U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Michael Bennet
50%
50%
50%
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
September 20, 2006 01:00 AM UTC
88 Comments
Rick orchestrating for lobbyists to have a one on one session with the official that was suppose to be regulating them.
Has Rick ever fully disclosed who exactly showed up to that fundraiser?
And who ever made that website should really consider changing the picture of Ed. The picture is one step away from being what a four year old might do by darkening in an foe’s tooth. Maybe someone just got carried away in photoshop but the picture decreases whatever credibility the website didn’t have to begin with and is just incredibly immature and childish.
I am sure they will be concerned with your editing suggestions. That being said, didn’t Mrs. Perlmutter bill almost $4 million lobbying places like, oh I don’t know, the EPA??? Oh yeah, and the U.S. Senate, and the President and that’s right, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES!
I dont think it is. In fact, I hear there is a whole street on washington that is filled with lobbyists. Wasnt there a whole hullaballo about Mr. DeLay helping former staffers get cush lobbying jobs a while back? I seem to remember that all being tied into the, you know, Jack Abramoff Scandal. I think his wife was in on that, too. And please, when you are trying to make a statement dont act like that statement means anything when it doesnt. I hear that the US House of Representatives is actually wholly unlike Iraq. Which reminds me, didnt Donald Rumsfeld meet saddam in one of his palaces back in the 80s?
seems you have uncovered an amazing hidden secret…there are lobbyists in Washington and they charge money…
When people use the term “begging the question” they first of all should not be using it, and second of all are not begging the question. I will give you an example of what the term “begging the question” is: “why is monkey business spouting useless information? Could it be that he has no real information to attack Perlmutter with? Why would he not have real information? Could it be that he is getting it from bad sources? What sources have bad information? Where do they get this bad information? What other sort of information might they be spreading that is also false?”
To recap: Begging the question is where a question is asked that is then followed by another question that stems from that question, which results in another question. Rinse, Lather, repeat.
What you should have said instead of: ” It still begs the question, what does Perlmutter have to hide?” is “The question remains unanswered, what does perlmutter have to hide?” If you have any question feel free to respond.
“It still begs the question, what does Perlmutter have to hide?”
This should read, “It still RAISES the question, what does Perlmutter have to hide?”
Please see link for definition of “begging the question.”
http://en.wikipedia….
Not being snarky. Really.
If i wouldnt have written that response I would have beaten you! I will get you, you philosophising greek man, I will get you! MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Keep It Short/Simple
That’s my philosophy. Seems to be at odds with what they teach you whipper snappers in law school… 😉
I have this professor who was talking about a case he worked on the other day. (For background I used to sell copiers and we used to love getting law firms as our clients) he recounted a story about this case where the copying/printing costs were over a million dollars. Just copying and printing. For the rest of the class I was imagining the commission I would have gotten off a sale to a law firm that does that kind of volume. I figured that that commission at least would have paid for my entire 3 years here.
Does anyone actually read all that paperwork? I mean, completely, line for line, word for word?
What you will find with a lot of big civil cases against companies is that the companies willdump massive amounts of paperwork on the opposing party’s lawyers. This is partly to intimidate and also to consume massive amounts of time. Big firms, such as his, have lots of associate attorneys whose job it is to write IRACs (issue, reasoning, analysis, conclusion) on each section of what is dumped on them. It further becomes muddled because when you are filing evidence everything has to be noted (e.g., what was stapled, what was paper clipped, what was loose leaf). From a copiers salesman perspective there is a program that does this that costs 10k. People should be reading everything because the case may turn on a phrase or single page. If you look at some supreme court decisions, footnotes are what make up future decisions.
that they’re reading all that. Sounds to me like the person who has that job gets to experience the worst of both worlds – boredom and stress. (That’s how I would feel anyway – documentation was my least favorite part of business analysis.)
Gee, I’m sorry, I lost my knit picky grammer book when I had the rod removed from my backside a few years ago. Apparently there are still plenty around though.
I admit I make grammar mistakes all the time. Even ones that are misused as much as “begging the question.” but when you are trying to impress people, especially us silly grammarphiles, and turn them to your side, it helps to use proper grammar and spelling. Big words are good too.
if you care about Ed’s client list.
it’s “nit picky.” Knitting involves yarn and needles.
My grammer stinks, the anal retentive grammer police win! Pay no attention to any of the substance because I said knit or nit and beg the question. Geeez.
was there something substantial there? I thought it was just shilling.
Right, there is nothing to talk about. Perlmutter’s clients and potential conflicts of interest. The fact that they Perlmutter won’t release his tax records or his clients while he was in the legislature.
The fact that his wife is a big DC lobbyist that billed almost $4 million since 1998. The fact that she has lobbied both chambers of Congress, as well as the administration. Just ignore all that, there is nothing to see here.
If you are truly so concerned about this potential conflict of interest, can you also truthfully say that Cheney’s energy commission meetings should be opened up to public scrutiny? That definitely sounded like conflict of interest, what with all the oil company reps participating.
Was one of Perlmutter’s oil companies at the table???
then I consider my charges of shilling as proven.
I certainly believe that Perlmutter’s clients, income and actions while in the legislature is an appropriate conversation. As well as the access and influence his wife exerts at in Washington DC.
You may try to dimish this by calling me names, that’s fine. .
It’s the proper name for the active single-subject campaigners on this blog. You couldn’t be more obvious if you posted under the handle “O’Donnell for Congress.”
If you’re implying I’m a shill, you’ll be sorely disappointed to learn that I’m unaffilliated (though proudly liberal) and express opinions about a variety of topics.
And I’m not really trying to dismiss this. I just think you’re being a hypocrite, that’s all. To me, that’s the essence of shilling.
So my point isn’t valid because I am for one candidate or another. Posting on a website about candidates and races (even if it does favor Ds more than Rs).
I’ll start taking you more seriously if you can do two things: opine about anything other than CD7, and be more rational and less partisan when doing so. Until then, you be shillin’.
So, put a little spin on Perlmutter’s record to make him look bad, but foget that O’Donnell wants to put High School kids along the Mexican border and expanding a nuclear waste dump in Adams County over the County Commissioner’s suggestions, but that has to be ignored. You gonna do a website like that for Rubberstamp Rick as well? If so, then I might give you some creedence. Until then, forget it.
Looks like the Perlmutter staffers just got home. Hey guys, just admit it, your guy is giving BWB a run for his money. I am sure that he is not for that whole lobbyist thing, except for the money his family makes. Not that the public will know, since he won’t disclose his tax returns.
Please insert your DCCC talking point in the proper place, I know where I would put it.
I thought O’Donnell was giving BWB a run for his money. This is about as real as BWB going after Ritter’s Cold Cases. You really are desparate. Face it. Nobody is buying what you are selling.
Wow, that’s it. I am going to pack my bags and go home. I was chastized by one the many Ds on this site that is for Perlmutter. There is no hope, I should just get some happy pills and vote Democrat.
Moonshill v. 2.0
For the sake of full disclosure on my part, I am a volunteer for Ed. Not a paid staffer. What is your status with O’Donnell. If you are going to post this information, you could at least be so kind as to tell us what your status with O’Donnell’s campaign is, if you are involved at all. I gave you an honest answer. The least you could do is give me an honest answer.
Now, I ask you, what does Rick O’Donnell stand for? What makes him a good candidate? How is he “new blood” for congress? How can he say that he is an outsider candidate when he has Bush, Cheney and Hastert campaigning for him?
I am a law student at Michigan State. Although I do vote in colorado as that is where I have residence.
Well thanks for your honesty Mr. Toodles.
Go back to D.C! We don’t care very much for the D.C police telling Coloradans how to vote. Take Dick Armey, Grover Norquist, Rep. David Balmer, Alan Philip and the rest of the east coasters back (oh and Bill Owens back to Texas).
I just thought you should know, and maybe you did this on purpose, but Perlmutter and BWB are in two different races. And yes Ritter is giving BWB a run for his money. In fact, I would say that BWB is running out of money due to Ritter.
Again with the lobbying, here is an article discussing it:
http://www.washingto…
And here is a nice excerpt:
“‘Lobbyist-bashing may provide some convenient sound bites this fall, but it doesn’t have much of a connection to the way Washington normally operates,’ said Alex Vogel of the bipartisan lobbying shop Mehlman Vogel Castagnetti. He should know. Vogel is a former chief counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). As the company’s Web site notes, ‘Alex’s engagement with Majority Leader Frist continues. He currently provides counsel to Volunteer PAC, the Majority Leader’s political action committee, and World of Hope, his charitable organization.’
Such connections are hard, if not impossible, to break. “For the more than 30 years I’ve been around here, people have always complained about lobbyists,” said Wright H. Andrews Jr. of the lobbying firm Butera & Andrews. ‘But they don’t understand. My own mother didn’t understand. She cried when I told her what I was going to do.’ But he explained, ‘After people have been here a while, they find out that the lobbying community is an essential part of the legislative process.'”
Man alive, if this is going to be O’Donnell’s angle to try and roll back Ed’s numbers, then have at it. The whole “lobbying is bad!” stance isn’t going to get Rick the traction he needs, so let it rip.
O’Donnell, a guy that is basically sitting in Bush and Cheney’s lap, and held a blatantly illegal fundraiser headlinging the director of the EPA attented almost exclusively by lawyers for the energy industry, is opening a can of worms by trying to bring conflicts of interest to the table. I hate to say it, but the “I’m a friendly nerd, vote for me, your mom would!” commercials are a better approach than this.
If O’Donnell wants a shot, he should be focusing on countering all his negatives that will no doubt be advertised more broadly at some point, although I don’t think even that will help much. Ed endured some pretty vicious and much more hard-hitting attacks in the primary and wasn’t dented, so this contrived and wishy-washy “lobbyist wife/client list” business isn’t even going to register.
It is a great television ad that Ed has with his daughter Alexis but there are a great many problems with the truth of the matter:
Ed Perlmutter hosts a commercial that tells the plight of his daughter Alexis. “She has had Epilepsy all her life”, Ed says-and Stem Cell Research can cure her. He maintains that the Bush administration’s policy on banning Embryonic Stem Cell Research is the culprit in the matter. Two things are misleading in the commercial:
1. Using your daughter’s illness to elicit sympathy on a political decision and leaving out key words such as, “embryonic” is key to the life culture argument. Adult stem cell research and umbilical chord research is being funded, and getting results without compromising life or potential life.
2. In ads, speeches and press release Perlmutter claims that Alexis has suffered from epilepsy all her life. Sources close to the Chronicle are saying that “Alexis suffered a head injury as a toddler which most likely caused her condition.”
According to literature from the Epilepsy Foundation, “It is possible for epilepsy to develop as a result of head injuries that involve the brain. Post-traumatic epilepsy is most likely to occur after an open or penetrating wound, though on occasion it can follow a closed head injury.” A source close to the Front Range Burner tells us that:
“Alexis Perlmutter did sustain that type of injury in her early years and shortly after began suffering from epilepsy. This does not diminish the anguish and frustration that Alexis and her family have experienced, yet it is not ethical to compromise one life for the health of another. And since it is the Perlmutter campaigns’, cornerstone issue between himself and his opponent – the fact that there are omissions in the story seems disingenuous.”
To say that President Bush and Rick O’Donnell have turned their back on medical research is also an untruth. O’Donnell is quoted as saying: “I strongly favor ethical stem cell research and, as a Member of Congress, I will vote to increase funding for stem cell research. I support funding for stem cell research on adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells and, using exciting new scientific techniques, embryonic stems cells in a way that does not result in the destruction of human embryos.”
And that you dont agree with Ed’s stance. I appreciate that you took roughly 11 minutes to write that out.
A few points:
Saying that somebody has had an aflliction or disease since they were little more than a toddler and then saying that they have had it for their entire life when they are in their mid twenties I think is a fair comment. It can almost be assumed that that is all they have known. Similar to a child who went deaf at a young age, and they probably do not know what a word sounds like, she probably cant remember a time of no epilepsy. I would hardly call it disingenous.
You are right they have not turned their back on “stem cell” research. What they have done is turned their back on embryonic stem cells, which you point out. There have been advances in stem cells it just took longer. Also, embryonic stem cells have greater potential to work now than other advances like the development of skin cells into stem cells or cord blood stem cells. I remember a case in I think Holland (I know it was a european country) where some kids who had extensive, horrible burns covering their bodies were given skin grafts from aborted fetuses. I wonder what your take is on that? I really do, because it would seem to present an ethical dilemma. The skin is coming from aborted fetuses yet the kids are horribly burned. The amazing thing was that the graft healed looking like normal skin. Something that can not be said for a graft from their own bodies.
Honestly, I think you and I will never agree on the pro-life debate which is fine. But i think that it is wrong that you attempt to say that it is unethical for him to say his daughter has had an affliction her entire life when it is likely her memory is only of epilepsy. I also think it is ridiculous that you would attempt to demean her condition by pointing out it that it probably started when she was a toddler contrary to what they are saying. Also, I dont like it when politicians use their kids (Santorum I’m looking at you), but I really am appalled when people attack the children of politicians in some ridiculous attempt to land a punch on the politicians (Rush Limbaugh I am glaing at you). So please, dont dig on his kid, attack his stance.
I am not “digging on the kid.” The point is that I belive that Ed is using a family tragedy to prove a point that isn’t there. The truth about Embroyonic stem cells is that it is a less rich line of stem cells than stem cells found in chord and placenta or adult stem cells. The amount needed for embryonic stem cells is an amount that exceeds human rights! To harvest embryonic stem cells would force women (or pay them) to become pregnant for the purpose of research- is that where we want to go? The realistic futureworld scenario is that it would be women in third world countries supply lines of stem cells to research on. I don’t think Ed, who is a sensible guy really understands that degree of what he is wishing for. It is a dirty little secret and the main motive of the Bush adminstration to veto embryonioc stem cell research. They call it ethics without elaborating that it is akin to human trafficking.
especially with the line about forcing or paying woment to get pregnant. I thought these were (to use a very outdated and probably politically incorrect term) test tube fetuses. In other words, the sperm and eggs interact outside the woman’s body, zygotes are created, and only if their reintroduced to the woman’s uterous do you have pregnancy.
I think this whole embryonic stem cell debate shows how the religious right painted themselves into a corner when they insisted that life began at conception.
From what I have read you are completely and utterly wrong. Embryonic stem cells offer the best chance of gathering untainted stem cell lines. The problems with cord blood or adult stem cells is that they are only conducive to that one person. Meaning that they only contain that persons genetic material. An embryonic stem cell can be used to adapt to a persons specific genetic code. And what do you mean by the amount needed for embryonic stem cells is an amount that exceeds human rights?
Ok, now you have moved onto a real lie. First of all we dont need to harvet embryonic stem cells through force. The fact is is that we dispose of embryos everyday at fertility clinics. Those stem cells are harvested to help women who have trouble getting pregnant get pregnant. And yes donors that give stem cells are paid, at least in this country. That is not true in countries like england where even paying for expenses of the donor is against the law, but I digress. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but women in lots of eastern european countries already sell their embryos for the reasons I state above. They get paid to help women who can not get pregnant get pregnant. Is that a bad or unethical thing? Well, that is really up to the individual, but I would say that it is not. And your attempts to paint it as some sort of “Handmaid’s Tale” future scenario is disingenuous at best. Seeing as how I am on the outside looking in as far as the Bush Administration is concerned I would appreciate the elaboration on their part. It seems to me that they use scare tactics and slippery slopes as arguments when they have no real evidence of anything. It is sort of like they think I dont have the ability to comprehend their motives.
According to the Institute on Biotechnology:
On average, a woman undergoing hyper ovarian stimulation releases 10-12 eggs per treatment. In other words, somewhere between 17 million and 170 million women would be required to donate their eggs. According to the 2000 census, there are about 60 million American women of reproductive age. We can hardly assume that all 60 million American women would be willing to donate their eggs; so, mathematically speaking, there would have to be donors from outside of the US to make up for the additional eggs required to treat the disease just among Americans.
I mis typed (translation mispoke) when I said actually the word “pregnant.”
Is this really a slippery slope argument? Or is it a mathematical and scientific fact?
Want more?
After more than 20 years, embryonic stem cell research has not yielded a single cure. During this same time, adult stem cells have been used to treat people with heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries and at least 50 other documented conditions.
The focus on therapeutic cloning has been aimed at our heartstrings, prophesying cures for our loved ones, friends, and even movie stars. But scientists, politicians, and academics have all turned a blind eye to the women who will be affected. After all, embryonic stem cell research depends upon millions of embryos. Whether created through in vitro fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), each embryo requires a woman’s egg in order to be created. Theoretically, embryonic stem cell research would allow each patient to receive specialized treatment to avoid rejection complications similar to those caused by organ transplants.
Nice try Toodles- but here is the smoking test tube!
Chronic truth…
The slippery slope is more on the lines of visible people who yes we would love to see walk again, and we would be glad to see them suffer less. A Michael J. Fox without Parkinson’s, a crippled child running and playing in a field with friends. Our hearts go out to them. Truth is- that scientifically and religiously life begins pretty early in the cycle-and we have a rich source of stem cells to reach for cures that don’t compromise the unsavory harvesting of eggs.
I have now reread your post 5 times. In those five times I have seen nothing that I asked you to provide. I need links my friend. I dont know which Institute on Biotechnology you are referring to (do a quick google search) you also did not provide any links for the cures of adult stem cells nor did you answer my question about the kids who were burned and had aborted fetus skin grafts.
I love debating this issue and I have done it many times, but when I do it I need links to sites showing data that I can then contrast with data that I find that contradicts whatever information you post. Also, dont think for a second that some far-flung religious argument will work on me. Not only do i think it is a totally fallacious way to debate something, but I also, quite frankly, dont care. I am liberal in every sense of the word, and those arguments just dont fly with me. I get out of class at 1.40 your time so feel free to spend the next, roughly 4 hrs finding those links that gave you that information and post them here along with quotes, I love quotes, and we can have ourselves an old fashioned internet debate about stem cells.
Again, make sure the links are from legitimate sources, I will leave that to your discretion.
http://www.thehumanf…
http://www.reasons.o…
Dr. Fazelle Ranah
(also Prx.com.- I interviewed Fuzz Ranah on the issue on our radio program.)
Walt Larimore MD:
http://www.drwalt.co…
There are dozens of others but here are the main sources that I tend to utilize often and these sources beget others.
on a regular basis, I may know you. I too have done this and I am fascinated by the other side and the split we have in medical opinions on this as well.
And if you do post on SA do you post in D&D? That is where you will find me outside of this site.
To start, after the most cursory of perusals I will accept the fist and possibly the third, but the second does nothing for me. Any site that claims ID over Evolution is flawed and is not worth my time. I am curious as to what radio program you are on. You dont need to tell me an actual name or dial number, but what is the content of your radio station or more specifically your show?
I agree about ID. However- I must say that there is a split in the Christian camp on Creationism versus ID. It is in regard to old earth versus new earth. Our show is a media program that is aired worldwide on Armed Forces Radio, a network called Celebrate, and a pod-cast on allabout.com. It is on media and arts and our culture. As a journalist we dig for the truth. We also do clean parody, insightful interviews- and commentary. It is a fun show- and I enjoy doing it very much. When people say- “How strange from the Christian right” I remind them that it is the Christian Right Brain!
http://www.ethicalhe…
CT
I am not looking for a website. I want an article from the website with a direct link to it. I dont have the time or the patience to sift through multiple websites to find what article you are quoting from. In short, if you find an article that you think relates your message post the link to that specific article.
Egg Harvesting, Embryonic Stem Cell Research Threatens Women’s Health
Dr. Pia de Solenni
Director, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility
Evanston Northwestern Healthcare
The U.S. Congress is poised to pour unlimited funds into embryonic stem cell research that not only destroys innocent human life, but it has shown no substantial promise as a curative and threatens the health of women worldwide. So much for “progress and advancement.”
After more than 20 years, embryonic stem cell research has not yielded a single cure. During this same time, adult stem cells have been used to treat people with heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, spinal cord injuries and at least 50 other documented conditions.
The focus on therapeutic cloning has been aimed at our heartstrings, prophesying cures for our loved ones, friends, and even movie stars. But scientists, politicians, and academics have all turned a blind eye to the women who will be affected. After all, embryonic stem cell research depends upon millions of embryos. Whether created through in vitro fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer (cloning), each embryo requires a woman’s egg in order to be created. Theoretically, embryonic stem cell research would allow each patient to receive specialized treatment to avoid rejection complications similar to those caused by organ transplants.
Let’s take the example of just one disease. In the U.S., there are 17 million diabetes patients. In a report on therapeutic cloning in mice published in the 2003 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, scientist Peter Membaerts found that, based on cloning experiment done in mice, if the same model could be developed for human cloning, each cure for each patient would require 10В100 human eggs. Membaerts puts the cost at $100,000-200,000 per patient. To treat the 17 million American diabetes patients, we would need 170 million-1.7 billion human eggs.
On average, a woman undergoing hyper ovarian stimulation releases 10-12 eggs per treatment. In other words, somewhere between 17 million and 170 million women would be required to donate their eggs. According to the 2000 census, there are about 60 million American women of reproductive age. We can hardly assume that all 60 million American women would be willing to donate their eggs; so, mathematically speaking, there would have to be donors from outside of the US to make up for the additional eggs required to treat the disease just among Americans.
The 2004 South Korean cloning of a human being required 242 eggs for one stem cell line. For 17 million patients, that means 4,114,000,000 human eggs, about 400 million women donors.
Dr. David Prentice, Professor of Life Sciences, at Indiana State University, now at the Family Research Council, cites a 2005 South Korean report in which the average stem cell line required 17 eggs. For diabetes, that means 289 million eggs. If we follow Dr. PrenticeВ№s model, we would need about 29 million women donors.
Regardless of which model we follow, the reality is that millions of women will be required to provide eggs. Women whose eggs are harvested undergo a long, uncomfortable, painful and potentially dangerous process called ovarian hyperstimulation. Some of the drugs used have never been approved for this use by the FDA. Complications from the procedure include a potential link to ovarian cysts and cancers, severe pelvic pain, rupture of the ovaries, stroke, possible negative effects on future fertility, and even death.
In clinical studies using Pergonal for ovarian hyperstimulation, 2.4-5.5 percent of women developed complications. If weВ№re talking about 29 million women, that means at least 696,000 of them would develop complications. Over 100,000 would be classified as severe cases.
Women have also died from egg harvesting. Knowing this, most women would not consent to egg harvesting unless they felt they had no choice. These women could be described as those needing money, typically poor women, students, and/or women from developing countries. Such women are not in a position to give informed consent because their financial need impairs their ability to adequately weigh the risks involved.
Endorsing any form of legislation supporting embryonic stem cell research means putting thousands of women at risk of serious illness, disability, or even death. One would hope that an advanced and progressive country would treat its women better than that.
STEM CELL RESEARCH — NOT AT THE PRICE OF A LIFE. “The stealing of stem cells from embryonic human life is human experimentation at its worst,” says Dr. Walt Larimore, vice president of medical outreach for Focus on the Family, which is absolutely in favor of stem cell research — as long as it does not destroy human life. “Any possible benefit of embryonic stem cell research would require the destruction of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of tiny human lives. Even worse is the fact that not one proven therapy has come from the research to date and this entire movement is based upon hope and theory,” says Larimore. “Moreover, with the recent discovery of what scientists are calling the ‘ultimate stem cell’ from adults, destructive embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary and diverts desperately needed funding of non-destructive stem cell research.” News Contact: Lisa Anderson Phone: 719-548-5883
Back to Top
EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH: IS IT NECESSARY? “The fact that China and Great Britain are moving forward with human cloning for stem cell research is a bit like saying we should all drive automobiles at break neck speed down the highway without any thought for public safety and the lives to be lost in the process,” says Carrie Gordon Earll, bioethics analyst at Focus on the Family, which believes that the United States should form its own policy regarding human cloning. “Our caution is warranted when you consider that the immoral human experimentation of embryonic stem cell research has yet to net one therapeutic benefit for patients, while at the same time alternative stem cell sources, such as bone marrow, look more promising every day. Human cloning is not necessary and the U.S. should not be so blinded by the promise of embryonic stem cell cloning that it misses keys to unlocking cures for diseases that were inside of us all along,” says Earll. News Contact: Kristen Hendrix Phone: 719-531-3386
Back to Top
Focus on the Family has a V.P. in charge of “medical outreach”? This must be the guy who applies the leaches to the patient and reads the bumps on his or her head.
They also have a bioethics specialist and other people who are just flat out smart! So let’s see- Founded by a well known psychologist, a staff of researchers and medical professionals, journalists, and experts on every field in the culture- including gender issues. And they don’t resort to potshots. Hmmmm…
go back to this religious website and pull the link. This will do two things (1) show me the website that you got it from, and (2) Ideally have links to medical journals which will show that what this doctor is saying is true.
Barring that there is horrible bias in this article which is obviously designed to stoke fears among the fundamentalist christian crowd. And that is fine, if your goal is to dissuade people on religious grounds. Unfortunately, that is not how I roll. I am a secular guy at heart, and I need those types of arguments. I repulse these types of arguments like you would a family values book by Bill Clinton (who is awesome by the way).
Wasn’t he awesome yesterday chewing out that Faux News “journalist?” God, I miss having a president with a set of cojones (but who unfortunately had a tendency to take them out and show them to too many women).
Rodham Clinton/Salazar ’08
Here’s a link to the first twenty minutes: http://www.crooksand…
Clinton is bad ass.
I will look through medical journals – however I would not discount these medical doctors’ opinions just because they have a Christian Worldview. It is pretty narrow minded to do so as these are people who have done research or have been in practice for many years. They went to the same med schools that your secular doctors went to and provide a compelling ethical argument. There is a Biblical bias in their thought- just as many of your scientists have a bottom line bias (based on research money), and also an agnostic bias to their research as well. So don’t get on an academic high horse- Christians can think too.
I am doubting their motives. The fundamental difference between what I am going to post and believe and what you are going to post and believe is the starting point of life. I am sure they are of the utmost intellectual caliber, far exceeding my own. I make no bones about that. My beef is that they are willing to overlook embryonic stem cells because that violates their belief system and are willing to find cases that cast them in a bad light. My agnostic brethren just want to find a cure. If that cure comes from skin cells turned into stem cells or embryonic stem cells or cord blood stem cells it is all gravy because we have got a cure.
Let me put it another way. I am in law school. A well known fact by any lawyer is that if you tell a judge that they must do something they will find a way to get out of it. Guaranteed. If you have a doctor that fundamentally believes that life, or rather the potential for life exists in all embryonic stem cells they will damn sure find a way to prove that embryonic stem cells are bad. It does not matter that the federally funded embryonic stem cells we have are tainted an unusable, that will further their hypothesis that there is nothing to be gained.
I’m glad you brought up money. All scientist need funding, that is true whether you are a christian, a hindu, or a daoist. You need money to do research period. If a scientist believes that embryonic stem cells are bad and wants to advance cord blood stem cells they need to put embryonic stem cells in the ineffective column and cord blood in the effective column. If they get the funding to do research they will advance their cause and in effect ostensibly prove they were right. The same is true for the other side.
I need to prepare for my next class. So I wont post again until 1.40, but around that time I will be ready to go at it again.
…is their main motive for touting embryonic stem cell research. If motive based on belief system is to protect life or potential life by continuing to research with chord and adult stem cells, which have been proven to prolong life in many cases, is the motive then I say -“What a pure motive!” If there is more private and government money going towards embryonic stem cell research, because there are more “progressive” funders from these foundations- then I question the motives and the pressure on the scientists to perform- whether or not it is ethical, or has more potential for cures. The potential is for us to actually go down a road that we can’t return because so many funds have gone into it. So it has more to do with what has more potential or doesn’t. Have we exausted the research on stem cells that have been so promising? I think not. So why should research money go to embryonic stem cell research when it is a ‘promising’ development instead of going further in to stem cell research that has had proven success? The competition for funds is an issue that must be weighed.
Money for research is what allows for adavances in science. This extends far beyond the issue stem cell research and that is a straw man to claim that the only reason scientist research embryonic stem cells is purely financial and by extension greed.
Here is where you and I will fundamentally disagree. This is the point at which you and your christian brethren and me with my agnostic brethren head down two different paths. I believe that current life needs to be protected. You will probably agree with that statement, but it means fundamentally different things to us. I dont believe that there is life within an embryo. I believe that “life” is a newborn baby, Perlmutter’s daughter with epilepsy, Michael J. Fox, a former coworker with diabetes etc. Those are the lives we should be striving to protect. An embryo, to me, is a clump of cells. If you believe that an egg is life, and if I may quote George Carlin, than every woman who has had more than one period is a serial killer. If a “progressive” group is funding stem cell research it is only because the government has refused to do so. The money that comes from private funding, by the way, is such a paltry amount compared to that which would come from the government it is absurd. Embyonic stem cells have the ability to help here and now. Adult stem cells which I whole heartedly approve of dont have the same potential today. Ten years from now that will change. So the question is which should we fund? I say both.
If the private money is not there it would have to be tax dollars. The funds compete and if you look at it objectively, you would find that there are great strides being made without opening the embryonic lines of research. And yes we disagree on when life begins, as the champion of Roe versus Wade, Barbra Boxer says “A baby is not a baby till you bring it home.” If that is the logic, you and I will not agree. And this is where the argument becomes circular. We’ll both make great points yet if you define life- or even potential life as a lump of cells and I see it as a person before it is delivered then there is a real difference in our perspective. If what you are saying is that a baby is not a baby until as you say,”I believe that “life” is a newborn baby,”prior to the delivery what is it? A glob of cells sucking her thumb in utero! The mother feels a glob of cells kicking? We don’t HAVE to agree with when a baby becomes a baby. The truth is that the little life a mom and dad see in a three D ultrasound has legal rights, and dare I say human rights long before the baby and the stem cell rich umbilical cord are severed.
It will get circular. Because I am one of those pro-choice people. This is almost like an amicable break up. I’ve never ended a debate prior to furniture being thrown.
It is a great argument- and I appreciate how articulate you are in your position. You have your experts, I have mine. I may not be able to change anyones mind but I could drop seeds. I think it is healthy to debate these points and compare the hypothesis but it is apparent to me that President Bush is doing the right thing by banning stem cell research. (there goes a virtual chair- ouch!) I also have read and heard the stories of many who have had prolonged healthy lives benefiting from the wonders of their own stem cells and through cord cells. A woman who was paralyzed in an auto accident, can now walk- not perfectly- but through stem cells found-in her nose. Sound like a National Enquirer story. I would be glad to view your diary and to debate more on various issues.
All the Best
CT
I just want a scientific progression forward. Skin cells into stem cells, cord blood, anything that helps advance medicine is A-OK by me.
Since we established our credentials, and that of our experts, I think we should go back to our friend Ed. He’s a decent guy and will do the party proud- except that the party is dying over a problem called credibility. Think of it- if I told my family one thing at home but in my professional life I did what the company wanted me to do- I may keep my job and I may hold my family together, yet I’d have to take every mirror out of my house- because I couldn’t live with myself.
Privately- I am against abortion.
Publicly – I defend Roe.
Privately- I fight for my marriage.
Publicly- I denounce defining it.
Privately- I want to have religious freedom
Publicaly- I misinterpret the consititution (church and state)
Privately- I’m against pornography
Publicaly- I will defend pornographers.
Privately- I support our troops and our country
Publicly- I vote against protecting their safety and that of our country.
The old line that you “can’t legislate morality” is a relativist term which says to the American people “we know better than you.” This is the trouble with Perlmutter,Ritter, Salazar (pick both), and it comes from the Bidens, the Kennedys, the Clntons, and the Kerry camps. In the long run it spells disaster. Every great change in our country has come from faith. The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, Woman’s right to vote, Civil Rights, The turnabout in both World Wars, and most recently the aftermath of 9-11. When our leaders led with reverence to God, legislated morality, without social agenda and party line, change happened and happens. If someone is running for public office ala Ken Salazar, and Ed Perlmuter, and they are for real change as the campaign slogans say they are, no matter what the party says its platform is you need to unpack a little faith and a lot of morality to win over the voters. Otherwise you are a practicing hypocrite.
Full circle- The separation of Private and Public Life
Since we established our credentials, and that of our experts, I think we should go back to our friend Ed. He’s a decent guy and will do the party proud- except that the party is dying over a problem called credibility. Think of it- if I told my family one thing at home but in my professional life I did what the company wanted me to do- I may keep my job and I may hold my family together, yet I’d have to take every mirror out of my house- because I couldn’t live with myself.
Privately- I am against abortion.
Publicly – I defend Roe.
Privately- I fight for my marriage.
Publicly- I denounce defining it.
Privately- I want to have religious freedom
Publicly- I misinterpret the constitution (church and state)
Privately- I’m against pornography
Publicly- I will defend pornographers.
Privately- I support our troops and our country
Publicly- I vote against protecting their safety and that of our country.
The old line that you “can’t legislate morality” is a relativist term which says to the American people “we know better than you.” This is the trouble with Perlmutter,Ritter, Salazar (pick both), and it comes from the Bidens, the Kennedys, the Clntons, and the Kerry camps. In the long run it spells disaster. Every great change in our country has come from faith. The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, Woman’s right to vote, Civil Rights, The turnabout in both World Wars, and most recently the aftermath of 9-11. When our leaders led with reverence to God, legislated morality, without social agenda and party line, change happened and happens. If someone is running for public office ala Ken Salazar, and Ed Perlmuter, and they are for real change as the campaign slogans say they are, no matter what the party says its platform is you need to unpack a little faith and a lot of morality to win over the voters. Otherwise you are a practicing hypocrite.
________________________________________
Have you ever heard the saying “I dont agree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it”?
I lead with this because I think it is important. I also dont understand you when you say credibility. How does the democratic party lack credibility? I would like you to address this because I dont follow.
You can publicly espouse any view you want, but you can also take exception with it applying to your family. To start Roe is precedent. The most recent case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Privately and publicly I am not for abortion, rather I am for a women’s right to chose. Some would say that that is semantics, however I disagree. A person can believe that within the strictest confines of their relationship neither party would want the woman in the relationship to get an abortion, but does not care if another party would choose differently.
I am not married. But I have been in a committed relationship for the last 4 years and plan on getting married when I finish law school. Now, I am sure that when I am married my wife and I will have struggles. That is common with any marriage. One of the struggles that will not impact my marriage will be that of any other couple in the world. If a homosexual couple wishes to enter into a compact that is marriage they have my blessing. But I will not define it as a union between one man and one woman and I think trying to add an amendment to the constitution, which enumerates the rights of the citizens, and doesnt restrict them, is deplorable.
Seperation of church and state. Well, I think religious freedom is a great thing. I dont get the misrepresenting it comment though. Here are a couple of comments about what the founders think of the seperation: Jefferson “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” And then we have Madison: “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States…practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” They speak for me.
Porn. Well what can be said about porn. If the parties involved consent I see no reason why it shouldnt exist. You can also choose to not buy or patron the stores that sell it.
The troops. When have democrats voted against the troops? This country’s freedom? You mean the freedom being usurped by the president through various acts such as the patriot act and all of its bastard siblings? You mean the protection of turning Iraq into a terrorist training camp and creating a civil war in an already disjointed and violence prone region? How about Afghanistan? The hate for the US and the provisional government is at an alltime high with a strong resurgance in the Taliban.
I completely disagree with you. Legislating morality says to the American people that the government knows better than them. It says that we will not allow you to make up your mind we will make it up for you. We will not allow you access to what a few people find offensive, because we find it offensive as the few people. This corrupted view goes against freedom. You cite a lot of examples of what has sprung from faith and I doubt every single one of them. I especially take exception to the term “without social agenda” you are either naive or an idiot to think that there was no social agenda in the patriot act and similar legislation, the iraq war (aka bush’s “crusade”), or tax cuts. You are also either naive or have no sense of history to just assume that every case you mentioned was morally just without social agenda. How about the bombing of dresden? how about japanese internment? How about guatanamo? How about torture? Does god approve of waterboarding? The reason politicians talk about faith is because the majority is among the faithful. That does not mean that they know what is right in God’s eyes. In fact, loudly esposing faith would seem to contradict what god wants (see Matthew 6:5-8). The more religious this country gets the more it becomes Iran.
Have you ever heard the saying “I dont agree with what you are saying, but will defend to the death your right to say it”?
I lead with this because I think it is important. I also dont understand you when you say credibility. How does the democratic party lack credibility? I would like you to address this because I dont follow.
Lacking Credibility
Credibility is in short order when you tout your beliefs when it serves your electability yet denounce it when you vote.
You can publicly espouse any view you want, but you can also take exception with it applying to your family.
Are you saying that you can have two different viewpoints, one at home and one publicly? Like an actor playing a role?
To start Roe is precedent. The most recent case is Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).
I know. It was passed in 1973 when a young lawyer took advantage and used a pregnant woman with a 6th grade education(Norma McCorvey)to sign documents that she didn’t fully understand, and then took the case to the Texas Supreme Court and abortion on demand was in the books.
Privately and publicly I am not for abortion, rather I am for a women’s right to chose. Some would say that that is semantics, however I disagree. A person can believe that within the strictest confines of their relationship neither party would want the woman in the relationship to get an abortion, but does not care if another party would choose differently.
Kind of liberetarian in scope. Again we start dealing with when life begins. But the testimony of millions of women and men who have had therapy for post abortion stress makes me wonder “where’s the credibility and compassion?”
I am not married. But I have been in a committed relationship for the last 4 years and plan on getting married when I finish law school. Now, I am sure that when I am married my wife and I will have struggles. That is common with any marriage. One of the struggles that will not impact my marriage will be that of any other couple in the world. If a homosexual couple wishes to enter into a compact that is marriage they have my blessing. But I will not define it as a union between one man and one woman and I think trying to add an amendment to the constitution, which enumerates the rights of the citizens, and doesnt restrict them, is deplorable.
Again – we’re dealing with a psychological problem and a lifestyle that often infiltrates. We’re not helping anybody here to put a rubber stamp on lifestyle when there are people that need to be helped. Many have been abused, others have had bonding issues, and to call it a Civil Rights issue- again is a credibility problem and also it shows a lack of true compassion.
Seperation of church and state. Well, I think religious freedom is a great thing. I dont get the misrepresenting it comment though. Here are a couple of comments about what the founders think of the seperation: Jefferson “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
Jefferson wrote to the Baptist Church in Danbury in that statement. He was assuring them that they would not be subject to a STATE RELIGION as was the case with the Church of England. Important distinction. He wasn’t saying that there was no place for God’s law in government nor was he saying that prayer was a no-no either.
And then we have Madison: “Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States…practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.” They speak for me.
Same thing as Madison said- The Government would not influece religion. Not the other way around.
Porn. Well what can be said about porn. If the parties involved consent I see no reason why it shouldnt exist. You can also choose to not buy or patron the stores that sell it.
Again a libretarian view. I think it is interesting that you don’t mention internet porn. Many families have split because of it. The exploitation of women is another problem with it. And when you have a party that wants to protect the industry at whatever cost you have a perversion of the first amendment.
The troops. When have democrats voted against the troops?
Body armour.
This country’s freedom? You mean the freedom being usurped by the president through various acts such as the patriot act and all of its bastard siblings?
Yes.
You mean the protection of turning Iraq into a terrorist training camp and creating a civil war in an already disjointed and violence prone region?
No matter where the stage was set my friend it is a violent region.
How about Afghanistan? The hate for the US and the provisional government is at an alltime high with a strong resurgance in the Taliban.
Why do they hate us? Think about that – do you think they would love us if we weren’t there?
I completely disagree with you. Legislating morality says to the American people that the government knows better than them.
No, what is legislation but morality? What is law without right and wrong?
It says that we will not allow you to make up your mind we will make it up for you.
That isn’t true! It says we will protect our citizens and stand up for ehat is right. Without it we’re lawless.
We will not allow you access to what a few people find offensive, because we find it offensive as the few people.
What if the majority of people find it offensive? Not just a few. What if the statistics show you that a society is addicted to it and it affects the way they function in our culture? What about people who have the internet 9almost everyone) and their kids are exposed to pornography and obsenity? That is what is happening.
This corrupted view goes against freedom. You cite a lot of examples of what has sprung from faith and I doubt every single one of them. I especially take exception to the term “without social agenda” you are either naive or an idiot to think that there was no social agenda in the patriot act and similar legislation, the iraq war (aka bush’s “crusade”), or tax cuts. You are also either naive or have no sense of history to just assume that every case you mentioned was morally just without social agenda. How about the bombing of dresden? how about japanese internment? ( was that because of religion?)How about guatanamo? (that was not because of religion- that was a few bad soldiers) How about torture? (no one condones it) Does God approve of waterboarding? (huh?) The reason politicians talk about faith is because the majority is among the faithful. That does not mean that they know what is right in God’s eyes. (Biblically they do, He gave us His laws)In fact, loudly esposing faith would seem to contradict what god wants (see Matthew 6:5-8).
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand in the synagouges and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need “before you ask him.”
That is a great statement by Jesus on prayer and then he teaches the Lord’s Prayer as how you should pray.
But being a Christian is more than prayer. Or I should say that prayer is a key element in leading a Christian Life.
Jesus also said: “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother-in-law. AS man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” (Matthew 10:32-36)
That is why we acknowledge Him in everything we do. We are our brother’s keeper, not the judge of him or her. We don’t despise them for their weaknesses, and we don’t regard him or her for their strengths. We don’t take away freedoms, we help them learn to stand. That’s a song chorus that I think really says it best.
The more religious this country gets the more it becomes Iran.
Really? I think religion is bad too. I am not very religious. I have a great relationship with God and others who are Christian and not so Christian. I enjoy the dialouge and I know that faith in action is the real compassion of what Jesus was saying in the Beatitudes that you quoted. Pray quietly- Do everything as if you are working for God, and brag on Him. It’s simple really.
“Credibility is in short order when you tout your beliefs when it serves your electability yet denounce it when you vote.”
To say that this applies to Democrats is a fallacy. To say that this does not apply to most politicians is also a fallacy. I grant you that there are probably some democrats that do this, but there are just as many if not more republicans. And you have to look to how an issue is couched. For example (hypothetical, but I am sure I can find a real example), a bill regarding tracking kiddie porn producers is put forth. Senators line up to put pieces of pork on the bill, the language gets watered down, and no real teeth are put into the bill when it is all said and done. Now really who wouldnt want a bill named Child protection from violent porn producers Act. Senator X votes against it. It is now easy for a future competitor to say, “Senator X voted against this bill vote for me to protect your kids.” It cant be said through a 30 second commercial that the nuances of the Senate forced Senator X to vote no. This may be a bad example, but I think you understand what I am getting at.
“Are you saying that you can have two different viewpoints, one at home and one publicly? Like an actor playing a role?”
Come on. I am saying that you can hold something as a belief for yourself, but not believe that it must apply to everyone else. I think the example that I used pretty accurately describes what I am getting at.
“I know. It was passed in 1973 when a young lawyer took advantage and used a pregnant woman with a 6th grade education(Norma McCorvey)to sign documents that she didn’t fully understand, and then took the case to the Texas Supreme Court and abortion on demand was in the books.”
It goes beyond that. Roe v. Wade was not just one case. It was multiple case wrapped into this one. The supreme court often does this type of thing when there are multiple cases pertaining to the same constitutional question. I believe that it is a lot better than having women go before medical boards to explain their situation and why they should be allowed to have an abortion it is also a lot better than having women get backyard abortions too. If you have ever read the cider house rules it gives interesting perspective of what I am sure was not a purely fictional account.
“Kind of liberetarian in scope. Again we start dealing with when life begins.”
Agree to disagree on when life begins.
“But the testimony of millions of women and men who have had therapy for post abortion stress makes me wonder “where’s the credibility and compassion?”
I have known many women in my day who have had abortions. I also have known their significant others. From what I have heard none of them regret their decision, nor really care about it that much. I think a great example is the recent attack on BR. The facts came out that the woman originally agreed to the plea deal. Now she regrets it. Should we take plea deals off the table because some regret their decision? My other favorite example is the 9 year old girl in NY who was impregnated by her 41 year old neighbor. When it was discovered, she had an abortion. Was this wrong?
“Again – we’re dealing with a psychological problem and a lifestyle that often infiltrates. We’re not helping anybody here to put a rubber stamp on lifestyle when there are people that need to be helped. Many have been abused, others have had bonding issues, and to call it a Civil Rights issue- again is a credibility problem and also it shows a lack of true compassion.”
Are you saying that homosexuality is a psychological condition? If you are, then that is literally the dumbest thing I have heard in a long time. Put down whatever book you got that out of, or turn off whatever radio you heard that on; it is wrong. This is a civil rights issue and credibility is severly lacking on your end. No matter who you put up as a source they are idiots. Dont believe that tripe, it is utterly ridiculous.
You are right about the Jefferson and Madison quotes. Both were to Baptist groups. But this is not a one-way quote. The Madison quote in particular address this issue by saying that the seperation of both equates to the purity of both. Reading between the lines one can assume that the mixing of the 2 is like beer before liquor.’
“Again a libretarian view. I think it is interesting that you don’t mention internet porn. Many families have split because of it. The exploitation of women is another problem with it. And when you have a party that wants to protect the industry at whatever cost you have a perversion of the first amendment.”
I just assumed that internet porn fell under the umbrella of “porn.” If many families have split because of it than that indicates a weak family to me. Where are women being exploited to do it? The porn industry is booming in the US so I hardly think women are being hoodwinked. I assume that you mean the democratic party wants to proct it at all costs, unless there is a porn party that I have never heard of. Well, I am not familiar with them protecting it at all costs, so please refresh my memory.
“Body Armour”
Explain.
“Yes.”
So you are proud that the president is doing away with civil liberties, which is exactly what the terrorists want?
“No matter where the stage was set my friend it is a violent region.”
Yeah and we sure did a lot to help stop it. http://www.usatoday….
“Why do they hate us? Think about that – do you think they would love us if we weren’t there?”
According to Bush it is because we have ever evaporating freedom. They may not love us if we were there, but weren’t we supposed to be greeted as liberators?
“No, what is legislation but morality? What is law without right and wrong?”
Depends on what you believe is moral.
“That isn’t true! It says we will protect our citizens and stand up for ehat is right. Without it we’re lawless.”
You literally restated what I said. Who determines what is right. According to you the government determines for us. Have you ever heard of something called civil disobedience?
“What if the majority of people find it offensive? Not just a few. What if the statistics show you that a society is addicted to it and it affects the way they function in our culture? What about people who have the internet 9almost everyone) and their kids are exposed to pornography and obsenity? That is what is happening.”
That is called tyranny of the majority. People wonder why we have the electoral college. The reason is to protect the country from the tyranny of the majority. If the majority of the people always win than we have Gore as president. If you have statistics that show that post them, but they better be from a truly reputable source. If you can not control what your kids are looking at on the internet then unplug it. I am sure they hear worse obscenities on the playground than they do on the internet.
“Really? I think religion is bad too. I am not very religious. I have a great relationship with God and others who are Christian and not so Christian. I enjoy the dialouge and I know that faith in action is the real compassion of what Jesus was saying in the Beatitudes that you quoted. Pray quietly- Do everything as if you are working for God, and brag on Him. It’s simple really.”
Do you think religion is bad or do you think Islam is bad? Because I sincerely doubt that you are not religious. Or maybe you are not as religious as some people you know. If we had a spectrum with Atheism (0) at one end and Jerry Falwell (100) at the other you, in my opinion, would fall at about a 90 where I would be closer to a 5.
Since I’m on deadline, let’s take this one issue at a time. After I spewed all over the table I thought we should take small bites out of the elephant (no Republican jokes please)!
Take John Kerry, Joe Biden, and Ken Salzar-please!
They run and their campaign literature, and body language says we are Catholics! we believe, we go to confession, we go to mass, we even stump in between…But they vote for partial birth abortion (buzzer), they vote for embryonic stem cell research (buzzer), and they vote Democratic platform all the way. “I’m a devout Catholic…but.” so the RC strikes back:
CBS 2004
“It is unclear if pressure from the Boston archbishop will prevent Sen. John Kerry from taking communion this Easter Sunday in his home city because of the Democratic nominee’s support for abortion.
Amid questions of how Catholic leadership will respond to the pro-choice senator, Kerry’s archbishop — Boston’s own Sean O’Malley — has refused to clarify a statement last summer that pro-choice Catholics are in a state of grave sin and cannot take communion properly.”
“At least one House Democrat has been told not to present himself for Communion in his home diocese. Others, including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, fear they will be denied the sacrament, leading some to eschew a parish community in favor of Sunday church shopping where they are less likely to be recognized. … In April, the pastor of Blessed Sacrament parish in Springfield, Ill, where [Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.,] owns a home and where he previously attended church, said he would deny the pro-choice senator Communion if he presented himself for the sacrament. Durbin, who also owns a condominium in Chicago, said he regularly attends Mass there and not in Springfield.”
Good news:
George McGovern thinks pols should run and vote faithful to their morals:
“a moral underpinning” is vital to politicians. “I think if every political figure would make an honest effort to stay with the essential teachings of Christ and the Hebrew prophets they’d be all right in politics…” George McGovern
Like a certain Hispanic who was up for a high court position when the Dems said “He’s not our kind of hispanic!” Our next act is St. Nick:
Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas, a Catholic, is critical of bishops who have said Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee in this year’s presidential election, should not take communion unless he opposes abortion.
“Are those same bishops going to say a person should not take communion if they support the death penalty or an unjust war?” Lampson asks. “I want to have a dialogue, live my faith. I want to work on issues that I learned in my Catholic faith – strengthening family, supporting the issues that I believe Jesus Christ taught.”
Lampson does not want to see complex issues painted as black-and-white in the name of religion. “I’m so firmly convinced that if you make abortion illegal, all you’ll do is drive people to find an abortion illegally,” he added.
? That’s like saying if murder was legal we should keep it that way- or perhaps people may start murdering illegally!
I guess what he’s saying is that “I’m not their kind of Catholic!”
The Rev. Bob Edgar, a United Methodist minister and former six-term congressman from Philadelphia, said his faith helped him understand that issues were not black-and-white. “Most were shades of good and evil,” said Edgar, who was the first Democrat in more than 120 years to be elected from the heavily Republican 7th District of Pennsylvania.
Edgar, who is now general secretary of the National Council of Churches, hopes faith will be an issue in this year’s election.
“We’re trying to make it a factor,” Edgar said, citing an interfaith voter registration drive – “Let Justice Roll” – aimed at registering and mobilizing poor voters.
“Most political parties talk about the middle class only,” Edgar said. “We think both political parties need to be reminded that it’s terrible to have 9 million children without healthcare. … We think the religious community needs to mobilize.”
The reason why health care is not available is our lovely senate and congress people keep making abortion on demand a mandate for any health care bill. And although I like what Edgar says he’s all over the place- maintaining that faith should play a part but saying that there are not absolutes.
If relativists legislate relativism- then no one will stand for anything. If Ed Perlmutter says “I’m a Christian and faith is one of three things that are important in life- but I check it at the door when I debate. My morals and my belief system are private and I don’t cross party lines even if it violates my beliefs. Then we have no one standing for issues that represent the people.
So you start off your post with some Catholic Democratic Senators. First of all I dont know what “RC” is. What should have happened when those Archbishops began saying that they would refuse communion is that the IRS should have revoked their tax exempt status. Where do these bishops get the right to deny someone communion? Do they have a right to judge someone? Your Nick Lampson quote is spot on. These bishops should come out against the death penalty and deny communion to those who commit it. I guess it is easier to denounce one side instead of the other.
“”a moral underpinning” is vital to politicians. “I think if every political figure would make an honest effort to stay with the essential teachings of Christ and the Hebrew prophets they’d be all right in politics…” George McGovern”
So much for religious freedom. I guess that Muslim running for congress in Minneapolis should drop out because his holy book is not the same as McGovern’s and according to McGovern he is not right in politics. Here is something that may blow your mind: A person can have morals and not be religious. A person can also be of a faith other than Christianity and Judaism and also have morals. When did McGovern make this quote? It is ironic that you should quote McGovern since he ran for president on a platform of unilaterally withdrawing from Vietnam. He lost, but there are a lot of politicians who are making their names known for their opposition to the current quagmire this country finds itself in.
“Like a certain Hispanic who was up for a high court position when the Dems said “He’s not our kind of hispanic!”
What hispanic was up for the high court? Because the last person put up for the high court who was rejected was Bork and that happened a while ago.
“Lampson does not want to see complex issues painted as black-and-white in the name of religion. “I’m so firmly convinced that if you make abortion illegal, all you’ll do is drive people to find an abortion illegally,” he added.”
Totally Agree.
“? That’s like saying if murder was legal we should keep it that way- or perhaps people may start murdering illegally!”
That is really a sophmoric comment. As is the next one you made. Maybe he isnt their type of Catholic. If I was Catholic and found the leaders of my church making hypocritical and even inflammatory comments that offend rational people then I wouldnt want to be included in that group either. Essentially you are calling all of these politicians CINOs. Which is truly offensive.
I’ve engaged in too many debates to be drawn into your ridiculous attemtpts to frame issues around spectacularly stupid phrases like “abortion on demand” and “partial birth abortion.” I think it is wonderful that you are willing to let people suffer without health insurance because congress wont acquiesce to your demands. Edgar can say whatever he wants; he is hardly all over the place. There are no absolutes and if you think there are than I ask that you reread my earlier posts and answer the question I have asked, specifically about the 9 year old who got an abortion. You sound like a scientologist, skipping my questions only to have me address yours.
“If relativists legislate relativism- then no one will stand for anything. If Ed Perlmutter says “I’m a Christian and faith is one of three things that are important in life- but I check it at the door when I debate. My morals and my belief system are private and I don’t cross party lines even if it violates my beliefs. Then we have no one standing for issues that represent the people.”
Do you know what relativism means? This is the second time you have used it and I am beginning to doubt that you have the slightest understanding of its meaning. When did Ed say that. I want a link that shows he said that.
Relativism: “The Loss of any absolutes in our culture.” Source: The Universe Next Door- A Basic Worldview Catalog
James W. Shire (Probably a Christian so it it may not be admissable)
Ed was riled by what he said are attempts by others to label him as some kind of fundamentalist. He is half-Jewish and half-Christian, but considers himself a Christian, although not the born-again kind.
My faith is personal, it is not political. No one believes more strongly in the separation of church and state than I do.
http://www.5280.com/…
“Like a certain Hispanic who was up for a high court position when the Dems said “He’s not our kind of hispanic!”
What hispanic was up for the high court? Because the last person put up for the high court who was rejected was Bork and that happened a while ago.
Like Bork, former Manhattan prosecutor Miguel Estrada’s name should be a verb by now. He unfortunately earned it the hard, ugly way — by being a punching bag for Democratic senators and left-wing interest groups. President Bush picked him for a seat in May 2001 on the D.C. Federal Court of Appeals and the Left subsequently set out to destroy him.
And I do mean “destroy.”
Estrada, who as a teenager moved from his native Honduras to the United States, was dubbed “Hispanic in name only.” He was literally not Hispanic enough for liberals who believe that an ethnic background ties one to an ideology. They judged that a Judge Estrada’s rulings wouldn’t reflect their political will. And so they had to destroy his nomination, as Democratic memos and talking points made shockingly clear.
Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said of Estrada: “I’m scared of what will happen if he is confirmed.” As Mark R. Levin puts it in his book Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America: “Estrada’s main offense in the eyes of his opponents was that he would not be an activist judge. He believed in following the Constitution.” That means no writing in nonexistent Constitutional rights from the bench — like that of privacy, which a psychedelic 70s court managed to do.
When Estrada stepped aside after more than two years of vicious, degrading left-wing attacks, President Bush rightly said, “The treatment of this fine man is an unfortunate chapter in the Senate’s history.”
As if the Bork and Estrada brouhahas didn’t spotlight the shameful history from the Senate enough: Charles Pickering was nominated by this president for the federal appeals court. The Left demonized his role as a U.S. District Court judge in a complicated Mississippi cross-burning case. Folks like Schumer (just call him Senator Attack Dog) tried to make it a black-and-white case against Pickering, by pitting him as a white-man-vs.-blacks kind of hater. Never mind that Charles Evers, brother of civil-rights activist Medgar Evers, said of his Mississippi brother: “The NAACP and the Klan are the only two organizations that are against [Pickering] down here.”
Quoted from an article in the National Review. (Well there ya go again! Get me a smart source from the one of them journals like Newsweek!)
Your quote of relativism is partially correct. Delving into the definition you will find that relativists claim that humans understand and evaluate beliefs only in terms their historical and cultural context. You used relativism earlier and then cited historically and culturally significant events which made me question your understanding of the term.
Now onto Perlmutter. He self identifies as a Christian. What does that mean? Christianity means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. And I am willing to bet that most americans, whether they are religious or not, would self identify as christian. I have a friend that is an ordained minister in the universalist church. Is he not a christian because his politics are different than yours? You mentioned earlier that you have a personal relationship with god. I am not doubting that nor am I disparaging that, but maybe perlmutter does too, and his relationship with god is different than yours.
Onto the court nominees. First let me say this, when you referenced the “high court” I took that to mean SCOTUS. What is essentially being argued is that he had a sort of Antonin Scalia/Clarence Thomas view of the constitution. Originalist or textualist are the terms that are used to define those types of judges/nominees. To give you a very abridged version of what those two synonomous terms mean is this: judges should only interpret the constitution in a way that a reasonable person *at the time of the ratifying of the constitution* would interpret it. I happen to disagree with that view. The major flaws that I see with that view are that they use multiple documents from that time to interpret the constitution today. Federalist papers are the main source, generally, but not always. In fact much of our common law is derived from English common law. It is not uncommon in Michigan to have precedence dating to the 14th century being used in a property dispute (learned that just the other day). But I digress. Personally, I view the constitution as a living, breathing document that should be interpreted in light of todays facts. It would be impossible for the founders to envision something like the internet or machine guns or (insert modern day issue here). Privacy rights, especially those attached to abortion are something that the founding fathers probably did not comprehend abortion, which of course leads us to the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution rounding out the Bill of Rights. I could do a discourse on them, but quite honestly I have too much reading to do.
To cap off this installment I move to address the nominees. The first one fell in line with the originalist/textualist view. I dont doubt that democrats wanted him to not hold a seat in one of the more influential courts of appeal. But I would hardly say that he is destroyed. In fact he is currently a partner in one of the most powerful law firms in DC. On to Pickering, you cited one former member of the NAACP, but you failed to mention that the national and mississippi chapters did not approve of him, nor did the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Human Rights Campaign or the National Bar Association, to name a few. Thats a lot of people.
I’ll Be curious to see if there is a cogent reply offered agaisnt that MT . . .
Here is an article from 2005: http://www.news.wisc…
“Embryonic stem cells are capable of forming any of the 220 tissues and cells in the human body and, in culture, are constantly trying to migrate down different developmental pathways. Maintaining stock cultures in their undifferentiated state is critical.”
This article goes indepth about why the stem cells Bush authorized are tainted. My question is why with new technology should we not incorporate these lines into government funding?
As an aside I am about to post a new diary that I would really be interested in your thoughts.
It is a good article. Doesn’t address ethical issues and there are many. When I look at motives – there isn’t enough there to sway me.
When made your first post I thought, “uh oh, shill time.” But shills don’t engage in civil debate, and this may have been the most informed and civil debate I’ve seen on any topic, let alone one so emotionally invested, as this one. Kudos to you and Mr. Toodles both!
I appreciate that. How else shall we engage the culture? Otherwise we are just clanging pots and pans!
The juices were flowing and blood was pumping and then we were civil. Time for the ol’ Tylenol PM.
Here’s to Michigan State and their law program!
I was raising a virtual glass to your debating skills.
I checked everything but the key word! Sorry for the typo.
CT
Very impressive, you don’t see a mannered discussion on blogs too often.
CT – I disagree with you about virtually everything, but I like how you explain yourself and don’t take offense at conflicting viewpoints. I wish more people that think like you would act like you as well.
MT – Way to hang in there and articulately defend good science (and by virtue Ed). I think people will be suprised when they click on the thread and get a 50 post, 10,000 word philosophy of sicence /culture war debate.
Toodles, are your grades suffering because of your late night blogging on this site?
Contract law beckons!
I need the release. My level of understanding in class ranges between the 30-50% range. Anyone considering law school beware, it is wholly unlike undergrad.