Alrighty, we've been quiet here long enough.  Discussion following article.

Showdown Looming On Stem Cells

     (CBS/AP) In defiance of a presidential veto threat, senators who support embryonic stem cell research are pushing for a quick vote on a bill passed by the House that would lift restrictions on such studies.
     "The American people cannot afford to wait any longer for our top scientists to realize the full potential of stem cell research," said Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, the bill's chief Democratic sponsor.
     No Senate debate has been scheduled, according to aides to Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who is a doctor and an abortion opponent. He has long been an ally of President Bush, who last week said he would veto the bill.
     The Republican-controlled House's 238-194 vote on Tuesday stung some abortion opponents even though it fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Such an action by Bush would be the first of his presidency.
     The Senate bill, sponsored by Harkin and Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., is identical to the approved House version. It would lift Mr. Bush's 2001 restrictions on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research.
     Proponents say federal funding for the research on days-old embryos, using a process that destroys them, would accelerate the search for treatments and perhaps cures for diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. They say the embryos would have been discarded anyway.
     "The hope is that these stem cells will eventually be used to regenerate organs like the brain, the heart or the pancreas without the risk of rejection," said Dr. Emily Senay on The Early Show.
     Opponents dispute that, questioning any evidence that embryonic stem cell research will lead to cures. They say taxpayers should not be forced to finance science they see as an attack on unborn babies and Mr. Bush's "culture of life."
     In response to other critics who said that there is more promise from different stem cells that are found in umbilical cord blood and adults, Senay said scientists are pushing several forms of research.
     "The full potential of all avenues of research has yet to be determined," she told Early Show co-anchor Harry Smith. "Many scientists say that stem cells from cord blood and from adults hold less promise than those obtain from the embryos. That's why scientists are so vocal about wanting to go forward with embryonic stem cell research."
     Mr. Bush on Tuesday called the House bill "a mistake."
     "This bill would take us across a critical ethical line, creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life," Mr. Bush said. He appeared at the White House with families who adopted frozen embryos, known as snowflake children, reports CBS News Correspondent Thalia Assuras.
     Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., one of the Senate's staunchest opponents of abortion, said he was "disheartened" by the House's approval but pleased by Mr. Bush's veto threat.
     "Government should encourage lifesaving research, but should focus on science that both works and is ethical," he said.
     The bill's supporters said the Senate should weigh in despite the opposition.
     "Let's have an up-or-down vote," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said in an interview.
     A majority of Americans approve of using embryonic stem cells in medical studies, according to a CBS News poll. Fifty-eight percent say they support stem cell research, while 31 percent disapprove.
     Approval is higher now than it was last August; then, 50 percent approved and 31percent disapproved, but 19 percent had no opinion.
     Republicans are less likely than Democrats to approve of it, although half do. Approval of stem cell research among Republicans has risen significantly since last year; then, 37 percent approved of it, now 50 percent do. Approval has risen among Democrats as well, although less dramatically, from 57 to 65 percent now.
     CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Kaledin notes that while the stem cell debate has intensified in this country, the actual research on embryonic stem cells to treat disease is moving ahead in other countries. Known as "stem cell refugees," hundreds of top American scientists have left the U.S. to work on research overseas.
     The medical promise of embryonic stem cell research prompted several House members of both parties who oppose abortion rights to vote yes nonetheless. The moral obligation, they argued, rested on Congress to fund research that could lead to cures for debilitating illnesses.
     "Who can say that prolonging a life is not pro-life?" said Rep. Jo Ann Emerson, R-Mo., who said she had a "perfect" pro-life record and whose mother-in-law had died the night before of Alzheimer's disease.
     "I must follow my heart on this and cast a vote in favor," she said.
     "Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering," said Rep. James R. Langevin, D-R.I., who was paralyzed at 16 in a gun accident.
     But Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas and other House members who voted against the bill said that even if this type of embryonic stem cell research were proven to cure disease, forcing taxpayers to foot the bill would still be wrong.
     "In the life of men and nations some mistakes you can't undo," DeLay said as he closed the House debate. "If we afford the little embryo any shred of respect and dignity we cannot in good faith use taxpayer dollars to destroy them."
     He and Mr. Bush urged passage of another measure which would fund research and treatment on stem cells derived instead from umbilical cord blood and adults.
     Blood saved from newborns' umbilical cords is rich in a type of stem cells that produces blood in the same way that transplanted bone marrow produces it. The Institute of Medicine recently estimated that cord blood could help treat about 11,700 Americans a year with leukemia and other devastating diseases, yet most is routinely discarded.
     That bill passed 430-1, with Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, the lone no vote.

In keeping with Matt's theory that I'm not really a republican, I'm just going to come right out and say it:  I support stem cell research, including that research done with embryonic stem cells.

Okay, I'm hoping y'all know this, but there are two kinds of stem cells... somatic and embryonic. The problem that the religious right has lies with the use of embryonic stem cells, because in order to harvest the embryonic cells, a blastocyst (the stage of development of an embryo when it is around five days old and made up of about 100 cells) must be destroyed, which some people believe to be equivalent to the taking of a human life, because the blastocyst could, in time, develop into a human being.

Somatic stem cells come from two sources: blood from the placenta and umbilical cord that are left over after birth (referred to as cord blood stem cells) and, well, all over the adult body, such as bone marrow, skin, and organs (adult stem cells, even though they can also be harvested from children).

I'm all for stem cell research... a good friend of mine works for a biomedical engineering research firm, and there are literally thousands, if not millions of possibilities for research and developments with stem cells. I can understand where the extreme religious right might have a problem with the "killing" of the blastocyst, because they hold every life, even just the possibility of life, as sacred, but I look at it this way: if using those blastocyst cells can save lives, then go for it. 

I've heard too many people comparing destruction of a blastocyst to abortion, but the two aren't even comparable.  First of all, a lot of blastocysts are left over from in vitro fertilization trials, and would be destroyed anyway at the end of the trial.  Secondly, in order for a blastocyst to become a living, breathing human being, it must implant in the mother's uterus to develop.  In in vitro cases, this is never really an issue for the unused embryos.  It's not like someone is going around snatching unborn babies from their mothers' wombs like some bad horror flick.

DeLay says, "If we afford the little embryo any shred of respect and dignity we cannot in good faith use taxpayer dollars to destroy them."  It is my opinion that DeLay's little embryos do not deserve the respect and dignity that he wants to afford them at this stage in their development.  They are cells, five days old, without the means necessary to develop into a functional human being... but they do hold the possibility of being of great benefit to medical research.

Another thought is brought to mind:  we have these "obligations" to be "morally right" all the time.  Wouldn't it be morally right to do all in our power to end suffering, to cure diseases?  Just stop for a moment and imagine the potential that these embryonic stem cells could hold.  I'm not saying that this will become the be-all, end-all cure for every disease or ailment, but I think we would be remiss if we didn't at least explore the possibilities.

--amy.

Dear Readers,

It is our distinct pleasure to present for discussion our next article, submitted by Pseudosonz. We look forward to your participation, and to the discussion that will ensue. And now, without further ado, Pseudosonz' article:

Americans gorge on false rhetoric as Iraqi children starve

The local and national headlines have hardly drawn my liberal angst as of recently. This is probably because I am bombarded with the same repetitive images; thus when I was asked to write something for blogistan; I was reluctant at best-I am just not a very ‘national-oriented’ person; nor do I like throwing myself out there unless I wholly feel I have something to contribute. Unbelievably, I now feel as though I have something to share.

The British Broadcasting Company recently published an article, Children ‘starving’ in new Iraq, stating malnutrition rates for children in Iraq under the age of five has risen by 50% since the United States intervened. My immediate reaction was anger; as I hope is yours.

The article states, "When Saddam Hussein was overthrown, about 4% of Iraqi children under five were going hungry; now that figure has almost doubled to 8%, [Jean Ziegler’s] report says." Immediately, you have to ask why these facts are not plastered all over CNN, and other aspects of the media, or, as right wing morons like to say, the ‘liberal press.’ Why is this fact not a part of the ticker that details Michael Jackson’s apparel for the day? Most importantly, why has America’s interest in the world dissipated? Have we become so self-centered a society that we can no longer identify with the world?

Within this same week, the White House has claimed a number of things are happening in Iraq, none of which include starving children. President Bush has addressed Iraq directly only once this week. This is a snippet of what he had to say (this of course regards the elections that were held there recently): "We're confident that this new government will be inclusive, will respect human rights, and will uphold fundamental freedoms for all Iraqis. We have seen many encouraging signs in Iraq. The world has watched Iraqi women vote in enormous numbers. (Applause.) The world has seen more than 80 women take their seats as elected representatives in the new assembly. (Applause.)"

Are you outraged yet? You damn well should be. How dare this President speak of ‘human rights’ on any level when children are starving under his watch, under our ‘watchful’ eye. Since when did the right to food become optional? If any one of you dare say Terri Schiavo now, I will send you my vomit in a bag. In one sentence: we are discussing innocent children, not terrorists, not even potential terrorists-we are discussing innocent children.

I recently wrote about the genocide in Rwanda on my site; and I even wrote that I understand Somalia created a precedent in Africa that no President has been willing to break; however, to not do something actively about Iraqi children starving is directly America’s fault. There is no one else to blame for this atrocity; there is no finger to point. This is our doing.

While the President blinds you with his false rhetoric of stability and peace, more children will starve to death. While we all sit back and believe what we are told on our American news stations, and in our American newspapers, more Iraqi children will starve to death. Here’s the ultimate paradox: there was a great outcry after the Tsunami to help victims; to provide aid-you have to ask why more people haven’t demanded that Iraqi children are well taken care of. Why haven’t we demanded to know how their lives have improved since we invaded? If everything is going as peachy-keen as the President would have you believe, why hasn’t he provided the pictures and the evidence that would console my liberal heart that American actions in Iraq will stand the test of time?

This is my assertion: the war in Iraq is a war of aggression. Aggression is a crime punishable by the International Court of Justice. Yet, of course, the United States is not held to the International Court of Justice because President George W. Bush unsigned the Rome Statutes that would hold Americans responsible for such an act. While I believe that the initial act, invading Iraq, was such a crime, I think America would be washed of blame if we could actually put together something beautiful in Iraq: a democracy, freedom, equality and justice. Looking at this list of values pulled straight from the American ethos, I can’t determine what we have already given Iraqis.

Many of you will contest that we have just now stepped in. Wrong. We stepped in over two years ago. Many of you will argue that democracy takes time to grow. I understand that. In the mean time, how many children will die of starvation because violence we brought upon the nation prevents them from reaching supplies? Many of you will argue that taking Saddam out was right at any cost. I don’t know how you can have the audacity to say that, when individually we have sacrificed little to nothing in comparison to these people. The article quotes, "UN specialist on hunger Jean Ziegler, who prepared the report, blames the worsening situation in Iraq on the war led by coalition forces." Ziegler blames, ‘the worsening situation’ on the starvation, and I have only to imagine what else has become worse since our invasion.

I ask you, if you supported this war: what were you hoping for? Did you honestly believe this was going to be a prance through the sugarplum forest? How do you justify the current plight of these children? Do you hand them promises of a better tomorrow while scarring their todays?

--Pseudosonz

Dear readers,

It is our pleasure to present to you the next article submitted for discussion and debate, written by TheIceman003. We look forward to your thoughts and participation.

The Exclusivity of the 'Culture of Life'

In the midst of being choked with the mindless rhetoric being spewed from the Bush Administration during last year’s Presidential campaign, one catch-phrase in particular caught my attention: his insistence on defending ‘the culture of life.’

"What the hell is that?" I said aloud when I heard it for the first time. "The culture of life? As opposed to what...the culture of death?"

I was baffled by this; not only by the inference that if you were anti-Bush, you were somehow Pro-Death, but by the fact that a former governor who handed out executions like a McDonald’s drive-thru attendant handing out value meals and a sitting President who has overseen the killing of over 15,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and 1,000 U.S. soldiers could somehow claim to be an advocate for the so-called ‘culture of life’ and actually dupe people into believing he was being serious. The problem is, at the time, I didn’t realize this ‘culture’ only included being against abortion and euthanasia: everything else could just be relegated to a casualty of circumstance.

Zombies in the Bush camp rejoiced upon his re-election, for not only did this ensure that the members of the culture of death (and it’s spokesperson, John "The Grim Reaper" Kerry) would not come a-knocking at their doors and wipe out all existing traces of life, but it guaranteed them a boisterous voice in Washington for at least the next four years. All they needed now was a martyr for their cause.

Enter Terri Schiavo, whose story is now known better than the President’s whereabouts for the entire decade of the 70s. A brain-damaged woman with full-knowledge of her surroundings (in a persistent vegetative state and no cognitive thinking/feeling abilities) whose evil husband is out to collect a large life-insurance check as a result of her death (the same husband who turned down $1 million, 10 times the amount he’d get when his wife passes, to pass his legal guardianship to her family). Innocent life vs. ravenous killer. Good vs. evil. Conservative vs. liberal? The right-to-life movement saw this movie-plot unfold with the enticing ability to frame the script at will.

Unfortunately, this Hollywood production has turned into a cross between ‘Weekend at Bernie’s’ and ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ Family members are waving balloons in front of Terri and the reactionary parts of her brain cause her to appear alert, subsequently causing millions of Americans to ignore the string of doctors sure of the fact that she’s unable to think and has no chance of recovery. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (M.D.) claims that he can tell by just looking at her video that she’s not in a persistent vegetative state like virtually every other doctor on the western hemisphere says she is, lending credence to the theory that his ‘M.D.’ might actually stand for ‘mentally defunct.’

Thousands of protesters swarm the hospital, ignoring the fact that most of them would rather die in her very situation, with protest signs and duct tape over their mouth reading ‘LIFE.’ Sean Hannity and his fellow Republican shills are doing their part by making a media spectacle of this woman’s life an imminent death, hijacking everything she’s ever lived for and usurping the legacy she left behind in her own little world for their agenda’s political gain.

I’m not just assuming that the far-right is playing politics: they said it themselves. Talking points were passed around to each Republican stating that they should interfere in the case because the issue will "get the Pro Life base excited" and that it’s "a tough issue for Democrats." Gee, you don’t say. House Majority Leader Tom Delay said he knew nothing of the talking points and thought they were ‘disgusting.’ A vast Pro-Death conspiracy? Stay tuned.

The most startling piece of evidence pointing towards artificial motives would be the 1999 Texas Advance Directives Act signed into law by then Governor George W. Bush. The law, among other things, allows for the patient’s guardian to deny life-sustaining care if no living will has been made. Read that again to absorb the blatant nature of his flip-flop.

It gets worse. This law also permits a doctor to pull the plug on a patient against the guardian’s wishes if he or she cannot fully cover the cost of the patient’s care, or if the doctor believes there is no chance for the patient to recover. Both of these circumstances arose two weeks ago when a 6 month-old Texas boy, Sun Hudson, was ordered to have his life support removed despite the pleas of his mother. So where was this champion of life, this bold leader thumbing his nose at the evil forces of death?

Nowhere to be found. Hudson died soon after the plug was pulled.

There’s a specific reason why no national attention was given to this story: there is no ‘point/counterpoint’ aspect of a baby being taken off life support while his mother dissents. Just like there’s no political stake in the ‘life’ issue of genocides in Sudan and the AIDS epidemic in Africa, there’s no political stake in bringing awareness to the fact that you signed a piece of legislation that contradicts the talking points you’ve been dishing out for the past four years.

I’m an idealistic person; I’d like to believe that the members of the ‘culture of life’ aren’t selectively excluding these violations of the so-called ‘right to life’ out of convenience. I want to think that they don’t simply seize these opportunities to push their ideology’s agenda. I wish I could assume that these people actually care about Terri Schiavo and not just about their own selfish interests; but believing all of that would also entail trusting that most of them can see through the President’s BS. After the November elections, I have trouble believing they can even tie their own shoes.

Much like a dog owner picking up a tennis ball and feigning a throw (causing the dog to mindlessly scamper all over the yard), Bush points his finger and the Culture of Life springs into action. Armed with duct tape and protest signs, an army of Americans yell and scream for days on end, fighting for a cause that their President knows doesn’t even exist. Just like pets, they come crawling back, unfulfilled and ready for the next one.

Fearless members of this movement, do us all a favor: keep your mouths taped shut. You’ve got the right idea.

-TheIceman003

Dear readers and fellow Blogistanis,

It is our distinct pleasure to present to you the second contender for one of the two open posts on the Blogistan staff, and one whom I'm sure most of you are familiar with: Ebit. Ladies and Gentlemen, Ebit's article:

Ebit's Article

In a country in which freedom of religion is considered a basic civil right, it is to be expected that "the separation of church and state" will be a debated issue. Sure enough, it has proven to be throughout the entire history of the United States, and never more so than today. There is much debate over seemingly "harmless" practices like short prayers in schools or at sporting events. These practices are not, however, harmless.

Put yourself in this situation: you are a courteous, respectful non-Christian. You go out to enjoy a football game. Just before the game, it is announced that there will be a short prayer, and that all should rise. As you watch everyone else rise for prayer, you are faced with a tremendously difficult dilemma: do you compromise your own beliefs, or do you remain seated, insulting those around you and possibly attracting the anger of some less-than-understanding "Christians?"

Maybe I sound like I am being oversensitive; I assure you, I am not. As a non-Christian myself, I have faced some very abusive condescension from certain Christians. True, only a very small percentage of Christians are like that, but it cannot be denied that many are. We should not be expected to go through that whenever we go to a public event.

Yes, I understand that the US was founded on Christianity. Yes, I realize that in Muslim countries they say Muslim prayers and that in Jewish countries they say Jewish prayers, etc. But in those countries those are OFFICIAL STATE RELIGIONS. There is no official state religion in the US. Therefore, regardless of what the nation was founded on, there should be no prayer at secular events.

Look, if Christians want to pray to themselves in public, they should go for it. If they want to hold unofficial, private prayer meetings, they should go right ahead. But a public, mandated prayer is wrong. Remember: the Bible may say to pray day and night, but it also says to do so in private, and to do it so secretively that you "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." Pray day and night by living the way that Jesus wanted, and be modest of your faith.

Just one more thing: the Ten Commandments should NOT be displayed in ANY government building. The instant it says in the first Commandment: "I, the Lord, am your God," the Ten Commandments lose ANY place in US law. Also, so long as there is a death penalty or ANY US-sponsored war ("thou shalt not kill") or so long as no one goes to prison for "coveting" (see Commandment #10) I do not want to hear that the Commandments are the basis of US law. After all, almost the whole of Western society glorifies coveting (desire) anyway. If it weren't for coveting, there would be no capitalism!

Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion, as well.

-Ebit