AssemblyBoard

Morning Tom,

I don't know if you noticed or not, but Arnold just broke with the republican party----he ran as a republican in the recall election, and was voted into office by republicans---in that he now supports state funding for embryonic stem cell research in CA.  (Prop 71)

What this means is that embryos are "grown" in the lab, and then harvested a few days later in order to cull the pluripotent stem cells and conduct experiments on them.  This research has been going on for some time in privately funded laboratories, all across the country, but now our governor want to spend my tax dollars in order to do this.

Does this bother anyone besides me?

California sets trends, and the trend of the most powerful, popular republican governor breaking with the party in order to support this practice is quite chilling to me.

Of course, I could say, "Told you so...." but it really makes me too sad to do so.  I am so happy I didn't vote for him.

Brent

Yeah it stinks to high heaven.  While proponents claim that stem-cell research is for the benefit of alzheimers patients, in reality this is just a front put on by abortion racketeers who want to legitimatize their heinous crimes and continue to reap its profits, even branching out into this new market getting a fat bankroll from Aunt Samatha.
Like I said, they're going to hell.

Arthur

Stem cell research, despite the heinous aspect of it, is something that will advance medical technology.  We are all living off of technology that is one way or another heinous in origin.  Stem cell research appears to be one of them.  For example, the development of the computers we use to create and participate in this web site yields toxic waste that is poisoning children at play nearby the chemical dump sites in China.  The cars we drive run on gasoline that was refined in Long Beach, Anacortes, and Martinez, where pollution is poisoning the population.  Take a cruise along Petroleum Avenue on a windless day and you'll see for yourself.  San Francisco Bay is a chemical soup of petroleum byproducts that is discusting to see during a flight approach to SFO on a clear day--which eliminated any urge I had to go sailing in it.  So, up in the research labs at UCSF cancer research center, and the orthopedic labs, etc, there is research going on that will involve the sad use of stem cells for the purpose of curing cancer, greatly accelerating the mending process of life threatening fractures, etc.  I have to admit that if I ever get in a car accident, say some drunk from the California Maritime Academy rams into my car, resulting in the fracturing of dozens of bones, some Reeve style, and there is a cure available that required the use of stem cells, I would not hesitate to use it.  I have children to feed...

Dan

Yep! We don't know the half of it.
If you are using a cell-phone without a phone-shield I advise you to correct that situation immediately. The microwave exposure over time is not good...not good at all.
This is one of the most under-reported and potentially serious consequences (especially conisdering their remarkably common usage) of employing modern technology that I know of. If you do not know how to get a phone shield, IM me and I will tell you how, but get one!
Children especially should not be allowed to use cell phones without a radiation shield.
Verne

On cell-phone usage, I would suggest not wearing glasses while using a cell-phone, since the wire that runs through them acts as an antenna that helps radiate the microwaves into the brain.

Yep! We don't know the half of it.
If you are using a cell-phone without a phone-shield I advise you to correct that situation immediately. The microwave exposure over time is not good...not good at all.
This is one of the most under-reported and potentially serious consequences (especially conisdering their remarkably common usage) of employing modern technology that I know of. If you do not know how to get a phone shield, IM me and I will tell you how, but get one!
Children especially should not be allowed to use cell phones without a radiation shield.
Verne

The people that are opposed to stem cell research have good reason for their stand.  Nevertheless, I'd be willing to bet that most of them would utilize the breakthroughs of this controversial biotechnology if they had the misfortune to choose between that or an alternative, such as spending a shortened life as a quadripregic or worse.

Verne, The cell phone is something I don't like to use because I guess I just like the sound of the quarter dropping into the payphone.  

Regarding cell phones, sheilding and such.  I would be surprised if anyone could develop a sheild that would adequately sheild a user from RF without making the phone useless, or making the user look like they were wearing a ski mask.  Devices that simply slap on the phone, and such, are a complete crock.

If you are concerned about RF emissions from your cellphone, but a wired earpiece.  Wear the phone on your belt, or carry it in your hand.

Also, different carriers use different frequency bands, which will have different effects.

This issue stems from cell phone research; not stem cell research.

You have to be specific when talking about stem cells.   There is a huge difference between successes with adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells.

   I like the way that Joni Eareckson-Tada put it on an interview with Larry King last summer.

   Partial transcript follows:

EARECKSON TADA: That may very well happen using incredible therapies that are happening using adult stem cell research. It is absolutely amazing what is
happen.

Dr. Carlos Lima in Lisbon, Portugal has helped restore bladder and muscle control to people with paralysis -- it is using stem cells from their own nasal
tissue.

KING: Everyone says it will be faster if embryonic is also used. Nancy Reagan is going to campaign strongly for that.

EARECKSON TADA: I heard that.

KING: Are you against that.

EARECKSON TADA: I am against that, Larry.

KING: Why.

EARECKSON TADA: Well, for two reasons. It's kind of a two prong fork here. Number one is a person with a disability, research dollars are few, they are
scares, they are precious. And because they are scares, I want to see that money channeled into therapies which have the most promise, which are the most
effective. Right now, no stem cell derived from a human embryo is even in clinical trial in a human and even the trials in animals are fraught with problems,
there's tissue malformation, there's tissue rejection. There's...

KING: That happens in all beginnings, of all studies.

EARECKSON TADA: That's true, but right now, with their own stem cells, whether dental pulp or nasal tissue, bone marrow tissue, incredible therapies are
happening.

KING: But who's being harmed. Someone said the other day, what's an argument against embryonic cell research, that they haven't tried it yet.

That's not an argument. What's an argument -- is there a moral argument.

EARECKSON TADA: One argument is, of course, there is -- there is -- it's abhorrent to take human life. Larry, I'm a person with a disability. I am exposed
and vulnerable as a quadriplegic and I believe that people like me, the elderly, the frail, the unborn, our lives are in jeopardy in a society which begins
to dismantle the safe guards around human life. If we begin taking human life, no matter how small, whether or not a human embryo has a soul, and I happen
to believe it does, is not the point, it's a not a goat embryo, it's not a rat, it's not a chicken embryo, it's a human.

KING: Would you debate Chris Reeve.

EARECKSON TADA: Well, yes, I'd be happy to.

KING: He favors it, as you know, strongly.

EARECKSON TADA: I know he does. You know, I think, Christopher Reeve's best chances and people that we serve at Joni and Friends, thousands of disabled
people and their families, our best chances, my best chance as a person with a spinal cord injury to get a viable cure is through pouring all the effort
and all the attention in developing therapies using adult stem cells.


*******

Unfortunately, she will not be able to speak to Chris Reeve but I'm sure that he read some of her books.

   The interview on Larry King Live will be rebroadcast on New Years Day!

2004 has been an awesome year...A healthy church family, opportunities to serve and a Blessed dusting of challenges.   I am looking forward to 2005...Lord willing.

Happy New Year to all!

--Tony

I noticed that in today's SF Chronicle, there's an article that backs up my comment about toxic waste sites caused by the computers we use, etc....  Although this thread is ancient history, here's a link to: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/01/12/RECYCLE.TMP; and a copy of part of that article, beginning with its title:


Demonstrating concern
Environmentalists picket at Macworld over Apple policies
Birgitta Forsberg, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 12, 2005

While hundreds of visitors moved in and out of Apple's Macworld Conference & Expo at the Moscone Center on Tuesday, a handful of picketers gathered outside around a pile of old Apple computers.

On the monitors of some of the computers were images of Asian children and adults picking through equipment in dumps of toxic electronic waste containing lead, mercury and brominated flame retardants.
===========

Overall, it seems that if tree huggers are against cutting down trees, then they should refrain from using guitars and jungle drums at their protest rallies because those two products they are using are contributing to the destruction of the forests they want to protect.  So goes with those in opposition to stem cell research:  if they are against it, then they better not plan to use the medications, developed by stem cell research, that cures the alzheimer disease that may run in their families....or the use of any similarly produced remedies to grave illnesses.  However, using stem cell research for non-lethal ailments, such as increasing body mass or weird stuff like that is unacceptable.  I might be wrong, but it's just my opinion.

Dan

The people who profess that mankind evolved as a step in the progression of nature are the same folks who say that man is at odds with the rest of nature.  They can accept that they have emerged as the latest descendants of some primordial muck, but not that they have naturally developed into self-serving destroyers of their environment.  Their own logic fails them while proving the biblical account, but they can see neither...

al

Al,

I guess the question is whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian to advocate stem-cell research.  Overall, I favor the research, but have some underlying concerns.  The benefits include several nice things, such as potential cures for alzheimers, spinal injurues, etc.  The downside is that it exploits the unborn.  However, it also appears similar to the idea of organ transplantation from a dead human to a live.  

Abortion is always going to occur, and it seems better to make some positive use of the consequences without having it act as any justification or encouragement for a pregnant woman to have her defenseless baby murdered.  If the results from the use of a small percentage of the murdered unborn for research will serve as prolonging the lives of millions, then why not?  This question somewhat reminds me of an old post in this chat room, which several endorsed, suggesting that nuclear weapons be dropped on and kill millions of the innocent as well as the guilty people in muslim countries in order to help mitigate the terror threats.  If his arguement is acceptable, then stem cell research might also be.  After all, the cost/benefit ratio of stem cell research appears more favorable than that of nuking the muslim cities.  

Dan

If the unborn could be shown to be future terrorists, then your comparison of these two somewhat different ideas has merit.

I always consider the unborn to be innocent, whereas the citizens of countries we are at war with I deem enemies.

A generation ago, it was considered proper to kill one's enemies, a la Hiroshima, Nagasaki.  At the same time, abortion was illegal and not federally funded.

Today, it is considered proper to kill the unborn, and build schools for one's enemies.

I just have a hard time with this.

Brent

Regardless of whether our tax dollars subsidize it, it will continue.  So why not not have some microbiology grad student interns head over to the back alley garbage cans at planned parenthood and harvest some stem cells?  If the stem cells from a thousand corpses save millions from deadly ailments, that seems okay because the unborn were going to die anyway.  On the other hand, dropping the bomb to kill billions of people in order to kill 100,000 terrorists in order to keep them from killng a few million people seems to be a less desirable scenario.  Too much death of innocent people.  The only way to get rid of the terrorists is by deporting all the muslims, ship them all to Mecca, dump them out of a cargo plane over Mecca with a parachute.  They might like that so they won't have to think about which direction to pray because they'll be there.

Dan,

you wrote:
"I guess the question is whether or not it is appropriate for a Christian to advocate stem-cell research.  Overall, I favor the research, but have some underlying
concerns.  The benefits include several nice things, such as potential cures for alzheimers, spinal injurues, etc.  The downside is that it exploits the
unborn."

   The question is "Is it appropriate for a Christian to support HUMAN embryonic stem cell research?"  My response is that one should find out, to the best of their ability, what exactly they are supporting.   IMO, when there are so many successes documented with the use of adult stem cells studies, the ESC debate smells of an agenda and could most likely be traced to sources which hate the Light that has come into this world.   I am skeptical of the "possible cures" as I have found that many researchers are seeking grant dollars and will make ANY claim to keep the cash cow in their own barn...even lie.  (anyone remember Piltdown man?"
  I don't know if any possitive results will come out of the Embryonic Stem Cell research but I would much rather see the money going towards research that uses cells with a person's own (or close relative's) DNA to repair/replace defective cells and tissue.   It seems to make sense that these cells would have a higher probability for success.

   I cannot support, nor can I stomach,  research which creates human life for the sole purpose of destroying it.


you wrote:
"However, it also appears similar to the idea of organ transplantation from a dead human to a live."

  Maybe in China!   I don't think that you would support killing of a "less desireable person" to get organs for someone else...or would you?

you wrote:
"Abortion is always going to occur, and it seems better to make some positive use of the consequences without having it act as any justification or encouragement
for a pregnant woman to have her defenseless baby murdered.  If the results from the use of a small percentage of the murdered unborn for research will
serve as prolonging the lives of millions, then why not?"

How a follower of Jesus Christ can view what happens in an abortion to a defenseless baby and then say that they would be willing to benefit from it is somewhat confusing to me.

   When I have more time, I'd like to share a story of a research project that I was closely involved in and the lies that later came out to support using aborted tissue.   I made  up my mind then as to where I stand and I wasn't even a born again Christian at the time.

  The problem with a pragmatic approach to finding cures or organs or tissue is that once you've gone far enough down that road, there is no turning back.   How far are we from:

"since we are spending so much money on caring for the mentally retarded, and they do not truly serve as a useful contributor to society, why not take those perfectly good organd and give them to someone who could?"

   It may be awhile before we see that in America but I guarantee that it is going on in other countries.

--Tony Edwards

Tony,

You have taken me out of context.  But that's okay, because in a issue as this, it happens.  

ESC research is a requirement in order to yield important discoveries.  There is always going to be murdered unborn babies, regardless of the presence of ESC research.  ESC research does not cause abortion.  Abortion is caused by other things, and it's those other things that warrants attention.  Bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors isn't going to stop it.    Neither is the rejection of ESC research.   If you want abortion to stop, outlawing ESC research won't do it.  The only thing that will stop abortion is forcing all the women that are too stupid to use effective birth control to wear locked chastity belts, and all likeminded men to be injected with something that shuts down the machinery.

Sure, there are a handful of scientists that lie about their research findings for grant money.  Chasing grants is a form of academic welfare that all researchers engage in, and there will always be the cheats.  However, as in all research endeavors, they are outnumbered by the honest scientists such as those that contribute to finding cures for alzheimers, etc.  There are also those who spend their entire careers discovering nothing but perhaps a tiny step in the path that leads to the big discoveries.  I know some of the honest researchers, and some of the cheats too, but overall, I find it best to leave them alone and let them do what they do.  

Your other comment about me advocating the death of humans for organs is also out of context.

Anyway, it's been interesting seeing where people stand on this issue.  But since I am the king here, everybody is obliged to agree with me. :)

British historian Arnold Toynbee has convincingly shown that with very few exceptions, (nineteen of twenty two) civilizations that "achieved" the level of corruption evident in America were utterly destroyed.
"Idols for Destruction" by Schlossberg should be required reading for every Christian if you can find it. It is interesting to me how certain books eventually become very hard to find. That book is prophetic.
In my opinion, things have gotten a lot worse since Toynbee made that statement.
He passed away in 1975
The killing of the unborn is akin to the kinds of things the Caananites were doing.
The Bible describes the consequences as the pollution of the very land these people occupied.
On this issue, we are most certainly treasuring up wrath for ourselves.
I expect to increasingly see perturbations in the natural world as well as an increasingly steep decline in our international stature, security and prosperity.
The dollar has lost thirty percent of its value against the Euro the last two years.
People paying attention made a killing on Forex.
I am personally convinced that the only thing staying the judgment of God is the nation's Christian witness, but just how much time do we have?!



I do.
A classic example of how latent racism, ethnocentricity and godless naturalism can influence the course of "scientific progress".
The remarkable desire of British intelligentsia to portray England as the "cradle of man's evolution" thus presenting "PIltdown Man" as the "Lord of all Creatiion" now seems hysterically funny.

What's wrong with Africa?  :)
Quite a number of very good folk bought it.

It reminds me of the racist physicist Shockley, who spent a lot of time trying to convince the world that people of African descent were genetically inferior.
Angela Davis embarrased him publicly when the question of the incidence of genetic diseases was raised... :o

Verne

Folks,

Regarding the Piltdown Man hoax, and the beliefs and motives that made it possible.

Dr. Leakey, who made the finds in East Africa that provide the basis for the current belief held by naturalists that man originated Africa, did not believe that at the end of his career.

During the last 9 years of his life he believed that man had originally evolved in North America!   :o

Near Barstow, California there is a place called "Barstow Early Man Site" where he searched for "human" remains.  All he turned up was some rocks that appear to have been chipped into more useful shapes.

This is all contained in the book, "American Genesis" if you wish to check it out.

Modern evolutionists know this, but never mention because it points out the miniscule amount of evidence upon which human origins theories rest.  If it is brought to their attention, they just say he was losing it as he got old.  This, of course will become the stock explanation for athiest icon Anthony Flew's recent conversion to Deism as well.

There is, however, good DNA evidence that all modern humans are descended from ancestors who came out of Africa, say 50,000 years ago.

That, however, only proves that the ancestors lived in Africa, not that they "evolved" there.  Faith in human evolution is based on a very, very small amount of evidence.  That is why one find of some hominid creature's remains causes major rethinking of "family trees".

What the whole thing boils down to is that the human race has existed for perhaps 50,000 years, and there were some two legged creatures that lived before us that share our general skeletal design.

Now, as to the location of Eden....I can say with absolute certainty, "beats me."

Thomas Maddux

I thought they claimed "Lucy" was much older Tom.
The mitichondrial DNA studies were pretty good and quite conclusive, unlike the rank "Piltdown" amateurs... :)
In all fairness though, it was one of the British's own that exposed it...


How come?


 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.
 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
 And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the nyx stone.
And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia.
And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
Verne

At the "Barstow early man site" they did indeed find cutting tools and some ancient jewelry. At another site appx 150 miles northeast they found what appeared to be an ancient type of poker chip, and the remains of a wheel decorated with numbers in black and red, in which spun a small black marble. The only thing archaeologists could compare it to is what we call a roulette wheel.

They found an ancient stone carved with an ancient language that turned out to be Sumerian in nature. When they deciphered it, the closest interpretation they could make was "all you can eat, 3 shekels". Leakey may have really been on to something.

--Joe

British historian Arnold Toynbee has convincingly shown that with very few exceptions, (nineteen of twenty two) civilizations that "achieved" the level of corruption evident in America were utterly destroyed.
Verne

Verne,
I havn't read Toynbee for a while, but if you measure the level of corruption by the abortion rate, then America is somewhere in the middle.  Eastern Europe, Africa, parts of Asia, South America and the Carribean have significantly higher abortion rates.  However, since it occurs in all countries (except maybe the Antarctic), looks like all countries are doomed.

I am not sure where  you got your statistics Dan but I did not think you were right about Africa and did a little checking. As I suspected. abortions in Africa are quite rare.
The Caribbean and South America are not major players either. Here is the breakdown by country:

   
       
 Definition: Legal abortions Per capita figures expressed per 1000 population.

 Amount
1. Russia 19.14 per 1000 people  
2. Bulgaria 12.87 per 1000 people  
3. Hungary 7.66 per 1000 people  
4. Cuba 7.45 per 1000 people  
5. Sweden 4.22 per 1000 people  
6. United States 4.17 per 1000 people  
7. Norway 3.00 per 1000 people  
8. Iceland 2.87 per 1000 people  
9. New Zealand 2.82 per 1000 people  
10. United Kingdom 2.78 per 1000 people  
11. Japan 2.69 per 1000 people  
12. France 2.67 per 1000 people  
13. Israel 2.53 per 1000 people  
14. Italy 2.31 per 1000 people  
15. Canada 2.19 per 1000 people  
16. Finland 1.90 per 1000 people  
17. Germany 1.18 per 1000 people  
18. India 0.56 per 1000 people  
19. Greece 0.11 per 1000 people  
20. Poland 0.01 per 1000 people  
 Weighted Average 2.93 per 1000 people  

Source: UNHDR (United Nations Human Development Reports)
 
In India and China there are cultural  and social pressures that result in the destruction of countless female infants.
Nonetheless, it would be a dreadful mistake to assess our culpability on a merely relativistic basis.
We, of all nations ought to know better.


whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.  
Verne

p.s. Touynbee in all likelihood did not have abortion at the top of his list....

Verne, Here's a link to where I got the stats:http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

The data is too voluminous tp paste here, but that's where I got it.
Where did you get your's?

"To whom data is given, sources are required".  Thanks for reminding me of the need to back up claims with data. :)

Dan

United Nations Human Development Reports.
I will look a little wider.

Verne

Sounds good.  My stats are from year 1999.  I will compare yours to mine and see where the differences are.

Regarding the reference to Toynbee, I just saw the following headline from today's CNN website:

__________________________________
Judge denies atheist's lawsuit to prevent prayer at Bush inauguration
Friday, January 14, 2005 Posted: 4:52 PM EST (2152 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow had no legal basis to pursue his claim because he could not show he would suffer any injury from hearing the prayer.

Bates also ruled that Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit ............bla bla bla
_______________________________________

Things can't be all that bad.....

Dan

Such discussions as this one often bring to mind GG's infamous saying, "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still," a failed attempt at quotation which made no sense as he stated it, but he never let that stop its repetition.

This thread's pros & cons of the past several days bring to mind these scenarios:

[1.]  The subordinate officers tried as war criminals whose plea is, "The atrocities would have continued with or without my participation.  Therefore I saw nothing to be gained by taking a stand which would have brought about my imprisonment or death without changing anything."

[2.]  The Donner party:  The whole company was trapped for the winter and without victuals: doomed to probable death by starvation and cold.  Therefore it made perfect sense to those who survived longer to eat the corpses of those who had died, to increase their own chances to survive as long as possible.

[3.]  In the case of genuine persecution of Christians, is it ever preferable to deny Christ publicly in order to avoid imprisonment or execution, so that one might continue serving Him secretly?

[4.]  For those who believe in an age at which children begin to be held accountable:  would it not be better to kill ALL children prior to their reaching that age, thus assuring their salvation, than to allow them to mature and risk their being lost and damned?

These may seem to some readers to be foolish and unrelated to the theme(s) under discussion here, but there is a point:  The answers to these questions may seem absurdly obvious to you, me, or someone else, but we must each arrive at our own decision, a concept reflected in Rom.14:5b, Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind, (although the passage addresses other topics).  As we each "voted our own conscience" in the recent elections, so must we each determine our opinion in all such matters of this world.  

We may arrive at these positions spontaneously, or we can commit them to prayer and study of God's Word, earnestly seeking to know His will.  I suggest that safety in spontaneity is only possible to those whose spirituality is secure in Christ Jesus.

al

That UNHDR report is bogus.  The population division of the UN  secretariat also significantly differs from that report. I have not seen the raw data but eveything else I have seen suggests that they have grossly underestimated the world-wide rates of abortions. Unlesss they are referring to only so called legal abortions, they are monstrously massaging the data...figures... ???
Verne

p.s. oops! I just noticed that it does indeed say legal doesn't it?
Liars!

Verne,

I don't know whose stats are more accurate.  You have a source that's different than mine.  My numbers are different than your's, and each of us has a bias.  

On you comments regarding the destruction of the United States as a result of the corruption that inhabits it, all I can say is that every great country throughout history had a rise and fall.  If it falls during my lifetime, I'll just move to Canada where I can get free medical coverage and cheap lumber for home construction projects.  Either way is fine with me.  The only problem is that I'd be further away from the Carribean, where I've often wanted to go for a nice vacation.

I am not sure our perspectives are so different.
I think the guys I cited just list what they call "legal abortions" which represents probably less than half of all that occur. You were right that by either source the U.S. falls around the middle of the pack with regard to frequency.


May I humbly suggest Tortola in the British Virgin Islands?
If you like snorkeling I've got a couple of great suggestions.
Scuba diving even better.
I also got a few acres over-looking the Caribbean Sea and I am going to need some good builders next year so let me know if you are available... :)
Verne

p.s Hey Mark C,  have you renewed your open sea certification?

Thanks for thinking of me Verne! :)

  I did a week's worth of diving in the Coral Sea when I viisted Australia last May and so I guess that was a pretty good renewal of my antiquated certification (certified in 1967 by L.A. County Parks and Recreation  ;))

  Five years prior I did some diving on Saba and Statia.  The next time I try it I will have to embark on an excercise regimen, as both my legs cramped up on the first dive(just call me Grandpa  ;))!  Very embarassing being pulled out of the water by the little lady divemaster :-[!  (but hey----  I look like a real man in my shark picture! 8)

  However I would love to both meet and dive with you in the BVI!

  Dan:  Marcia informs me that they live in igloos in the winter, so the cheap lumber would only supply a summer home.  P.S.--- Summer lasts only a month and a half, and so for the rest of the year it is the Great White North! ;)

                                God Bless, Mark C.

Yes, we're good at using our natural resources.  Hence, with the money saved we can provide free health care. ;)  You might need the wood for heating purposes.   8)

Though, I hear that most Californians would rather shake and bake.

Marcia

May I humbly suggest Tortola in the British Virgin Islands?
If you like snorkeling I've got a couple of great suggestions.
Scuba diving even better.
I also got a few acres over-looking the Caribbean Sea and I am going to need some good builders next year so let me know if you are available... :)
Verne


Verne,
Thanks for the kind and hospitable suggestion.  So many islands to pick from.  Tortola sounds like a beautiful place, and sounds like you have a very nice gig there with your view property.  Per my wife's requirement, I'll probably end up on a Carnival cruise liner, but it would be nice to go to a non-touristy place and hammer some nails.

Marcia,
I was in Vancouver last month, and it felt no different than in Seattle.  Canada is like another state, or more specifically, additional northern states.  I think the biggest difference is in the waterways, where the navigation markers are beautifully painted and well maintained.  Oh yeah, also the free health care.  But I think that the high taxes more than make up the difference, but ultimately balances out with the low cost lumber.  But I'm glad it's a separate country and that the US didn't acquire it, so that if I wanted to I could get some speeding tickets without having to worry about my insurance company finding out :D

Well that's okay.  It would be fun to ride to work in a one-horse open sleigh.

Dan

Ha!  Dan, sometimes you sleigh me! ;D ;D ;D

al

Dan,

You wrote:

You are right.  Canada shares much with the USA.  You see many of the same car repair chains, (Jiffylube, Oil Can Henry, Firestone, etc.), restaurants, and stores.  But when you look a little closer, the differences show up as well.

Last summer when we were in Calgary we went into a Safeway market.  We had some chuckles reading the French side of the labels on products we recognized.  One of the college age employees who had recognized us as Americans asked us if they had Safeway markets in the states.  :D

Caryl wanted some postage stamps so we went over to the post office annex they had there in the store.  One of the customer service areas had a sign in it that said, "This Wicket Is Closed. Please Move To The Next Wicket."

I asked the fellow behind the counter if his wickets ever got sticky.   He didn't seem to think it was funny.

I guess that was pretty wicket of me.   ;)

Tom

It's a matter of perspective Dan.   When I drive south on I81 through New York state, especially in the winter, I kind of view New York as being like another province. ;)

Marcia

Marcia,

You may have something there.  We might want to detach the "blue" states and give them to Canada.  

Or better...we could just send you all the Kerry voters.   ;)

Thomas Maddux

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050311-115948-2015r.htm

I think she's got it!

Condi is more a libertarian than a republican, from what I see.  Way to go Condi!

Brent

Brent,

Perhaps you are right.

It is difficult to understand exactly what she means by "The Federal government shouldn't force its views on anyone".   Does this mean there should be NO federal laws?

Or is the killing of unborn babies a special class of behavior that cannot be regulated by society?  How does she, or anyone else, know this is true?

I also wonder what "mildly pro choice" means.  Could one say they the slaughtered babies are "mildly" dead?

This, of course serves to illustrate the problem I have always had with libertarianism.  They seem to think that they can just "speak" rights into existence.  People have rights to this and rights to that...because we say so.

In case you haven't noticed, that is exactly the same thing the whacko leftists do down at U.N. headquarters.

Why is it better if Libertarians do it?

Thomas Maddux

Tom and Arthur,

All three of us agree on what abortion is.  I fund a newsletter for a pro-life crisis pregnancy center, and my wife worked as a counselor for another group that was 100% anti-abortion.  My pro-life credentials are impeccable, and probably better than yours, if you count doing something besides having strong sentiment. (maybe not, maybe you guys are actively involved, I don't really know)

Anyhow, what's the goal here?  Is the goal to limit the number of abortions that occur, or is the goal to have really strong anti-abortion, pro-life rhetoric?  I submit that the republicans are in first place when it comes to strong rhetoric, unless you count the pro-choice republicans.

However, have republicans limited abortion in any way, shape or form?  Have they passed a bill that decreased the federal puchase of murder/abortion?  Have they even taken a stand on it, other than to pander to Christian/mormon/Catholic voters?  The answer is NO.  They have not.  The last presidential republican convention is a prime example of what I'm talking about.  They showcased the pro-choicers, who according to you are murderers.

If you read the article about Condi, you would see that she talks about decreasing federal funding, and giving people who are morally opposed an alternative to being forced to pay for abortions through their taxes.  She also favors State's rights for the same.  That means that it is possible that Red states could actually make the procedure illegal, which would limit abortions, and save lives.

The republicans talk tough every four years, or not, depending on who they need to pander to, and then go on to do absolutely nothing to limit abortion. 

On the other hand, a libertarian would cut funding, which would decrease the number of murders.  I totally understand your straw man, and how you knock it down....been there, done that, hang out with people who have those views. 

I am results oriented.  I can condemn abortion as good as the next guy.  However, condemnation doesn't save a baby. 

Pro-life groups get zero federal funding, while murder clinics get billions.  If murder clinics were forced to hold fundraisers, like pro-life groups, they couldn't buy all the abortions they can now.  A libertarian approach would save far more lives than the traditional republican rhetorical approach.

Of course, if the tough talk is the real goal, then the republicans (other than the pro-choice ones) win.  I would rather make it harder to get an abortion, and keep it legal, then talk tough and have to buy a few every year.

---

On another note, Tom, if you think that Libertarians believe there should be no federal laws you are either stupid, ignorant, or biased.  I know you aren't stupid, so I conclude that you are biased, due to ignorance.  You can't base your views on the fact that you talked to a hippe once, who was nutty.  People do that to Christians, don't they?  I know more nutty republicans, do I conclude that all of them are hypocrits?

Libertarians believe in federal laws.  They just don't believe in the hundreds of thousands of federal laws, or the tens of thousands of federal laws that will be written this year.  The constitution is supposed to limit government, not the other way round.  If you think we need more federal laws, you have a screw loose. 

Arthur, evildoers should be punished, I agree.  That's why people go out and shoot abortion doctors, who perform a legal service.  Did you know that murder is not a federal crime?  It's up to the states to punish most crimes, unless they are a federal offense, like counterfeiting, or calling racial minorities names, or hurting homosexuals. 

Conceivably, in a Libertarian system, a state like Utah could make it illegal to be gay, and illegal to get an abortion.  That won't happen with republicans, because they need to pander too much.

Both of you guys are firmly rooted in your opinions, and I don't fault you for it.  However, if you examine the facts, and the success of the republicans, you can't tell me they've taken even a small step towards stopping abortion. 

In fact, can you name a single federal program they have cut spending on, or eliminated?  I can't, and the abortion industry is one of the ones that got more money last year. 

I don't like a guy who says one thing and does another.

Brent