Rant 7/18

Stem Cell Research Bill
The Senate passed a stem cell research bill today, with republicans crossing party lines in a vote of 67-33.

Yahoo! News:
--The Senate also passed two related measures — 100-0 in each case — that Bush was expected to sign into law.
One would encourage stem cell research using cells from sources other than embryos in an effort to cure diseases and treat injuries. The other would ban "fetal farming,"(WHAT?!?!?) the possibility of growing and aborting fetuses for research.

Unfortunately, the main part of the bill that allows federal funding to go into embryonic stem cell research will be vetoed by our Prez, "the decider"; because he decides what's best. This will be the first time that Bush has ever vetoed anything. Here's what Tony Snow had to say about it today:
"The simple answer is he thinks murder's wrong... The president is not going to get on the slippery slope of taking something living and making it dead for the purposes of scientific research."

Here are some basic facts that everyone should know about embryonic stem cell research:

• The stem cells that are used are derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, are created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and are in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment. Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (keyword).
  
• The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.

Alternet: Stem cell research "could lead to treatments that save millions of lives and improve the quality-of-life for millions more." In fact, the benefits are already evident. Two weeks ago, scientists were able to transform embryonic stem cells "into immune cells known as T-cells -- offering a way to restore immune systems ravaged by AIDS and other diseases," and last month, "a team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore transplanted stem cells from mouse embryos into paralyzed rats and helped them walk again."

Nineteen Republicans voted for it and only one Dem voted against.
The Terminator: "Mr. President, I urge you not to make the first veto of your presidency one that turns America backwards on the path of scientific progress and limits the promise of medical miracles for generations to come."

This debate is over. The argument against stem cell research is completely ignorant of the facts. There has to be a distinction between embryo's and actual human fetus's. Embryo's have no brain cells and no organ systems. Everyone's belief in "when life begins" is different. But regardless of your stance on the destruction of embryo's you have to remember that these embryo's are going to be literally thrown away if they aren't used for anything else.

Hypothetical: If you ran into a burning building and you found a refridgerator with embryo's in it and a baby laying on the ground crying, which one would YOU save?

"World War III"
For the last week, I've been reading everything I can find online regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I haven't really learned anything I didn't already know, but it's amazing how many different opinions are out there on the subject.

If your talking strictly in terms of the death toll on both sides, here are the statistics:

--In six days of fighting, 170 people have been killed and 415 wounded in Lebanon, Lebanese internal security sources said.
Twenty-four Israelis have died in the conflict, including 12 soldiers, and more than 300 have been wounded, Israeli military sources said. --CNN.com

Meanwhile, talking heads like Newt Gingrich are very quick in labeling this the start of WWIII. This particular string of violence has been going on for a week and already many Republican's are jumping to the conclusion that this won't be able to be settled peacefully. So much for diplomacy.

Bush has said that he's going to send Condi over there to engage in talks "at the appropriate time".
When is the appropriate time exactly? Is it when 300 people die?.... 1,000? What is with this administration and not openly engaging in peaceful talks? It seems so immature to me, I thought people got over that kind of attitude after high school. "I'm not going to talk to you until you do what I want you to do."

I'll have another post on this once I sort through all of the information.

Iraq
U.N.: More Than 3,000 Iraqi Civilians Died in June --BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 — An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today.

The death toll, drawn from Iraqi government agencies, was the most precise measurement of civilian deaths provided by any government organization since the invasion and represented a dramatic increase over daily media reports.

United Nations officials also said that the number of violent deaths had been steadily increasing since at least last summer. In the first six months of this year, the civilian death toll jumped more than 77 percent, from 1,778 in January to 3,149 in June, the organization said.

CNN.com
Killings of civilians are on "an upward trend," with more than 5,800 deaths and more than 5,700 injuries reported in May and June alone, it says.
The report, a bimonthly document produced by the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, covers May and June, and includes chilling casualty figures and ugly anecdotes from the insurgent and sectarian warfare that continues to rage despite the establishment of a national unity government and a security crackdown in Baghdad.

This is what I found on the White House website for the "new plan" to secure Iraq.

The Iraqi Government Has A Plan To Move Iraq Forward
Prime Minister Maliki Is Focused On Taking Immediate Actions In Three Areas:
1. Improve security by both military and political actions; secure Baghdad; eliminate armed gangs; and promote national reconciliation and the rule of law.
2. Immediately build economic and government capacity; increase production of oil and electricity; and build a foundation for prosperity.
3. Engage the nations of the region and the world in Iraq's democratic and economic development. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/

I thought we'd been doing that very thing since 2003, even before Bush declared "mission accomplished" three years ago. Where are the new ideas, the strategic policy changes that are needed to combat these terrorist groups? They obviously haven't been working so far. Any FACT based person can see that.

I'm sick of all this optimistic talk. Is it bad over there or are we "together moving forward"? Which one is it? It's hard to trust your political leaders when they're telling you one thing, and the "free" american press is telling you another. If they're moving anywhere, it looks a hell of a lot like backwards to me. Right now it's worse than it was under Saddam. I haven't seen a real argument against that statement... only assumptions and predictions of the future. "It's going to get better, we promise."