Archive for June, 2005

Is Live 8 Worth It?

Monday, June 27th, 2005

G8 REBOOT

This from the G8 Reboot:

“The G8 brings together the leaders of the world’s most powerful countries - the USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia. This year they meet from 6th - 9th July in Gleneagles with Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair hosting the summit.”

“Tony Blair has put the challenges faced in Africa on the top of the agenda - but the leaders need to know when they sit down that the world is watching them and waiting for them to deliver.”

I believe in the ideals of this summit and enjoy the activism that will be taking place. One example of activism related to the G8 Summit is the Live 8 concerts that will be taking place around the world on July 2. Will Live 8 be a success? I think it is already a success because the word has gotten out. Will it influence politicians? Not at all. I think Oasis member Noel Gallagher sums it up well when he says:

“Correct me if I’m wrong, but are they hoping that one of these guys from the G8 is on a quick 15 minute break at Gleneagles (in Scotland) and sees ANNIE LENNOX singing SWEET DREAMS and thinks, ‘F**k me, she might have a point there, you know?’

“KEANE doing SOMEWHERE ONLY WE KNOW and some Japanese businessman going, ‘Aw, look at him… we should really f**king drop that debt, you know.’

“It’s not going to happen, is it?”

I’m also a fan of Bono, the lead singer of U2. Personally, I think he should win a Nobel Peace prize for his activism.

Helping the poorest of poor by canceling debt is a wonderful idea. However, we must be cautious given the following issues:

  • America does need to care for others, but we also must take care of our own - we have to take care of our debt and plan for our financial future by securing our social security, Medicaid, and Medicare futures; and
  • Any plan must ensure that the money is used for debt relief, unspoiled by any corruption. Perhaps policies must be created or steps must be taken by these poor countries that will ensure monies will be used appropriately.

Tags: [, , , , , , , , ,

Why We Need Gitmo

Friday, June 24th, 2005

Why do we need Gitmo?

Michael Ramirez Editorial Cartoon

Michael Ramirez has some great editorial cartoons!

Tags: [, , , , , , , ]

“Shox News” Billboard = Shameless Self-Promotion

Thursday, June 23rd, 2005

Shox News Billboard

I read an article in WND today that discusses the activism of a Los Angeles artist. She displayed a mocking billboard in California and has created an accompanying website suggesting the media bias of Fox News.

While I respect this person’s right to be an activist, I can’t help but think that this is not done from an altruistic spirit of political activism, but simply to shamelessly promote the artist’s own work. Seems like a good capitalistic business model to display a provocative billboard with the intent to stir up national exposure so that you can increase web traffic to your site. I got sucked in.

Perhaps Karen Fiorito should either

  1. Stop worrying about Fox News and watch the other 150+ media outlets that have their own bias; or
  2. Read scholarly articles such as “A Measure of Media Bias” which attempts to provide a rather objective quantifiable analysis of media bias rather than, as the authors suggest, only providing “anecdotes” and “untested theories.”

Perhaps the problem liberals have is not with actual news reporting shows on Fox News like Shepherd Smith’s, which simply provides the news. Instead, liberals seemingly dislike the “opinion” shows on Fox News and a few other media outlets that may provide a forum for right-leaning voices, unlike the media outlets previously mentioned.

We can have a debate all day about media bias. What you consider bias I may not and vice versa. Bottom line - all media is biased simply based on what producers choose to air.

Tags: [, , , , , , , ]

Burn a Flag, Go to Jail

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2005

flag burn

From My Way News:

“The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday approved a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the power to ban desecration of the American flag, a measure that for the first time stands a chance of passing the Senate as well.”

Any time our legislators move to amend the Constitution, I feel a pang of anxiety. Yes, burning the U.S. flag is abominable, but people should be free to express themselves, as long as it’s done in a safe way in a place where such expression does not constitute trespassing. What’s next? Will persons be fined or jailed for flushing the Q’uran or the Bible down a toilet?

Tags: [, , , , , , , ]

Those Right-Wingers Killed Me!

Tuesday, June 21st, 2005

Thanks to fellow Marylander Michelle Malkin for the following:

Cory

Corwyn (Cory) William Zimbleman

Tuscon, AZ Classifieds>Obituary (June 21, 2005)

“…An avid atheist, he studied the bible and religion with more fervor than most Christians. He had strong political opinions and followed Amy Goodman’s radio broadcast “Democracy Now.” Alas the stolen election of 2000 and living with right-winged Americans finally brought him to his early demise. Stress from living in this unjust country brought about several heart attacks rendering him disabled…”

Interesting place to spew liberal politics - is nothing sacred? I guess not to Cory. I’m sorry the right-wingers killed you, Cory. May God grant you and your family peace on this day, the day of your memorial service. Oh, wait, I forgot - you were an atheist. I’m not sure now how to express the proper condolences except to say to your family that we are sorry for your loss.

Tags: [, , , , , , ]

A Moral Distinction Between IVF and Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Friday, June 17th, 2005

I’ve been reading some recent blog articles comparing/contrasting the ethics of in-vitro fertilization and embryonic stem cell research:

I’d like to respond to the following from “TGirsch” of the Lean Left crew:

“To my knowledge, there exists no method of IVF that doesn’t involve the destruction of some embryos. Even if such destruction is the result of failed implantations, the end result is that you have still intentionally created embryos knowing that the majority of them would be destroyed. If life begins at conception, then destroying an embryo – any embryo, whether naturally or artificially conceived – is tantamount to taking a life. And, if their reasoning is consistent, taking a life is wrong whether the intent is to save other lives somewhere down the road, or to create a new life in the near future.”

This is an interesting argument, but I believe a failed one. “Destruction” and “natural selection” are not equivalent concepts. I understand the point that people who believe IVF is morally permissible go into the procedure knowing that some of the harvested and outside-the-womb-combined eggs and sperm may not become viable. However, what the Lean Left folks fail to mention is that the same natural selective process occurs, even during intercourse. For example, take what the Center for Reproductive Health & Gynecology has to say about unexplained infertility:

“Once an egg is fertilized, there is an 80 percent chance of cell division. The rate of division of the resulting embryo is also of significance. Usually 48 hours after fertilization, the embryo is between two to four cells (blastomeres). At 72 hours, they are usually between six to eight cells. After five days of growth, they are usually over 120 cells with a fluid cavity in the middle (Blastocyst). If a larger than expected percentage of embryos divide slowly or stop dividing at any stage, this can result in infertility.”

So, does this mean that no one should try to conceive naturally, because persons may knowingly or unknowingly be destroying (through natural selection) a newly fertilized embryo? Come on.

There are marked ethical and moral differences between IVF procedures and embryonic stem cell research. The goal of IVF is to create life. The harvesting procedure might result in embryos that die through natural selection, but the intent is for all of them to be viable. Yes, many fertilized eggs may result from harvesting the eggs from a woman and the sperm from a man, but fertility clinics (with the consent of the patient) only implant the number of embryos that the patient is willing to bring to term in a healthy manner. While some of these embryos might die when attempting to implant, there is no intent for destruction here. I believe that the ethical issue with this procedure has nothing to do with placing embryos into the patient (knowing some might die), but what to do with the possibility of having extra embryos that cannot be used in the initial implantation procedure (due to the ethics of not implanting too many for the safety of the patient). That moves us towards the slippery slope of using these embryos for anything other than use by the couple involved in the procedure or for donation to other expectant parents.

With regard to embryonic stem cell research, we move into the arena of willfully destroying embryos (life, or potential life, depending on your definition) for a “greater good” by possibly helping people who have health-related problems. Is there even an argument that using embryos for research is nothing but destroying life, even “potential life” if you believe otherwise?

Yes, there is a “treatment” more benign than IVF that can make parents out of nonparents - adoption. There’s also (adult) stem cell research that needn’t involve the destruction of life (or potential life). However, I argue that the two cannot be compared. IVF, when approached in an ethical manner, strives to produce healthy embryos. It’s not the procedure that is unethical, it’s the decision as to what to do with extra embryos that are not used in the initial implantation procedure. My vote would be that these embryos be given every change for life by either 1) being used for a later implantation procedure for the original patient or 2) donated for use by another needy couple. Each of these steps promotes life. Embryonic stem cell research, however, promotes life only by first destroying life (or a potential life).

Tags: [, , , , , , , , , , ]

What Would You Do?

Thursday, June 16th, 2005

Jason Torres with son, Peter, 2.From USA Today:

“A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive.”

The article brings up a practical dilemma…

“Unspoken, but hovering like a cloud: Picking the first option would be hugely costly. He’d be ground down by unimaginable debt. The couple has health insurance but expects it will cover only a fraction of the cost, currently running at least $7,500 a day…”

What would you do?

Update: June 24, 2005

Thanks to Michelle Malkin for this update, including information on the Susan M. Torres Fund to help with the family’s expenses.

Tags: [, , , , ]

9/11 Was Bogus?

Wednesday, June 15th, 2005

Thanks to Drudge for this mention…

Morgan Reynolds

The United Press International reports on June 13, 2005 that:

“Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is “bogus” and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.”

Reynolds continues by saying:

“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling.”

Absolutely amazing. This guy is an economist, not a mechanical engineer or a building engineer! I always enjoy a little conspiracy theory, but to make an outrageous unsubstantiated claim that an unnamed “government” participated in an inside job to make sure the WTC was detroyed is absolutely preposterous! And by ‘inside’ does he mean that these terrorists received help from American co-conspirators? What gives Reynolds the credentials to make these unsupported claims?

I will buy conspiracy theories regarding suspicious deaths surrounding Clinton or TWA Flight 800 before I believe this Reynolds nut.

Tags: [, , , , , , , , , ]

A Call to Be Radical Christians! Part III

Monday, June 13th, 2005

Queer and Christian: A Response

The third and final installment of my three part series on being Radical Christians deals with evangelical Christians and our failure to be a light in the GLBT community. I recently stumbled upon a blog (technorati search on “Christianity” revealed the post) that appears to deal with GLBT issues. More interestingly, I stumbled upon a specific post from one of the authors entitled, “Queer and Christian?” Here’s a portion of what the Ona Marae had to say:

“I am one of those people that finds it easier to be Queer in a sometimes hostile Christian environment than being Christian in most Queer environments. This is not due to a wishy-washy faith or embarassment about my beliefs, but rather the fact that Christianity has been used to do massive spiritual violence against my community.

If you look carefully, it’s not the agnostics or athiests in this country doing the Queer-bashing, it is, for the vast majority of the time, Christians. While there are other world religions who find homosexuality (etc) incompatible with thier teachings, American Christianity has it down to a nasty and political science.”

Ona goes on to say:

“To be as brief as possible, Liberation theology comes out of Latin America and basically states that God is on the side of the Oppressed. If you look through all the texts Christians call their Bible, you will see that God stands in alignment with the marginalized, the oppressed, the widow and orphan, the refugee, women, Samaritans, Lepers and anyone else who is ostracized by their society. I find it interesting that Jesus’ words of accusation were for the religious leadership of his day, not for the people they called “sinner”. I wonder who he would call a serpent today….”

Hmm…God is on the side of the oppressed? I’m not quite sure I can follow this line of reasoning. Once again, I will try to offer my “radical right wing religious” perspective as civilly as possible. I do not want to put GID and other sexual issues discussed here on the same level as what I’m about to say, so please do not misunderstand me.

At what point would you draw the line on this “oppressed” line of thought? Would God be “on the side” of the oppressed folks who have sexual inclinations (whether nature or nurture) towards incest or bestiality or necrophilia? The point I want to make is that these groups (bestiality, alcoholics, incest, necrophilia) too can be considered oppressed because society would frown on persons who have these sexual inclinations or persons who embrace alcoholism. The Bible instructs persons to not get imbibed on too much alcohol and it also instructs persons not to have sexual relationships with family members, animals, the dead, or persons of the same sex. That’s my perspective which I feel is clearly laid out in the Bible. Others more knowledgeable than I can provide better arguments on the subject.

This isn’t about taking sides…but if God did take sides, He would take the side of humanity - because we are ALL sinners. I sympathize with anyone who does not “choose” to be the way there are, but resulting behaviors are not necessarily in line with what God would consider “blameless.” And, as Christians, aren’t we instructed to be imitators of Christ, to strive to be pure and blameless? Now, while I may disagree with the “taking sides” argument, I do believe that Jesus Christ died for EVERYONE, regardless of inclinations based on nature or nurture. It is His forgiveness of our sins that allows us to be seen as blameless, but we must be repentant.

Christians Have Failed to Love GLBT “Others”

Nonetheless, I agree with Ona that the evangelical Christian community has done an abominable job reaching out to these oppressed persons, but I would argue that the failings of evangelical Christians is primarily due to apathy or selfish concerns (e.g., preserving traditional values, etc.), not hate. Certainly the GLBT agenda threatens evangelical Christians because, unlike the other “opressed” groups I mentioned, society is beginning to accept the GLBT agenda - that these behaviors are perfectly normal and acceptable. Radical groups like God Hates Fags paint Christians in a hateful angry light, but the challenge is for Christians to make their voice heard too in a thoughtful way. Groups like James Dobson’s (Focus on the Family) PAC try to, but perhaps they too cross the line at times. “Mainstream” evangelical Christians might instead be apathetic because they feel that it might be a lost cause to reach out to people who seem unwilling to interpret the Bible as a God-breathed literal text instead of a “dynamic” text that changes with society’s norms?

“Less Judgment, More Love” (By Words and Actions)

As I mentioned in an earlier post of this series, I feel that Christians need to walk a fine line between judgment and compassion. It is much easier to be aloof and judgmental rather than participatory and compassionate. I believe evangelical Christians must make their thoughts known, but in a loving way. Take what Leviticus 19:7 has to say:

“Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt.”

I believe that this powerful yet simple verse explains it all. As Christians, we must acknowledge that we too are the worst of sinners, but we should compassionately point out the sin of others, yet love them, not hate them or ostracise them.

In my call for us to be Radical Christians, how might we reach out to the GLBT community for Christ? Perhaps in following the South Beach Diet credo of “less (bad) carbs, more (good) protein,” Radical Christians should follow a credo of “less judgment, more love.” If we acknowledge that we are just as sinful and struggle with temptations equally, then perhaps we can view others more as Jesus does. GLBT persons will not change their behavior just because a Radical Christian calls them sick sinners. Similarly, I might not change my behavior if I did not respect the opinion of the person who challenged me. Evangelical Christians do not win converts or transform a person, only God does. Therefore, let’s give room for God to work - state your position, but then through words and actions, love as Christ loves.

Thus concludes this series, “A Call to be Radical Christians.” I believe that Christians must

  • stand up for what we believe;
  • equally show love and compassion to others;
  • remember that Jesus spent much of His ministry preaching love;
  • remember that God (not humankind) changes hearts; and
  • prove the old addage “actions speak louder than words” true by following Christ’s command in John 13:34:

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

Tags: [, , , , , , ]

Who’s Your Daddy?

Monday, June 13th, 2005


1 800 DNA Test

1800DNATestI was driving to work this morning and heard a crazy radio commercial advertizing DNA testing services to the potentially snookered father. The commercial implied that men might use this test if they are not sure that their child is, indeed, theirs. The questioning father can simply swab the mouth of both the child and himself, mail in the kit for processing, and after and a few week turnaround, these questioning fathers can privately determine whether or not they are the biological father.


Target’s Baby DNA Kit

Target DNA Test1 800 DNA Test is a service using this poor radio advertizing. I was surprised to find out that Target also has a DNA test; however, at least it is marketed for the protection of the child, not the father.

Tags: [, , ]