10/21/2006
appears to be legit
Professor Harbour wrote me back saying he wrote it and to feel free to distribute it. So, I think I'll follow up at some point soon, particularly the part about silencing dissent. I find that really fascinating, because it's frequently a rightist talking point, when in reality, it is often liberal professors who get silenced (in no small part, due to the effort of vocal conservatives trying to restrain them).
10/20/2006
more stem cell fun
(P) So I got this from a friend and found it really interesting:
"From: "Harbour, William" Harbour@vision.wustl.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:48 -0500
Subject: Thoughts on Stem Cell Amendment from the Harbours
Dear Friends,
This is a letter that I find difficult to write because I am not a political person, and I don't believe in imposing my views on others. But I am deeply troubled by the inaccuracies that are being used to shape public opinion in favor of the Missouri stem cell amendment on the November ballot and I feel a responsibility to speak out since I understand the scientific and medical issues.
If you read nothing else, please read this: Amendment 2 is a deceptive piece of legislation that may mislead Missourians into approving a constitutional right to human cloning, something over 80 percent oppose. It would create a uniquely privileged status for biotech special interests to do human cloning experiments with taxpayer money.
If the industrial revolution were just now starting and we had the choice of developing a society dependent on solar energy rather than oil, is there any doubt that we would choose solar energy? I think that we face a similar choice today regarding embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells may seem to the lay person to offer greater promise for cures, but even if this were true (which it is not), embryonic stem cell therapies will create an insatiable and unceasing demand for more and more womens¹ eggs. And once a hugh biotech industrial complex is establish that is dependent on women's eggs to generate more and more cloned stem cells, it will be impossible for us to get rid of it. In contrast, investing our resources in adult stem cells will ultimately result in similar or greater cures than embryonic stem cells without creating a biotech industrial complex that pursues women¹s eggs the way oil companies plunder our land for oil profits.
The basic arguments for the stem cell amendment are essentially that (1) embryonic stem cell research has tremendous potential for curing a wide variety of diseases, and (2) any concerns that this research will be abused are unfounded because we can trust the medical and scientific community to regulate itself.
Being knowledgeable of stem cell biology and related medical research, I am deeply skeptical that either of these arguments is true.
As many of you know, I am a physician-scientist at Washington University School of Medicine and have received millions of dollars in research funding, part of which has been for stem cell research related to cancer. I approached this amendment without preconceived opinions and have read the amendment carefully. I have listened to the arguments on both sides. After sifting through the rhetoric, I have concluded that there is nothing about embryonic stem cells that would indicate that they are better than adult stem cells for curing human disease. In fact, there are many problems with embryonic stem
cells, such as rejection and cancer formation. Further, adult stem cell research and therapies do not endanger women who must donate eggs for embryonic stem cells.
These deceptive tactics by the amendment proponents say to me that ³you are not intelligent enough to understand the issues so I will intentionally deceive you for your own good.²
As a medical professional, I believe that my responsibility is to make sure the public understands the issues so that they can make up their own mind. Thus, my goal in this letter is not to convince you of my personal opinions, but to make sure you have the facts from a doctor and scientist who understands the issues and does not have political or monetary motives.
Some of the most common arguments in favor of the amendment are as follows:
Argument # 1: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the type of process for creating stem cells that is at stake in this amendment, is not human cloning.
MY RESPONSE: When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they are talking about. SCNT is the medical dictionary definition of cloning. The amendment proponents claim that SCNT is not cloning unless the cell is placed into a woman¹s womb, but that has never been the medical definition of cloning. That is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a eapon unless it is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if one does not intend to act on this potential!
The fact is that this amendment not only allows human cloning, it creates a uniquely protected right to perform human cloning!
Argument #2: Embryonic stem cell research has the potential for curing many more diseases than adult stem cells.
MY RESPONSE: There is no scientific evidence for this claim. Many people have been led to believe that we have not yet seen the incredible curative potential of embryonic stem cells because this research is banned. The truth is that embryonic stem cells is not banned and never has been. Embryonic stem cells have been researched for many years and have been reported in the medical literature as early as 1963! And yet, there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured any disease, even in animals.
But what is really frustrating for someone like me who is involved in stem cell research is that the success of adult stem cells is being ignored by the amendment proponents. Advantages of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells: (1) they are the only stem cells that have been shown to cure disease in animals, (2) they do not require egg extraction and the associated risks to women, (3) they have amazing plasticity (the ability to change into many different cell types) that far exceeds anyone's expectations. For example, stem cells from bone marrow can be turned into brain cells.
If adult stem cells are likely to be just as good, if not better, than embryonic stem cells, why expose women to risky egg extraction and create a huge demand for eggs that will surely end up in the exploitation of poor, disadvantaged women and young, college-aged women with limited financial resources?
Argument #3: SCNT will not endanger women.
RESPONSE: To be honest, this is my greatest concern. Despite loud cries to the contrary, the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women, particularly poor disadvantaged women and young, college-age women with limited financial resources who will be tempted to allow themselves to be given synthetic hormones and undergo surgical procedures to extract eggs in exchange for monetary awards. We are not talking about a few hundred cloned embryos, but rather, millions and millions will be needed for this research!. And the need for more eggs will never end. Even if laws are passed to regulate this process, profiteers will undoubtedly go to third world countries to find willing subjects.
Argument #4. How could this amendment be a bad idea when leading scientists and physicians support it?
RESPONSE: Many scientists and physicians, including myself, support adult stem cell research, but are deeply concerned about embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. The reason that you do not hear more experts speak out against this amendment is that their voices have been muted. The amendment proponents have identified one wealthy couple in Kansas City who donated virtually all of the $16 million that is being used to saturate the media with pro-amendment information. Meanwhile, those who are concerned about this amendment have been denied the opportunity for public debate and discourse by our medical schools and universities. Suffice to say, the freedom of speech violations at ostensibly liberal universities to suppress voices against this amendment are breathtaking!
Final Thoughts
If for no other reason, I am deeply disturbed by this amendment because of the deception being used to promote it. For example, Cynthia Kramer, who is running for state office in our district, has used this issue to promote her campaign by implying that her life-threatening disease could have been treated more effectively with embryonic stem cells. After questioning her campaign office and reading the text of many of her interviews and website statements, I can find no evidence for this claim. In reality, she received adult stem cells in the form of a bone marrow transplant, and the fact that
she is still alive is evidence that this adult stem cell transplant was successful! When she went to Israel seeking a OEcure¹ for her disease, they told her to come back to Missouri where she could get the best care available anywhere!
I personally know of many other examples of deliberate deceptions, intentional misinformation, and freedom of speech violations.
My practice focuses on patients with cancer, and I am profoundly wounded when one of them dies of their disease. I am in the trenches every day, and I understand what is at stake. But I am convinced that this amendment is not the right direction for our state. There are much more effective ways we can spend our money and time. without endangering women
We all have to make our own decisions, and democracy only works well if we make those decisions based on facts. Whatever opinion you develop on this issue, I hope that it is based on facts. Please feel free to email me if you have more specific questions or if you would like to talk.
Thanks for your attention.
Bill (and Tonya) Harbour
______________________________________
J. William Harbour, MD
Paul A. Cibis Distinguished Endowed Professor
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail."
I am curious first if anyone knows this particular professor. Click here for his faculty page.
More generally, I find it really interesting how carefully targeted the messages are. The anti-initiative ads run by the Vitae Foundation during male dominated sports programming made women out to be these victims who needed strong, moral men to stand up for them in the face of some ill-defined enemy behind amendment 2. This letter ads a new component targeting a more educated and progressive crowd. Heaven forbid, embryonic stem cells are evil oil comanies and adult stem cells are magical solar energy! And look, if this is successful, not only will poor women in the US be targeted for dangerous egg harvesting, the evil biotechnology industry will go to poor, defenseless third world countries and harm people there, too. Those evil special interests.
A second thing I love is how he presents himself as an expert on stem cells, then implies he is quite knowledgeable in other areas, too. Like financial matters. And the history of industrialization and energy policy. Kind of like how he says he's not political, then writes a rather political email. My personal take is that expertise is completely irrelevant to this particular initiative; in fact, the great irony is that he's saying he's an expert to defend that argument that the experts shouldn't be allowed to make the decisions about research. Rather, moralizing legislators should make that decision.
A third thing I love is how he has footnoted things without providing the footnote. No doubt, this was in the original email, and someone in the email forwarding chain just decided those weren't necessary.
One last thing I'll point out is that I'm actually rather perturbed that someone using my school's resources is making rather stark and disturbing claims about how "those who are concerned about this amendment have been denied the opportunity for public debate and discourse by our medical schools and universities. Suffice to say, the freedom of speech violations at ostensibly liberal universities to suppress voices against this amendment are breathtaking!"
Excuse me? You sent this from your Wash U account! [If you don't know, the email extension .wustl.edu is a domain registered and used by Washington University in St. Louis. My email address is ndempsey@wustl.edu, for example.] You are leveraging your Wash U credentials. Yet you don't ask for support on this issue, either. Feign outrage to make you sound more credible, but don't ask alumni to investigate this rather serious charge against, oh, only one of the greatest medical institutions in the world. I sent an email to the professor asking him to authenticate it, just in case this really isn't something he sent. I'm curious to see what response I get.
For a little balance to this email, check out the Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cure's website.
"From: "Harbour, William" Harbour@vision.wustl.edu
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 20:39:48 -0500
Subject: Thoughts on Stem Cell Amendment from the Harbours
Dear Friends,
This is a letter that I find difficult to write because I am not a political person, and I don't believe in imposing my views on others. But I am deeply troubled by the inaccuracies that are being used to shape public opinion in favor of the Missouri stem cell amendment on the November ballot and I feel a responsibility to speak out since I understand the scientific and medical issues.
If you read nothing else, please read this: Amendment 2 is a deceptive piece of legislation that may mislead Missourians into approving a constitutional right to human cloning, something over 80 percent oppose. It would create a uniquely privileged status for biotech special interests to do human cloning experiments with taxpayer money.
If the industrial revolution were just now starting and we had the choice of developing a society dependent on solar energy rather than oil, is there any doubt that we would choose solar energy? I think that we face a similar choice today regarding embryonic stem cells versus adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells may seem to the lay person to offer greater promise for cures, but even if this were true (which it is not), embryonic stem cell therapies will create an insatiable and unceasing demand for more and more womens¹ eggs. And once a hugh biotech industrial complex is establish that is dependent on women's eggs to generate more and more cloned stem cells, it will be impossible for us to get rid of it. In contrast, investing our resources in adult stem cells will ultimately result in similar or greater cures than embryonic stem cells without creating a biotech industrial complex that pursues women¹s eggs the way oil companies plunder our land for oil profits.
The basic arguments for the stem cell amendment are essentially that (1) embryonic stem cell research has tremendous potential for curing a wide variety of diseases, and (2) any concerns that this research will be abused are unfounded because we can trust the medical and scientific community to regulate itself.
Being knowledgeable of stem cell biology and related medical research, I am deeply skeptical that either of these arguments is true.
As many of you know, I am a physician-scientist at Washington University School of Medicine and have received millions of dollars in research funding, part of which has been for stem cell research related to cancer. I approached this amendment without preconceived opinions and have read the amendment carefully. I have listened to the arguments on both sides. After sifting through the rhetoric, I have concluded that there is nothing about embryonic stem cells that would indicate that they are better than adult stem cells for curing human disease. In fact, there are many problems with embryonic stem
cells, such as rejection and cancer formation. Further, adult stem cell research and therapies do not endanger women who must donate eggs for embryonic stem cells.
These deceptive tactics by the amendment proponents say to me that ³you are not intelligent enough to understand the issues so I will intentionally deceive you for your own good.²
As a medical professional, I believe that my responsibility is to make sure the public understands the issues so that they can make up their own mind. Thus, my goal in this letter is not to convince you of my personal opinions, but to make sure you have the facts from a doctor and scientist who understands the issues and does not have political or monetary motives.
Some of the most common arguments in favor of the amendment are as follows:
Argument # 1: Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), which is the type of process for creating stem cells that is at stake in this amendment, is not human cloning.
MY RESPONSE: When scientists talk about cloning, SCNT is exactly what they are talking about. SCNT is the medical dictionary definition of cloning. The amendment proponents claim that SCNT is not cloning unless the cell is placed into a woman¹s womb, but that has never been the medical definition of cloning. That is like saying that a nuclear bomb is not a eapon unless it is dropped on people. The potential for harm and abuse is great, even if one does not intend to act on this potential!
The fact is that this amendment not only allows human cloning, it creates a uniquely protected right to perform human cloning!
Argument #2: Embryonic stem cell research has the potential for curing many more diseases than adult stem cells.
MY RESPONSE: There is no scientific evidence for this claim. Many people have been led to believe that we have not yet seen the incredible curative potential of embryonic stem cells because this research is banned. The truth is that embryonic stem cells is not banned and never has been. Embryonic stem cells have been researched for many years and have been reported in the medical literature as early as 1963! And yet, there is no evidence that embryonic stem cells have cured any disease, even in animals.
But what is really frustrating for someone like me who is involved in stem cell research is that the success of adult stem cells is being ignored by the amendment proponents. Advantages of adult stem cells over embryonic stem cells: (1) they are the only stem cells that have been shown to cure disease in animals, (2) they do not require egg extraction and the associated risks to women, (3) they have amazing plasticity (the ability to change into many different cell types) that far exceeds anyone's expectations. For example, stem cells from bone marrow can be turned into brain cells.
If adult stem cells are likely to be just as good, if not better, than embryonic stem cells, why expose women to risky egg extraction and create a huge demand for eggs that will surely end up in the exploitation of poor, disadvantaged women and young, college-aged women with limited financial resources?
Argument #3: SCNT will not endanger women.
RESPONSE: To be honest, this is my greatest concern. Despite loud cries to the contrary, the widespread use of SCNT for medical research and treatment will unquestionably jeopardize the health of women, particularly poor disadvantaged women and young, college-age women with limited financial resources who will be tempted to allow themselves to be given synthetic hormones and undergo surgical procedures to extract eggs in exchange for monetary awards. We are not talking about a few hundred cloned embryos, but rather, millions and millions will be needed for this research!. And the need for more eggs will never end. Even if laws are passed to regulate this process, profiteers will undoubtedly go to third world countries to find willing subjects.
Argument #4. How could this amendment be a bad idea when leading scientists and physicians support it?
RESPONSE: Many scientists and physicians, including myself, support adult stem cell research, but are deeply concerned about embryonic stem cell research and human cloning. The reason that you do not hear more experts speak out against this amendment is that their voices have been muted. The amendment proponents have identified one wealthy couple in Kansas City who donated virtually all of the $16 million that is being used to saturate the media with pro-amendment information. Meanwhile, those who are concerned about this amendment have been denied the opportunity for public debate and discourse by our medical schools and universities. Suffice to say, the freedom of speech violations at ostensibly liberal universities to suppress voices against this amendment are breathtaking!
Final Thoughts
If for no other reason, I am deeply disturbed by this amendment because of the deception being used to promote it. For example, Cynthia Kramer, who is running for state office in our district, has used this issue to promote her campaign by implying that her life-threatening disease could have been treated more effectively with embryonic stem cells. After questioning her campaign office and reading the text of many of her interviews and website statements, I can find no evidence for this claim. In reality, she received adult stem cells in the form of a bone marrow transplant, and the fact that
she is still alive is evidence that this adult stem cell transplant was successful! When she went to Israel seeking a OEcure¹ for her disease, they told her to come back to Missouri where she could get the best care available anywhere!
I personally know of many other examples of deliberate deceptions, intentional misinformation, and freedom of speech violations.
My practice focuses on patients with cancer, and I am profoundly wounded when one of them dies of their disease. I am in the trenches every day, and I understand what is at stake. But I am convinced that this amendment is not the right direction for our state. There are much more effective ways we can spend our money and time. without endangering women
We all have to make our own decisions, and democracy only works well if we make those decisions based on facts. Whatever opinion you develop on this issue, I hope that it is based on facts. Please feel free to email me if you have more specific questions or if you would like to talk.
Thanks for your attention.
Bill (and Tonya) Harbour
______________________________________
J. William Harbour, MD
Paul A. Cibis Distinguished Endowed Professor
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis, Missouri 63110
The materials in this message are private and may contain Protected Healthcare Information. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that any unauthorized use, disclosure, copying or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender via telephone or return mail."
I am curious first if anyone knows this particular professor. Click here for his faculty page.
More generally, I find it really interesting how carefully targeted the messages are. The anti-initiative ads run by the Vitae Foundation during male dominated sports programming made women out to be these victims who needed strong, moral men to stand up for them in the face of some ill-defined enemy behind amendment 2. This letter ads a new component targeting a more educated and progressive crowd. Heaven forbid, embryonic stem cells are evil oil comanies and adult stem cells are magical solar energy! And look, if this is successful, not only will poor women in the US be targeted for dangerous egg harvesting, the evil biotechnology industry will go to poor, defenseless third world countries and harm people there, too. Those evil special interests.
A second thing I love is how he presents himself as an expert on stem cells, then implies he is quite knowledgeable in other areas, too. Like financial matters. And the history of industrialization and energy policy. Kind of like how he says he's not political, then writes a rather political email. My personal take is that expertise is completely irrelevant to this particular initiative; in fact, the great irony is that he's saying he's an expert to defend that argument that the experts shouldn't be allowed to make the decisions about research. Rather, moralizing legislators should make that decision.
A third thing I love is how he has footnoted things without providing the footnote. No doubt, this was in the original email, and someone in the email forwarding chain just decided those weren't necessary.
One last thing I'll point out is that I'm actually rather perturbed that someone using my school's resources is making rather stark and disturbing claims about how "those who are concerned about this amendment have been denied the opportunity for public debate and discourse by our medical schools and universities. Suffice to say, the freedom of speech violations at ostensibly liberal universities to suppress voices against this amendment are breathtaking!"
Excuse me? You sent this from your Wash U account! [If you don't know, the email extension .wustl.edu is a domain registered and used by Washington University in St. Louis. My email address is ndempsey@wustl.edu, for example.] You are leveraging your Wash U credentials. Yet you don't ask for support on this issue, either. Feign outrage to make you sound more credible, but don't ask alumni to investigate this rather serious charge against, oh, only one of the greatest medical institutions in the world. I sent an email to the professor asking him to authenticate it, just in case this really isn't something he sent. I'm curious to see what response I get.
For a little balance to this email, check out the Missouri Coalition for Life Saving Cure's website.
10/19/2006
sweetness
Not only was that a great series with a classic ending, but the ESPN prognosticators are almost universally calling for the Tigers to win the World Series.
Ah, there's nothing like the reverse ESPN endorsement.
Ah, there's nothing like the reverse ESPN endorsement.
10/18/2006
long time, no rant
(R) It's been too long since I last complained about St. Louis drivers. It's been raining forever here, and this morning I'm on the entrance ramp merging onto eastbound I-64 (sorry, highway 40) from Kingshighway in the Central West End. This is a clover leaf, and it's nice because the interstate is 4 lanes here, but the right lane exits at Vandeventer, so there's no through traffic in the lane we merge into. Well this morning, with wet roads, the car two cars in front of me decides to stop as we're merging. Not, slow down to 15 mph around the curve because it's raining. No, come to a complete stop. On the entrance ramp to the highway.
Now, I understand having to slam on the brakes when the freeway is backed up. But when you just don't know how to merge, it is really really annoying. Get off the interstate if you don't know how to drive. Seriously. Try practicing at night or during the middle of the day. Don't be out in bad weather during rush hour in the city.
Now, I understand having to slam on the brakes when the freeway is backed up. But when you just don't know how to merge, it is really really annoying. Get off the interstate if you don't know how to drive. Seriously. Try practicing at night or during the middle of the day. Don't be out in bad weather during rush hour in the city.
10/15/2006
winter in Missouri
I went out to my car for work this week, and I could see my breath!
But no worries, it is plenty steamy in here as I type this from my iMac set up on the dining room table. We decided to go all out and clean the carpets. Picked up the Rug Doctor from Home Depot, unloaded two rooms worth of stuff, and now have a hallway/storage closet in our living room, dining room, kitchen, and entry way. Suffice it to say no one is getting in through the front door. Cookie is going crazy. If you know her, just think about that for a second.
But no worries, by the multiple buckets of not so clear water we dumped, clearly a success. Now just to watch some Chiefs action and playoff baseball and eat a couple hot dogs and some chewy Chips Ahoy. It's a rough life.
Almost as good as somebody getting a free steak dinner at her parents' cabin.
Mark your calendars, peoples. Kick ball again next Sunday at two by the school (meet in the cul-de-sac on Nina), Halloween at our place Saturday evening (that would be the Saturday right before Halloween, for you slow ones).
But no worries, it is plenty steamy in here as I type this from my iMac set up on the dining room table. We decided to go all out and clean the carpets. Picked up the Rug Doctor from Home Depot, unloaded two rooms worth of stuff, and now have a hallway/storage closet in our living room, dining room, kitchen, and entry way. Suffice it to say no one is getting in through the front door. Cookie is going crazy. If you know her, just think about that for a second.
But no worries, by the multiple buckets of not so clear water we dumped, clearly a success. Now just to watch some Chiefs action and playoff baseball and eat a couple hot dogs and some chewy Chips Ahoy. It's a rough life.
Almost as good as somebody getting a free steak dinner at her parents' cabin.
Mark your calendars, peoples. Kick ball again next Sunday at two by the school (meet in the cul-de-sac on Nina), Halloween at our place Saturday evening (that would be the Saturday right before Halloween, for you slow ones).
10/10/2006
fall in Missouri
It was beautiful this weekend! A little warm for the full fall foliage brilliance, but enough to see trees of many colors rolling over the horizon driving back and forth across the state.
Kelli, it was great going to your wedding. I'm so happy for you and Nick! I can't imagine what you'll do for fun in Hermann this week.
Thursday was good, stopped by to see Sarah's way too energetic cat that her landlord doesn't know she has. Then Friday lunch at Flat Branch with Trina and Mike and stop by Blue Springs to see my uncle on the way in to town. Pizza and a movie at the Lee's new place. Tried the pumpkin pie, got as far as the first part; 40 minutes prep time. None of us read the rest of the directions in the store, in particular, the whole let cool for at least two hours after baking. So, pumpkin pie had to wait for eating until Saturday. Sadness.
Then Saturday up for waffles and bacon before going to grandmother's to chat and play games. One of the last remaining views of Liberty from her deck as rolling hills of farmland rather than flattened streets of Chipotle. (No kidding, there's now a Chipotle where my grandmother grew up). Then the capstone; wedding at the church. Me being the smart Liberty native I am went on autopilot toward Kelli's house. Fortunately, I realized in time the wedding was at her church. No biggie.
Then back to my neighborhood for reception fun at Wynbrick before packing stuff up from my house and going down to claim some pumpkin pie, after a brief stop of course on the way down (which somehow involved a quick tour of Kansas) to say goodbye to people who had since gathered at a place across from Kelli and Nick's called Quaff. Seriously, that's it's name. Several slices of pumpkin pie, whipped cream, monkey baseball, and Chiefs football later, we're back on the road for St. Louis. I had two things for my brother and at least managed to get him one of them.
Julie took my car to see her sister and a friend at Rockhurst that morning, so I went with Andy and Carrie to check out Lakeland decked out in my traditional attire of blue jeans and poker shirt. I wonder what our kids are going to do for a more traditional style? That's rhetorical, of course. This group is quite appealing, too.
Kelli, it was great going to your wedding. I'm so happy for you and Nick! I can't imagine what you'll do for fun in Hermann this week.
Thursday was good, stopped by to see Sarah's way too energetic cat that her landlord doesn't know she has. Then Friday lunch at Flat Branch with Trina and Mike and stop by Blue Springs to see my uncle on the way in to town. Pizza and a movie at the Lee's new place. Tried the pumpkin pie, got as far as the first part; 40 minutes prep time. None of us read the rest of the directions in the store, in particular, the whole let cool for at least two hours after baking. So, pumpkin pie had to wait for eating until Saturday. Sadness.
Then Saturday up for waffles and bacon before going to grandmother's to chat and play games. One of the last remaining views of Liberty from her deck as rolling hills of farmland rather than flattened streets of Chipotle. (No kidding, there's now a Chipotle where my grandmother grew up). Then the capstone; wedding at the church. Me being the smart Liberty native I am went on autopilot toward Kelli's house. Fortunately, I realized in time the wedding was at her church. No biggie.
Then back to my neighborhood for reception fun at Wynbrick before packing stuff up from my house and going down to claim some pumpkin pie, after a brief stop of course on the way down (which somehow involved a quick tour of Kansas) to say goodbye to people who had since gathered at a place across from Kelli and Nick's called Quaff. Seriously, that's it's name. Several slices of pumpkin pie, whipped cream, monkey baseball, and Chiefs football later, we're back on the road for St. Louis. I had two things for my brother and at least managed to get him one of them.
Julie took my car to see her sister and a friend at Rockhurst that morning, so I went with Andy and Carrie to check out Lakeland decked out in my traditional attire of blue jeans and poker shirt. I wonder what our kids are going to do for a more traditional style? That's rhetorical, of course. This group is quite appealing, too.
10/02/2006
but the website looks so welcoming
(P) I just saw a TV ad against the Missouri Stem Cell vote (amendment 2). Well, at least, it was sort of against the vote.
It didn't oppose the amendment directly. Rather, through a crying woman sitting on a bed, it ran the gambit of fear and manipulation and abuse of women about donating eggs and cloning and stem cell research and everything else. The ad starts off with the woman reflecting that she just needed money for college (as if the pro-life donors behind such advertising campaigns would actually fund major scholarship programs for poor women to attend college, but that's neither here nor there) so she sold some eggs, and it goes downhill from there.
So what is this, at best, misleading and deceptive group quite willing to employ the most desperate tugs at heartstrings through the use of a crying woman reflecting on pain which the amendment doesn't even cause? Actually, it's the Vitae Foundation. Their website seems so positive, with its clean lines and calm, uplifting prose.
"Vitae believes in the power of the message. Educational messages that are respectful, helpful, and encourage dialogue in a non-threatening manner, have become the hallmark of the Vitae success." "Reaching minds...saving lives" And so on. I'm not familiar with the group, but if it really is a moderate group trying to reach people, the ad buy they made is sure going to ruin that effort and just make people like me all the more cynical about such groups. And interestingly, they post several TV ads on their website, but I couldn't find the one I just saw. Perhaps they don't want people to know they're running it? [Or it might just be a new one that coincidentally hasn't made it up on their server yet, of course, too.]
If this is the best message they can come up with that is educational, respectful, and helpful, then I feel quite comforted that amendment 2 is going to pass by a landslide. For goodness sakes, they've got Oliver North on their website saying the group saves lives. He's not responsible for anything morally questionable, is he?
I can't believe Senator Talent, in a closely contested election where he claims to be in touch with Missouri voters, who actually worked at Wash U, one of the most ardent supporters of this, is on record opposing the amendment. It would be really ironic if the stem cell issue brought enough people out to vote to bring down Talent in a state Bush won both times.
Of course, this summer Talent also removed his name as a consponsor from the Senate anti-cloning bill, so maybe he's really just another one of those wishy washy rich Chesterfield Republican types whose moral compass doesn't point much farther than navigating elections? Is that too harsh Professor? Plenty of time before now and November to prove me wrong and stand up for something, anything, really, beyond the evilness of cold medicine.
Addendum: I just saw it again, and I realized one of the more subtle things that really bothered me. The website makes a claim that they try to target their message, in particular reaching younger women of child-bearing age. Well, I am watching a Monday Night Football game in St. Louis between Green Bay and Philadelphia. I would love to see the demographic data that says that's a prime use of dollars for such a purpose. But then again, that's part of what really gets me so riled up. It is the perfect demographic for them. This ad is not targeted at women at all, who know a lot more about fertility issues generally than men. It's targeted at men who aren't as familiar about what's involved with the process of selling/donating eggs to fertility clinics while watching a program that gets the hormones running a little. And then it takes genuine concern for women and uses it to instill guilt and a sense of needing to protect this sweet little innocent girl who just didn't know how horrible it all is. I find that appalling, not only in the sexist sense that women need to be protected (and protected from whom is an interesting question itself, from immoral liberals who think women should have to sell their eggs in order to pay for college?), but also that the group decided to attack a rather peripheral and insignificant aspect of the debate as it applies to the particular Missouir initiative. It's not about new eggs at all. The moral issue is about whether one believes that future humans are prevented from coming into being by stem cell research. The fact that the ad completely ignores the main thrust of the debate, I would suggest, is a huge indict of those who say it's an immoral practice which the state should actively prohibit. After all, if they were confidant that people were sympathetic to that line of reasoning, that's what the ad would be about.
It didn't oppose the amendment directly. Rather, through a crying woman sitting on a bed, it ran the gambit of fear and manipulation and abuse of women about donating eggs and cloning and stem cell research and everything else. The ad starts off with the woman reflecting that she just needed money for college (as if the pro-life donors behind such advertising campaigns would actually fund major scholarship programs for poor women to attend college, but that's neither here nor there) so she sold some eggs, and it goes downhill from there.
So what is this, at best, misleading and deceptive group quite willing to employ the most desperate tugs at heartstrings through the use of a crying woman reflecting on pain which the amendment doesn't even cause? Actually, it's the Vitae Foundation. Their website seems so positive, with its clean lines and calm, uplifting prose.
"Vitae believes in the power of the message. Educational messages that are respectful, helpful, and encourage dialogue in a non-threatening manner, have become the hallmark of the Vitae success." "Reaching minds...saving lives" And so on. I'm not familiar with the group, but if it really is a moderate group trying to reach people, the ad buy they made is sure going to ruin that effort and just make people like me all the more cynical about such groups. And interestingly, they post several TV ads on their website, but I couldn't find the one I just saw. Perhaps they don't want people to know they're running it? [Or it might just be a new one that coincidentally hasn't made it up on their server yet, of course, too.]
If this is the best message they can come up with that is educational, respectful, and helpful, then I feel quite comforted that amendment 2 is going to pass by a landslide. For goodness sakes, they've got Oliver North on their website saying the group saves lives. He's not responsible for anything morally questionable, is he?
I can't believe Senator Talent, in a closely contested election where he claims to be in touch with Missouri voters, who actually worked at Wash U, one of the most ardent supporters of this, is on record opposing the amendment. It would be really ironic if the stem cell issue brought enough people out to vote to bring down Talent in a state Bush won both times.
Of course, this summer Talent also removed his name as a consponsor from the Senate anti-cloning bill, so maybe he's really just another one of those wishy washy rich Chesterfield Republican types whose moral compass doesn't point much farther than navigating elections? Is that too harsh Professor? Plenty of time before now and November to prove me wrong and stand up for something, anything, really, beyond the evilness of cold medicine.
Addendum: I just saw it again, and I realized one of the more subtle things that really bothered me. The website makes a claim that they try to target their message, in particular reaching younger women of child-bearing age. Well, I am watching a Monday Night Football game in St. Louis between Green Bay and Philadelphia. I would love to see the demographic data that says that's a prime use of dollars for such a purpose. But then again, that's part of what really gets me so riled up. It is the perfect demographic for them. This ad is not targeted at women at all, who know a lot more about fertility issues generally than men. It's targeted at men who aren't as familiar about what's involved with the process of selling/donating eggs to fertility clinics while watching a program that gets the hormones running a little. And then it takes genuine concern for women and uses it to instill guilt and a sense of needing to protect this sweet little innocent girl who just didn't know how horrible it all is. I find that appalling, not only in the sexist sense that women need to be protected (and protected from whom is an interesting question itself, from immoral liberals who think women should have to sell their eggs in order to pay for college?), but also that the group decided to attack a rather peripheral and insignificant aspect of the debate as it applies to the particular Missouir initiative. It's not about new eggs at all. The moral issue is about whether one believes that future humans are prevented from coming into being by stem cell research. The fact that the ad completely ignores the main thrust of the debate, I would suggest, is a huge indict of those who say it's an immoral practice which the state should actively prohibit. After all, if they were confidant that people were sympathetic to that line of reasoning, that's what the ad would be about.
10/01/2006
check it out
The Royals managed to finish the season not being the worst team in baseball. Even knocked Detroit out of the division lead and home field advantage.
That's what they call a moral victory, right?
That's what they call a moral victory, right?
9/24/2006
more power
I've been working a lot recently so I rewarded myself with a 1GB RAM chip for my iMac.
Yay for those huge maps in Civ IV! I now have more than 5 times as much RAM as my 'ole Performa 575's entire hard drive. Good times.
Yay for those huge maps in Civ IV! I now have more than 5 times as much RAM as my 'ole Performa 575's entire hard drive. Good times.
9/17/2006
fun with sports
I discovered two interesting things this week.
First, as of the time I am writing this, the Royals are not the worst team in baseball! And that's in spite of playing in the toughest division this year.
Second, the Chiefs managed to be ranked 16th for total offense and 4th (let me repeat that, 4th!) in total defense after week 1. And yet, we managed to lose that game handily. So sad.
First, as of the time I am writing this, the Royals are not the worst team in baseball! And that's in spite of playing in the toughest division this year.
Second, the Chiefs managed to be ranked 16th for total offense and 4th (let me repeat that, 4th!) in total defense after week 1. And yet, we managed to lose that game handily. So sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)