November 23, 2006
 
Happy Thanksgiving
Before I started building Casa Quixote, an ongoing project, and had more time, I wrote and posted frequently. Since I do not have the time to create a new post today, I am republishing one I wrote in 2004. It is just as valid today.

I thought it appropriate on this day of Thanksgiving to lookup our first proclamation of Thanksgiving. On June 20, 1676, the religious colonists to the New World proclaimed their thanks to God. By a unanimous vote, the governing council of Charlestown, Massachusetts appointed June 29 as a day of Thanksgiving. Note: This is the oldest surviving proclamation of Thanksgiving. Many historians hold that the first Thanksgiving was held in the fall of 1621 (the fall after the Mayflower pilgrims arrived). They are almost certainly correct, but unfortunately no one captured their words of thanks. At any rate, I hope you find this bit of American history interesting and appropriate on this special day. God has truly blessed this nation and we have much for which to be thankful.

The Holy God having by a long and Continual Series of his Afflictive dispensations in and by the present War with the Heathen Natives of this land, written and brought to pass bitter things against his own Covenant people in this wilderness, yet so that we evidently discern that in the midst of his judgments he hath remembered mercy, having remembered his Footstool in the day of his sore displeasure against us for our sins, with many singular Intimations of his Fatherly Compassion, and regard; reserving many of our Towns from Desolation Threatened, and attempted by the Enemy, and giving us especially of late with many of our Confederates many signal Advantages against them, without such Disadvantage to ourselves as formerly we have been sensible of, if it be the Lord's mercy that we are not consumed, It certainly bespeaks our positive Thankfulness, when our Enemies are in any measure disappointed or destroyed; and fearing the Lord should take notice under so many Intimations of his returning mercy, we should be found an Insensible people, as not standing before Him with Thanksgiving, as well as lading him with our Complaints in the time of pressing Afflictions:

The Council has thought meet to appoint and set apart the 29th day of this instant June, as a day of Solemn Thanksgiving and praise to God for such his Goodness and Favour, many Particulars of which mercy might be Instanced, but we doubt not those who are sensible of God's Afflictions, have been as diligent to espy him returning to us; and that the Lord may behold us as a People offering Praise and thereby glorifying Him; the Council doth commend it to the Respective Ministers, Elders and people of this Jurisdiction; Solemnly and seriously to keep the same Beseeching that being persuaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and souls as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ.

Happy Thanksgiving!

 
 
 
November 07, 2006
 
Bedtime Update on Amendment Two
With 57.8% of the precincts reporting, 52.4% of the people have voted against Amendment Two. Unfortunately I don't know which precincts haven't reported yet, but I remain optimistic that Amendment Two is going to lose.

11/8 update: Unfortunately the precincts that hadn't reported were most the urban (i.e. liberal) ones. So Amendment 2 barely passed. My prediction: We'll see an Amendment X to ban embryonic stem cell research on the 2008 ballot.

 
 
Electronic Voting Experience
Today was my first experience using one of the new electronic ballots. Based on newspaper articles that bemoaned the fact there was no longer a paper trail, I was quite curious about the hardware. I asked the nice poll worker, an elderly gentleman who was probably in his eighties, how it worked. He was fascinated about how it would keep all the data on one magnetic card which could be instantly tallied when the polls closed. The card looked like a typical secure media card used in most cameras, but thicker than the type I use.

 
 
 
November 06, 2006
 
Missouri's Misleading Marketing: Stem Cell Research
My regular readers (given my infrequent postings, I'm thankful I still have some faithful) know that my trade is marketing. As such I know deceptive marketing when I see it. Missouri's Amendment Two wins Quixote's deceptive marketing campaign of the year. Let's look at what tomorrow's Missouri voters will see.
Constitutional Amendment 2 - Stem Cell Research

A "yes" vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to allow and set limitations on stem cell research, therapies, and cures which will:

ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;

ban human cloning or attempted cloning;

require expert medical and public oversight and annual reports on the nature and purpose of stem cell research;

impose criminal and civil penalties for any violations; and

prohibit state or local governments from preventing or discouraging lawful stem cell research, therapies and cures.

A "no" vote would not ensure that stem cell research permitted under federal law is allowed to be conducted in Missouri and that Missouri patients have access to stem cell therapies and cures permitted under federal law.

This measure will have no impact on taxes.

So this is a bill about stem cell research right? Voting against this bill means sick people in Missouri will not have access to future cures from any type of stem cell research, right? Voting against this amendment would prohibit stem cell research in Missouri, right?

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

This amendment is so misleading it is difficult to know where to start, but I'll try. First of all, there are two types of stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research (where the stem cells are obtained from an embryo and destroy the embryo in the process) and adult stem cell research (stem cells obtained from all sources other than embryos, such as from umbilical cords). This amendment is strictly about using public money to pursue embryonic stem cell research.

Adult stem cell research has been very promising and lots of private and federal money is pursuing this research because they expect this research to pay off. Despite the ads that exploit sick people to beg for a cure, embryonic stem cell research has yet to cure a disease while adult stem cells are already used in various therapies around the world and show great promise for truly revolutionizing medicine. After doing their homework, most private venture capitalists think embryonic stem cell research will not pay off, so they don't invest in it. So where does that lead people who want to do research on embryonic stem cells? They can either be satisfied with the few dollars going their way or they can convince the taxpayer to pay for their research.

If you read the ballot description above, you will not see the word embryonic anywhere in the description. However, if you read the actual amendment, you will see that the word embryonic appears at least seven times.

Let's look at the five claims made in the ballot box.

ensure Missouri patients have access to any therapies and cures, and allow Missouri researchers to conduct any research, permitted under federal law;
Missouri patients currently have access to all therapies and cures approved by the FDA. This bill will not eliminate the need for FDA approval, so it does not give Missouri patients any rights they do not currently have. This part of the bill provides no useful information, it simply misleads people into thinking the bill gives them rights they do not already have.

But wait, what about the second part of this phrase, allowing researchers to work in Missouri?

It may surprise many people in Missouri, but both adult and embryonic stem cell research already takes place in Missouri in both private and public labs. The labs that invested heavily in embryonic stem cell research need state funding to grow since most private and federal funds are chasing adult stem cell research. So, again, this claim misleads people. In fairness to the amendment, there is one part of this bill that would provide a service, although the writers are not honest about their intentions. Some legislators in Jefferson City (Missouri's capitol) have proposed legislation to prevent embryonic stem cell research in Missouri. It never passed, but this amendment would head off any future attempts of this nature.

There are people on both sides of the embryonic stem cell debate (using falling along the same lines as the abortion debate), but voters should be told the specifics upon what they are voting. Missouri has a very large (majority) pro-life population and the supporters of this bill know if they honestly portrayed the impact of this bill, they would lose. Thus they use misleading information to confuse the issue and make people think this is about all stem cell research.

You may wish to stop reading here. As I will show, the rest of the ballot measure is just as misleading. However, the main point is that this bill is about ensuring embryonic stem cell research remains legal in Missouri and receives state funding. I think issues of this importance should be left up to the voters and Missouri should be applauded for discussing the issue. However, the writers of this amendment have no faith in the popularity of their cause and are deliberately misleading the public in an attempt to snooker voters into voting for a cause in which they would oppose if it were presented honestly. For that, Missouri's Amendment Two wins the most deceptive marketing award for 2006.

OK, let's look at the rest of the amendment.

 
 
 
November 01, 2006
 
Election 2006
I invite all of you to participate in an election poll unique to readers of this website. The pollster has promised to give me a copy of the results in a few days and I will post them at our roundtable.

 

Leftbar

 
 
Most Popular
 
 
 
Site Tools
 


 
 
Categories
 
 
 
Friends of the Realm
 
 
 
Credits
 
403 Forbidden

403

Forbidden

Access to this resource on the server is denied!


Proudly powered by LiteSpeed Web Server

Please be advised that LiteSpeed Technologies Inc. is not a web hosting company and, as such, has no control over content found on this site.