Women do not want a pro-abortion President

The New York Times has weighed in on the secret to Hillary Clinton's win in New Hampshire: women voters.

I am convinced that Senator Clinton’s campaign is very aware of the importance of the women's vote. (I believe that the "crying" incident of January 6th was aimed at reminding women that Hillary is a woman, and that this is their chance to have a woman President. But that's just my opinion.)

Pro-life voters who do not want a pro-abortion President must begin to emphasize and educate one another about the voting record of the candidates. Our belief that every human life has value (not the personalities of the candidates, inevitabilities, and religious identification) is something that we have in common with members of both the major parties.

There is no question that Hillary and Obama fought the Partial Birth Abortion ban (Hillary as First Lady and then as NY Senator and Obama while still in the Illinois legislature). Polls like this one (comments here and the poll in .pdf, here) from the Susan B. Anthony List, from last August, show that even among women who want to vote for a woman to get a woman President, a large number will not vote for the advocates of Partial Birth Abortion. These are the voters we need to alert/inform.

The reality is that politics will play a part in our goal of protecting human rights in medicine and science policy in the US. The next President will, like this one, be in a position to name several Supreme Court Justices.

Reactionary Scientists (Stem Cells)

I wonder how often our friend from Kyoto is planning to publish and what tweaks we'll hear about next week?

I also wonder how many of the comments about "must fund all" come from - or actually are a type of - the application of the sort of pressure that Gearhart told his audience in DC that he and others applied to induce Atala to write Pelosi?

I'm trying to get used to the idea of scientists as reactionaries.

Politics aside, I don't think any of the research could have gone any faster even without the "pressure" from either side. The basic science had to be done, and was.

Politics Bites (Creation, Evolution and the TEA)

Chris Comer, Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Education Agency (TEA) sent out an email from her State account that was blatantly political in nature and which she knew was a bad idea.

Surprise! So did her bosses.

She made the political move, and got fired for it. Really, advocating a lecture titled, "Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse," by Barbara Forrest, a well-known anti-Creationist. That's worse than "not neutral." The title of the lecture is blatantly political.

If you want to see a video of Forrest's lecture, this page hasa link to the video, "Barbara Forrest's Inside Creationism's Trojan Horse."

The Red-A blogger,Pharyngula, The Austin American Statesman, and Nature blogger, "The Great Beyond," among others are blaming the politics on the Texas Board of Education. "The Austringer" blogger has the text of the original memo that Ms. Comer sent out.

In my experience, Ms. Comer's boss has it right. In her memo to the Agency, she notes that Ms. Comer either violated what she knew is TEA policy against employees of the State advocating for a political cause or she does not have the understanding that she should. (There's a link to the memo from the boss on the Austin American Statesman link above, but theres some sort of glich in it - it tries to add Japanese script updates to my computer.)

(In the video, go to 1:01/1:09:52: "These people are fanatics. . . . They know they have to get hold of the kids." A little earlier, Forrest stated that the believers are guilty of projection. From this side, it looks like a case of "Pot, Kettle." The last thing Forrest speaks on is the need to watch out for which judges are appoint, the need to teach the teachers to tell students that belief in a Creator is bad science and that "We need to stop electing people who put up with this crap!")

Sam Harris, author of the books, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason and Letter to a Christian Nation, was given a forum at the Aspen Ideas Festival. I'm not sure how I ended up finding the video, "Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World,"but I believe I was referred by one of the Science Blog forums. I can't remember which one, and, as far as I can tell, only one is owned by a believer.

Harris spent his time at the Festival blurring the edges between “Christianity, Judaism, and Islam,” with a little Hinduism and Buddha thrown in to strengthen his point. There doesn’t seem to be any difference in his viewpoint, although he does grudgingly admit to a questioner that “moderate” Christians and Jews have been influenced by the belief in human rights and equality by secular, outside influences, while Muslims have remained isolated and so have not “evolved.”

Beyond the fallacy of treating all religions as one, Mr. Harris denies that atheism is a religion, using his second favorite technique, mockery and one liners designed to encourage his listeners to laugh with him. He mocks the Second Commandment: “Is this as good as it gets? . . . How about, ‘don’t deep fry all of your food?’” and mocks the idea that agnostics are a separate from believers and atheists by saying, “I haven’t met too many agnostics about Zeus.”

The biggest logical fallacy in which Harris engages is his statement that religions change from without, due to secular ideas about human rights. In fact, the Judeo-Christian tradition teaches that we are all created in the image of God.

While Christians have cited the fact that very young children naturally display concern for others and seem to understand the concepts of justice and beauty as proof of God, Mr. Harris believes that this actually disproves the “usefulness” of religion. While he admits that 70% of (I presume, U.S.) college graduates believe in the Biblical God, he strongly commends “peer review” in science.

His major point seems to be that “much of the Bible and Koran is life-destroying gibberish.” While he insists that believers who promote their religions or teach their children to follow them are enabling religious fanatics who kill in the name of religion, shouldn’t Harris, who has been called an "Atheist Evangelist" (and Dawkins and Hitchens, etc.) take responsibility for enabling those who kill and enslave to suppress religions, as in China? Or the Western academic powers that be that harass, deny recommendations, employment and funding to those who fall out of favor, such as Richard Sternberg (see the review at Sternberg's site and at National Public Radio)?

Government isn't the answer

I once told Edward Pelligrino, MD (who was advocating Government- funded health care ) that I don't have evidence that government is a good steward to carry out my duty to Jesus to care for the sick and poor.

Having spent 30 minutes in the post office on Thursday to pick up a box containing Tylenol samples I didn't order or want, I feel qualified once again to object to any movement toward Government health insurance, Government health care and don't forget the Government ID.

It's the fault of the Tylenol marketing department that there was a package at all. But, it's the fault - or nature - of government that made the process less efficient and very much less pleasant than it had to be.

Our post office has a number dispenser and a big, open space. At one time we could take the little package pickup notices to a special window. No longer. Just when everyone who wants to go Cancun or the Caribbean has to have a Passport, we have to stand in line with the people who legitimately need to have a large package weighed and postage charged. We can't even have the satisfaction of moving forward in the line, as was the case when there was a maze of counters to lean on.

Be sure and take a look at LifeEthics.org and the news commentary at the blog, Lifeethics.org Blog.