A stinking, solidified lump of gunk from the gut of a sperm whale could make an Australian family up to $1 million richer.
The 14.75kg block of rare whale excreta, expelled orally, was found by the family on a beach near Streaky Bay on South Australia's west coast.They were baffled by the substance before inquiries revealed it to be ambergris - a wax-like substance originating from the intestine of a sperm whale, and greatly prized for its use in perfume.
Marine ecology consultant Ken Jury, who is representing the family, said ambergris was worth $US20-$US65 a gram ($27-$87). Mr Jury said ambergris was belched from a sperm whale as a foul-smelling substance.
"It's actually belched out by the animal, would you believe, and those few across the world that have witnessed that or heard it say it's quite remarkable," Mr Jury told ABC radio.

"When a whale does that, particularly a big sperm whale, apparently the sound of it travels for miles across the water."Mr Jury said the finding was rare. "When the whale throws this out, it's discarded material that it can't digest and includes all sorts of things like hundreds of squid beaks and goodness knows what," he said. "The substance is actually lighter than water and so it floats around the ocean.

"If you were to pick it up immediately after the whale discarded it, you would immediately put it back because it is so foul.
"However, over a period of floating around the ocean for 10 years, the sun and the salt water cleanses this amazing stuff. After 10 years, it's considered clean and all you are getting then is the wonderful musty, very sweet perfume which I have got to say is ultra-smooth.
"You can trace it back to 1000 BC. The Egyptians used it, the Chinese did - they not only used it as perfumes but they used to eat it and they used to give it as gifts. It was literally worth more than gold."
Ambergris has been used as a fixative for fine perfumes, for medicinal purposes and also as an aphrodisiac. It also has been used to enhance the flavours of food and wine, and for herbal and homeopathic remedies.

The currents that will make the world a very different business environment in 2015 – according to Ian Davis, managing director of McKinsey & Co.:

• Within 20 years the GDP of Asia (excluding Japan) and Western Europe will nearly converge.
• Almost a billion new consumers will enter the global marketplace in the next decade as growth in emerging markets pushes them beyond the threshold of $5,000 annual household income – a point at which people generally begin to spend on discretionary goods.
• By 2015, annual consumer spending power in emerging economies will increase from $4,000bn to more than $9,000bn – nearly the current level in Western Europe.
• We do a billion Google searches a day, over half not in English.
• The 33m university-educated young professionals in developing countries is more than double the number in developed countries.
• More than 2bn people now use cellphones.
• We send 9,000bn e-mails a year.
• 12 per cent of American newlyweds last year met online.
• By 2015, the Hispanic population in the US will have spending power equal to 60 per cent of all consumers in China.

The remote Pacific island state of Nauru had its sole plane seized today, virtually cutting off the island’s residents from the outside world. The tiny island, whose people were once among the richest per capita in the world, had failed to make payments on the aircraft since 2002... The 7,500 residents of Nauru, a 21 square kilometre coral atoll, were once among the world’s wealthiest due to the export of phosphates, mostly from bird droppings. But the reserves are almost exhausted and with earlier wealth squandered through corruption and mismanagement, the country is virtually bankrupt.

A heretical proposal
Dec 8th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Lexington

AS A general rule, Republicans are much happier with American exceptionalism than Democrats. Conservatives celebrate the right of every God-fearing American to carry a semi-automatic in his Kyoto-busting SUV while liberals protest that Europe is greener and safer. But when it comes to abortion, it is the Democrats who are the American exceptionalists.

Most rich countries other than the United States have solved the abortion problem by consulting the electorate—either through the legislature or through referendums. This led to vigorous debates and, broadly, the triumph of abortion rights. Because abortion was legalised democratically, pro-lifers accepted the fact that they had lost and abortion became a settled right. By contrast, in America, abortion is a fundamental right of privacy protected by a 1973 Supreme Court judgment—Roe v Wade.

Few objective outsiders—if it is possible to be such a thing on abortion—would argue that relying on judges rather than popular will has helped American politics: no other comparable country has such destructive culture wars. Roe left a large chunk of the country feeling disenfranchised by the court; it also established a cycle of attack and counter-attack that has debased everything that it has touched, especially the judiciary.

A prime example is the Roe-obsessed confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees. Samuel Alito, Mr Bush's new candidate, claims that the fact that he once advised the Reagan administration on how to overturn Roe will have no bearing on his behaviour on the court. No less disingenuously, liberal senators pretend they are trying to gauge Mr Alito's legal philosophy when they are trying to catch him out on Roe.

All this is bad for America; but, in political terms, Roe has been particularly disastrous for the Democrats. The Republicans have generally had the better of the abortion wars (something most liberals admit as long as nobody from NARAL Pro-Choice America is in the room). Roe has proved a lightning-rod for conservatives; and many moderates dislike the Democrats'Roe-driven defence of partial-birth abortions. So consider a heretical proposition: why on earth don't Democrats disown Roe?

Merely to mention this in public can be dangerous. Yet there are two obvious reasons for the party to do it. First, abortion rights command broad popular support in the United States, just as they do in Europe. Gallup polling since the mid-1970s has consistently shown that about 80% of Americans want abortion to be legal—either in all circumstances (21-31%) or in some circumstances (51-61%). Without Roe, abortion might be slightly restricted, but certainly not banned, as conservatives want.

Second, Roe is a pretty flimsy decision. The idea that the constitution protects “the right to privacy” was already something of a stretch when Justice William Douglas discovered it in the Griswold v Connecticut case in 1965. Ruling that the state government could not stop married couples from purchasing contraception, Douglas wrote that the right to privacy exists because the “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” It was these penumbras and emanations that were stretched still further in 1973 when the court ruled on Roe.

Some Democrats say that they regard “a woman's right to choose” as analogous to a black person's right to vote—a basic human right that cannot be gainsaid by the electorate. This is far from convincing. The constitution is as clear about the right to vote—thanks to the equal protection clause—as it is murky on the right to abortion. And abortion isn't a clear-cut moral issue in the way that the franchise is. Bill Clinton never felt any need to argue that black voting should be “safe, legal and rare”.

A better argument in defence of Roe is that some states might well outlaw abortion. The Centre for Reproductive Rights claimed in 2004 that 21 conservative states were highly likely to do so and nine somewhat likely. But this presumes that public opinion has been frozen in aspic since 1973. Laura Vanderkam of USA Today points out that many of these “anti-Roe” states may well vote in favour of abortion rights: seven have Democratic governors, one (Rhode Island) is firmly in the Democratic column, and many others (Colorado, Ohio) cannot be relied upon to ban it. Moreover, the states that are most likely to vote to ban abortion—such as Mississippi and North Dakota—already have very few abortion clinics in any case: women who want abortions in those states already have to travel huge distances. Crossing state lines would not make that much difference.

Stubborn as a mule

The main reason, alas, why Democrats will stick by Roe is simply because it is a totem in the culture wars. Why should pro-choice forces surrender any ground? That argument makes sense if you want to defend “choice” right into the ninth month, as some zealots do. But for most Democrats who merely want to keep abortion legal under most circumstances, that right would be more secure if it carried democratic legitimacy.

Embracing the democratic process would send a powerful signal that the Party of the People has rediscovered its faith in the people. Relying on judges to advance the liberal agenda allowed conservatives to seize the mantle of populism. Roe has given Republicans a free ride: they can claim to oppose abortion in the comfortable knowledge that it will never be banned. But imagine if Roe were overturned. How many Republicans would vote for a ban on abortion that only one in five Americans support? The conservative coalition would be split asunder.

History is full of great generals who won their wars by staging strategic retreats. Field-Marshal Kutusov allowed Napoleon to occupy Moscow, tempting him to over-extend himself. The Democrats might emulate that aged Russian's wiliness—and stage a strategic retreat to the high ground of popular opinion.

Children should be protected from “terrifying” Santa Claus, and shielded from “alarming” pantomimes, according to a government website for teachers.

The website, which was taken down yesterday by embarrassed officials, also said that staff organising school Christmas parties should take care not to arrange competitive games with winners and losers to avoid upsetting the children and make them feel they had “underperformed”.

Parents’ groups yesterday condemned the advice which they said threatened to destroy the magic of Christmas.

The advice on the website, www.teachernet.gov.uk, said: “For very young children, Father Christmas can be terrifying, and if you are planning a visit from Santa, you’ll need to make sure that fearful children are near an exit.

“Trips to the pantomime can cause alarm, so the same planning applies.

“Younger children in particular have a wide range of fears, many of which seem completely irrational to adults.

“Many children dislike the dark or crowded rooms, so be sensitive to this if you are planning atmospheric lighting.”

The site also had a link to a list of games that could be included in school parties, devised by the “progressive” youth movement, the Woodcraft Folk. The advice said: “Sometimes parties and organised games just reinforce differences and inequalities.

“The last thing you want is for children to get anxious or upset because they feel they have underperformed, or not been successful.

“If you do have games with winners, make sure that all children are given an opportunity to succeed where possible.”

Margaret Morrissey, of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations, said: said: “It is so sad that we have become so politically correct that we are trying to remove the magic of Christmas.”

Removing the advice yesterday, the Government denied that it represented official policy. A spokesman for the Department of Education said: “We fully support the traditional British Christmas.

“This is not Government policy and was not produced by the department.

“We have now withdrawn it as it does not reflect our views.”

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

"Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.