2004 Presidential Election

[piece-it pete]

The dems have already said they are going to file lawsuits even where there is a large differential. It seems clear to me that Kerry and the democratic (communist) party is willing to sue their way to the White House regardless of the election outcome.

As for the paper ballots, I can no longer find it online, but there was a news video of one of the people doing manual recounts caught altering one of the cards.

-Bruce

So much for the voice of the people.

I heard one old timer say that a counter would glue a little piece of pin under their fingernail to punch out another chad on ballots going for the opposing party, invalidating the ballot.

And of course, eating chads!

Pete

[nobody]

I don't really like the whole going point for point because this thread could just grow way too big for my tastes and we both know that we could go back and forth forever and not settle anything. Briefly, I will say that I think many people underestimate the importance of following international guidelines. It makes friends, which are very useful, particularly in situations like where we find ourselves in Iraq. I think this fear of becomming the UN's ***** that I see so many people (not necessarily you) mention is just silly. We created the UN to be able to exercize some control over other countries and it works for us on that way more than it works against us. If you wanna be isolationist, stop spreading business concernes across the globe. You can't have it both ways.

We're already a low tax country. Personally, I'm more interested in the average standard of living and domestic job creation than I am in corporate profits and overall GDP and such. You can say one brings about the other, but I don't really see that borne out in all cases. Look at how productivity has skyrocketed while jobs have stagnated or been lost and real income has gone down. I'm really tired of the scheme of letting big money guys get what they want and expecting it to eventually help the rest of us. Too many people have been waiting for the trickle down that never comes for my tastes.

The science stuff I mentioned can be looked up by anyone. Bush's policies fall in line with religious based extremist groups and fly in the face of most any serious scientific groups out there. The global warming thing is the most obvious example, but if you want to dismiss stem cell, go ahead, but it would seem the scientific community that actually works with them does not. I'll take their word over religious zealots any day.

The pro-choice is a hard issue to be sure, and wording can change things, but there is still no evidence at all to support the idea that a majority of Americans wish to overturn Roe vs. Wade, in fact all evidence points against it, which is the bottom line

And, partial birth is a scam, it is not a medical term, it is a political one, coined by anti-choice groups. Failure to use proper medical terminoology allows for far too much intrepretaion by the courts and puts doctors at risk. Also, the reason most partial-birth bills are shot down is because the hard line anti-choice groups who support the bills as a way in the door to further restrictions refuse to permit exceptions for even the health of the mother, so even if the procedure would save a life, it would be still be illegal.

OK...that's enough for now. Let's just agree to disagree. You just asked for some of my reason and I gave some. You don't have to agree with me. Let's face it, there are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of these issues; to pretend that only one side has any facts to back them up is silly. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

And, the flip flop charges could be tossed at any open minded person if you looked at their beliefs over a 20 year or more period. If you go 20 years and have the same idea on everything and never change your mind, you're merely stubborn and closed-minded. When you learn, you change your mind about things. If you keep the same beliefs over a long period of time, you're generally not learning or you're learing and then refusing to change your beliefs based on new facts.

One of my favorite quotes from the campaigns was Kerry's assertation that "You can be certain, and still be wrong."

[SRO]

Discussions on politics get more heated than anything else. Well, maybe sports.

Go Steelers! Or, should I say Go Broncos? Just kidding. My best friend is a huge Browns fan. Those are the teams he hates most.

As far as the ads go, I can't honestly say. My television viewing consists mostly of the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels. The only news program I watch is our local morning news show for the weather and traffic reports. Since it is early, I am barely awake enough to even catch those.

How is the weather in Cleveland? My girlfriend lived in Painesville for a couple of years, and grew up in Youngstown. She still complains about the weather 2.5 years after moving here. Of course, she is upset beacause it is going to only be in the 60's and may rain later here.

[PPG]

http://www.wral.com/politics/3850612/detail.html

[piece-it pete]

Discussions on politics get more heated than anything else. Well, maybe sports.

Go Steelers! Or, should I say Go Broncos? Just kidding. My best friend is a huge Browns fan. Those are the teams he hates most.

As far as the ads go, I can't honestly say. My television viewing consists mostly of the Discovery, History, and National Geographic channels. The only news program I watch is our local morning news show for the weather and traffic reports. Since it is early, I am barely awake enough to even catch those.

How is the weather in Cleveland? My girlfriend lived in Painesville for a couple of years, and grew up in Youngstown. She still complains about the weather 2.5 years after moving here. Of course, she is upset beacause it is going to only be in the 60's and may rain later here.

SRO,

Yep they sure can get interesting. My bro-in-law of 19 years, a good friend AND a Democrat (?) (lol), we get into some HEATED arguments. I've come to the conclusion that we like it :shrug: .

Yep the Steelers, our most traditional enemy, and the Broncos, they dashed our post season dreams many times!

That's a nice mix of shows. Regular programming-wise I watch the news, the Simpsons, sometimes King of the Hill. And the McLaughlin group - to yell at Eleanor (tough lady) and sometimes Buchanan, after friday tunes (got the neighbors "broken in" lol) and a couple of beers.

I read history/biographies by the boatload.

The commercials are fast and furious. Mud. But the same story - Reps are stupid/evil and Dems are weak/liers. Over and over and over. And over.

Sometimes I think we're ALL pretty dumb.

The weather here yesterday was - low 60s' and scattered showers! Today has been a beautiful fall day, sunny and low '70s (quite unseasonable). Where are you at?

Pete

[SRO]

SRO,

Yep they sure can get interesting. My bro-in-law of 19 years, a good friend AND a Democrat (?) (lol), we get into some HEATED arguments. I've come to the conclusion that we like it :shrug: .

Yep the Steelers, our most traditional enemy, and the Broncos, they dashed our post season dreams many times!

That's a nice mix of shows. Regular programming-wise I watch the news, the Simpsons, sometimes King of the Hill. And the McLaughlin group - to yell at Eleanor (tough lady) and sometimes Buchanan, after friday tunes (got the neighbors "broken in" lol) and a couple of beers.

I read history/biographies by the boatload.

The commercials are fast and furious. Mud. But the same story - Reps are stupid/evil and Dems are weak/liers. Over and over and over. And over.

Sometimes I think we're ALL pretty dumb.

The weather here yesterday was - low 60s' and scattered showers! Today has been a beautiful fall day, sunny and low '70s (quite unseasonable). Where are you at?

Pete

Don't tell my girl about the weather, she might want to go back. Mostly sunny here today, but chilly. I think our projected high is 62.

I'm a "soaker". A self imposed title after Bush Sr. called Lindh ( or was it his parents ) "just another Marin County hot tubber". In San Rafael, just north of SF.

By the way, I don't own a hot tub. It would be a tight fit in a 600 square foot condo.

What is your beer situation there. I have several micro's within 30 minutes that all produce excellent brews. One of the things I really like about the area. I was just back home ( Alabama ), and wow, not much to choose from.

[piece-it pete]

Don't tell my girl about the weather, she might want to go back. Mostly sunny here today, but chilly. I think our projected high is 62.

I'm a "soaker". A self imposed title after Bush Sr. called Lindh ( or was it his parents ) "just another Marin County hot tubber". In San Rafael, just north of SF.

By the way, I don't own a hot tub. It would be a tight fit in a 600 square foot condo.

What is your beer situation there. I have several micro's within 30 minutes that all produce excellent brews. One of the things I really like about the area. I was just back home ( Alabama ), and wow, not much to choose from.

Dang soakers!

I haven't got into the microbrews too much, though to me there seems to be a lot (best Cleveland name: Burning River Brew, runnerup: Old Leghumper ), still working though the imports and new to me out of states.

Tried St Peters' Old Porter last night, it has a kick like a mule. When in Virginny recently I tried "Old Dominion" Stout on tap, amazing, perhaps the darkest thickest beer I've ever had, almost chocolatey, hope I can find it locally. The best I've had lately overall would be "Old Speckled Hen", been around a while but now in those charged tallboy cans like Guiness - very good!

Can't get a real English Bitter here to save your life! John Smith, where are you?

At least we all can agree on one thing! Or can we? Miller! Bud! Tastes great! Less filling! Arrrgh...

Man I'm glad the elections' soon.

Pete

[SRO]

Dang soakers!

I haven't got into the microbrews too much, though to me there seems to be a lot (best Cleveland name: Burning River Brew, runnerup: Old Leghumper ), still working though the imports and new to me out of states.

Tried St Peters' Old Porter last night, it has a kick like a mule. When in Virginny recently I tried "Old Dominion" Stout on tap, amazing, perhaps the darkest thickest beer I've ever had, almost chocolatey, hope I can find it locally. The best I've had lately overall would be "Old Speckled Hen", been around a while but now in those charged tallboy cans like Guiness - very good!

Can't get a real English Bitter here to save your life! John Smith, where are you?

At least we all can agree on one thing! Or can we? Miller! Bud! Tastes great! Less filling! Arrrgh...

Man I'm glad the elections' soon.

Pete

I try my best to avoid Bud, Miller, etc. Had to settle for them on a camping trip last year. My buddy works at one of my local micro's, and we went through 15 gallons of his the first day. I should say there were 14 of us. The local store only had Bud and Bud Light. At least it was really hot during the day, and the snowmelt in the river kept them really cold.

My friend brews a scotch ale called Kiltlifter. It's one of the best named locals, and a darn good brew too. It doesn't take many to get the kilt up. Another is the Whamber, which is appropriately named as well.

All right, now that is out of the way, back to the tub!

[piece-it pete]

I don't really like the whole going point for point because this thread could just grow way too big for my tastes and we both know that we could go back and forth forever and not settle anything. Briefly, I will say that I think many people underestimate the importance of following international guidelines. It makes friends, which are very useful, particularly in situations like where we find ourselves in Iraq. I think this fear of becomming the UN's ***** that I see so many people (not necessarily you) mention is just silly. We created the UN to be able to exercize some control over other countries and it works for us on that way more than it works against us. If you wanna be isolationist, stop spreading business concernes across the globe. You can't have it both ways.

We're already a low tax country. Personally, I'm more interested in the average standard of living and domestic job creation than I am in corporate profits and overall GDP and such. You can say one brings about the other, but I don't really see that borne out in all cases. Look at how productivity has skyrocketed while jobs have stagnated or been lost and real income has gone down. I'm really tired of the scheme of letting big money guys get what they want and expecting it to eventually help the rest of us. Too many people have been waiting for the trickle down that never comes for my tastes.

The science stuff I mentioned can be looked up by anyone. Bush's policies fall in line with religious based extremist groups and fly in the face of most any serious scientific groups out there. The global warming thing is the most obvious example, but if you want to dismiss stem cell, go ahead, but it would seem the scientific community that actually works with them does not. I'll take their word over religious zealots any day.

The pro-choice is a hard issue to be sure, and wording can change things, but there is still no evidence at all to support the idea that a majority of Americans wish to overturn Roe vs. Wade, in fact all evidence points against it, which is the bottom line

And, partial birth is a scam, it is not a medical term, it is a political one, coined by anti-choice groups. Failure to use proper medical terminoology allows for far too much intrepretaion by the courts and puts doctors at risk. Also, the reason most partial-birth bills are shot down is because the hard line anti-choice groups who support the bills as a way in the door to further restrictions refuse to permit exceptions for even the health of the mother, so even if the procedure would save a life, it would be still be illegal.

OK...that's enough for now. Let's just agree to disagree. You just asked for some of my reason and I gave some. You don't have to agree with me. Let's face it, there are intelligent, well-meaning people on both sides of these issues; to pretend that only one side has any facts to back them up is silly. I'm not going to change your mind, and you're not going to change mine.

And, the flip flop charges could be tossed at any open minded person if you looked at their beliefs over a 20 year or more period. If you go 20 years and have the same idea on everything and never change your mind, you're merely stubborn and closed-minded. When you learn, you change your mind about things. If you keep the same beliefs over a long period of time, you're generally not learning or you're learing and then refusing to change your beliefs based on new facts.

One of my favorite quotes from the campaigns was Kerry's assertation that "You can be certain, and still be wrong."

One can be certainly wrong, too.

I'm no isolationist. I will point to my vocal belief that we SHOULD be in Iraq as proof.

I believe we should continue building the economic system that has brought untold wealth to much of the world.

I'd say "let the UN do it" is a copout. What, exactly, does the UN do, and how does it help more than hurt? Even what it accomplishes best, talk, is largely directed against us.

Productivity gain is the ONLY sustainable basis for increased wages. Everything else is temporary.

The economy cycles, although in a more centrally controlled economy it usually stays down after a possible initial boost. The reason we continue to grow, vs say Japan and I predict China (remember this!) is the free flow of capitol. If controlled by the Gov't or ANYBODY the controlling power will always work to protect the status quo, whether or not the overall economy has moved on.

And we are *much* weathier overall than when trickle down was pushed by Reagan.

Although adult stem cell research has paid off to some degree, not ONE thing has come of fetal stem cells. Call it what you will, there is NOTHING stopping this research - it's political mud slinging. Homework time.

If the American people are pro-abortion, why does the Supreme Court have to decide? Aren't our representatives elected by the majority? Or shouldn't that be up to us. Are we free?

Here's the partial birth abortion scam: The medical definition is "DILATION & EXTRACTION", d and x for short., or, if you like, "Intrauterine Cranial Decompression". It is a medical procedure.

For those who don't know already, here's how it works:

"The procedure is usually performed during the fifth month of gestation or later. The woman's cervix is dilated, and the fetus is partially removed from the womb, feet first. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, removes it, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb."

So, you "partially birth" the "fetus" (5th month or later - this is a child, if born would be a preemie), stick a pair of scissors into the base of the neck, pull out the scissors, and suck out the brains. Mind you, this baby is alive at the beginning of this.

Well, we agree on one thing, that sure doesn't sound like a legit medical procedure!

If they pulled the baby all the way out it would be murder under law. Who is scamming who? We care soooooo much. Save the whales! Kill the preemies.

You're right, we will disagree on many things, and come a coupla weeks will act upon them. People absolutely change their minds upon new information, and should. I would have argued very very close to your same position less than 20 years ago.

In Great Britain, they call the opposition "idiots". Just kidding (though that's prolly true to!). It's "the Loyal opposition". I like this term.

Pete

[nobody]

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Stem-cell funding is the issue, if that's what you meant by do homework. Find a private-funded scientific medical organization that has the means to fund detailed research into anything outside the military (which gets giovernment supprot anyway).


And, if productivity gain is the sustainable reason for growing wages, why haven't they been going up? Productivity has. And the "we are much wealthier overall" is arguable if you are looking at the majority of citizens personal standard of living as a measure, which is what I look at.

[JSE]

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation.

Call it what you want but people are either against the practice or they are not. I don't care what it is called, I'm against it. What would you call it?

JSE

[nobody]

If those supporting the bans were satisfied to outlaw just that procedure you are discussing, they could likely get through a ban against Intrauterine Cranial Decompression during the third trimester with an allowence for the health and life of the mother.

They're not, so their legislation gets tossed.

[FLZapped]

Call it what you want but people are either against the practice or they are not. I don't care what it is called, I'm against it. What would you call it?

JSE

MURDER

[gonefishin]

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Hi nobody

Actually, the partial birth abortion act(s) were written void of much of the pork you commonly see. Also, it's anything but vague. The original bill read like this...

Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any physician or other individual from knowingly performing a partial-birth abortion, except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

Defines a "partial-birth abortion" as an abortion in which the person performing the abortion: (1) deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or, in the case of a breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the mother's body; and (2) performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus.

Authorizes the father, if married to the mother at the time of the abortion, and the maternal grandparents of the fetus, if the mother is under 18 years of age, to obtain specified relief in a civil action, unless the pregnancy resulted from the plaintiff's criminal conduct or the plaintiff consented to the abortion.

Authorizes a defendant accused of an offense under this Act to seek a hearing before the State Medical Board on whether the physician's conduct was necessary to save the life of the mother.

Prohibits the prosecution of a woman upon whom a partial-birth abortion is performed for conspiracy to violate this Act or under provisions regarding punishment as a principal or an accessory or for concealment of a felony.

To add to this, the bill was originally written to ban the procedure of late term partial birth abortion in all cases. It was thought that the procedure would be unnecessarily cruel. In cases of incest, rape or other extenuating circumstance the ban was originally thought to still be in effect because there are other late term abortion methods which are not only safer for the mother...but less cruel to the partially born child as well.

They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.

Again, this was originally true with the first proposal. The reason it was written like that was to ban that one procedure (partial birth abortion) in all cases. The reason it was to be banned in all cases was because there are other late term procedures which would certainly still be able to be performed in cases to protect the health and well being of the mother. She would be able to chose the same outcome the entire time...only changing how the baby was aborted.

Since this time there have been provisions added that state that this procedure will still be performed

except when necessary to save the life of a mother whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

. Seeing as how there are other (safer and more humane) methods of late term abortion...this really didn't need to be added.

Very clear...and very deliberate not to cross any line of taking away the right of a women to choose. It always left her with other avenues.


take care,

dan

[nobody]

OK...last response to this topic. I don't wanna keep arguing in circles.

Anyway, the law is more vague in my estimation than yours. For example, "living fetus" can be interpreted in many different ways. Anti-choice groups define a living fetus as pretty much anything post-conception. So, what procedures would be prevented in addition to the one supposedly intended? There are many doctors that have voiced grave concerns as to what their liability would be when performing more routine procedures if these laws were to be inacted.

The failure to use accepted medical terminology is intentional. A slippery slope away from legal abortion is what is desired. The procedure the laws supposedly intended to describe can only be performed in late term pregnancies, so why is it a problem to mention the term? We both know why. It's because the laws are meant to start greasing the wheels for court interpretations that could have more wide-ranging efects.

Also, I would prefer a women and her doctor decide what cases may indeed be necessary for her health and safety, not some governmental body, driven by ideological concerns.

Again, I have to ask, if there is a commonly accepted medical term for the procedure wished to be banned and it is only performed at a certain term of the pregnancy, can you think of one good reason not to use the accepted term and duration if you really wish to ban one certain procedure?

[gonefishin]

Hi again Nobody


Hi Nobody,

Anyway, the law is more vague in my estimation than yours. For example, "living fetus" can be interpreted in many different ways. Anti-choice groups define a living fetus as pretty much anything post-conception. So, what procedures would be prevented in addition to the one supposedly intended? There are many doctors that have voiced grave concerns as to what their liability would be when performing more routine procedures if these laws were to be inacted.

Again, I would disagree. A living fetus is one with a heartbeat and brain activity consistent with a healthy fetus of the same term.

You asked, What procedures would be prevented in addition? None. The whole reason for this law was to stop one procedure which appeared as cruel, while giving the mother other choices for abortion in the late term. Only this procedure would have a ban...she could still have other late term abortions performed.

The failure to use accepted medical terminology is intentional. A slippery slope away from legal abortion is what is desired. The procedure the laws supposedly intended to describe can only be performed in late term pregnancies, so why is it a problem to mention the term? We both know why. It's because the laws are meant to start greasing the wheels for court interpretations that could have more wide-ranging effects.

What term? beyond 20 weeks' gestation



Actually, the AMA and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists both equate "partial birth abortion" with the procedure "intact D&X". below is a description As described by the American College of Obstetricians

this method of abortion includes the following four

elements:

1. Deliberate dilatation of the cervix, usually over a

sequence of days;

2. Instrumental conversion of the fetus to a footling breech;

3. Breech extraction of the body excepting the head;

4. Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of a living

fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact

fetus.

not clear? not accepted medical terminology?

yes, it is both clear and accepted terminology describing one late term abortion procedure.

I wonder if there are any drawings or video out there illustrating this procedure. Read it again, paying particular attention to step two, three and four.

Dialation and delivery is induced, resulting in a baby that has started to deliver. The baby is then turned "backwards" with instruments so it delivers breech. The legs, buttocks, torso and shoulders are presenting outside of the vagina. After the body has been delivered and the head is still inside, the head is partially evacuated of parts of it's brains. After this is done, the delivery of the head is completed.

Also, I would prefer a women and her doctor decide what cases may indeed be necessary for her health and safety, not some governmental body, driven by ideological concerns.

Again...the original bill was set up to ban one procedure, leaving all other abortion procedures in tact. Including alternative late term procedures excluding only the one intact D&X procedure. Again, your "wanted" provision has actually been written into the bill. But this was really didn't need to be done. The way the bill was written originally, it was clear that this one procedure would be banned. There are currently other procedures that are just as effective and safe for the mother that would be performed in cases such as health and well being...without partially delivering the baby and then Partial evacuation of the intracranial contents.

Again, I have to ask, if there is a commonly accepted medical term for the procedure wished to be banned and it is only performed at a certain term of the pregnancy, can you think of one good reason not to use the accepted term and duration if you really wish to ban one certain procedure?

This is what could be so frustrating about discussions on the topic. The bill actually is quite direct in describing what the procedure is, and that other procedures would still be untouched...and able to be performed. Only the partial birth (intact D&X) is being considered to be banned...women could still have other late term procedures performed, such as labor induction or by D&E.

The procedure is called "intact D&X procedure", which is referred to by politicians as late term partial birth abortion. I suppose calling it intact D&X doesn't paint the same picture in peoples minds.



dan

[piece-it pete]

Problem with your abortion agruement is that those who favor the laws against so-called "partial-birth" abortion refuse to use a proper medical term to describe the procedure in their legislation. They prefer to remain vague in order to have the greatest possible impact and perhaps impact further procedures. They have also refused time and gain to set a limit on the time when procedures can be performed. They have also refused to allow for exceptions to protect the health and well-being of the mother.
Stem-cell funding is the issue, if that's what you meant by do homework. Find a private-funded scientific medical organization that has the means to fund detailed research into anything outside the military (which gets giovernment supprot anyway).
And, if productivity gain is the sustainable reason for growing wages, why haven't they been going up? Productivity has. And the "we are much wealthier overall" is arguable if you are looking at the majority of citizens personal standard of living as a measure, which is what I look at.

The abortion issue has been well addressed by the fishin' guy, thanks Dan!

The stem-cell issue is similar, a LOT of intentional disinformation is being spread for political purposes.

SLANTING THE SCIENCE

By WESLEY J. SMITH

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SHOULD the government fund medical research that relies on the use of "stem cells" extracted from human embryos? This difficult moral decision would be a lot easier if the media weren't failing to tell the public the whole story.

Embryo-stem-cell research promises to produce medical miracles in a host of areas. But other research avenues - including the use of cells that don't come from human embryos - are also promising, perhaps more so. Unfortunately, journalists and editors haven't reported this news fully or fairly.

The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-partisan research organization devoted to the accurate use of scientific research in public-policy debates, has documented how journalists have fallen down on the job on this issue.

In its recent report "Stemming the News Flow?" STATS decried a "striking" selectivity in coverage: The media often play up embryonic-stem-cell breakthroughs while giving short shrift to equivalent (or even more promising) adult-stem-cell successes.

* In separate experiments, scientists researched the ability of embryonic and adult mouse pancreatic stem cells to regenerate the body's ability to make insulin. Both types of cells boosted insulin production in diabetic mice. The embryonic success made a big splash with prominent coverage in all major media outlets. Yet the same media organs were strangely silent about the research involving adult cells.

Stranger still, the adult-cell experiment was far more successful - it raised insulin levels much more. Indeed, those diabetic mice lived, while the mice treated with embryonic cells all died. Why did the media celebrate the less successful experiment and ignore the more successful one?

* Another barely reported story is that alternative-source stem cells are already healing human illnesses.

*In Los Angeles, the transplantation of stem cells harvested from umbilical-cord blood has saved the lives of three young boys born with defective immune systems.

*Rather than receiving bone marrow transplants, the three boys underwent stem cell therapy. The experimental procedure worked. Two years post-surgery, their doctors at UCLA Medical Center pronounced the boys cured.

*Last year, Israeli scientists implanted Melissa Holley's white blood cells into her spinal cord to treat the paraplegia caused when her spinal cord was severed in an auto accident. Melissa, who is 18, has since regained control over her bladder and recovered significant motor function in her limbs - she can now move her legs and toes, although she cannot yet walk.

This is exactly the kind of therapy that embryonic-stem-cell proponents promise - years down the road. Yet Melissa's breakthrough was met with collective yawns in the press with the exception of Canada's The Globe and Mail.

Non-embryonic stem cells may be as common as beach sand.

They have been successfully extracted from umbilical cord blood, placentas, fat, cadaver brains, bone marrow, and tissues of the spleen, pancreas, and other organs. Even more astounding, the scientists who cloned Dolly the sheep successfully created cow heart tissue using stem cells from cow skin. And just this week, Singapore scientists announced that they have transformed bone-marrow cells into heart muscle.

Research with these cells also has a distinct moral advantage: It doesn't require the destruction of a human embryo. You don't have to be pro-life to be more comfortable with that.

So why does the more ethically problematic research get such better press? Well, it sure looks like bias, conscious or not: Most reporters and editors call themselves pro-choice on abortion. And many see support of embryonic-stem-cell research as consistent with (or even supportive of) this point of view.

But abortion is actually quite beside the point in this debate - there is no pregnant woman being asked to gestate a child she does not want. Thus, one can both support abortion rights and oppose embryonic research without any inconsistency.

In the end, this debate turns on two questions. The tougher one is: Is such research immoral, since it destroys human life and transforms it into a mere commodity? The second: Can we reap equivalent medical benefits using alternative sources?

The answer to that seems to be "yes." If the press were doing its job, giving an honest answer to the "hard" question would be far less painful.

Attorney and consumer advocate Wesley J. Smith is the author of "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America."

If you check on Wesley J. Smith you will find that he has written four books with Nader, as well as a bunch of other stuff.

Productivity. You can't change the economy by flipping a switch! It cycles, and there isn't much you can do about it. Our usual responses to recessions are to lower interest rates, which makes money cheaper, and deficit spending, to "prime the pump". Increased productivity means we WILL earn more, soon.

Consider: if I make 1 widget per hour, and demand a raise, it will add cost to that widget. I may get the money for a while. But in a free market, someone else will make it for the original pay if they can. So the guy with the raise ends up with no job. But, if I can bump my production to 1-1/2 widgets an hour, I am making it possible for increased earnings without opening up a way for someone else, like China, to take my job. 'Cause we are more productive, we are worth more money. And this applies to all stages of business, from the factory floor to the management of capital.

Hmmm, in 1980, one TV (prolly 25"), maybe 2 phones, one car the norm (and ps, pb, fm stereo and a/c made it "loaded"), little houses built by todays' averages, how are we not more wealthy overall?

Pete

[nobody]

We work more hours to afford our possesions. Most families have two full-time earners. We work longer hours and have less vacation than any other industrialized country outside Japan. I don't have time to look up stats, but I've seen several reports charting real income declining per capita for quite a time.

Personally, I'm also quite worried by the widening income gap, which with jobs being exported is going to just get worse. The retrain and get more education argument just doesn't hold water long term. We will not all be at the top of the ladder. There needs to be something more than "would you like fries with that?" for the masses.

Free markets are not always the answer. Go back to pre-labor law days and see how well that was working out.

OK...good points all around. But, I gotta stop this or I'll never get any actual work done and my per-capita income is gonna disappear.

[piece-it pete]

OK...good points all around. But, I gotta stop this or I'll never get any actual work done and my per-capita income is gonna disappear.

lol! You win the "best comment of the day" prize - you get to keep your job!

Pete

[dean_martin]

Hmmm, in 1980, one TV (prolly 25"), maybe 2 phones, one car the norm (and ps, pb, fm stereo and a/c made it "loaded"), little houses built by todays' averages, how are we not more wealthy overall?

Pete

One reason we are not more "wealthy", a term which includes both assets and liquidity, is personal debt. Yes, we have more stuff because we have evolved into a stuff-oriented people. But, on average, folks aren't paying cash for their stuff. We look wealthier, but on paper we're not. We can have it all today and it can all be repossessed tomorrow.

One fascinating (and disturbing) thing I've seen in our hobby lately is that the dollar just doesn't buy what it used to. The most concrete example I can give is the Pro-Ject Perspective turntable. This table is made in the Czech Republic. It had a list of $995 just 1 1/2 to 2 years ago. Its current list is $1295. That's a 33% increase. I don't follow the rise and fall of the dollar very often, but I did over the summer. My son went to Japan, which for the most part is a cash society. When the trip was planned last fall, you could buy 112 yen with one American dollar. When we got ready to convert our dollars to yen in May the ratio was 97 yen per dollar. When we converted the yen he had left back to dollars in July the ratio was 95 to one.

I think we're losing our buying power which increases personal debt. Of course avoiding debt requires will power, self control, etc., but as a nation we're not doing that.

BTW, I've started looking at products made in the US and Canada (VPI turntables, Totem speakers, etc.) instead of those made in Europe (the dollar obviously isn't doing well against the Euro) and Japan. I stress LOOKING because I don't want to use my credit card. I'm not very liquid right now.