ‘Clearing the Ground’, concluded that ‘Christians in the UK face problems in living out their faith and these problems have been mostly caused and exacerbated by social, cultural and legal changes over the past decade.’

I have previously highlighted the fact that recent legislation, and regulations claiming to be derived from it, are being used marginalise Christian health professionals in Britain.

This new GMC draft guidance is yet another example. It is essentially a clever piece of double-speak. On the one hand it says that 'doctors should be free to practise medicine in accordance with their beliefs', but if this involves 'denying patients access to appropriate medical treatment or services' then they must 'be prepared to set aside their personal beliefs'.

The problem is that 21st century British medicine now involves practices which many doctors regard as unethical. This latest guidance by the GMC will therefore be seen by a many as a further attack on the right to practise independently in accordance with one's conscience which lies at the heart of being a true health professional.

I suspect it will also further undermine the credibility of the GMC.

A significant number of doctors do not wish to be involved in sex-change operations or prescribing contraceptives to unmarried couples and will not want to be forced to make arrangements for patients to undergo procedures or 'treatments' which they regard as unethical.

But it appears that these doctors, if this guidance emerges from this consultation unchanged, will soon be at risk of losing their licences to practise medicine.

(See CMF submission to GMC on previous draft of 'Personal Beliefs and Medical Practice')

You have read this article Conscientious Objection / GMC with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/doctors-who-won-prescribe-contraception.html?m=0. Thanks!

How to protect your kids from internet pornography

I have just posted a blog on the report from a committee of MPs which makes recommendations about new measures to protect children from internet pornography.

Most of these are targeted at the ISP industry (and not a moment too soon!) but the real need is for parents to take steps themselves.

If you are interested about how practically to do it here is some advice from a Christian medical colleague (and computer whizz!) that I have gleaned today.

How to protect your kids (and yourself!)

Because of the proliferation of connectable devices having software just on a PC is inadequate - the entire home network needs internet filtering.

The best way to achieve this is for the ISP to do it. Out of the 4 main British ISPs (Virginmedia, Talktalk, BT and Sky) only Talktalk can do this at present.

The main system I use is ‘Covenant Eyes’. This is accountability software that I use with a friend. It monitors internet use and alerts your accountability partner if you are accessing inappropriate websites. Once installed it cannot be removed without your accountability partner being alerted. You probably know about this already but the website gives full details. It would be a brilliant thing to do with teenagers. Although there is little need for this if the OpenDNS service is used (see below), it has the advantage of monitoring a device whether it is used at home or elsewhere - OpenDNS only covers your home network.

Second, most mobile phone networks have the ability to turn on web filtering for smartphone use at a network account level. So as long as your kids have mobile phones on your account you can block the inappropriate use of mobile devices through the 3G network.

Third, and this is the really clever way of doing it, a home user can achieve network-wide site filtering by using a service called OpenDNS. A brief, simple explanation of what a DNS Server does can be found at the end of this post.

To set this up you have to create an account on OpenDNS.com, tell OpenDNS about the IP address your ISP has given your ADSL or cable modem, and then edit the settings in your router so you use OpenDNS's DNS Servers rather than your ISP's. They provide good instructions on how to do this, but it's a little technical. The service is free. (There is a more feature-rich service that you have to pay for but for most home networks the free bit is all you need).

As long as you keep the usernames and passwords for both your router and your OpenDNS accounts completely secret there is generally no way past this, even for your bright computer-savvy kids.

Check out www.opendns.com.

What a DNS server does (the technical stuff!)

Every networked device has a unique numerical address - an "Internet Protocol" (IP) address. It is a set of 4 numbers (between 0 and 255) separated by dots. The PC I am typing this on has the IP address "10.0.0.106". My PC at work is "172.22.255.42". When devices communicate over the network they talk to each other using these numerical IP addresses - but they are not very human-friendly! So each device also has a name - my PC is called "Saturn". At some point the IP address and the name need linking, so when I look at my network and see a PC on it called "Saturn" the software knows "Saturn" = IP address 10.0.0.106, and vice versa. This name to IP address translation is done through a database called "DNS" - "Domain Name Service". Every device has to know the address of the computers on their network that hold the DNS database (there's usually 2 - one main one and one backup). A computer holding the DNS is known as a DNS Server. With me so far? Good!

Now, this is also true on the Internet, with the condition that every device connected directly to the internet has to have a worldwide unique IP address. So the computer called "microsoft.com" (that responds when you type"www.microsoft.com" into your web browser) has the IP address "207.46.232.182" - no other computer exposed on the Internet can ever have this address. When you type "www.microsoft.com" into your browser your Internet router that connects you to the Internet realises no device inside your home network has this name so it sends out a request to your ISP's DNS servers which will respond with "the IP address you need is 207.46.232.182". Your router can then find this address on the Internet and you can see the Microsoft website. Every ISP provides all their users with the IP addresses of two DNS server so your router knows were to send the request for name to IP address translation to. For example, VirginMedia provides a primary DNS Server IP address of 194.168.4.100, and a secondary IP address of 194.168.8.100. Everyone using VirginMedia as an ISP will have these 2 IP addresses in the setup of their router so the network knows how to change website names into IP addresses.

A DNS server contains a huge database of website names and IP addresses - billions probably. Every single request to view a website that comes out of any device connected to your home network will go through the DNS server. Here comes the clever bit...

You don't have to use the DNS servers provided by your ISP. For example Google has a couple of public ones that you can use - their IP addresses are 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4. Program those IP addresses into your router instead of the ones provided by your ISP and all your IP address requests will go through Google's DNS servers.

A company called "OpenDNS" provides 2 DNS server addresses for public use. They have built into them the ability to block certain website addresses from being passed back to your network. There is a massive classification database available that classifies millions and millions of websites into certain categories - hate, racist, violence, porn etc. The OpenDNS servers use this classification to allow you to filter website requests. So if I type "www.playboy.com" into my browser, VirginMedia's DNS servers would return "67.215.65.130" and off I go into the Playboy website. OpenDNS (assuming I have an account with them and have set up the filtering to block porn) will refuse to return an address and say the site is blocked. As you will now understand, any device connected to my network (smartphone, PC, laptop, PS3, XBox etc be they mine or guests in my home) will get the same response - "blocked".

You have read this article pornography with the title April 2012. You can bookmark this page URL https://celebrityunitedking.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-protect-your-kids-from-internet.html?m=0. Thanks!