The Anchoress

Some must reads for today - Updated, scroll down for new:

You know who you are: But I don’t. Two people have generously donated to the site and left me no way to send a personal thank you. Please know I appreciate it more than I can express. You help keep the site running.

H/T Lynda: NY Times suddenly discovers “nuance” in Gitmo issues that used to be all about Bushhitler. That didn’t take long. Watch the double-standards begin to fly!

The Daily Show makes a similar discovery: “There’s lots to make fun of other than the White House”. You don’t say! A President Obama will be treated very differently, then, I guess, than Bush?

A particularly good podcast: from PJM - quite fun, and insightful

Chrenkoff: America will continue to be a terrorist target. The left doesn’t believe it, yet. And if it’s true, it’s Bush’s fault for making them mad because - you know - terrorists didn’t hate us before then.

An oldie from Vanderleun (H/T Larwyn) that you may have missed and shouldn’t: How Beautiful We Were

Pope Benedict XVI: Congratulates Obama. The text remains private, but let us remember what Benedict said last spring (and what is currently on my header: “Those who hope live differently.” If I can make any suggestion to my Catholic and non-Catholic friends on this day, I say pick up a copy of Benedict’s God and the World and Mother Angelica’s Private and Pithy Lessons from the Scriptures. Both are more “superChristian” than “superCatholic” and both are “suerInsightful.” If you found this post from yesterday to be helpful, you’ll like those books, as both inspired it.

The First Obama Joke: H/T Dan “Barack Obama won the election because he saw what is wrong with this country: the utter failure of government to protect its citizens.” — New York Times, The Next President. The New York Times is purely bananas.

AJ: Nattering Negativity, looks at the fissures in the GOP and ponders.

Harry Reid: Crowing and unclassy. As ever.

Sorry, Mr. Reid: Yer man has no mandate; he ran on tax-cuts and other “centrist” ideas. But then, so did Bill Clinton. We know. We know.

EJ Dionne: Don’t play to the center-right, Obama! Keep away from the center-right! We’re not a center-right nation!

California: Votes to ban gay marriage. Center-right.

Ruth Marcus: Will the Dems be able to resist overplaying their hand? See Dionne, Ms. Marcus. (Note: Ms. Marcus suggests Obama begin by “reversing President Bush’s order prohibiting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, signing the Bush-vetoed expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program and enacting an equal pay law overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Lilly Ledbetter.”). Yeah…don’t overplay.

It is remarkable to note, however, that - finally - someone in the press managed to correctly identify President Bush’s position as “prohibiting FEDERAL FUNDING of EMBRYONIC stem cell research” as opposed to their usual, “he’s against all science! He’s against all stem cell research! He’s a Neanderthal” dishonesty. That only took 8 years.

Washington State: goes Euthanasiac. They apparently believe that A Tsunami Can be Drawn With Pastels. They are mistaken.

From the email: An interesting quote I’d never seen before: “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.” - Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959 Actually…I don’t think that really IS a Khrushchev quote. I know THIS one is, though: “If anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels and Lenin he deceives himself. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle.”

Tom Shales: The Press Behaved Badly last night. Well…they’ve been behaving badly for over a decade, but last night, even my husband - who does not care about this sort of stuff - had to turn them off for all their self-congratulating glee. He found it “infantile.”

Ed Morrissey: Good Analysis.

Wizbang: First 100 Days: Congrats and See you on the battlefield of ideas!

Instapundit: Showcases the diff between lefties and righties rather succinctly. More distinctions here. Note: Also, no one ever thought for even a second that an Obama win would cause the right to “riot.” The same cannot be said for the left. I hope they’ll grow up, now.

The People’s Cube: A fella who survived the Soviet Union dusts off the slogans and says “Comrade” again.

Neo-neocon: Time always tells

Steven Den Beste: Good news and bad news. Read.

Hamid Karzai: Expects Miracles from Messiahs

A post-election break from hype: it won’t last, though

Boundless energy: Confederate Yankee is already looking at 2010. Not yer girl, here. She’s taking a break. Bumperstickers, even! Capitalism goes on…

Survival Guide: if you feel you need one

Sincere & cautious congrats: I pray that you may acquire wisdom

“… — wisdom beyond your tender years, your thin experience, and your inconsequential legislative achievements — wisdom as a public servant in office, rather, that is at least commensurate with the skill you’ve shown as a campaigner, which has been a genuine marvel.

George Washington’s: Advice to us

I pray for your health, because, with due respect, I regard the prospect of your Vice President-elect having to step into your shoes with genuine panic. “

Hope and pray you’re wrong: From an email: “I did not vote for Obama but I am afraid for him. I feel like whoever put him in place is going to try to make a martyr of him to create chaos in the nation.”

The Racial Angle: Still not gone, but reading that makes me think that now perhaps some racial issues will be addressed from “within” the African American community, itself, which might be a healthy thing. Introspection is always a good thing.

The Wheels on the Bus: Go round and round

Today’s Eyeroll: LA Times writer: “The nation is in dire economic straits.”

Yes, yes, yes. I see. Unemployment is 6%. Gasoline prices are a whopping $2 a gallon. The Dow is 9,000. People are actually paying cash for things. Run for your lives.

The 60’s: They’re finally ending About damn time.

Curt: Offers curt congrats

Geraghty: Ball’s in his court

Fears: For the churches

And hope: for life

Meanwhile: Stocks are tumbling

I am very sorry to learn this sad news.

I did not know Barnett but I admired his smart, witty writing immensely.

Prayers for his family at this time…

this is one of my favorites of his pieces:

I am 37 years old and have cystic fibrosis. I’m at a stage in my life where finding a cure or control for CF is a matter of some urgency. Nonetheless, I do not support embryo cloning for stem-cell research. Creating life for the purpose of destroying it, as Governor Romney put it on Sunday, is on the other side of “a very bright ethical line” that we should not cross.

The central issue in the debate on human cloning for stem-cell research should be when life begins or what exactly constitutes life. If you hold the views of the typical NARAL activist, the issue would be rather easily resolved: A cloned embryo is nothing more than a clump of cells and certainly wouldn’t warrant enough concern to curb the pursuit of a promising area of medical research.

If you believe, however, as George W. Bush does, as Mitt Romney does, as John Kerry does, as I do, and as much of America does that life begins at conception, then the morality of the matter is rather stickier. The Romney middle road that proposes using “leftover” frozen embryos for research purposes is probably appealing to some such individuals, certainly repugnant to others. Perhaps Romney’s position should prompt a potentially difficult conversation regarding a process that leaves “leftover” embryos in the first place.

A first-rate thinker and writer. He’ll be missed.

Vanderleun has Barnett, in his own words

See also:
Hugh Hewitt’s moving tribute
Ace
Fausta

The way I understand it, the Infants Born Alive Bill was introduced to the IL Senate and Obama voted against it because he wanted it to have the same language as the Federal Born Alive Bill. When the bill was re-presented containing that clause, Obama voted against it again. So, given the chance, twice, to vote against infanticide, Obama voted for.

He also lied about all of this earlier in the campaign, before admitting that he was lying.

Obama has the most liberal voting record you can have on the issue of abortion. He does not, like Joe Biden, draw the line at the savagery of partial-birth abortion - he sides with the scissor, the vacuum and the death. He does not draw the line (as Nancy Pelosi and even Hillary Clinton do) at infanticide. His votes say, “that baby was supposed to be dead; let it die.”

Sen. Barack Obama doesn’t seem comfortable, at all, straying from the side of death.

None of us is God, none of us has perfect wisdom…but for that reason alone, if you’re not “morally” sure about something, if you really think that theologically, scientifically and intellectually it’s all “above your pay grade,” then shouldn’t you err on the side of life? Not on the side of death?

It occurs to me that in this election - moreso than any election in recent memory, we have the “clear choice” that Moses also gave to the people:

Also:
Radio Patriot

Don Surber

I was just out driving, had the radio on and heard this Meet the Press sound bite by Nancy Pelosi, on Limbaugh’s show:

REP. PELOSI: I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time. And what I know is, over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. And Senator–St. Augustine said at three months. We don’t know. The point is, is that it shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose. Roe v. Wade talks about very clear definitions of when the child–first trimester, certain considerations; second trimester; not so third trimester. There’s very clear distinctions. This isn’t about abortion on demand, it’s about a careful, careful consideration of all factors and–to–that a woman has to make with her doctor and her god. And so I don’t think anybody can tell you when life begins, human life begins. As I say, the Catholic Church for centuries has been discussing this, and there are those who’ve decided…

MR. BROKAW: The Catholic Church at the moment feels very strongly that it…

REP. PELOSI: I understand that.

MR. BROKAW: …begins at the point of conception.

REP. PELOSI: I understand. And this is like maybe 50 years or something like that. So again, over the history of the church, this is an issue of controversy. But it is, it is also true that God has given us, each of us, a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions.

I am writing very fast, here, because I have to run out again, but I am mildly amused to see that Mrs. Pelosi, who is one of those Democrats who thinks of the Constitution as a “living document” that can evolve, is effectively sneering at the notion that the Catholic Church has only defined life as beginning at the point of conception “like maybe 50 years” ago, or something. She is wrong about that, (thanks, Shana) but even if she were not, why wouldn’t an “evolved” position in a “living” church be worth her respectful consideration.

Moreover, if Pelosi wants to quote Augustine’s saying “three months,” as somehow authoritative - even if the church does not - how does she reconcile that with her abortion voting record, which upholds later term abortions, partial birth abortions, embryonic experimentation, etc, etc. She says “I personally think the answer is 16 weeks,”, but that’s just an opinion, like anyone else’s opinion, even mine - and if she believes the answer is 16 weeks, how can she possible vote in favor of, say, partial birth abortion?

Pelosi is completely right that God gives us free will, and that we all have to make our decisions, deal with our own consciences and deal with the repercussions both here and in the afterlife. I know pro-life Catholics who have very ambiguous feelings about Roe-v-Wade specifically because of free will. But Pelosi is seriously misrepresenting what the Catholic Church teaches, and she is doing it in order to spin and obfuscate. Excuse the crudity, but it takes some pair of balls, frankly, to try to argue that the Roman Catholic Church has any sort of wishy-washy teaching or belief about the sacredness of human life, or the gravity of expediently and arbitrarily ending human life, whether at its beginnings or its end, or experimenting with human life.

Pelosi needs to read her Catechism. We believe that we are created creatures, loved into being by God. Both war and capital punishment are to be undertaken only with the greatest reluctance, after a great deal of consideration, and only when it is deemed necessary to prevent a greater evil. Abortion is a whole ‘nother issue; as I wrote at Pajamas Media, when discussing abortion and Obama - it is graver, even, than either of those two, war and capital punishment. The church is not “in controversy” about that; the church is actually unambiguous as all get-out on the issue of abortion. The “controversy” exists within individual Catholics, themselves, perhaps, but not in the church. And, as Ed Morrissey says, membership in the church is voluntary, afterall.

Finally, even if Senator - St. Augustine said “three months” or “we don’t know” I strong suspect that he - and every other Doctor of the Church, as well as millions of Catholics and non-Catholics Christians, and non-Catholics and even secular humanists like Nat Hentoff - would advise people to “err on the side of life.”

I mean, I’m not expert, and I’m far from brilliant. But one does not have to be brilliant to figure that out. Err on the side of life, not death. It might be a legislative conundrum, and a sickle into the side of free will and free conscience, but in simple terms of life and death, the moral calculus is not really that difficult.

I wonder if Mrs. Pelosi will hear from her Bishop on this? I tend to doubt it, but it does seem to me the province of the Bishop to tell a member of his flock who is publicly misleading - or mistaken, or simply lying - others about the teaching of the church to stop doing that.

Read all Ed Morrissey has to say about Pelosi on MTP.

More here at Catholidoxy, and here, at Inside Catholic. Also, STACLU says Pelosi disagrees w/ Roe v Wade. Hmmmm.

UPDATE: In the comments, fschmieg notes that - quite unsurprisingly - Archbishop Charles Chaput, of Denver, who is an excellent teacher, a Franciscan and a true shepherd (and who has a just-released book discussing the question of rendering unto Caesar) has responded to Pelosi, and he pulls no punches. Excerpt:

Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue “for a long time,” she must know very well
one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery’s Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here’s how Connery concludes his study:

“The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion.”

Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:

“Destruction of the embryo in the mother’s womb is a violation of the right to live which God has
bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder.”

Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or “ensouled.” But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.

Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today’s religious alibis for abortion and a so-called “right to choose” are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.

Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions
employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they’re famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.

The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the “separation of Church and state” does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it’s always important to know what our faith actually teaches.

Don’t ask me why Chaput does not have a red cardinal’s hat yet; I don’t know. I do know that if they gave him one, he would be exactly what NYC needs to replace Cardinal Egan, who has left the Metro area starving after the exemplary shepherding of the Mighty John O’ Connor. It won’t happen, but I can dream.

UPDATE II: The US Conference of Catholic Bishops gets into the act. (H/T Deacon Greg.)

Great - and, for anyone following the stunning medical advances being made thanks to ADULT Stem Cell Research - unsurprising news on the Parkinson’s front. Just as numerous spinal cord injuries are being successfully treated with ASC taken from nasal cavities, it looks there sufferers of Parkinson’s Disease may be helped, too.

SYDNEY, Australia, June 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - New research on stem-cell therapy shows scientists have found that the cure for Parkinson’s disease may lie right under one’s nose - or rather, in it.

Researchers from Griffith University have published a study in the journal Stem Cells that has found adult stem-cells harvested from the noses of Parkinson’s patients developed into dopamine-producing brain cells upon being transplanted into the brain of a lab rat.

Professor Alan Mackay-Sim said researchers simulated Parkinson’s symptoms in rats by creating lesions on one side of the rat’s brain to imitate the damage Parkinson’s disease wreaks on the human brain. The lesions caused the rats to run in circles; however when stem-cells from the noses of Parkinson’s patients were injected into the affected area of the brain, the rats re-acquired the ability to run in a straight line.

According to Mackay-Sim, the evidence showed the injected stem-cells had differentiated into “dopamine-producing neurons influenced by being in the environment of the brain.”

Mackay-Sim explained that, like all stem-cells, these adult stem-cells from the olfactory nerve in the nose are “naïve,” since they have not yet differentiated into any particular type of cells.

“They can still be influenced by the environment they are put into. In this case we transplanted them into the brain, where they were directed to give rise to dopamine producing brain cells,” he added.

“Significantly, none of the transplants led to formation of tumours or teratomas in the host rats as has occurred after embryonic stem-cell transplantation in a similar model.” [Emphasis & links mine - admin]

Embryonic Stem Cell Research has yielded a lot of nightmares but no workable therapies.

After all the high drama and righteous noise about bad-old Bush refusing to let the government fund embryonic stem cell research, it seems a big Emily Letilla “nevermind” is in our futures, perhaps. Along with some very hopeful advances, (some great signs with ASC and cardiac muscles, now) successful treatments (possibly eradicating Sickle Cell Anemia and stroke?) and - we pray - more happy endings.

I’m kinda pooped from all the Benedict blogging of late. Meanwhile, a quick lookaround:

From the Dept. of Silly Quesitons:

Q: Did Laura Bush wear white to host the pope at the White House because she believes she is a monarch’s wife or because she is signaling an assent to the rampant rumors that President Bush will become a Catholic when he leaves office?

A: Cueing the Twilight Zone music, I’m going to hazard a guess: Mrs. Bush and Jenna Bush both wore black skirts to meet Benedict at the airport, and then Mrs. Bush changed to what I would call a creme-colored pantsuit. I’m betting she got back to her house and decided to slip into something more comfortable and that’s all it meant, except to snippy reporters desperate to snark.

Q: Why don’t we hear any more gnashing of teeth about the government not funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research?

A: Because ADULT Stem Cells are proving to be wildly promising and successful - so much so that the dismal and nightmarish failures of Embryonic SCR are going to simply be allowed to fade away from memory. Here is a simple rule to remember: once a bat is no longer useful for pounding on W, it is summarily retired and not heard from again.

Q: Does the whole nation hate President Bush?

A: Doesn’t seem like it. Not the whole nation.

Q: Who gave Bill Clinton the idea of putting his offices in Harlem?

A: Actually, it was Jonah Goldberg. Recall, Clinton’s first instinct was Central Park West.

Q: Does Rush Limbaugh owe Bulldog Pundit some props for the concept of Operation Chaos?

A: Well, he BP has been supporting Hillary for a while!

Q: Would you vote for Obama if he were Adlai Stevenson?

A: Well, I wouldn’t. My birth dad - a staunch Democrat and classical liberal - loved Adlai but voted Ike. Twice. E.J. Dionne asks a thoughtful question and Brian Saint-Paul takes it further.

Q: Have we really thought-through socialized medicine?

A: No.

Q: Does the NY Times have honest issues with their front page?

Q: Are bloggers prisoners of their venue?

A: Speaking only for myself, three days into going wall-to-wall on Benedict’s visit I felt like I would stroke out if I didn’t move around, get some fresh air and look at something different. For others, it appears to be worse.

Q: Is Stephen Colbert hard to make laugh?

A: This priest seems able to do it pretty easily.

Q: Hey, How ’bout those BoSox?

A: Bite me you miserable bastard!

Q: Do the rich snobs who support the likes of John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Obama realize how ironically this plays?.

A: What do you think?

Q: Is “Manmade” Global Warming still hoo-hah?

A: Why yes. Yes it is. And Entrepreneurial Gore still won’t suffer impertinent questions or debates over it. Terrorists, however are getting onboard with the greenies, while some greenies are jumping ship.

Q: How come you don’t post in crotchety prospector speech anymore?

A: So wearying. Maybe for Christmas.

Q: Heard any good jokes lately?

A: Well, only one, and maybe its not that good but I’m a little punchy, and I laughed:

From a Danish associate:

“We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election. On one side, you have a b*tch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a b*tch who is a lawyer. On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?” H/T reader Pianogirl

When Republicans complain to me about how George W. Bush has “betrayed” them or “let them down,” I try to re-iterate things he has done, positions he has taken, that they tend to forget. Like his refusal to submit his nation to the International Criminal Court and his refusal to hog-tie us to the very unworkable Kyoto Treaty that the press likes to pretend enjoyed huge support in Congress (they rejected it unanimously). And I always remind them that in August of 2001, he drew a line in the sand on Embryonic Stem Cell Research and said, “no, we’re not publicly funding it.”

Bush’s stance that initially won him favorable responses from such advocates as diabetic Mary Tyler Moore. Bush’s well-thought out position was actually pretty well received - before the machines of distortion got to chew on things a bit.

MARY TYLER MOORE, ACTRESS: Well, I am so pleased with the thought and care that he put into making this decision. And I think it is a good one. I was not aware — or when I say “I” I should say the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation — was not aware that there are, in fact, 60 embryos waiting. But if there are, that is good. That is better than 6 or 7 or 8, which would have really posed a problem.

I welcome the forming of this council that he spoke about. And I hope that the JDFR will be able to work with him, with the council, on making sure that the guidelines are pure and straight.

LARRY KING: So you are giving this a thumbs up?

MOORE: I am.

KING: Christopher Reeve on the phone. I know you have shared with Mary And appeared with her on occasion discussing this. What is your thought?

CHRISTOPHER REEVE, ACTOR: A little bit more mixed, Larry. I feel that nobody really knew that there were 60 stem cells available. And I don’t know that these lines have been examined to know how well they would work or what condition they are in. And I think that that is something that should have been done.

However, I think it is a step in the right direction. I’m grateful for that to the president.

I remember the speech clearly - and I remember being really proud of the way the president walked a moral tightrope and kept his balance; you can link to the video here. Man, he’s aged. It is hard to consent to being the most hated man in the world for nearly a decade. As I’ve said elsewhere, when you make yourself an offering to God and others, you can expect to be used and used up.

It’s going to take a long time for all the good things Bush has done to be recognized - it may take generations. And those of you - and I’m talking to you folk on the hard right who have decided that because Bush is not “perfectly in line” with you, he cannot have been a good and effective president, those of you who have forgotten the “good” you have received and will thus be unlikely to receive another - will miss this guy when he’s out of office. That’s all I have to say about that.

On the Embryonic Stem Cell controversy, Charles Krauthammer sums it up:

“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough.”– James A. Thomson

A decade ago, Thomson was the first to isolate human embryonic stem cells. Last week, he (and Japan’s Shinya Yamanaka) announced one of the great scientific breakthroughs since the discovery of DNA: an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells.

Even a scientist who cares not a whit about the morality of embryo destruction will adopt this technique because it is so simple and powerful. The embryonic stem cell debate is over.

Which allows a bit of reflection on the storm that has raged ever since the August 2001 announcement of President Bush’s stem cell policy. The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.

Why? Precisely because he took a moral stance. Precisely because, as Thomson puts it, Bush was made “a little bit uncomfortable” by the implications of embryonic experimentation. Precisely because he therefore decided that some moral line had to be drawn.

In doing so, he invited unrelenting demagoguery by an unholy trinity of Democratic politicians, research scientists and patient advocates who insisted that anyone who would put any restriction on the destruction of human embryos could be acting only for reasons of cynical politics rooted in dogmatic religiosity — a “moral ayatollah,” as Sen. Tom Harkin so scornfully put it.
[...]
History will look at Bush’s 2001 speech and be surprised how balanced and measured it was, how much respect it gave to the other side. Read it. Here was a presidential policy pronouncement that so finely and fairly drew out the case for both sides that until the final few minutes of his speech, you had no idea where the policy would end up.

Bush finally ended up doing nothing to hamper private research into embryonic stem cells and pledging federal monies to support the study of existing stem cell lines — but refusing federal monies for research on stem cell lines produced by newly destroyed embryos.
[...]
That Holy Grail has now been achieved. Largely because of the genius of Thomson and Yamanaka. And also because of the astonishing good fortune that nature requires only four injected genes to turn an ordinary adult skin cell into a magical stem cell that can become bone or brain or heart or liver.

But for one more reason as well. Because the moral disquiet that James Thomson always felt — and that George Bush forced the country to confront — helped lead him and others to find some ethically neutral way to produce stem cells. Providence then saw to it that the technique be so elegant and beautiful that scientific reasons alone will now incline even the most willful researchers to leave the human embryo alone.

Please read all of Dr. Krauthammer’s piece, and then avail yourself of the 2001 speech which, in the wake of 9/11 a bare month later, pretty much everyone has forgotten. Hysteria, distortion, name-calling, paranoid (and false) “chill winds” aside, this president has gotten more right than wrong, and he deserves to be recognized for it.

Embryonic Stem Cells, it must be remembered produced nightmarish results in the lab, and never had a successful application.

“You have told me, O God, to believe in hell. But you have forbidden me to think, with any certainty, of any man as damned.”
- Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, SJ in his book The Divine Milieu

That might well be the paradox of classical liberalism. Being a classical liberal means not really having a home in 21st Century America. The hard left, having redefined the world “liberal” to mean “jack-booted, intolerant, narrow-minded and oppressive” won’t welcome you and the hard right, having redefined the word “classical” to mean “entrenched and paranoid,” doesn’t want you, either. Both left and right seem, increasingly, like two sides of the same coin, and that coin seems to me to be ever-decreasing in value. Bad penny.

A few days ago I wrote about Elizabeth Edwards’ Cancer and how the fact of it seemed to be tripping up so many people. I also wrote: She and her husband have made a decision about how they will live their lives in the face of it. They’re entitled to make that decision without having to justify it to you or to me.

Those two little sentences set off something of a firestorm in my email box from both the hard left and the hard right, and since I have personal situations going on over here that have kept my attention diverted, I’ve only just had a chance to really read these missives.

From the left, I got a lot of, “oh yeah? People are entitled to make their own decisions? How come you go after women who’ve had abortions, then? How come you want to overturn Roe v. Wade? Huh? Huh? How come you won’t let people like Michael J Fox get cured by using stem cells, what about that, you fascist moron hypocritical theocon global-warming denialist?”

Sheesh. I defy anyone to go into my archives and show me where I have ever “gone after” women who have had abortions. I think you’ll find it’s quite the opposite.

Would I like to see Roe v. Wade overturned? Yes. It was a law made by a court - not by legislators, not by the people, and I believe abortion law should be an issue settled state-by-state.

Do I want to see women “condemned to die in back-alley abortions?” Of course not…but I would like to see some honesty from the pro-abortion side about what abortion is, how it affects women and men and teenagers. I’d like to see some honesty about the fact that so many young girls who have abortions have been exploited by older men who hide their crime by paying for this grave procedure. I’d like to see the hype taken out of the numbers thrown around. I’d like to see some studies about whether an abortion after rape brings about more healing than giving birth does…that’s an interesting question no one has ever studied.

I’d like to see the strong supporters of abortion, who rest their support on the shaky foundation of “compassion,” manage to be consistent by showing compassionate understanding and support to the parents of Downs Syndrome children, instead of callously asking whether they’d had genetic screening so they could have aborted the imperfect child.

I’d like to see the press cover the annual Right-to-Life March in DC - attended by literally tens of thousands each year - with the same photo/text space they give to much smaller anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-whatever marches. A little honesty, you know. A little balance.

Am I against curing disease with stem cells? - Again, look at my archives. As with the abortion debate, all I keep asking for and fighting for is some honesty and accuracy from the left and the press on that issue. I have no problem with Stem Cell Research using Adult Stem Cells, and neither does any Christian I know, and neither does our much-maligned and lied about president. Embryonic Stem Cells? Different story…different ethical questions…different results, too.

Once again, because it never seems to get through to some folks: President Bush AND we “Christian creeps” support stem cell research involving adult stem cells, and great advances are being made using them, harvesting them from nasal cavities, from fat, from blood itself, from placentas and umbilical cords. We object to Embryonic Stem Cell research and do not think the government should be funding such dubious science. No one is trying to stop such research, though, in the private sector. And if the Embryonic stem cell research was proving its hype, it would have investors up the wazoo. It doesn’t…because for all the hype, Embryonic Stem Cell Research is yielding nothing good.

Do I want to withhold curative therapies from “people like Michael J Fox”? Please. So many of these people telling me I want Fox to suffer - which I don’t - are also people who come down on the side of “compassionately injecting” those whose illnesses become too burdensome on family or society. I want Michael J Fox to live his life to the full, to have access to healing and curative therapies or - if they don’t exist - to be able to live out his life to its natural end in dignity. I will always come down on the right of a living human being to continue to live the life he or she has, despite what others may think of the “quality” of that life. I will always err on the side of keeping what is alive, alive. I will always support someone being allowed to live the life he or she has to its natural conclusion, over their being expeditiously and “compassionately” put down.

Am I a Global Warming “Denialist”? I love these labels and how quick some are to embrace them. Yes, I guess I am, by the measure of the “true believers.” I don’t deny that the planet may be warming up - after all - other planets are, too. I do deny that there is hard, convincing, scientific evidence that humanity is the cause of it. So I’m a denialist. I guess I’ll be burned at the stake for my heresy in not bowing to The Dogma of the Goracle. You guys just make sure you purchase your carbon-offsets for the flame.

The other side of the nasty emails came from the hard right, from people who are convinced that Elizabeth and John Edwards are exploiting her cancer for the sympathy vote. “She originally said her prognosis was less than 5 years, but in People magazine she says it’s 10-15 years! She’s just using her cancer!”

Well…I hope that’s not true. But if it is…she’s still waking up each morning and looking into her kids faces and realizing she probably won’t be able to share in the joy of their marriages, their children’s successes - she won’t be dandling a grandchild on her knee…so you’ll excuse me if I don’t jump on board a train of condemnation. I’m afraid my compassion outweighs my rush to judgment.

Some on the right will join the Global-Warming Left as they burn me at the stake - for the crime of not being “pro-life enough” because I consider Rudy Giuliani a strong contender for the GOP nomination for ‘08. To that my answer may also be found in my archives: presidents cannot change abortion law - if they could, the current president, the most pro-life president in our history - would have done it. But even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will not end abortion. Frankly, overturning Roe v. Wade will simply inspire hard-left activism by the perpetual adolescents who love to have something to resist, and that will in turn inspire more hard-right activism from some passionate-and-frustrated folks who may find themselves in the ironic position of taking extreme measures to promote their respect for life. Think it won’t happen? Among reasonable folks it won’t, but hard right and hard left left “reasonable” behind long ago.

Here is the truth about abortion: With or without Roe v. Wade women will get abortions and greedy providers will do the deed. Abortion will continue to exist - and continue to tear at the fabric of our nation - until something that is broken within the human heart has been healed. President Bush, addressing one of the Right-to-Life Marches said: “A true culture of life cannot be sustained solely by changing laws. We need, most of all, to change hearts.”

He was quite right. No one wants to hear it, but it’s the truth.

Does that mean no one should march, laws should not be changed? Of course not. But realize that when you’re dealing with the human heart (and its soul) human activities will always have limited results, and therefore fervor must always be tempered with compassion, and frustration must always be soothed by personal humility, too.

And this is why I keep to myself, mostly, and am not much of a joiner. Because, really, no one wants to hear that a tad of darkness will always exist where there is light. But we need to remember it, because that means that where there is overwhelming darkness, a bit of piercing light will always come through, too.

The world is an imperfect place. People have imperfect hearts. Dark and light co-exist. Right and left must learn to, also - to preserve the paradoxical but necessary balance between opposing viewpoints - or our nation will continue to descend into blathering nothingness until its taken over by something else, for nature abhors a vacuum.

All one can do - really - is try to hold on to one’s own capacity for kindness and see one’s humanity reflected in another.

What’s that old quote: Be kind - for everyone you meet is engaged in a mighty struggle. You don’t have to have any religion at all to take that good advice.