19 July 2006

It's morally wrong to destroy tissue for the purpose of science, but it's apparently not morally wrong to discard it

Congress is unable to override first ever veto by President Bush. Hence, James Garfield's record remains intact.
The House on Wednesday failed to muster enough votes to override President Bush's veto of a bill to expand federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

There is outrage over this veto, but keep in mind it's not a ban, just a block on federal funding of research. Still, the act is puzzling, considering that the vast majority of these embryos are going to be tossed into the trash, when instead they could be used to help develop life saving cures.

And the chutzpah badge for the day goes to this quote by a Focus on the Family tool:

Focus on the Family Action's senior analyst for bioethics, Carrie Gordon Earll, also registered strong disapproval, observing that "some members of Senate who should know better voted to destroy human lives -- and that goes beyond cowardice."

First, terming it "human life" is problematic here, considering that embryos don't have brains, brain tissue, neurons or any ability to think. And again, these are embryonic stem cells from surplus IVF embroys that are destined for destruction. According to recent public opinion polls, 70% of US citizens support embryonic stem cell research.

We could be soon presented with the sound of science departing these shores for more enlightened locales.

In the Arizona block of Congress critters, only Democrat House members Grijalva and Pastor, along with lone Republican Kolbe voted to override the presidential veto. Renzi, Franks, Hayworth, Shadegg and Flake declined to override President Bush. On the Arizona senatorial side, McCain voted for federal funding of stem cell research while Kyl voted nay. Something to keep in mind for the upcoming election in November.

Truly astonishing, President Bush acts to preserve the "preborn", yet puts a stamp of approval on unleashing destruction and devastation upon innocent civilians in an effort to root out "terrorism".

There is no end to the hypocrisy that just continues to gushÖ

11 July 2006

Fear and Anger over Iraq

A brilliant speech by Ron Paul titled "Why Are Americans So Angry?"
Though the American people are fed up for a lot of legitimate reasons, almost all polls show the mess in Iraq leads the list of why the anger is so intense.

Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature, are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality.

The anger over the Iraq war is multifaceted. Some are angry believing they were lied to in order to gain their support at the beginning. Others are angry that the forty billion dollars we spend every year on intelligence gathering failed to provide good information. Proponents of the war too often are unable to admit the truth. They become frustrated with the progress of the war and then turn on those wanting to change course, angrily denouncing them as unpatriotic and un-American.

Those accused are quick to respond to the insulting charges made by those who want to fight on forever without regard to casualties. Proponents of the war do not hesitate to challenge the manhood of war critics, accusing them of wanting to cut and run. Some war supporters ducked military service themselves while others fought and died, only adding to the anger of those who have seen battle up close and now question our campaign in Iraq.

The bickering and anger will not subside soon, since victory in Iraq is not on the horizon and a change in policy is not likely either.

Further, on the matter of the mammoth myopia of Iraq war supporters:

Due to the psychological need to persist with the failed policy, the war proponents must remain in denial of many facts staring them in the face.

They refuse to accept that the real reason for our invasion and occupation of Iraq was not related to terrorism. They deny that our military is weaker as a consequence of this war.

They wonít admit that our invasion has served the interests of Osama Bin Laden. They continue to blame our image problems around the world on a few bad apples.

They wonít admit that our invasion has served the interests of Iranís radical regime.

The cost in lives lost and dollars spent is glossed over, and the deficit spirals up without concern.

They ridicule those who point out that our relationships with our allies have been significantly damaged.

Radicalizing the Middle East will in the long term jeopardize Israelís security, and increase the odds of this war spreading.

War supporters cannot see that for every Iraqi killed, another family turns on us-- regardless of who did the killing. We are and will continue to be blamed for every wrong done in Iraq: all deaths, illness, water problems, food shortages, and electricity outages.

And near the end of the speech, some lucid words on The Just War Theory.

My beliefs aside, Christian teaching of nearly a thousand years reinforces the concept of ďThe Just War Theory.Ē This Christian theory emphasizes six criteria needed to justify Christian participation in war. Briefly the six points are as follows:
  1. War should be fought only in self defense;
  2. War should be undertaken only as a last resort;
  3. A decision to enter war should be made only by a legitimate authority;
  4. All military responses must be proportional to the threat;
  5. There must be a reasonable chance of success; and
  6. A public declaration notifying all parties concerned is required.

The war in Iraq fails to meet almost all of these requirements. This discrepancy has generated anger and division within the Christian community.

Wow, what an incredible statement by a principled legislator, one that stands in stark constrast to his spineless colleagues who continue to support an illegal, immoral invasion of a country that posed no threat to the United States.

6 July 2006

Laura and I value our friendship with you.

Stated in a warm letter with birthday wishes to Ken Lay from George W. Bush. But that was when Ken Lay turned 55, back in 1997. In 2006, at a press briefing, when Press Secretary Tony Snow was asked about the President's reaction to Mr. Lay's tragic and untimely death, the reaction poses a stark contrast:
Q: What has been the Presidentís reaction to the death of Ken Lay?

SNOW: I really have not talked to him about it. I will give you my own personal reaction, which is that when somebody dies, you leave behind those that grieve, and I think that they deserve our compassion. But ó I donít know, what do you think would be the appropriate thing to say?

Q: I do not know. I donít know him. The President was his friend, not me.

SNOW: No, the President has described Ken Lay as an acquaintance, and many of the Presidentís acquaintances have passed on during his time in office. Again, I think that it is sort of an interesting question but not answerable by me.

Reason #1310 George W. Bush is an unauthentic, fraudulent individual, proclaiming dearest friendship when Enron money was pouring into his election campaign coffers, but then discarding the fallen executive in the pure interest of political expedience. Until 2004, Ken Lay and Enron were number one on the George W. Bush career donor roll.

Indeed, a Republican culture of corruption.

5 July 2006

Bin-Ladenís message was clearly designed to assist the Presidentís reelection

CIA: Osama Helped Bush in 04
On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as "Osama's endorsement of John Kerry." But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.