Thursday, September 21, 2006

Us vs. Stem

Our two major political parties have migrated to an adversarial relationship not unlike how civil courts arrange spouses against each other even for uncontested divorces. When two parties resolve to be in opposition as Republicans and Democrats or divorcing spouses are, no one is permitted a decent act lest the other party look bad. Nor is either party permitted to change its position lest the other appear correct on an issue. As a result, the custody battle over public policy drags on without progress or hope.

On terrorism and Islamic fascism the Democrats are wrong. Bush may not have handled it gracefully but terrorism doesn't respond to grace. More-liberal-than-you author Sam Harris makes this case better than any in his recent LA Times article, Head-in-the-Sand Liberals.

The Republican Party is wrong on Embryonic Stem Cell Research (ES). It's not hard to understand why. Many (most?) Republicans have taken positions opposing ES based on its proximity to abortion, bolstered by the fact both ES and abortion share many of the same advocates. From a Republican's point of view whenever Democrats, the press, and Hollywood are aligned together (as they frequently are) their purpose is likely to pervert the constitution, widen the distribution of pornography, corrupt youth, promote abortion, disparage Christianity, or provide comfort and intelligence to America's enemies. Given the usual agendas of the usual suspects Republican politicians' suspicions on ES may be warranted--but they are still wrong.

The good news is pro-life values needn't be sacrificed even if Conservatives' pride may sting a little in the admission.

To avoid using the medical jargon with words that sound too similar let's instead pretend we're talking about tiny marble bags with even tinier marbles inside them. Except these aren't your ordinary marbles and bags, they're magic because a bag with one marble will soon have two, then four, eight, 16, 32, and pretty soon you need a bigger bag and a computer to count all the marbles.

Regardless where marble bags come from conservatives object to throwing them away. The good news from marble researchers is they believe they can mend a broken bag using a single marble from a good bag. A single magic marble's affect on a sick bag is nothing short of miraculous. Marble-ologists call it Ethical Marble Therapy. Nothing is harmed. Nothing is broken. Nothing is thrown away.

That is precisely how Republicans can acquiesce on ES without sacrificing their position on the sanctity of life.

Across the nation women visit fertility clinics every day with bags of marbles for clinicians to examine for defects. A single marble is removed from each blastocyst to gage its health. Healthy blastocysts are returned (implanted) with a single blastomere (marble) missing. These blastomeres may be ethically used to create new stem cell lines, hopefully fulfilling the hope we all have to repair spinal cord injuries and cure blindness, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or countless other birth defects, genetic disorders, and even replacing lost limbs.

For purposes of good sportsmanship we'll call the compromise policy Ethical Embryonic Stem Cell Research (EESC, sounds like EASY).It's time to put this issue behind us and let EESC progress domestically as rapidly and with as much financial and moral support as America may provide its brightest scientists with the highest ethical methodologies.

Time is wasting. Let not our political disagreements delay this important research. This is an issue both parties must become not just responsible custodians for, but committed supporters as well.

For more information on Embryonic Stem Cell Research visit:

Thursday, September 14, 2006

9/11 Dissatisfaction

Note, I deliberately delayed posting this article so everyone might observe the fifth anniversary of the heretofore most aggressive attack on American soil since 1941 in their own way.
People are still wondering how best to memorialize the events that unfolded the morning of September 11, 2001. As deserving an enterprise that may be, America has already spoiled that which should have been left virgin.

9/11 is the first American tragedy to become thrice victimized. Its first assault was delivered by Islamic fascists demonstrating their hatred for America, its citizens, and all she stands for. Second, it was victimized by its
government patronizing survivors in a manner never considered before, even for victims of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor or Germany's attack on the Lusitania.

9/11's third victimization was by Hollywood, courtesy of Michael Moore's propamentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which pretended to be a documentary but was instead Goebbel-esque propaganda attacking one president for the sins of another. Its June release date was intended to influence the 2004 election in has-anyone-heard-from-John Kerry's favor.

I don't remember reading, nor can I imagine anything similar happening subsequent to Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941. Back then Americans, though victimized, weren't behaving as victims. Survivor's wouldn't have expected, and the public wouldn't have offered, Pearl Harbor lottery prizes and Hollywood studios wouldn't have dared tampering with the 1944 presidential elections nor would any director have considered making Fahrenheit 127.

Maybe that's another reason their's was the greatest generation.

Now, instead of fully engaging the enemy that attacked the World Trade Center, waking up to the tyranny the enemy holds over its innocents, and mobilizing our nation to convincingly eject Islamic Fascists and their allies from our midst and their state-sponsored positions, we retreat into a national pity party and read names for hours. We're doomed to an annual parade of politicians, poets, widows, children, clergy, significant others, and actors waxing eloquently and reverently how 9/11 changed them, while at the same time they and a growing number of American's are as committed to wiping out terrorism as OJ Simpson is to finding Nicole's murderer.

Truly, we are not our grandparent's generation. We are our own. But we can do better. We must do better. And we'd better do it bigger and better than Osama does, lest we become the generation that lost Rome.

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Granholm OK lying about DeVos

This morning WJR's Paul W. Smith interviewed Governor Jennifer Granholm and gave her a chance to respond to the negative criticism of the Democratic Party ad insinuating that while head of Amway Dick DeVos moved 1400 Michigan jobs to China.

Given repeated attempts to take the high-road, Jennifer Granholm insisted the two facts are linked and that the net affect was Dick DeVos hurt Michigan families.

When asked if she felt similarly towards GM's Richard Wagner or Ford's Bill Ford Jr. about the layoffs they've made to remain competitive and their coincident investments in China and the rest of Asia, she said she didn't, and that the automakers and her blame President George Bush for those layoffs.

When asked if she thought layoffs were sometimes necessary to save the other jobs, she replied saying Dick DeVos hurt Michigan families, and if he thought it was the right thing to do then he should be willing to stand by it.

I guess that makes sense since she wouldn't blame GM or Ford for negotiating themselves into an uncompetitive situation. Nor would she accept any responsibility herself as governor.

As best I can tell she did it with a straight face.

If she were a waitress she'd have just lost some of her tip.

I may be conservative, but people who know me know I won't mindlessly tow the Republican Party line. Many conservatives are enraged at state and federal-level Republicans for shunning conservative positions on education, civil rights, and fiscal responsibility. They're called RINOs for Republicans In Name Only.

I'm disappointed with DeVos for having caved on the civil rights initiative, his attitude towards oil companies, and am unimpressed with his party credentials. Based on his positions on issues he's little different than Jennifer Granholm, which either makes Granholm an acceptable Republican governor or DeVos an acceptable Democratic candidate. If both are middle-of-the-road then one of them isn't necessary.

DeVos' backing from conservatives is not a sure thing. It takes more than phone calls to bring out the vote. It takes leadership to give people something to vote for. So far neither candidate has impressed me as someone willing to take the political heat for doing the right thing.

When will Patterson run for governor?