Last night, the Washington State House approved House Bill 1268 to provide guidelines for embryonic stem cell research. Despite explicit language, the bill is supposed to strictly prohibit human cloning, that is exactly what this bill allows.
The bill’s authors have been clever with their definitions. While they forbade human cloning in one breath, they permitted it with the next. The bill’s definition of cloning is made up to best suit their needs:
"Cloning of a human being" means asexual reproduction by implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation [e.g., an embryo] into a uterus or substitute for a uterus with the purpose of producing a human being.
But wait! Cloning doesn’t actually begin when you implant an embryo in a womb. It occurs before that, through a process called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT).
Wesley J. Smith, a senior fellow at Seattle’s think tank Discovery Institute has done some leading studies on this issue. Smith does a good job defining complicated scientific procedures in layman’s terms. He describes SCNT as such:
In the case of asexually creating a human, the biotechnologist removes the nucleus from a mature human egg (an oocyte). The nucleus of a body cell from the DNA donor is removed, and put into the place formerly occupied by the egg's nucleus. The genetically modified egg now has 46 chromosomes, the full human compliment. Meanwhile, the ability of the mature egg to transform and begin embryonic development remains fully potent.
A little shot of electricity comes next, and if all goes well, a new human cloned embryo comes into being and begins to develop in the same way as a sexually created embryo. At that point — and this is important to understand — there is no more cloning to be done since a new human organism now exists.
Let’s be clear about this: SCNT is cloning. Anything else is what Smith would call “junk biology.” Yet the authors of this bill – as well as others who advocate cloning – will usually retort that only religious conservatives call this immoral. Those people apparently are only limited to Bush-Cheney bumper stickers and a Sunday school worldview. These are the same tactics used by Darwinists to slam those who argue (quite well) for intelligent design.
The promoters of this type of science contend this issue by using scientific terms like blastocyst (meaning, a week old embryo) to confuse the circumstances. They will also assert that those who are in moral opposition to human cloning must be against saving lives by advancing this research. Don’t be fooled by that red herring.
The real issue is not whether or not we should try to save more lives by curing more diseases. The issue is how far do we go to do it? The scientific elitism in this is overwhelming. I find it patronizing to be told that my views only derive from right-wing conservatism as June Walker and Jaquie Bayley of Hadassah, have done in today’s Seattle P-I, located here.
Opponents, including conservative lawmakers and religious leaders, cited sanctity-of-life issues and characterized the process, called Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer, as reproductive human cloning.
However, it appears that minute understanding and bad logic is their basis for justifying their position. Their definition of SCNT is rather empty.
SCNT is about saving lives and the betterment of humanity, plain and simple. We are doing a great injustice to humanity and the future if we allow ourselves to be frightened by the unknown and political and religious agendas. This appeal is really based on pathetic appeal, not a logical conclusion. Again, opponents to this type of research
In last night’s House floor debate we heard another common fallacy. Science has classified cloning into two categories: therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning.
Democrats argued that while therapeutic cloning would take place under embryonic stem cell research, it still wouldn’t be cloning (despite the obvious in its name). Therapeutic cloning is using that human embryo for purposes of research. Keep in mind that SCNT has already taken place. If a human organism is implanted in a womb and brought to birth, then it is reproductive cloning. But both of these are not different types of cloning, they are different uses for cloning. Again, let’s be clear: this is still cloning.
Last night, Democrats like Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (D – Normandy Park) and Rep. Ed Murray (D – Seattle) argued different saying that therapeutic cloning is different from reproductive cloning and is in fact not cloning at all. Either the Democrats are quite ignorant and they shouldn’t be voting on such a magnanimous issue, or they are directly using deceitful tactics. Either way they have done a large disservice to the people of this state in advancement of political wills.
When we legislate human life we are playing a dangerous chord. We should look for ways to advance our abilities to cure difficult diseases. We have already made significant progress through adult stem cell research, and we could do more with it. Now that we have gave legal endorsement for the creation and subsequent destruction of human life, what is next? This is a venture that extends beyond the authority of man to tinker with. Let’s pray the Senate and governor have better sense.
Apparently being an angry democrat will land you jail time these days. According to a Florida news report, a man was arrested for trying to run a woman off the road whose SUV sported a BC’04 sticker.
Alan Winkler told police officers he got upset with the woman, 35-year-old Michelle Fernandez, after she made an obscene hand gesture, Durkin said. Fernandez was taking her 10-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter to a ball field in her Ford Expedition Tuesday when the incident occurred.
"Whatever gestures I made, I made them because I was trying to figure out why he was honking at me and pointing at his sign," Fernandez told the St. Petersburg Times.
Police said Winkler had a sign in his Nissan sedan that read, "Never Forget Bush's Illegal War Murdered Thousands in Iraq." "Maybe he has that sign with him so he's prepared any time he comes up against a Republican," Durkin said.
Having had my own BC’04 sticker and even my Dino Rossi sticker tarnished by the likes of those who become compulsively mad at campaign trunk junk, I am more than glad to see that McGruff the Crime Dog put a stop to this one.
LPG: Has to ask any co-worker in the office when was the last time they French Kissed someone. MLC: Has to introduce himself to someone in a public restroom and offer that person his business card.Current score: Even
Last Friday, the Washington State House passed a bill that enacts a top-down mandate on sex education in local schools.
House Bill 1282 would require school districts to adopt state Department of Health guidelines for comprehensive sex education as well as to teach an abstinence program. If the bills goes through the requisite next steps of Senate passage and a gubernatorial signature, school districts will only have the option to teach state mandated sex curriculum, or no sex education at all. Many local districts opt to teach abstinence-only curriculum.
This bill represents another classic example of big government-knows-better-policy. Now the same sex education courses being taught at Franklin High in inner-city Seattle will be taught at Columbia High in rural Walla Walla. These are two very different locales that may have different views on how sex education should be taught.
This diminishes the role of local school boards in making decisions on how to teach their students. The legislation will also have the unintended consequence of having no sex education courses in many more schools.
Education begins at home – parents should be the foremost educators on matters concerning sex. Yet studies show that the home is usually the last place children learn about sex. Regardless, parents should be involved in decisions concerning how sex is taught in schools. When government at the state level decides the needs of local communities, the effectiveness of the school authority is squelched.
Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (D – Normandy Park), one of the most ostensibly liberal members of the House was none too surprisingly the prime sponsor of this bill. “If we don't give our teenagers the complete and accurate information they need,” she argued, “then why would we expect them to make the best decisions available to them?”
This is true. It behooves us to have the “bird and the bees” talk with our students. But it is the voice of Olympia the best way to give them this information?
Both Schual-Berke and the Health Department have touted that the new curriculum is modest and informative and most districts should agree with it already. If that is the case, then why does the state feel the need to demand they use only their ideas? A better alternative would have been to write the curriculum and present it to school districts as a teaching option. This would be effective for the schools that don’t want to devise their own sex ed classes.
Ironically, democrats whose campaigns are bought by teacher’s unions and public education activists have only passed legislation that will shoot them in the foot. Democrats have for years argued against allowing the expansion of school vouchers. When the state mandates how curriculum like sex ed (and who knows what else in the future) will be taught, the demand for school vouchers – public monies paying for private school options – will only come back to haunt them.
To say, “you’ll do it our way or you won’t do it at all” is a rather Machiavellian way to educate our children on the risks of pre-marital sex. Eliminating the role of the parent in how their child is educated further exudes an elitism that will leave many local districts opting out of teaching sex curriculum altogether. If the legislature were serious about making quality education decisions for our students, then it would allow such decisions to be made locally.
So I have this daily book that I follow religiously. Each day it gives me something that will supposedly change my life. Many of them have in some way or another alterted the world around me. I'll post more of the things I have to do each day as time goes on, but today I want to share one task in particular.I once had to a letter to a mass murder...so I did. I wrote Robert Lee Yate, aka "The Spokane Serial Killer." He was convicted for killing 14+ people. Here's what I wrote:Mr. Robert Lee Yates, Jr.
AKA “The Spokane Serial Killer”
c/o Washington State Penitentiary
1313 N. 13th
Walla Walla, WA 99362
13 January 2005
Dear Bob,
I have decided to do something that I have never done before. Today I have decided to write a mass murderer. I have never had any correspondence with a convicted serial killer. I suppose it could be perceived as an act of irreverence toward the magnitude of crimes you have committed. However, I look at as a way to lend to you some reading, and to me the chance to say I’ve actually written a serial killer. That’s a story I can tell the rest of my life.
So here it goes: My name is Matt and I live in Olympia, WA. I was going to school in Spokane during your heyday, and was still there when you were caught. That was big news. In a way I was somewhat relieved. No longer did we citizens of Spokane have to dodge dark alleys and lurking corners in fear of being nabbed by the “Spokane Serial Killer” as you were dubbed. Not that we truly lived in that fear. After all, nobody ever thinks it could happen to them.
Alas, now the news media could also cease their relentless reporting on your activities and whereabouts. I don’t think we should glorify those situations any more than they warrant. Heavens, I wonder if those reports gave you any feelings of celebrity. Or do you usually not watch the news because of the bad press you get?
Here’s what I often wonder when it comes to those who mingle in your circles. Did you ever think you would get caught? Usually when one takes such adverse risks it’s because they believe the odds are in their favor. Or maybe you were so wrapped up in your illicit activities that you never considered the idea of being caught or not caught.
You are most certainly what they call on the inside a “lifer” now, aren’t you? (I had a buddy go to prison and he let me in on some of your prison lingo). Now that you have been forced into giving up your occupation of murdering people, have you found a new activity there? If I were given a life sentence to prison, I think I would take of whittling. On second thought, no I wouldn’t. I bet they don’t issue you a Swiss Army Knife® with your prisoner starter kit, do they?
Okay, so what about cards? In the movies those swank prisoners always play cards and they are pretty darn good. Not to mention Texas Hold ‘Em is a popular thing right now. I don’t know if you get cable in there, but Celebrity Poker is a cool program on the Bravo channel. Could you imagine if you ever got out (let’s only pretend) and they let you on Celebrity Poker (because, let’s face it, villain though you are, celebrity is in your title) after you have been mastering Poker all these years? Man, you’d clean up. But you’d have to donate all your winnings to your favorite charities and as a mass murderer, I don’t know if you are required to have any.
Well, that about does it for me. I don’t want to go on too much more – that would be too much for a letter to someone I don’t know beyond the media. If you ever get bored, I suppose you could right me back. However, I would hope you keep any creepy thoughts to yourself. Keep it G-rated, Bob.
Stay out of trouble.
Regards,
Matt
For those of you who didn’t catch Meet the Press Sunday, it featured a debate on the President’s Social Security plan between Sens. Dick Durban (D-IL) and Mitch McConnel (R-KY). You can get the full transcript here. The Dems are stonewalling the president on his Social Security plan, but they seem unable to derive any thoughts of their own this. MR. RUSSERT: Senator Durbin, if the president took private and personal accounts off the table, would you then sit down and have on the table raising retirement age, raising the cap on payroll taxes, perhaps cutting benefits in out years? Would you be willing to put that on the table? SEN. DURBIN: If the president takes privatization off, if he makes a commitment to the future of Social Security, we're ready to sit down on a bipartisan basis and put everything on the table. Here’s Harry Reid’s quote from a news conference in Las Vegas: SEN. HARRY REID, (D-NV): We're willing to work with the president for the Social Security in the out years when we recognize there are some problems 40, 50 years from now. We're happy to work with the president in that regard, but not until he takes privatization off the table. We are not going to negotiate with ourselves until the president takes privatization off the board, period. Russert exercises a classic reporteresque style and calls Durbin out on flip-flopping on this issue. However, Russert stopped short of saying the Dems have no ideas other than being exactly opposite of what the president is proposing. MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you Dick Durbin in 1998. This is when Bill Clinton was president. This is a press release you issued: "...due to the increasing number of `baby boomers' reaching retirement age, Social Security will be unable to pay out full benefits beginning in 2032, but the sooner Congress gets to avert this crisis the easier and less painful it will be." How could it be a crisis in '98 under Bill Clinton but not a crisis in 2005 under George Bush? SEN. DURBIN: Well, even then, 2032 is the year that we projected. Now, it's 2042, so it's in stronger position today than it was then. But let me just say, I think we should do something, and I believe most Democrats believe we should, on a bipartisan basis, do something sensible that is dedicated to the long- term survival of Social Security. Privatization accounts, and I think the president now realizes, it, they're non-starters. People in his own party, Chuck Grassley and others are telling him, "Let's get way from that conversation." Last week, did you hear the president when he went up to New York and out to Indiana? Now, he's talking about the safety net of Social Security. He's starting to sound like a Democrat. We understand it's an important safety net. Let's make our first commitment to the long-term solvency and permanency of Social Security. As a conservative, I don’t expect the Democrats to be for individual retirement accounts; their political philosophy doesn’t permit resourceful solutions. Yet, they haven’t been able to really make any great arguments against it. I would think that if you were use blockade tactics to stifle the president’s agenda, then it might be useful to have the backup plan be your own agenda. This is where the party has become an empty shirt. The Democratic message appears to be a form of denial. Essentially that everything is fine as it is; that a crisis doesn’t exist. Durbin’s remarks are in line with the DNC message: MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that we currently have a crisis with Social Security? SEN. DURBIN: I wouldn't use the word crisis. Untouched, Social Security will make every single payment for the next 37 years to every retiree, maybe 47 years. But beyond that, unless the economy grows well and grows us out of the problem, we need to address it. And there are ways to address it in sensible, commonsense approaches today that will play out in 40 or 50 years. To them, they have 37 years until the problem expires. Congressional Democrats look more like college students writing a mid-term essay the day before it’s due than legitimate policy makers. In the least they should recycle an old Clintonian plan and mend the system as it exists. Clearly this party has lost its ideological framework for sound policy. I’ll maintain that if we whip enough votes with Congressional Republicans – a much easier task then convincing D’s to do something – then we can pass it out of the House in the least. The Senate might be more of a challenge but having a GOP majority in both Houses makes this pretty attainable.
