So, I am shopping in Weis market, and use the automated check-out. Squirt, my 5-year-old son goes down to bag the groceries. I had to re-bag them, but, what are you gonna do? He was pleased with himself that he could help. Anyway, while I was re-bagging the groceries, my son looks at the Redbox (great thing for movies, as long as you don't procrastinate in returning videos), and spots the indicator for the movie "Milk" (he reads better than the other kids in his class).
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Irresponsible "science"
The president yesterday signed an executive order undoing an order signed by his predecessor, banning the use of federal monies to fund embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.
To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.
Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.
But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.
Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.
In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.
How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.
Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.
But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.
If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?
As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.
Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.
His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).
So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:
When does life begin?
Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.
The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.
Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.
Each of us, at one point, were embryos.
We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".
Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.
To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.
Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.
But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.
Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.
In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.
How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.
Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.
But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.
If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?
As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.
Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.
His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).
So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:
When does life begin?
Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.
The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.
Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.
Each of us, at one point, were embryos.
We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".
Saturday, February 7, 2009
It makes me like my cats all that much more...
It seems that some people forget that it costs nothing to be nice.
Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.
But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?
I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?
Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?
I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.
But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?
If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).
I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.
Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.
To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.
It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.
Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.
It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".
Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:
"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."
Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.
But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.
But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.
Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.
But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.
At least if we want a decent world.
Sure, people disagree about all sorts of things. Married couples do it. Friends do it. Acquaintances do it. Total strangers do it. It's part of being human and having opinions that are yours and yours alone.
But when is it appropriate to say something, without being spiteful? If you disagree with a person, do you make random comments about how you want to harm them if they speak of something you don't want to hear? Do you simply ask them to not behave in such a manner? Or do you simply ignore it, and allow things to proceed as they will?
I personally think that disagreement is great. Robust debate is what keeps people thinking, keeps minds sharp, and allows for people to exchange ideas and concepts that one might not think about otherwise. But does that mean that civility should take a break?
Is it possible to disagree about something and NOT make things personal? Maybe gently communicate to a person that you would like to change the subject from the debate at hand, and oh, by the way, how is your brother?
I'd like to think so. I know several people who like to discuss topical issues, several who like to talk shop, and still others who want to talk about nothing more than personal feelings, relations, and the weather. If you want to change from one type of conversation to another, great. Make it known, and I'll change gears. I'm easy.
But if you don't make it known, can a person really be held to blame for continuing on one conversational track, while you have already switched?
If you haven't guessed it, I pay attention to politics and frankly the world around me. I know that most of it I cannot control, impact, and according to some, should even care about. But I do. I have cast some small amount of thought to running for public office (a thought that was dismissed, because I really don't want to put my wife and children through all that).
I have a curiosity about damn near everything, and as far as I am concerned, I have never, nor will I ever, stop learning. And I have a serious desire to make sure I understand the world that I am leaving to my kids, so I can teach them all I can about what I have observed in it. Learning from books is one thing. Learning from the spoken words of one who has observed, or better yet, experienced something is miles and away better.
Discussion about most any topic is a fantastic way to learn, especially if you do not agree with what is being said. As soon as you close your reception of that with which you disagree, you have taken yourself out of the learning continuum, and planted yourself firmly in a single stage of immovable ignorance.
To take things one step further, and not only stop listening, but insult what you disagree with, and you have simply deepened the ignorance.
It is in that ignorance that we, as a society, find ourselves. Many think themselves above it, but frankly there is no person alive who has any excuse to not be civil. I am not saying that one needs to gush over what anyone else says. The last thing the world needs is more suck-ups. But to toss basic civility out the window and engage in the self-aggrandizement of casting insults shows not only that one's opinion is weak, but that one lacks the ability to carry on as a decent human being.
Too many people think that they can say what they like, to whomever they like, at any time they like, and then tell all their friends how clever they were for "putting thus-and-so" in his/her place. Their friends all laugh about it, tell their friend how great he/she is, and go on with a skewed sense of the world around them. This is how stereotypes form.
It is wrong, unfair, and makes the world a worse place for our children to grow up in. It is how white children who have never met a black person hate those with dark skin upon first meeting them. Parents who pass on closed-minded prejudices have a greater impact on the world of tomorrow than all the civil rights bills passed by Congress. Decency has taken a holiday in the modern world, where one opinion must rule over all, and you can't conform, then you need to get over it and if you can't, then you can "suck it".
Morgan Freeman in the "Bonfire of the Vanities" said it best:
"Be decent to each other, like our mothers taught us."
Disagreements over whatever issues there are, be it sports teams, politics, or favorite ice cream flavors, are natural, and will occur no matter what is desired.
But Mama Wolfknight didn't teach me to insult others over those disagreements. I was taught to be better than that. Be bigger than the small ones who feel the need to insult because they have nothing else to fall back on. Recognize that those who do so are people who shouldn't be seen as worthy of hate, but of pity, because they can only lash out in such a sad manner.
But above all, be decent. Even to those who show you hatred. Respect costs your soul less than hate.
Sure, it sounds like something from an after-school special.
But maybe it's a lesson that needs to be reviewed once in a while.
At least if we want a decent world.
Friday, November 14, 2008
We're just a couple of months away.
The first celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day since B.O. was elected to lead the nation.
There will be much pomp and circumstance. Much will be made of the fact that B.O. is a black man, elected to the highest office in the land.
Dr. King would weep.
His dream has been given a terrible blow.
Dr. King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
This has taken place. My children play with black children in school. My children know as "Uncle Ryan" a black man who is one of my closest friends. To them, these children, and their "uncle" are not black. They are simply good people. Their skin color is not even a secondary concern.
Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled by not just my family, but families all across this nation.
In this past election, 95% of blacks voted for now president-elect B.O.
It is difficult to say that skin color did not play a factor, because clearly 95% of whites did not vote for John McCain. Many whites voted for B.O. as well.
Since the election, we have heard how it was "historic". Frankly, every election is historic. There have been less than 50 men who have held the office of the American presidency. B.O. is the latest man to join that elite club. But that is not why the media and other call this election historic.
As far as I am concerned, the nation elected a Democrat to office, not a black man. I focus, not on his skin color, but on what I have been able to determine about his character.
But many who sing the praises of Dr. King do not, and by this lack of proper focus, have set his dream back quite a bit, simply by making such a big deal about his skin color.
Dr. King said:
"...we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
I, Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. long for that freedom, when skin color does not matter to anyone.
Now that we are being told that history has been made by electing a black president, it looks like that dream is further away than ever.
There will be much pomp and circumstance. Much will be made of the fact that B.O. is a black man, elected to the highest office in the land.
Dr. King would weep.
His dream has been given a terrible blow.
Dr. King said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
This has taken place. My children play with black children in school. My children know as "Uncle Ryan" a black man who is one of my closest friends. To them, these children, and their "uncle" are not black. They are simply good people. Their skin color is not even a secondary concern.
Dr. King's dream has been fulfilled by not just my family, but families all across this nation.
In this past election, 95% of blacks voted for now president-elect B.O.
It is difficult to say that skin color did not play a factor, because clearly 95% of whites did not vote for John McCain. Many whites voted for B.O. as well.
Since the election, we have heard how it was "historic". Frankly, every election is historic. There have been less than 50 men who have held the office of the American presidency. B.O. is the latest man to join that elite club. But that is not why the media and other call this election historic.
As far as I am concerned, the nation elected a Democrat to office, not a black man. I focus, not on his skin color, but on what I have been able to determine about his character.
But many who sing the praises of Dr. King do not, and by this lack of proper focus, have set his dream back quite a bit, simply by making such a big deal about his skin color.
Dr. King said:
"...we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"
I, Like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. long for that freedom, when skin color does not matter to anyone.
Now that we are being told that history has been made by electing a black president, it looks like that dream is further away than ever.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
There will be bitterness, though no blood...
And that's a good thing.
Power will change hands in a few weeks in America, and not one drop of blood will have been spilled to do it. Compared to other ostensibly democratic nations, the fact that intimidation was not widespread (and dealt with swiftly where it was encountered), and there was not any sort of civil unrest that resulted from a popular or unpopular decision being made, America has this democracy thing pretty well figured out.
I mention this, because people in some other democracies question how we can claim such superiority when we can't even figure out one universal method to elect our leaders (paper ballots in one state or precinct, electronic voting machines in another, and mechanical machines in another, etc).
But our elections have always ended in a peaceful transition of power. That is why America has kept superiority in the realm of democracies.
And, though I dislike the man's views, and will likely have serious issues with his policy decisions, Barack Obama (one of the last times I will not refer to him by his initials) will be my president. No, I did not vote for him, and no, I do not support many of the tactics that were used to ensure his too-quick rise to power.
But I live in a democracy. And the majority has spoken, even if I don't like what was said.
As long as Obama is president, he will have my support and defense, inasmuch as I do not live in some alternate United States where he is not MY president (as many felt about George W. Bush).
That doesn't mean that I will agree with, or even like him. That just means that I recognize who he is, by virtue of the system of government that I choose to live under and participate in.
Power will change hands in a few weeks in America, and not one drop of blood will have been spilled to do it. Compared to other ostensibly democratic nations, the fact that intimidation was not widespread (and dealt with swiftly where it was encountered), and there was not any sort of civil unrest that resulted from a popular or unpopular decision being made, America has this democracy thing pretty well figured out.
I mention this, because people in some other democracies question how we can claim such superiority when we can't even figure out one universal method to elect our leaders (paper ballots in one state or precinct, electronic voting machines in another, and mechanical machines in another, etc).
But our elections have always ended in a peaceful transition of power. That is why America has kept superiority in the realm of democracies.
And, though I dislike the man's views, and will likely have serious issues with his policy decisions, Barack Obama (one of the last times I will not refer to him by his initials) will be my president. No, I did not vote for him, and no, I do not support many of the tactics that were used to ensure his too-quick rise to power.
But I live in a democracy. And the majority has spoken, even if I don't like what was said.
As long as Obama is president, he will have my support and defense, inasmuch as I do not live in some alternate United States where he is not MY president (as many felt about George W. Bush).
That doesn't mean that I will agree with, or even like him. That just means that I recognize who he is, by virtue of the system of government that I choose to live under and participate in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)