That's the only reason I can see that they wouldn't want personal account options for Social Security reform.
Let's look at it logically (and mathematically) shall we?
Retirement age is 67 now, right (for SS benefits)? Well, as SS now stands, if you contribute your whole working life, and you only live to 75--seems reasonable, that's slightly above the average life expectancy for a male--and let's say you worked from age 18 - 67, that's 49 years worth of SS taxes you've paid, right? But if you die after only 8 years of retirement, that's 41 years worth of taxes neither you nor your heirs will EVER SEE. And we know what THAT means...
For those of you who play the lottery (i.e., those of you who can't do math), what that means is that the GOVERNMENT keeps YOUR money. Or, probably more specifically, the Government gets to give your money to whomever or whatever it wants. How do you feel about what should have been your nest egg or your "safety net" going to, let's say, subsidize healthcare for illegal aliens? Wait, wrong question--I'm talking to the libtards who oppose the President's proposal (and the RINOs who are willing to sell their souls to the devil to back them up). You all would probably approve of that. But what if you're a liberal anti-war protester--how do you feel about your hard-earned payroll taxes being diverted from SS to pay for bullets, or (egads) GUNS (icky guns, eeew)?
More likely, that money you leave behind (if Congress doesn't act) will merely go to paying for someone else's basic benefits until they die, which the Government will hope is soon so they can continue to avoid solving the problem created by the world's largest pyramid scheme.
In contrast, if the same scenario played out but you had opted to put 2% of your SS taxes into a private account, that you managed well over the 49 years of your working life (this presupposes, by the way, that you are 18 NOW and that the President gets his way), and you die having only collected 8 years worth of benefits, whatever's left in that private account goes to YOUR HEIRS!! And again, for you liberals, one of those heirs might even be your "same-sex partner" if you've written your will properly (or, if by then you've gotten your way and have legally married him or her).
Of course, you could count on that stem-cell research you all love so much coming up with a way for you to live forever, or you could settle for your measly $300 death benefit and let the nanny state keep the rest for someone else's use (how noble of you).
Personally, I'd prefer to keep my money and have it go to my family when I kick it.
It's called statistics Poosh. First, start with the stats for my state, Massachusetts (I'd start with California, but gee, that would be waaaaaay too easy).
OK, let's see... It cost $67Mil in tax-payer dollars just to incarcerate the ones who committed crimes here. I'd say of the total 87,000 illegal aliens in the state, that's a pretty high percentage who are IN JAIL (roughly 30% of them I think, based on prison costs and legal costs, etc...roughly the national average of the population of illegals nationwide).
Now let's take a look at the enrollment in our schools, already woefully overcrowded, shitty quality places. Who do you think pays for educating children who aren't even supposed to be here? Their parents? GONG! They either aren't working, or aren't paying taxes because they aren't working legally (most construction gigs--the ones they get in these here non-agriculturally focused parts--pay under-the-table for their work, I know this for a fact, I have a brother-in-law who's a carpenter). Who who pays then? Oh yeah, I DO, and so do all other LEGAL citizens of the state.
Then there are the indirect costs, which--in my opinion--still qualify as evidence of "freeloading," hard-work or lazy criminal behavior aside. Those would be housing costs, utility costs, healthcare, auto insurance, etc... Which have skyrocketed in this state in the past ten years. Why? Well, we're a small state with a struggling economy and not enough people who CAN pay to cover the costs of all the services actually USED.
Let's take housing. We don't have lots of space to build new "affordable" housing. So the "supply" that's here is in high demand, and we know what happens in a capitalistic society (socialist leaning state though this may be, landlords will be landlords after all). Low supply, high demand equals HIGH PRICES for everyone.
And if you lived here you'd know that I'm taxed to DEATH to pay for things like phone service, electricity, gas, heating oil, you name it, for the "poor." Then there's the form I've been given by every doctor I've ever seen here that explains my rights to me if I "can't afford to pay" or "don't have insurance." It makes it pretty clear that I needn't be a citizen of the US to get those benefits, so I surmise that there are plenty of people here who aren't. Seems a safe assumption.
And just out of curiosity, what the hell is your problem with my position on this? Are you one of those people who thinks it's all just about the cost of lettuce and "jobs no American wants?" Tell that to my brother-in-law who has been told--point blank--that he's lost out on jobs to "cheaper Mexican workers." In one case, he was offered a job IF he'd work for the same wages they'd take, under the table of course, and without insurance, because after all, the employer would "prefer to hire someone who speaks English."
Would you want to live in a house or apartment built by someone who didn't speak the language of the guy telling him what to build or how to build it? I sure as fuck wouldn't.
It's as simple as this: Hardworking people don't "cheat" and coming her illegally (while so many still come legally) is cheating, I don't care how you rationalize it otherwise. And in my view, people who have to cheat have something to hide--whether it's lack of ability, lack of talent, lack of will, lack of integrity, criminal past, desired criminal future, or flat out ill-will towards our country and our people, no one who "means well" SNEAKS in or breaks the law to get here. Period.
I've HAD it with the bullshit arguments. I've had it with the pandering to big agri-business and construction companies. Something MUST be done, and fast, or more Americans are going to be unemployed, uninsured and probably, DEAD.
Serioulsy, I voted for the guy, but lately I'm wondering why a guy with nothing to lose is acting like a guy caring about reelection? Who's he afraid of? Does El Presidente Fox have some dirt on him we don't know about? Does someone else? Does he actually believe the bullshit he spews about illegal aliens, and does he realize that even his loyal constituents (like me) aren't buying it and are running out of patience?
I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I thought he'd spend his political capital--the stuff he so boldly said was his to spend this past November--WISELY and CONSTRUCTIVELY. Instead we get more ass-kissing to the arrogant Mexican President Dictator, more pretending that he is doing anything other than encouraging the consistent outflow of the dreck of his own society, more pretending that the people coming in are "contributing" in positive ways to our economy and not just giving us cheaper piece-of-shit, put-together-with-tissue-paper-and-spit housing and cheaper lettuce, and more insinuations that anyone who feels differently either doesn't understand the situation or is a racist (depending upon whether you're in the GOP or DEM camp).
If this is some lame-ass attempt to demonstrate "bi-partisanship" because so many libtards love to sing "kumbaya" holding hands with undocumented workers illegals, then it's only working to alienate loyal Bush supporters. Hard-core Dems aren't won over. He could give all illegals candy-coated driver's licenses, 100 acres and a mule and the "Move-On, Deaniac" crowd would still hate him, his party, and anyone who ever said a kind word about either, so what's the point? What on Earth does this man have to gain by his border policy?
And lest my readers think I'm overreacting a bit, or have no right to comment because I don't live in a border state or some shit, be advised that these freeloading vermin are EVERYWHERE. Even here In fact, one brave New Hampshire police officer--so sick of being told there's "nothing to be done" about them, took a stand and DID SOMETHING to protect his country:
Illegal alien arrested under trespass law
By DAVID BROOKS, Telegraph Staff
brooksd@telegraph-nh.comNEW IPSWICH - In the latest twist of his public battle against illegal immigrants, Police Chief Garrett Chamberlain has taken what may be a unique legal approach: He has charged a man from Mexico with criminal trespass because he was in town without legal documents.
"He's in the country illegally so obviously he’s in New Ipswich illegally," said Chamberlain of the arrest, which was made on the shoulder of Turnpike Road after a routine inquiry Friday.
As defined in state law (RSA 635:2), a person is guilty of criminal trespass "if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place."
Jorge Mora Ramirez, 21, who is living in Waltham, Mass., but is from Mexico, admitted to police that he was in the country on forged documents, Chamberlain said. Therefore, the chief said, Ramirez knew he wasn’t "licensed" to enter or remain in New Ipswich and so was guilty of criminal trespass.
God bless this cop for standing his (our) ground. Too bad the President has forced him to use such a novel (and temporary) approach to dealing with people like this.
Someday, Bush may be the villain in this story and this cop, the Minutemen, Tom Tancredo, and people like them will be the heroes. It will be too bad, but he won't be able to say he didn't see it coming, and if--no, WHEN that happens, we should all demand his head on a platter, party loyalties aside.
I'm sorry, but I grew up in New York City and a New York City without the Plaza Hotel is like, well, it's like New York City without the World Trade Center towers!
What is wrong with some people? Did they think that the demolition of those two landmarks was a groundbreaking for the new monstrosity that will go in it's place? Don't they notice the gaping hole on the city's southern shore where it used to stand tall?
Oh sure, so they're going to leave the Plaza building standing, mostly, but as condos? Ugh. What's next to go? The Waldorf Astoria? Will someone get their wish and undo Jackie Kennedy's feat and finally tear down Grand Central Station to make way for even more condos? And who the FUCK inhabits these places? What 150 people have enough money to pay for the prime real estate in the air that the Plaza condos will be? I can virtually guarantee you they have foreign names.
Ah, my fair city. What has become of you? *sniff*
This is what I'd look like:
How about you?
[Thanks to Bruce at Massbackwards for the link!]
This story has me FUMING. A mall just north of here in New Hampshire has done something they shouldn't have had to do, they've instituted a curfew for unsupervised kids under the age of 16.
I cannot fathom why any parent would simply "drop-off" their 12 or 13 year old (shit, even a 15 year old) at the mall, without any adult supervision AT NIGHT. What parent would think this was a GOOD thing to do? Let's see...It's nighttime, dark outside, my kid is too young to drink, smoke or have sex, in all likelihood has enough homework to sink a ship (even on weekends--I'm talking "assigned" homework, not what they tell their parents they have or don't have), and yet for some reason spending two or three hours just loitering around a public place that is basically an indoor version of the public square is an "acceptable" use of their time in their parents' eyes?
Yeah, that's just what I want my daughter to do when she gets to that age--dress in belly shirts, mini skirts and flip flops, put on too much makeup and head out to a place where smarmy strangers can reasonably expect to find her unsupervised, bored and surrounded by peers of questionable morals and values just itching to influence her. She could meet up with who-knows-whom I've never met and approved of, maybe some weirdo with a God-complex she met online, or maybe just some slutty pseudo-friends whose parents I don't know who'll teach her the finer points of buying rubbers at the mall CVS so she can "do it" with her "boyfriend" (whom I also haven't met and don't know about). Or maybe she'll just hang out, doing nothing but coveting crap she can't afford--or worse, buying it with money she's stolen from our wallets (or that she's earned selling blow jobs to the hockey players at school). Worst case scenario, she could get one of the smarmy strangers who's been leering at her and her gal-pals to buy them cigarettes they can then smoke two at a time before heading off to the Gap to STEAL (or, as teens call it these days, "jack") a new outfit.
What the hell are parents like these thinking?
"I feel as though if I want to drop my kids off, I should. They're responsible," said Leann Newcomb of Lowell, Mass., who was shopping Monday with her 15-year-old daughter, Ashley.Ashley agreed.
"I can come here and I can be fine without my mom," she said.
Stacey Donovan of Tyngsborough, Mass., said she always has considered the mall a safe haven for people.
"God knows what they'll be doing if they're not at the mall," she said. "To say it's not allowed is not the right answer. Let them have their place."
Second, to the mom who says she should be able to drop-off her kids if she "wants" to, all I have to say is WHY DO YOU WANT TO?? Don't you want to spend time with your kid? Don't you wish she wanted to spend her free time doing something other than "hanging around" with a group of people you most likely don't know and never will know? Don't you WANT to know where she is (in more specific terms), there's lots of cars at the mall, how do you know when you drop her off there that she STAYS there?
I love parents who say their kids are responsible, that they "know" this when most likely the exact opposite is true! After all, how well can a parent "know" any teenager, much less one who's "dropped off" out of sight and out of mind (apparently) during the only time his or her parents are probably around to GET to know him or her? When are these "knowing" parents learning so much about their kids? While they sleep? Are they basing their assertions on reality or wishful thinking? I'm guessing the latter.
I'm sure for every parent who says their 15 year-old is "responsible" and has "nice friends" there's a dozen who will tell that parent that they thought the same thing, that is until they were called to the hospital to see their child in a coma having OD'd on "X" at a rave. "But I thought they were just going to a party with some friends? What's a rave?"
Or what about the parents of the "nice girls" who thought they "taught her better than that" but find out their 15 year-old daughter is pregnant anyway? "But I thought she was sleeping over at her friend Tammy's house" they'll tell you. Too bad she was sleeping at the Motel 6 with her "boyfriend" Chad instead!
I'm making up these stories, but I'm sure they aren't that far-fetched. Nevertheless, there seems to be no shortage of moms like the two quoted above. There's one simple reason these moms are so clueless: THEY CHOOSE TO BE. Why? Because they WANT their kids out of their hair. They don't want to deal with the reality of parenting. They want time to themselves, they want to BE kids in a way, free to do and say and be whatever they want, whenever they want, unencumbered by the responsibility they so freely endow their minor children with on a daily basis. Thankfully that irony isn't lost on the people at Simon Properties!
As for the mom who wonders what else these kids can do if not go to the mall for hours on end, all I have to say is, if that's a serious question on her part, then her child is EXACTLY the kind of at-risk kid I'm talking about! If these parents honestly think there's nothing better to do but shop and "hang out" when you're a teen, why should their kids think any differently?
Thankfully not all parents and not all teens agree with these whiners. One boy who said he agreed with the curfew put it best:
"What about the library? Doesn't anyone read books anymore?"
My question exactly!
OK, this wasn't quite THAT obvious, but it was damn close:
French Probe Links PLO Treasurer to Payments to Arafat's Wife
By BENOIT FAUCONRAMALLAH, West Bank -- French investigators looking into whether Palestinian funds were embezzled said the Palestine Liberation Organization's treasurer was the point man for $7 million paid to Yasser Arafat's wife through a Paris bank account. And Palestinian officials familiar with the transactions said the PLO controlled a bank account in Tunisia that was the source of millions of dollars of unexplained payments to Suha Arafat.
Now what I'd like to see (but never will) is the discovery of the account's location so that the Palestinian government can take back that which is rightfully theirs. Don't get me wrong, it's not because I want THEM to have it per se, it's just that I'd laugh my ass off to see her pampered fat ass suddenly destitute. Arafat's widow a Parisian bag lady? Now THAT would be an accomplishment. Finding out she's a skag thief? NO DUH!
There's not much I can add to this, it's perfect already:
Justice: For Arabs only?
Well, the day has finally arrived. I now find myself in agreement with the Secretary General of the Arab League.Recently, at the end of the Arab League Summit, Amr Mussa declared that peace could not arrive until there was withdrawal from occupied territories, the creation of another state, and the return of refugees.
He's basically correct. Except he has a few details mixed up.
Native Copts in Egypt—millions of them—had their country overrun by conquering, settling, subjugating, and occupying Arabs.
To this day, they never know when the next murder will occur, the next church will be burned down. They have learned that to survive they must consent to the forced Arabization process. Their leaders have even written that for Israel to "get along," it too must consent to a variation of this. Pretty pathetic. Uncle Butros instead of Uncle Tom—but the same breed, if you know what I mean. Just imagine the world-wide outcry if Israel's Jews did this sort of thing to Israeli Arabs.
The majority Berber population of North Africa saw its lands overrun as well over the past centuries by conquering, settling, and subjugating Arab hordes creating Arab empires. Imperialism is evidently only nasty when non-Arabs indulge in it. Berbers who dared to insist on keeping their own pre-Arab language and culture have been murdered for trying to do so. A look at any number of websites dealing with Berbers on these subjects will be revealing indeed.
In 1968, Ismet Cherif Vanly wrote The Syrian Mein Kampf Against the Kurds. A Kurdish nationalist, he described the murderous and brutal Arabization policies—Syrian settling, conquering, and occupying Arabs—employed against Kurds who predated them in the land by thousands of years. Settling, conquering, and occupying Iraqi Arabs did likewise to Mesopotamia's ancient native Kurds (the Hurrians, Guti, Kassites, and Medes of old), Assyrians, and other non—Arab peoples as well—Jews included.
Literally millions of native African Blacks have been butchered, maimed, enslaved, turned into refugees and seen their lands forcibly Arabized. All of this still going on today, and not just in the Sudan.
Half of Israel's almost six million Jews originated in the Arab/Muslim world. They too predated the Arabs in many of those lands that they were forced to flee as refugees, leaving far more property and valuables behind than Arabs who fled in the opposite direction after the latter's brethren invaded a reborn Israel in 1948.
The famous Jewish community in Alexandria, Egypt, was prominent centuries before Jesus. The Jews of Iraq had been in that country at least since the days of the Babylonian Captivity and Nebuchadnezzar. The Jews of Yemen were on the Arabian Peninsula before Muhammad was born, and the latter Prophet of Islam fled Mecca to Medina, a Jewish date palm oasis on that peninsula where the Jews were still prominent when Muhammad sought refuge there during the Hijra. When they would neither convert to his new faith (based largely on their own), nor accept his religio-political leadership, he butchered and enslaved them. Jews also took part in the resistance against the Arab imperial invasions of North Africa in the 7th century C.E. Recorded history, replete with similar instances, is difficult to reconcile with Amr Mussa's demand that the Jewish state submit to the will of the Arab world.
A better course for the Middle East might be the following:
It's time that the Africans of southern Sudan gain independence from the Arabs who have butchered, subjugated, and enslaved them over the centuries—long before the hypocrites in the United Nations raised so much as a mutter.
It's time for thirty million truly stateless people—such as the Kurds—to finally get their own state. They were promised one after World War I but saw it sacrificed at the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. An Arab Iraq was pieced together in its stead.
Trusting Arabs—whether Shi'a or Sunni—is probably an unwise decision, given the track records of Arabs of any stripe towards these people. With almost two dozen states already—including one carved out of almost 80 percent of the original 1920 borders of "Palestine" and today called Jordan—Arabs now have an American-sponsored roadmap to help create yet another for themselves. Yet even as they demand justice for Arabs, they seem deaf, dumb, and blind to the plight of the Kurds.
It's time for the subjugation of North Africa's huge Berber populations to come to an end and for those folks to be able to decide if they want to remain forcibly tied to Arabs or not. If not, then why should they not get territory to create a Berber State if Arabs can get to have yet a second one carved out for themselves in "Palestine?"
You see, Mr. Musa, justice should not be exclusively for Arabs.
Unfortunately, for the Copts, not too much to offer here...So many more will become refugees.
And the above Arabs' victims' list is by no means complete. Just ask native Christian, Semitic but pre-Arab Lebanese—as just one other example.
The hypocrisy of the conquering, racist, and subjugating Arab League is nauseating enough. That the latter, however, is widely supported in its demands on Israel by much of the rest of the world should be appalling to anyone with any notion of fair play.
Despite all of the international pressure on it to consent to becoming a reincarnated 1938 Czechoslovakia, ready to sacrifice itself for another "peace for all time," Israel must now muster the strength to do what it must do.
The only appropriate response of Israel to all of this should be to counter offer the Arab League peace for peace. Israel must not consent to slowly being eroded via the Arabs' openly admitted "Trojan Horse" destruction in stages plans. And it must free itself from the belief that it must allow Arabs to determine the rules of the road if widespread violence erupts again. Abbas' folks have said that they would support quiet only as long as Israel continues to cave in to all of their demands. And they're the "moderates."
Millions upon millions of non-Arabs became refugees because of the Arabs. Many of these people fled to America, Great Britain, Germany, and elsewhere. They're not returning to those "Arab" lands. Likewise, Arabs will have to take care of their own refugees, created in a war that they started and far fewer in number.
The occupied territories Amr Musa mostly speaks of are disputed lands. They are not purely "Arab." Jews had as many, or more rights to be on those lands as Arabs had. Much has been written about this, including UN Resolution 242, and leading experts such as Eugene Rostow, William O'Brien, Arthur Goldberg, Lord Caradon, and others have been quite vocal on these matters as well.
Jews have a word describing demands such as those made by Amr Musa. It's called chutzpah. Israel must have leaders who will respond to such so-called Arab prerequisites for "peace" by telling them where to stuff them.
Here's the latest on the conscience law situation regarding Pharmacists:
Congress considers birth control bill
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Reports of pharmacists with particular religious and moral beliefs denying prescriptions for birth control have prompted legislation that would ensure all prescriptions are filled.House and Senate backers unveiled a bill dubbed the Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act (ALPhA) on Thursday.
It would allow a pharmacist to refuse to fill a prescription only if the prescription can be passed to and filled by a co-worker at the same pharmacy.
But let's see what else there is to know about this law:
According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, a reproductive rights group, legislators in 10 states are considering bills that would permit pharmacists to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. A federal law, if passed, would pre-empt any state law."What have we come to in this country?" Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a New York Democrat and House sponsor of the bill, said Thursday morning at a rally on Capitol Hill. "We are merely saying, 'let the laws in this country stand.' Let a woman be treated with dignity. When she has a prescription from her doctor, that privacy should be respected."
Let's see, there's more...
Yet some want additional legislation to protect pharmacists who believe certain birth control drugs are forms of abortion, Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, told the Reuters news agency. The group provides legal advice and support to pharmacists.Brauer told Reuters she believes doctors will eventually begin ordering women to abort disabled children, or refuse to treat them after birth.
"They'll force women to kill their children ... It will be like China. It's the next logical step," she told Reuters.
As for the so-called "next logical step" being doctors FORCING pharmacologically-induced abortions, that is outrageous--possibly the most outrageous "slippery slope" argument I've ever seen! Doctors--unless they hold you down and force feed you pills--can't "force" drugs upon you no matter what. Could they "encourage" women to take meds? I suppose, but they cannot force them. And perhaps Ms. Brauer ought to take a refresher course on reproduction--it's impossible to tell whether a fetus is "disabled" until 12 weeks, and even then the only way to tell that early is a CVS test (chorionic villae sampling--taking cells from the placenta, which is never recommended in women under 35 due to the risk involved in the test). Your average amnio is done at 16-17 weeks, and a thorough ultrasound (the most common test done to most if not all pregnant women of all ages) is done at 18 weeks. And none of these can conclusively identify ALL abnormalities or "disabilities."
One thing is certain though, there is NO drug in itself that can terminate a pregnancy that late without potentially killing the mother in the process! In fact, a woman wanting to "abort" that late without an actual abortion would probably need to purposely eat some bad luncheon meat (which carries a parasite that attacks the fetus) or throw herself down the stairs! There isn't a pill that a doctor could "order" a patient to take that would do the trick neatly and quietly, that's for sure. Even RU486 isn't without risk--people have DIED from bleeding to death, and that's very early in pregnancy. To trivialize the prescribing or taking of such drugs is irresponsible.
And if Ms. Brauer isn't talking about a drug being the way doctors would "force" abortions upon their poor unsuspecting (and apparently blindly-following sheep-like) patients, then why is she inserting this into an argument in support of pharmacists? Is she proposing to support the refusal of drugs that MIGHT (emphasis MIGHT) be used to treat women who have already had abortions? I can see it now:
"I'm sorry m'aam, I cannot fill this prescription for Iron tablets, you might be suffering from anemia from bleeding during or after an abortion."
Give me a break.
The only thing missing from this piece are the sarcasm quotes around "best and brightest" in the last sentence (not shown in this excerpt--you gotta read the whole article to see it):
Iraqi Freedom 2.0
A year ago, on the first anniversary of the capture of Baghdad, the Boston Globe carried a doleful op-ed by Clinton Administration diplomat Peter Galbraith. In handling the postwar effort, he wrote, President Bush had "transformed a difficult mission into an unachievable one."The Administration had been unable "to devise -- and stick with -- a coherent strategy to transfer power to Iraqis." It had inflicted "irreparable" psychological damage on the populace. It had failed to anticipate predictable scenarios, such as the looting in Baghdad. It had mismanaged interethnic rivalries to the point that "civil war [loomed]" between Shiites and Kurds. And so on.
A year on, a freely elected Iraqi parliament has named Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, as president, and Ibrahim Jafari, a Shiite, as prime minister, following two months of political horse-trading. Despite the Sunni boycott of January's elections, Sunni politicians will take six cabinet-level posts, including the defense ministry. Insurgent attacks are down in the country, while U.S. training of Iraqi forces is going well enough that commanders may soon reduce U.S. troop levels. In short, we have made great progress toward achieving our original strategic goals in Iraq, with positive ripple effects throughout the Middle East.
We don't single out Mr. Galbraith to underscore how wrong Administration critics turned out to be. Rather, like others who supported the President's decision to go to war in March 2003, he is emblematic of how the U.S. effort nearly came undone: not because of this or that tactical misstep, but because too many among America's elite lost their nerve when the going got tough.
The American people also passed the test. We don't buy the myth that Mr. Bush bamboozled the public into believing there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11. Still, most Americans understood that, in their respective but parallel efforts, Saddam and Osama bin Laden were both testing America's credibility, which had been diminished during the Clinton years.[Emphasis mine]Americans also understood that credibility had to be restored if the war on terror was to be won, above all by not devising "exit strategies" in the face of a jihadist onslaught. As for tactics, whatever the public's qualms about Mr. Bush's handling of the war, they were persuaded that he was committed to seeing it through, a commitment Senator John Kerry did not convincingly share.
Go read the rest. It's spot-on.
To think this buffoon might have been our President.
*BRRRRRRRRRRR* Makes me shudder!
Trickery Dickery Dock
John Kerry, the haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam*, showed up yesterday at a Boston event, where he was "using crutches as he recovers from knee surgery," reports the Associated Press. He was also using emotional crutches as he recovers from last year's election:"Last year too many people were denied their right to vote, too many who tried to vote were intimidated," the Massachusetts senator said at an event sponsored by the state League of Women Voters. . . .
Kerry also cited examples Sunday of how people were duped into not voting.
"Leaflets are handed out saying Democrats vote on Wednesday, Republicans vote on Tuesday. People are told in telephone calls that if you've ever had a parking ticket, you're not allowed to vote," he said.
Where did Kerry come up with that idea about leaflets saying "Democrats on Wednesday"? Probably from this story, which appeared a week before the election:
With the knowledge that the minority vote will be crucial in the upcoming presidential election, Republican Party officials are urging blacks, Hispanics, and other minorities to make their presence felt at the polls on Wednesday, Nov. 3. . . .
"You can't walk through a black neighborhood here in Miami without seeing our 'Don't Forget Big Wednesday!' message up on a billboard, tacked to a phone booth, or taped to a bus shelter," Monreal added. "The Republican Party has spared no expense in this endeavor."
Before Kerry embarrasses himself further, someone ought to take him aside and explain to him that the Onion is a satirical publication--as is ScrappleFace.com, which came up with the idea first.
* And who by the way promised 71 days ago to release his military records.
Well, it's hard to complain about these dolls.
In the wasteland that is today's action-figure/doll market at least these have something worthwhile to teach.
At least these guys are a foot tall. That precludes them from fitting in the back of the Barbie Camper (or upstairs at the Dream House), so no need to worry about them being forced into compromising positions with that slut by curious (and playful) little kids who own both!
This is exactly the kind of thing that scares me away from the government--in this case, from the GOP and elements within it that have been rather vocal of late:
Who's conscience rules?
TO BEGIN with, I don't believe that anyone should be compelled to do work they regard as unethical. History is full of heroes who rebelliously followed their consciences. It's also full of people who shamefully followed orders.For that matter, I believe that companies and institutions should have a code of ethics. What is the alternative to corporate responsibility and public morality? Enron?
So I approach the subject of conscience clauses rather gingerly.
The very first such laws offered an exemption for doctors in 47 states who don't want to perform abortions on moral grounds. That seems to me a matter of common decency. Doctors are not automatons who leave their beliefs at the operating room door. It also seems like common sense. Who would want their abortion performed by an opponent?
Gradually however, we have had the incredibly expanding conscience clause. In 10 states healthcare professionals can conscientiously refuse to provide contraceptives. In 12 states they can refuse to do sterilizations.
Indeed, last year the government decided that entire hospitals and HMOs had the right to deny these services without losing federal funding. Never mind that it is not clear who owns the conscience of a hospital: A church hierarchy? A board of directors? The doctors? The community? Or the taxpayers who foot the hospital bills?
Now, we have gone even further. Conscience clauses are being proposed to protect professionals who refuse to follow end-of-life directives and refuse to use treatments from stem cell research. Most notably, we have bills in a dozen states to include pharmacists who won't fill a prescription.
It's the pharmacists who are getting the most attention right now. In just six months, there were about 180 reports of pharmacists who said no. One refused to fill a college student's birth-control prescription. Another refused medication to a woman who had suffered a miscarriage.
This has led to a counter bill in California that would make pharmacists tell employers of their objections in advance and be prepared to make referrals. It's led to a rule by the Illinois governor that every pharmacy -- though not every pharmacist -- must fill prescriptions, ''No delays. No hassles. No lectures."
Karen Brauer, who heads a group called Pharmacists for Life that claims 1,600 members, compares them to ''conscientious objectors." But it isn't that simple.
The pharmacist who refuses emergency contraception is not just following his moral code, he's trumping the moral beliefs of the doctor and the patient.
''If you open the door to this, I don't see any place to draw a line," says Anita Allen, law professor at the University of Pennsylvania and author of ''The New Ethics." If the pharmacist is officially sanctioned as the moral arbiter of the drugstore, does he then ask the customer whether the pills are for cramps or contraception? If he's parsing his conscience with each prescription, can he ask if the morning-after pill is for carelessness or rape? Can his conscience be the guide to second-guessing Ritalin as well as Viagra?
How much further do we want to expand the reach of the individual conscience? Does the person at the checkout counter have a right to refuse to sell condoms? Does the bus driver have a right to refuse to let off customers in front of a Planned Parenthood clinic?
Yes, we want people to have a strong moral compass. But they have to coexist with others whose compasses point in another direction. In the debate over conscience clauses, Frances Kissling of Catholics for a Free Choice says properly, ''There is very little recognition that the conscience of the woman is as important, let alone more important, than the conscience of the provider."
Pharmacists don't have the same claim to refuse filling a prescription as a doctor has to refuse performing an abortion. But there are other ways to exercise a private conscience clause. Indeed, in a conflict between your job and your ethics, you can quit. It happens every day.
When Thoreau refused to pay taxes as a war protest, remember, he went to jail. What pharmacists and others are asking for is conscience without consequence. The plea to protect their conscience is a thinly veiled ploy for conquest.
This is not easy stuff. But in the culture wars we have become enamored of moral stances. Have we forgotten that what holds us together is the other lowly virtue: minding your own business?
To each his own conscience. But the drugstore is not an altar. The last time I looked, the pharmacist's license did not include the right to dispense morality.
It's a dark day in conservative politics when those who claim to be "conservative" simultaneously support crap like this.
Is anyone really surprised by this:
Military Cuts are Sharpest in New England
New England has experienced a greater decline in military presence since the end of the Cold War than any other region of the country and is now at risk of losing its only active-duty air and naval bases, according to data compiled by the Globe and government officials.Thirty-five of 93 major bases shuttered across the nation since 1988, or a third of the total, were in Northeastern and Midwestern states, part of an exodus of large military installations from Northern states over the last decade and a half to the economically friendlier South and West.
In Massachusetts alone, the number of military personnel dropped by 74 percent between 1988 and 2002, from 9,335 to 2,427, far higher than the 24 percent reduction nationwide, according to government statistics compiled by the Northeast-Midwest Institute, a military lobbying group.
''There is an unmistakable societal consequence if we create a military without ties, in the form of active duty bases, in every part of the country," said Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.
Are you suggesting that people who have no local connection to the military might not like or understand the military well, and might not encourage (or might actively discourage) their children from serving their country by joinging the military? Gee, how nice of you to be concerned Senator. Kinda funny coming from YOU thought--I mean, considering you made a career (literally) out of slandering the military (on TV no less, repeatedly). So is your comment evidence of genuine concern, or a (thinly) veiled threat that you'll soon be up to your old tricks with renewed vigor?
WOW. That would be a nice switch from "if attacked, it is your obligation to deescalate the situation or escape" which is what's the law here in gun-control-fantasy-land (a.k.a. Massachusetts).
Read all about Florida's new self-defense law:
Fla. House Approves Bill on Self-Defense
(AP) - TALLAHASSEE, Fla.-People who feel threatened anywhere they have a legal right to be - even on the street or at a baseball game - could "meet force with force" to defend themselves without fear of prosecution or liability under a bill passed overwhelmingly Tuesday by the Florida House.The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.
"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat," said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. "That's a good way to get shot in the back."
Thanks to for calling this to my (very jealous) attention.
Too bad everything else about Florida sucks or it might be worth moving there.
Thanks to Drumwaster for spreading the word about the Citizenship reform act of 2005.
H.R. 698: Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to a child born in the United States who: (1) was born in wedlock to a parent either of whom is a U.S. citizen or national, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintains such residence; or (2) was born out of wedlock to a mother who is a U.S. citizen or national, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintains such residence. Defines “born in wedlock” to exclude common law marriages.
Perhaps if we remove the carrot we won't need the stick to deal with the problem of illegal immigration! Can't hurt, might help. Couple this with some new laws allowing medical workers to report illegals when they seek treatment for anything other than trauma (come on, we all know they use our ERs as doctor's offices for every little hangnail), and allowing local police to take illegals into custody when they find them whether or not they've committed ADDITIONAL crimes, and we just might have an immigration policy that reflects some degree of common sense.
I'll call my Congressmen and Senators, but fat lot of good it will do since two of them are Kerry and Kennedy. I hate being politically aware and willing to participate and yet totally unable to make a shred of difference in such matters.
Powerline demonstrates just how hard it is to get a straight story out of Washington D.C.
All I know is (as someone on Lee's site pointed out) a memo written by a rookie staffer on behalf of a rookie Senator is hardly communication coming from the GOP "power structure."
I still think the memo is damaging, but now I realize it didn't have to be. Guess we have the media to thank for that (as usual). They just can't resist creating drama and controversy, can they?
If only they'd direct some of their conspiracy theorizing at folks like Sandy "Doesn't everyone forget and stuff a few top-secret documents in their skivvies" Berger and the Clintons, then they'd be earning their keep.
Shocker...
Isn't it sad when stories like that of Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith don't make front-page above-the-fold news?
As the fight developed, Sergeant First Class Smith braved hostile enemy fire to personally engage the enemy with hand grenades and anti-tank weapons, and organized the evacuation of three wounded soldiers from an armored personnel carrier struck by a rocket propelled grenade and a 60mm mortar round. Fearing the enemy would overrun their defenses, Sergeant First Class Smith moved under withering enemy fire to man a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on a damaged armored personnel carrier. In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.
Lee analyzes Hansel's (shouldn't we be calling him Gretl by now?) idiocy.
First let's examine Gretl's point of view:
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a Swedish news agency reports.“I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil,” news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm.
“They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard.”
Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq’s weapons programs before the war, said another reason for the invasion was a need to move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT reported.
Competition over oil is creating tension between the United States and China, Blix said, suggesting nuclear power as a more environmentally friendly source of energy.
“I believe the greatest threat in the long term is the greenhouse effect,” said Blix, who’s become a vocal critic of US leaders since he retired from the UN last year.
He defended the United Nations, despite recent scandals including allegations of corruption in the oil-for-food program for Iraq.
“The criticism is, in my view, a revenge from American political circles for the defeat over Iraq,” Blix was quoted as saying.
Okay, let’s review.1) The former head of the UN weapons inspections team believes that the greatest threat to humanity is global warming. This is the guy to whom the US was supposed to entrust its national security.
2) The day that the Iraqis first elected president takes office, Blix is still spouting off the tired left-wing canard about war for oil. Even if the war was about oil, does he think that the Iraq people would be better off under the Saddam regime? He doesn’t seem to mention that, despite years of sanctions and limp-dicked threats from the impotent UN and the pussies on the UNSC who refused to enforce their own edicts, the only reason Saddam is not still in power is because the US and their allies Britain and Australia decided to go over there and do the job themselves. If Blix had said something like, “I didn’t agree with the US motivation for the war, but what’s done is done, and I think it is incumbent on the civilized nations of the world to do whatever we can to defeat terrorism and build a prosperous, free, democratic Iraq.” But he didn’t say that. He might as well have been holding up a “Bush = Hitler” sign. What a dick.
3) Notice how deftly he glosses over the abject failures of the fundamental UN mission that have occurred lately. Whether its troops firing on throngs of unarmed citizens, or the sex-for-cash scandals, or the kiddie porn, or the Iraqi Oil-for-food scandal, the fact is that the UN is nothing more than a corrupt, dysfunctional kleptocracy comprised of some of the most worthless shithole countries on the planet. Yet this he can forgive and forget, because his love for the UN compels him to do so.
What a dick.
This is the man we counted on to find HIDDEN weapons? Sounds to me like he couldn't find his way out of a paper bag with a map and a flashlight!
Sorry, but this kind of news isn't getting enough play in the MSM.
Kurdish leader sworn in as Iraqi president
Prime minister also nominated in new government
Thursday, April 7, 2005 Posted: 11:37 AM EDT (1537 GMT)
Jalal Talabani was sworn in Thursday as Iraq's new president.BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Iraq's new president, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, took the oath of office Thursday, promising to help create a democratic government that represents his country's diverse population.
In one of his first acts, Talabani announced the nomination of Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister, the top post in the new Iraqi government. Al-Jaafari is a Shiite Muslim who is leader of the Dawa Party.
The presidency is largely ceremonial.
Two new vice presidents also were sworn in Thursday: Adel Abdul-Mahdi, a Shiite, and Ghazi al-Yawer, a Sunni Arab.
The three, known as the presidency council, selected al-Jaafari to be prime minister, effectively replacing interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who submitted a letter of resignation.
Where are the naysayers and doomsday prophets who said it could and would never happen?
Well here's one of them. Perhaps someone ought to inform Blixie that we don't actually HAVE the oil, and if we did, our gas prices might not be averaging $2.35/gallon!
What an asshat.
This week has been a banner one for the government of Massachusetts slackers, ex-cons and morons on our payroll. First we had the story of our former (thankfully) Labor Secretary, and then we have this winner:
PLYMOUTH - Georgina Chanatry got some sympathy from town meeting last night, but not the bylaw she wanted to limit yard sales.By a vote of 73-40, town meeting representatives rejected a proposal to limit residents to two weekend yard sales a year.
Chanatry had proposed the two-a-year limit and other regulations in a bylaw aimed at controlling a neighbor whom she said had turned yard sales into a business.
[snip]
Chanatry proposed the yard sale bylaw after both private negotiations and town intervention with O'Donnell failed to stop the sales.
Zoning agent Richard Manfredi said Chanatry's complaint was the only one he got last year about yard sales.
Don't do it. Not on this blog anyway. You want to know something about me? I'll tell you (within reason). But don't assume that you can infer what I care about simply by watching what I DON'T write about.
The fact is, I have VERY LITTLE TIME for blogging anymore. I have a life. I have a family--a husband, child and dog (and two neglected cats)--and a house that needs lots of work. Blogging is important to me, and I enjoy it, but it's the first thing to go when I get busy, and I can get busy for weeks, even months on end these days.
Sometimes I make a point of chiming in on an issue because I care a LOT about it. Sometimes I just explode because I need to vent for days on end because there's some topic that really moves me to add my .02 to the discussion. Other times I happen upon something funny, sad, troubling or just plain interesting and have the five minutes to post it for your consumption. But MOST of the time I realize that there are countless others in the blogosphere who are doing a much better job of covering 99% of what's going on than I am or could ever do. Sometimes I don't even have the time or inclination to even link and say "What he/she said." Sometimes I do. Don't read anything into the choices I make on these occasions. Chances are they are RAN-DOM. Get it?
So for those of you who have decided that my failure to "follow-up" on an issue I've blogged about earlier is evidence of my hypocrisy, or lack of caring, or ignorance, or laziness, or anything other than LACK OF TIME, I just have one thing to say:
Get a life.
Found this great FAQ about the Schiavo case that's worth a read (unless you're one of those whose mind is so made up that anyone who could have wished for anything other than the armed "rescue" of Terri Schiavo by Jeb Bush's personal security detail and S.W.A.T. team is an evil liberal activist right-to-die babykiller).
I particularly liked this hypothetical:
To determine your position, I offer up a few hypotheticals:1. Assume all facts are the same, but Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers agree that the feeding tube should be removed.
2. Assume all facts are the same, the Schindlers oppose the feeding tube removal, but Terri Schiavo left a detailed living will that specified she would want the feeding tube removed if she were in a persistent vegetative state.
3. Assume that Michael Schiavo has remained completely faithful to his wife all these years, but still testifies that she told him she would want to die in these circumstances, and the Schindlers still oppose him.
If your opinion switches from opposition to support in these hypotheticals, then your opposition is based on the circumstances in this case. So ask yourself: do you really think that you know more about the case from the media coverage and court documents than the judges who actually reviewed all the evidence? It's one thing to acknowledge that the judicial system has the occasional flaw; it's quite another to say that over a dozen judges have actively ignored evidence that proves Michael Schiavo wants to end his wife's life on a whim.If you still oppose the removal of the feeding tube in these hypotheticals, then you presumably oppose all decisions of this nature. However, the courts have applied the law as it is currently written. Why not work to change the laws, rather than believe, despite all the review, that Terri Schiavo has been denied due process or is the victim of activist pro-death judges?
Congress has chosen to spend a huge amount of time intervening in one case, thus implicitly devaluing every other person who has died in these identical circumstances, and for no other reason than they don't like the Florida court's decision.
I sure as shit hope the entire blogosphere doesn't have occasion to wrend friendships apart and threaten lives (and livelihoods) over my life someday. Silly naive little me! I prefer to make my healthcare decisions in private, far from the voyeurs in the MSM and the meddlers in the government, thank you very much.
Dear God, this is exactly what I'm afraid is happening (via Lee at Right-Thinking:
Ryan Sager at Techcentralstation.com writes:
"While some libertarian types may have been upset with President Reagan’s deficits, he was at least singing from their hymn book: Government is the problem, not the solution. George W. Bush on the other hand has never even gone to the trouble of aping a small-government posture. Instead, Bush has adopted one of Reagan’s other famous lines, sans irony: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.This represents a fundamental shift in the direction of the Republican Party and a threat to its traditional alliances. The shift is self-evident. Instead of being the party that tries to rein in entitlement spending, the Republican Party is now the party of the $1.2 trillion Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Instead of being the party that is opposed to even having a federal Department of Education, the Republican Party is now the party of extensive intrusion into local schoolhouses by Washington, D.C. And instead of being the party of the rule of law and state’s rights, the Republican Party is now the party of Congressional intervention into the thoroughly adjudicated medical decisions of an individual family.
Now, to be clear: What’s most disturbing to libertarians about all of this is not that the shift in the traditional alignment will hurt the Republican Party at the polls—at least in the short term. What’s disturbing is just how powerful the idea of a “God-and-government” coalition could be.
What if Karl Rove’s idea for a permanent majority actually worked? The GOP could convince soccer moms that it’s not so hard-hearted by implementing national health care piece by piece. It could pick up the votes of blue-collar union members by appealing to them on “values” issues that the Democrats can’t talk about without choking on their own bile. And the GOP could even pick up votes from socially conservative black and Hispanic voters who are adamantly opposed to gay marriage.
The electoral logic of Big Government Conservatism, in fact, is virtually inescapable. Where the logic falls apart, however, is in why we would continue to call this new edifice “conservative” at all.
This is why libertarians are worried about the Republican Party having a “conservative crack-up.” Not because it’s in any immediate danger of falling apart at the polls. But because it’s in danger of no longer being conservative."
OK, here's what I want to know:
Do I need to go on with this? I'm trying to make the point: WHAT THE HELL WOULD YOU DO if you were in Michael Schiavo's shoes? So many who supported what Congress did say that they would have just turned Terri over to her parents, but I have to say I don't believe you because you can't possibly put yourself in his shoes.
First, you have NO IDEA what the relationship was between Terri and her parents when she had her heart attack. They may have been close as could be, they may not have. You have no way of knowing how well they knew her or her wishes at that precise moment in time, and you cannot assume that because they were her parents they knew best.
Second, you have to first say how long you would "wait" for a loved one to "wake up" or "get better" before you would even consider moving on with your life. Remember, this was a 26 year-old woman. Presumably Michael wasn't much older. He waited 8 long years, during which time he tried every experimental treatement for Terri he could find--including flying her to California for treatment (that didn't work by the way). He became a nurse to care for her, he pushed back on doctors who told him there was no hope. That is until they showed him pictures of her brain.
To me, eight years in the life of a young childless man who's effectively "lost" the love of his life is a LONG ASS TIME. Plenty of men wouldn't wait half as long. Plenty of women wouldn't either frankly, and my own husband and I have spoken and have instructed each other NOT to do so much unless doctors are encouraging, which in this case they were not. The last thing I'd want for someone I love is for them to suffer needlessly while I'm beyond reach and helpless, trapped in my body, soul hopefully already gone to the great beyond.
Third: In order to mean what you say--that you'd just have turned her over to her parents, you'd have to decide that you no longer LOVED your spouse because you had moved on to another relationship. You'd have to decide that the bond of "till death do us part" was butkus, and that it should actually be "till incapacitation or heinous disfigurement do us part" or something. Michael may not have wanted to go through life alone, and may not have wanted to be childless, but that does not negate any love and devotion he felt or feels for Terri any more (I hope) than it would for you and your beloved spouse.
Putting it more personally, my stepmother died of lung cancer about 8 years ago, and my father has had one relationship since (albeit brief), but even while that was going on, he was very open about the fact that he still loved and adored my stepmother and always would. Her no longer being here had nothing to do with his feelings. Additionally, she expressed wishes while alive that he STILL carries out, even though there's no one but him to hold him to it. He considers it vital because it's all he CAN do for her. Perhaps Michael felt the same way.
Fourth: To be sincere in your assertion that you would have just handed over guardianship, you'd have to decide that your comfort and convenience were more important to you than the bonds of marriage, friendship and love. Let's face it, sticking to his guns must've been enormously difficult for Michael. He came under personal attack, his children were called "bastards," their mother an "adulteress" (amongst other things). He was compared with Scott Peterson, a convicted wife and baby killer, and people threatened his life. There were allegations of greed, but there was no money to be gained by either divorcing or walking away. There were countless appeals and motions, all of which required a response from him, all of which took him away from the new family people accused him of preferring to Terri, and yet he never backed off. Surely it would have been easier for him if he had, so ask yourself, why didn't he?
Fifth: In order to "turn her over" to her parents, you'd have to acknowlege that you'd do this even if you knew or weren't sure they knew or cared for her real wishes! You'd have to decide that their desire to "have" her was enough.
All I'm saying is before you say what you would do, sit down and have a long talk with your own spouse and with yourself. What would you really do? What would you really want?
Now isn't THIS interesting!
"Why will Terri Schiavo be allowed to die by dehydration?It's not a pleasant thought, but it's Florida law.
In 1999, in response to a Florida Supreme Court ruling, the Florida legislature updated its "end of life" statutes, which were first put into place in 1990. The House and Senate voted unanimously in support of a number of changes to the text. One of those changes added to the list of "life-prolonging procedure": including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. (Cite in Florida Supreme Court ruling, 1999 changes here.)
Governor Jeb Bush signed the bill in June of that year.
While the entire right-to-life movement was focused on saving a woman who had no chance of recovery, a woman who (it was proven in evidentiary hearings) wanted to die if she were ever in such condition--the stem-cell research lobby snuck this through.
House approves stem cell research
Measure garners veto-proof margin
By Scott S. Greenberger, Globe Staff | April 1, 2005The state House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a bill yesterday that promotes embryonic stem cell research in the Bay State, rejecting by a veto-proof margin Governor Mitt Romney's attempt to prohibit a research technique that involves the cloning of human cells.
The House action followed the Senate's approval of a slightly different stem cell bill on Wednesday, meaning the two versions must be reconciled before the legislation goes to Romney. Both versions endorse the creation of human embryos for stem cell research, so Romney will probably reject the bill that emerges.
Lawmakers said the two-thirds majorities in both the House and Senate that passed the legislation, and refused to strip what some call therapeutic cloning from the bill, make it likely the Legislature will override a Romney veto. The tally on final passage was 117-37 in the House last night and 35-2 in the Senate Wednesday.
These cynical politicians are desperate to keep businesses in this state, and to attrack new ones, and they have been led to believe that by allowing stem cell research to the extent of so-called "theraputic cloning" they will achieve both goals.
Newsflash: It will not. The reason people are leaving in droves is that is's HARD TO LIVE HERE. It's expensive, dangerous and the schools are some of the worst (yet most expensive) in the nation. All the cloning in the world isn't going to change that.
What's really sick is that the "research" that this move will allegedly help has yet to create anything other than TUMORS. Yes, that's right folks. So-called "embryonic stem-cell" research has been going on for over 20 years, and there hasn't been a single cure or even treatment discovered. But don't take MY word for it:
Read this:
Myth 3—Embryonic stem-cell research show the most promise
Father Pacholcyzk outlined some 98 different diseases that can be treated using umbilical cord and adult stem cells. Research using adult stem cells is 20 to 30 years ahead of embryonic stem cell research and actually holds greater promise. Currently, there is no scientific evidence where embryonic stem cells have been used successfully in animal trials.
“They’ve found that in the research that has been done that embryonic stem cells actually end up generating tumors in the animals and do not assimilate into the body,” the priest said. “The embryonic stem cells are so energetic that they are hard to control and manipulate.”
In stark contrast, so-called "adult" stem cell research ("adult" being the term applied to any stem cells harvested from a human being outside the womb and includes cord blood stem cells) has yielded many cures and treatments for life-threatening diseases like childhood cancers. But are you hearing about this research? Nope. Why? Because the "choice" folks don't have anything to gain by pushing it, but they do have something to gain by pushing the "embryonic" kind. Sick.
So where are you Randall Terry? How about you Tom Delay? Where's Federalism when we need it! What happened to the "culture of life" that the President wanted to support? So they could muster their support for one single woman--who supposedly wanted to die anyway--but they can't for countless millions of yet-to-be-created (and never-allowed-to-be-born) people?
And I'm the heartless one?
Spare me.
