Gracious grumbling...

Okay, so I have issues where my wife's father is concerned. Plain and simple, he's not my favorite person.

He hurt my wife and mother-in-law many years ago, vanished, then came back into her (an my, since we were dating at this time) life. Things were okay, then he went Houdini at Sprout's baptism.

Several years later, he's back again. Personally, my limit was reached when he walked out on my daughter's day. Far as I was concerned, my father-in-law died before I met him (my wife's step-father, the person she thinks of as "daddy" died from cancer many years before we met). Doubt (a nickname for blogging purposes) was just my wife's father at that point.

Let me explain how I make this distinction.

Any idiot can perform the physical actions needed to become a father. Many have been for thousands of years. But it is a truly exceptional man who manages to become a daddy, especially if he has no blood in common with the one calling him that with affection.

So Doubt is my wife's biological father. He is back in her life, and is known to my kids, who have affection for him in that way that kids do ("We're related? Then that's all I need to know. I love you"). To say I'm not thrilled is an understatement, but I deal with it, because I don't want to be one of THOSE dads who will tell his kids from on high who to like or not like. I try to keep my snide comments where Doubt is concerned out of the kid's earshot, and limit what I REALLY want to say so as to not upset Wyfster. She (and by extension, my kids) are willing to give him another chance, to maintain that tie to some part of her family, and I wouldn't begrudge that to anyone.

I keep wandering, so please forgive me. If I can maintain focus here's the good stuff.

Doubt and his wife are coming over for Father's Day tomorrow. They are giving us the gift of a full-sized gas grill, and will help inaugurate it. I appreciate the gift enormously. At the moment I am using a small camp grill perched upon two TV tray tables that are falling apart. But despite my appreciation of the gift, I still have my issues where Doubt is concerned. The gift doesn't change that.

He and I spoke very briefly at Sprout's dance recital (I really need to get that video on-line one of these days), and while I wasn't rude, I was... curt. I spoke to him as little as possible, and as I said, I wasn't rude. I held my tongue from what I really wanted to say, and kept to pleasantries. I just simply didn't want to a) create a scene, and b) allow him to cause any further emotional harm to my wife through having enough control over the situation to make me lose my cool.

But I think tomorrow (or later today, depending on how you look at it) will be tough. I will have him in my house, and short of being obvious in my prolonged absences there will be no practical way to not deal with him for an extended period.

I try to not be rude, but fear I may fail at this in tomorrow's light, and that might be what upsets me so much at the moment. I can't even say that I hate him. I hate what I have inside of me BECAUSE of him.

I know that sooner or later, I will forgive Doubt his transgressions against my family. But in the meantime, to keep the peace and maintain my family's emotional stability, do I surrender my own, and allow Doubt to have a passive control over me that he doesn't even know exists?

This is gonna be a rough Father's Day.

In defense (at least a little) of BP

Okay. So we have, what, about a billion gallons of oil streaming into the Gulf of Mexico, and threatening to follow currents, swing around Florida, and come up as far as North Carolina on the east coast.

The oil company, British Petroleum (BP) has said they are responsible, and they are. It was their "Deepwater Horizon" rig that exploded and sank killing 11 workers (their names don't get published nearly enough. They have become a sidebar to the oil and the *gasp* oil covered birds. for those curious, they were: Jason Anderson, Aaron Dale Burkeen, Donald Clark, Stephen Curtis, Roy Wyatt Kemp, Karl Kleppinger, Gordon Jones, Blair Manuel, Dewey Revette, Shane Roshto, and Adam Weise). This explosion and sinking caused the well to malfunction, and start leaking oil into the water (roughly a mile deep).

Since that time, BP has done all they can to try to staunch the flow of oil, but because it's not happening fast enough, and we now have Exxon Valdez-esque photos of oil covered birds, turtles, and other sea life, the predictable accusations have begun. I mean the ones that say that BOP is trying to find a way to still collect oil from the well, so they can make a profit.

Really? Let's examine some facts. The technology to prevent this kind of disaster does exist, but in a short-sighted money saving move, BP opted to NOT use a specific type of safety cut-off valve. Since the disaster, BP has engaged in several attempts to cap, plug, cut a damaged pipe and re-cap this well. You are talking about something at almost a mile deep. Contrary to what movies would have you think, we do not possess the technology to safely get humans down to that depth in any sort of functional manner. All attempts to stop this leak would have worked with a leak that was not so deep.

This is a situation where there is all sorts of unexplored issues, because a leak has never happened at this depth, and as such, STOPPING a leak at this depth has never been done. Conventional methods of responding to leaks have not worked, again, because of the variances that occur at such great oceanic depths.

So maybe think for a few seconds. BP isn't stalling to try to figure out how to continue to use the leaking well for money in the future. As it is, the want of a half-million dollar valve system has already cost billions of dollars in lost oil and environmental clean-up, and that is before the serious lawsuits by the families of the 11 victims start.

Maybe BP is doing all they can to stop this leak, and figuring out the best way to do it, so they only have to do it once. A short-term solution won't do anyone any good, because if it fails, we're right back to square one.

Rather than assume the worst in BP, because they are "a big evil oil company out for profits", maybe try to understand that this disaster is unprecedented, and as such will require an unprecedented solution.

A young woman (19-year-old genius college professor) pitched an idea to BP. I have no idea if it will work. Neither does she. Nor does BP. The best they can do is try. But at least she is offering something more constructive than "I wish BP would do something about this that doesn't involve them making a profit".

Maybe we all can take a cue from that. Rather than randomly criticize things about which we know nothing, and seeing a sinister motivation, think about how to make it better, or at least trust that if the solution were as simple as everyone thinks, either BP, or some group of nutjobs with a bankroll would have tried it.

Maybe cut some slack, instead of looking for the worst in everything.

Just a thought.

Attitude check...

I have a friend on facebook who answered the profile question regarding political views as "the right ones", and his religious views as "not a big fan". He graduated JD Cum Laude, John Marshall Law School in 2000.

On September 11, he posted the following status/follow-up comment, due to the limitations of space allowed in facebook posts:

"XX is disturbed that some people may feel that his nuanced opinions on certain issues make him less of an American. I would remind these people that as an American Indian I am likely one of the only true Americans that they know.

As one of the few true Americans that most of my friends know, meaning that I am 1/8 American Indian, I would remind people that over 11,000,000 Indians have died as a direct result of colonization of our native lands. When you consider the death toll of 3,000 lives at WTC (which is horrible and inexcusable by any stretch) remember that no less... ... Read More3,666 Native Americans have died for every person that died in WTC. This of course is more than a similar event every day for a year. Just something to think about when you refuse to look for deeper truths and more meaningful lessons to be learned."

My response:

"And just how many "true Americans" died in internecine warfare during, and after the colonization of "their" land, not to mention from the time they themselves migrated from the Russian steppe, over an ice bridge, onto the North American continent?

I really don't care about how much "Native" American you are, to try to place things in that nonsensical a perspective is insulting."

Earlier in the day, he had a wall post about how his perception of many people's patriotism is "blindly following a flag, and stop questioning what's right", and how it seemed to be somehow connected to 9/11.

I followed up my comment above with the following:

"And I don't just mean the comment, but all your musings regarding patriotism.

To me, true patriotism means a Hell of a lot more than following a flag, and certainly more than trying to get people to question their own feelings on the matter with some holier-than-thou stance.

I do apologize if I seem to be taking a tone, but this self-important, "I'm too good to blindly follow" attitude that many of my generation have pisses me right the Hell off.

You want to eschew religion, patriotism, or any other belief system you like, by all means go ahead. That is your right. But don't you dare claim some moral superiority because of it.

Just as my belief in some things doesn't make me better than others, your disbelief of the same doesn't make you better than anyone else.

To forestall people attacking me, you certainly have a right to your opinion, and thank God for it. But if you are going to express it in a public forum, such as facebook, be prepared for other opinions to come at you."

Long story short, this person seems to be an individual who thinks that his opinion is just the pinnacle of all that is around him. He seems to be agnostic, having the opinion that once a person's soul gains heaven, they have no reason to be nice, ergo, Heaven is filled with a$$holes, whereas Hell is filled with people who are trying to be nice enough to get out of it.

Was I wrong to lay into this person as I did? Please note, the term friend is used in the context of facebook. This is not actually a person with whom I interact outside of that forum.

Racist Transformers? Or overly sensitive audience?

I have yet to see "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen". Make no mistake, I WILL see the movie. I have been a Transformers fan from the git go in the early 80s.

I have seen every episode of the old cartoon series, several from subsequent series (my opinion, none as good as the original), and many of the newest series, "Transformers Animated" (geared to the 8-11 age bracket. I watch with my kids).

The newest series deals with something the original never did, until the movie in 1986, and that is death. I am lucky enough (or unlucky enough) that my kids understand the concept, and even seem to have a full understanding of the concept of having a soul, a topic touched upon in the series under the guise of each robot having a "spark" (When good-guy leader Optimus Prime thinks he has died, he asks those around him, "Is this the Well of Allsparks?"). The "spark" concept is one that was broached in previous series, notably the "Beast Wars" spin-off of the 90s, but it seems to be explored a little more thoroughly in the current series.

But I digress. The Transformers movie from a couple of years ago was fun for fans, and while not a cinematic masterpiece, an okay movie. It had the idea of a powerful artifact called the Allspark, and the presence of such a thing became the motivation for transformers on Earth, as opposed to the original story, which placed the transformers here 4 million years ago, and in some form of robotic stasis until the modern time.

This new approach has the transfomers (Autobot good guys and Decepticon bad guys) arriving on Earth as meteors and disguising themselves as vehicles to search for this lost artifact.

By the end of the first movie, the Decpticons are on the run, their leader deactivated and dumped into the ocean, and a message from Optimus Prime sent to space inviting other Autobots to join those who survived on Earth. Good guys win, human companion of the Autobots gets the girl, and a happy ending is achieved.

The second movie, subtitled "Revenge of the Fallen" (ROTF) adds new layers to the story. I haven't seen the movie yet, so whatever I say is based upon reviews that contain spoilers and what I know from the various comic books stories that have been written over the years. I haven't read them, but I have read enough about them to have a pretty decent idea as far as source material is concerned (any mistakes should be forgiven).

The title itself gives things away, and has double meaning. It refers to the fallen Decepticons from the first movie, specifically Decepticon leader, Megatron (dumped into the ocean), and it refers to an ancient transformer, said to be, depending upon who you speak to, the FIRST Decepticon (Each transformer wears an allegiance symbol. A red robotic face for the Autobots, and a purple one for the Decepticons. The Decepticon symbol bears a strong resemblance to the face of the Fallen). According to the comics, The Fallen is said to be the transformers equivalent of Judas, since he betrayed a dozen other transformers first built by the transformer machine-god Primus. His actual name has been lost to the sands of time, and he is simply referred to, because of his actions, The Fallen.

In the movie, The Fallen and several Decepticons have visited Earth in the distant past, terrifying ancient humans, presumably Aztecs, Incas and the like.

But again, I digress from my point.

This second movie introduces several new characters, both Autobot and Decepticon. Some are fan favorites, and others, while possessing names that fans will recall from older incarnations of the Transformers, are new. Two such characters are Skids and Mudflap, also known as the Autobot twins.

In the first movie, Optimus Prime explains how the transformers are able to speak English. They tapped into the world wide web, and presumably learned not only the language, but much about human cultures. In the Autobot Jazz, this came across as an easygoing character who enjoyed all that life had to offer when he wasn't fighting in a war (and sounded like a black man while doing so). In Autobot Ironhide this came across as a profound understanding and appreciation of weapons. Autobot Bumblebee was able to communicate using what could only be assumed to be a satellite radio hookup, since he had near instant access to any radio transmission he needed to get a point across.

Different personalities arose as a result of different focuses on the same available data.

Enter ROTF. Autobots Skids and Mudflap have been covered the most in the media, because they are "jive-talkin', gangsta robots" who represent "stereotypically racist" characters.

Robots who turn into Chevy vehicles. Are racist. Because they talk and act like a couple of buffoons, and with a certain inflection.

What in the world has happened to the "cultural sensitivity" in this country? Buffoonish robots who don't read and behave like a couple of hoodlums are "racist"?

Let's go over what I said a few moments ago. The characterizations are formed on these robots as a result of what they glean from the Internet. To say that there is no shortage of material that is offensive and "acceptable" there is an understatement. Virtually anything the Wayans brothers have ever done would be more than enough to form personalities and behaviors that would seem "racist" in anything other than a black man behaving like a buffoon.

And that's the problem.

It seems that racial stereotypes are acceptable, as long as they are coming from one person or another, but NOT from a white guy (or CG robot).

Maybe it is time for people to relax a little, and not worry about racial issues when they are perceived.

Or, apply that sensitivity to any and ALL instances of such insensitivity, especially when the source is one who SHOULD be offended by the crap he is calling funny.

So-called comedians like Chris Rock, who make a career out of making racially insensitive and downright insulting comments and calling it "comedy", do not help matters at all.

"Bruno" will be opening soon. Sasha Baron Cohen has made a movie in which he plays a flamboyantly gay man, and records people's reactions to him and his flamboyance. He did something similar with "Borat", and was sued many times for it. Now, he is targeting homosexuality, and doing so in a disgustingly vulgar manner.

Yet many critics love the movie. They think it is funny to see Cohen behaving outrageously and baiting people into situations that will embarrass them. They think that his antics as a homosexual and his vulgarity in speech and action are funny.

Yet the same time they offer praises for Cohen, they lambaste ROTF, complaining that there is vulgarity, potty humor, and stereotypical behavior. Such things, they say, don't belong in a "kids movie" like ROTF. Yet ROTF carries a PG-13 rating for that very reason.

PG-13 does NOT denote a kids movie, regardless of the subject matter or source material.

But the point is that characterizations performed by a "comedian" who makes a career out of making people feel/look foolish, even if he has to act as an over-the-top homosexual to do it, is funny. Having computer generated robots who have a legitimate story reason (though to my knowledge it is not addressed in the movie. Taking the previous explanation about the web, and extrapolating that new arrivals could conceivably find material on the web that is not considered offensive, one really doesn't need to think too hard to explain the "racist" behavior of the two new 'bots) for behaving as they do is enough to get all kinds of "anti-defamation" groups up in arms, is not, apparently, funny.

To say that there is a double standard at work would be an understatement.

Maybe it's time we re-evaluate just how important race and racial sensitivity really is. After all, we have Michelle Obama's "baby's daddy" elected to the highest executive office in the land. With credentials like that, I don't know how there can be so much concern for CG robots that are green and orange, one sporting a "gold tooth", and both talking and behaving like a white guy with his pants around his knees, a t-shirt that is 4 sizes too big, and a baseball hat cocked to the side, which is seemingly "racist".

Haven't been feeling too witty...

Which is why there has not been much posting. Like any. For a while.

Kids are out of school, and the lovely June weather has felt more like early October with the cold and the rain. I can see my breath in front of my face at work. I thought we were in the midst of a GLOBAL warming cycle. I think I've ranted about this before, so I will simply reiterate: For any phenomenon to be GLOBAL, there cannot be such wildly local variances.

Anyway, kids are kids. They can drive one batty. Coop them up for a few days of their summer vacations because of the colder temps and rain, and that multiplies. Add a general lack of proper sleep for their supervising daddy, and you have frayed nerves, headaches all over the place, and all-around crankiness.

And that's just from Wyfster putting up with me (I kid. Really. My wife has been great, as always).

The lack of sleep comes from having lost one car to total structural breakdown. a few inches of play in the rear axle makes for sideways driving. Fun fun. Anyway, since we are to one car, this means that Wyfster gets home about the same time I should be clocking in at work. I told them the situation, and it's cool there, but this means I have been gettign into work later. Which means I have been working later. The past few days, I have been on the clock until the wee hours, one day just beating the birds chirping the morning by about a half-hour or so.

Wyfster looks forward to our vacations to Florida each year. It's one week to visit my dad, and take in the sun, sand, ocean, and other Florida treasures. I think I'm looking forward to this vacation more than I have any previous ones.

Don't get me wrong, I like my job. My co-workers are all on different shifts than mine, so I get along with them just fine, because I don't have to work with them for extended periods of time. I don't mind the work itself, and I like to think I'm good at it. Since my boss hasn't complained, I take that to be a good thing (especially since he has "overlooked" a couple of minor industrial accidents, and still wants me around. Seriously. A faulty overflow alarm led to my trying to put about 300 gallons of oil more into a 14,000 gallon outside tank than it could hold. The clean-up took a couple of hours, and my boss STILL likes me, and wants to keep me around. The company owner's reaction to the overflow was to chuckle and say "Well, we haven't done THAT in a while"). Seriously. I work for great people, and that can make all the difference in liking your job.

Having said all that, I really am looking forward to getting the Hell away from it all for a week.

I would prefer more time away, but I'll take what I can get. Maybe my witticism batteries will recharge, and I can keep this blog going.

Or at the very least, not snap at the cats for eating so loudly.

Did I mention I need a vacation?

Gay men and beauty contestants...

unless noted by actual quotes, all statements are paraphrased from the actual comments

So, Miss California (Carrie Prejean) is being alternately pilloried and praised. She was asked a question at the Miss USA pageant by gay activist and celebrity gossip Mario Armando Lavandeira, Jr. (aka, Perez Hilton, who takes his nickname and name for his blog from his friendship with noted heiress Paris Hilton). Several members of the audience didn't like her honest answer, and would have preferred a politically correct answer.

Mr. Lavandeira would have preferred that as well. When speaking to Larry King, he said that Miss USA should be politically correct, since she represents all of the US. His expected answer to his question about gay marriage was not what he received, and he was unhappy, as evident by a hate-filled video blog in which he called the contestant a "dumb bitch".

Personally, I think that her answer could have been a little more articulate, as many answers given at these events could be (does anyone even know what the question asked of Miss North Carolina was? I looked, but couldn't find a transcript or video).

Mr. Lavandeira said that he expected an answer that was weak, and said that it should be up to the states. However, it HAS been up to the states. Same-sex marriages have been voted DOWN in EVERY election they are brought up (the only exception I can find was a vote to amend the state constitution in Arizona). Same-sex marriage exists only because of decisions in the courts, rather than based upon the will of the people, CONTRARY to what Mr. Lavandeira says would be appropriate.

If left up to the states, as Mr. Lavandeira says it should be, recent history has shown that the states are more in line with Miss Prejean's opinion, nullifying his arguemnt that she would not represent American values.

Mr. Lavandeira should learn more about that which he speaks, before insulting someone with whom he disagrees. Contrary to what the gay rights movement in America would want you to think, gay marriage is NOT the law of the land, and has never been approved by the majority of the people.

California, the most liberal state of the union, approved at the ballot box by an overwhelming margin, to NOT allow same-sex marriage. This led to hate-filled diatribes by celebrities and protests that in other circumstances would have been termed hate crimes against religious groups that had little to nothing to do with the lack of approval in the state.

The judiciary across the nation has a problem. Too many are ignoring the will of the people in favor of special permissions and laws for a minority. In attempting to offer "equal protection", they are instead setting up an environment where "unequal rights" are being granted.

Let me be clear. I think that marriage is one man and one woman. This is not to say that I am against homosexuals expressing their love for one another, but it IS to say that marriage is something that is just not an option for them to do so. It comes down to something that sounds rather simplistic, but if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get to join the club.

How about this? I'll start referring to myself as a homosexual. I sleep with my wife, and am not attracted at all to men, but I am a homosexual.

You mean I can't do that? Because I don't meet the "requirements" set down to define something, I can't call myself that?

Hmm.... funny how it works when turned around, isn't it?

I really have a strange child...

My daughter, Sprout, in order to prevent me from eating the ears off her chocolate Easter Bunnies, has chomped all the ears off herself. Sort of the chocolate equivalent of "If I can't have them without worrying about them first, then NO ONE will!"

Problem is, I'm all talk when it comes to snarfing the ears off my kids' bunnies. Sally Forth I am not (read that comic for YEARS, and I just the other day got the double entendre in the name).

I'm more like Ted. And Sprout is becoming more and more like Hillary. We talk about subjects that are silly, while Wyfster (our Sally) sits in the background rolling her eyes. I'll give you an example.

I saw, for the first time the other day, a TV show on Spike TV called "Deadliest Warrior". The premise is simple. A group of 4 experts call in specialists in (mostly) archaic weapons and fighting styles. They take measurements of these weapons in use (speed of projectiles, force of a strike, penetration power, etc), add in information about the typical example of the specific warrior class (Samurai, Vikings, Apache warriors, etc) like height, weight, etc.

All this data is fed into a complex computer program that then takes the data, and runs 1000 simulations of a one-on-one combat between two of the warrior classes (Apache Warrior versus Roman Gladiator, for example), and after 1000 simulations, they indicate which warrior would emerge victorious (the Apache beat the Gladiator, BTW).

Sprout and I watched a couple of episodes, and actually debated on one (Viking versus Samurai). My daughter figured the Viking's larger frame and brute force would overcome the Samurai's slight build and speed. It was close, but the Samurai was victorious.

But the point is that my daughter formed an opinion regarding a hypothetical combat between two warriors who would never meet on the field of battle.

I'm not quite sure what this says about my 7-year-old daughter, or my skill (or lack thereof) as a parent. My daughter is sarcastic, yet respectful. Vicariously violent (through such things as this TV show, for instance), but gentle as any other little girl you can find. She's a fantastic student, yet suffers from a slight case of test anxiety, and worries if her scores are not perfect (though my wife and I are VERY careful to make sure to not put that kind of pressure on her).

I thought daughters weren't supposed to be such paradoxes until at least the pre-teen years.

What in the world did I do wrong (or right)? And what am I going to do when she gets to be totally unpredictable?

I can only hope that she remembers how much she likes spending time with daddy, and how much she likes talking with mommy, and her pre-teen and teen years are as abnormally easy as her infancy was.

Or else I could end up as more of a basket-case than I am already.

Don't know why I was thinking of this last night at work...

Just had a memory skip across the gray matter last night while I was hosing dirt and oil off a truck.

The time is the mid to late 90's (the date is not really that important). The place is Montgomery College, in the cafeteria. There's a performer singing cover tunes while playing a guitar, and the students are paying about as much attention to him as they do the college's radio station (little more than a glorified PA system that is run by students and piped into the cafeteria).

Suddenly, a door on the far side of the cafeteria bursts open. The students closest react, and a student comes charging into the cafeteria. As he makes his way through (jogging), the reaction from the first students spread. Minor reactions spread into a commotion, as students realize what they are witnessing.

The student jogging through the cafeteria wears a red bandanna, looking (facially, anyway) like a bandit from an old western, well-worn size 10 sneakers, and nothing else.

As he passes in front of the performer, who was singing "Tears in Heaven" by Eric Clapton, the performer pauses in his singing and playing for a second, taking in what has interrupted his "show". He blinks, shakes his head, and continues from where he paused his singing.

The streaker leaves the cafeteria through the Student Activities office, to his girlfriend's car, poised to make an escape. His friends laugh at what has just transpired, one nearly falling off his seat, and one friend, while not laughing as uproariously, nonetheless has a sadistic, self-satisfied grin on his face.

A short time later, the streaker's friends are let in on the secret, as the streaker returns, fully clothed, and is taken by campus police for questioning.

The streaker (to protect his identity, we'll call him Dan) was actually put up to his stunt. And I was the one who put him up to it. I wasn't the one who spurred activities like this. I simply wasn't the type to encourage behavior like this.

So I explained:

Shortly before the "done in a flash" event, Dan was sitting with his girlfriend, myself, and a couple of other friends, just hanging out in the Student Activities area. It had been observed that things were kinda dead in the cafeteria, and someone had made the suggestion to do something about it. This degenerated into Dan saying that he would streak the cafeteria, if he was paid for it.

My brain started hatching a plan.

Dan and I had been friends. We still were, as of this event (and, truth be told, after it), friends, but not quite as good of friends as we had been. He had done something. It was important enough to alter our friendship, but not important enough to leave the impression on me so that I would remember it now.

Anyway, Dan also owed me 5 bucks.

In a moment of sadism, I offered him the opportunity to wipe out that minor debt (and a bag of Doritos) if he would streak the cafeteria. He agreed, and I knew that he would want to take credit for it (much like a criminal leaving taunting clues for a cop). I decided to encourage him to do something that he would bury himself for because he had committed some minor wrong to me, and, let's be honest, I did it for poops and giggles.

And damn it all if Dan didn't perform almost exactly as expected. To his credit, he didn't rat me out, convincing the campus police he decided to do it on his own.

If it had been a little colder, it would have been a little more satisfying, but revenge for whatever the wrong was was served that day, and all it cost me was a bag of Doritos (the money had already been more or less written off by me).

And I and my friends learned what a truly sadistic, twisted individual I can be.

Hollywood and the rationality of a 5-year-old...

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.

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".