looking at current events through a different lens


Muddy Political Waters of Stem Cell Research
October 24, 2006, 1:30 pm
Filed under: personal, Politics

Was Michael J. Fox duped into publicly endorsing Maryland Congressman Ben Cardin for his support for stem cell research? Lo and behold, we find out that actually, Cardin voted against it (http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/24/video-cardin-uses-fox-in-steele-bush-attack-ad/). With all due respect to Mr. Fox’s suffering (there is wide speculation that he purposefully stopped taking his medications to cause his tremors to be more dramatic for the camera) he is being used by the high priests of the holy grail of stem cell research. With little more than wild speculation, the proponents of this practice insist that it is the key to all our ills and that close-minded Christian fanatics are all that’s standing in the way of your right to a cure for what ails you.

First of all, there’s a whole body of scientific evidence to suggest that embryonic stem cells are not in fact a panacea and that cord blood stem cells in fact offer far greater promise. Just for the record, we’ve yet to see science cure any disease using the existing legal stem cell supply, we’ve yet to see these stem cells even successfully be teased into becoming any other type of cell (the whole basis of all of the speculation of the value of embyonic stem cell research).

Mr. Fox and his family are not the only persons to suffer from Parkinson’s, nor are they spokespersons for all Parkinson’s sufferers and their families. My own mother has had Parkinson’s since 1990 and is totally against as am I and the rest of our family, any “cure” that would seek to cannibalize other human life for our own gain.

Advertisements


So Who’s the Real Victim?
October 24, 2006, 5:48 am
Filed under: Politics, Religion, Silly Stuff

A man calls a local landscaper from the information on his website and asks him to come over to bid on his landscaping job. After a few minutes of conversation it is determined that the customer is gay and is asking for bids on a home he shares with his homosexual partner of over 9 years. The call ends and the landscaper sends the prospects an email informing them that because of their sexual orientation, he is unwilling to continue to bid on their job and advises them to find another landscaper. The prosepects are outraged and quickly issue all manner of threats against the landscaper and his business for having thus offended him.

Was the landscaper wrong in sticking to his own moral convictions whether or not you agree with them? There’s more.

It turns out that the landscaper’s website prominently states his support for traditional marriage and family (which by definition, excludes those in the gay lifestyle). What’s more, the prospect and his partner are deeply involved in advancing the most radical of the gay agenda. Soo-oo, the prospect knew of the landscaper’s own orientation and yet still demanded he must serve him? http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52554

What happened to tolerance? What happened to “Live and Let Live”? Once again, it appears that this is a one-way street in favor of a radical homosexual agenda for not tolerance, but what amounts to actual preference.

When will the homosexual activists see the hypocrisy of their ways? If it’s true tolerance and acceptance that they are demanding, perhaps they should show the rest of us exactly what it looks like in practice. Otherwise, their incessant claims of the elevated status of “victimhood” are highly suspect.

In the US, with our Freedom of Assembly don’t we have the right to pick and choose who we will do business with? Or is this something we’ve lost entirely? The radical homosexual activists seem unable to make these distinctions. The rest of America, however, is not so easily fooled.



Hello World!
October 23, 2006, 11:07 pm
Filed under: Uncategorized

This blog will reflect my opinions about current events, cultural trends, National Security of the US, Where we (the US) are headed as a nation, where the world in general is headed. A lot of my opinions are not politically expedient; that’s why, unless there is a *huge* paradigm shift in a number of areas of popular thinking, you’ll probably never see me run for public office. Not that I wouldn’t be willing to, I just don’t believe I could say and do the things it takes to win in today’s political climate. One can always hope, though.