Friday, October 20, 2006


Just a couple days ago we were marveling at the News-Leader's damning-by-faint-praise endorsement of Charlie Denison.

Just a couple minutes ago -- it's 4:30 a.m., by the way -- we hopped on to read the morning paper and discovered an editorial endorsement of Missouri Senate candidate Doug Harpool that is anything but faint.

The paper's endorsement of Harpool is coupled with a deconstruction of why Norma Champion is all wrong for the job. This about sums it up:
Champion has not become a leader in the Senate, not in the way we believe Harpool would. She doesn't have a handle on the issues like Harpool does. We were disappointed she refused to debate her opponent. "I didn't see any advantage to a debate for me," she told the News-Leader editorial board. The advantage should have been for voters to see and hear the candidates side by side.

If they had, we're sure that most would agree with us that while Champion is a wonderful person who has served her district well, Harpool is more qualified to represent the district in the Senate.
Proud, you betcha.


admin said...

Some races you vote for the lesser of two evils, especially the Presidential races. In this case I really have someone to vote for.

John Stone said...

Agreed jack ... and wlcome back to the world of us walking dead ...

Auntie Norma's opposition to cnildhood vaccinations, specifically the flu vaccine, is reason enough to dump her. Then to mention her opposition to the welfare of the cripled and suffering by her opposition to Prop 2 is another.

VD(J) right at this moment is interviewing another preacher who tells the big lie, that Prop 2 is about cloning of humans. Unfortunately -- he is not taking calls -- even from geneticists.

John Stone said...

I might add ... yesterday I drove around my neighborhood ... I counted almost 40 yard signs for Harpool and zero, zip, nada a one for Normal Norma.

In my precinct she is toast. Or the repugs are so ashamed of her that people don't whant her signs in my place ...

Anonymous said...

A couple of my neighbors have put up signs that say vote No on #2--some phrase about anti-cloning, don't remember exact wording.

I think there is a big push in the churches to bring the anti-choice crowd out to vote on this issue.

On the bright side, we have a number of Harpool, Hagan, McCaskill
signs up. Haven't seen any for #2.

Betty B.

Anonymous said...

"...who tells the big lie, that Prop 2 is about cloning of human..."

Then why does Prop 2 REDEFINE Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer is this is NOT about Cloning?

Read the Prop, it says that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer will not be defined as cloning.

What has changed in the science now that SCNT doesn't automatically equal cloning? This is the process that has created every cloned organisim in existence.

John Stone said...

Anon 845 ....


What the hell are you trying to say?

Anonymous said...

Typed an is instead of if.

You said that Prop 2 doesn't have anythign to do with cloning.

Prop 2 specifically says that Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer will not be defined as cloning.

Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer(To this point) is the only successful means for cloning organisims.

If Prop 2 is not about cloning, why does it redefine the only process succesfully developed as cloning?

Has the science changed?

Does somebody LIE just because they disagree with you or Mr. Davis? At least twice on this blog, I've seen people who disagree with you being called liars(Once by you, once by Mr. Davis).

I'll ask this another way ... If Prop 2 is really about Stem Cell research, why does it RE-DEFINE the meaning of cloning?

Anonymous said...

Anon 845 again, it seems an earlier reading of the actual text of the amendment(several month ago) was in error.

In the amendments section of the amendment SCNT is not defined at all, but it is used 3 times in the definitions section.

According to this amendment, as long as there is no attempt to implant a blastocyst in a uterus, it can't be called cloning.

I've read reports elsewhere that a research team(can't remember where) has an idea for making Stem Cells using SCNT. But I can't find anything telling me that they've actually done this, or how the process is different from the SCNT transfer that made Dolly the Sheep.

Anonymous said...

Pardon the paraphrase, but hopefully your pride does not come before Harpool's fall. Be proud later if you succeed in helping him win the only endorsement that matters, next month at the polling place. The News-Leader's editorial, if it does anything, will probably solidify far more of Auntie Norma's base than it will sway undecideds or bring new support to her opponent.

Anonymous said...

The issue the newspaper tackled was who would best serve the people of Springfield not who would win. Political hacks always focus on who is going to win as if that is somehow a measure of correctness. What is important is what is right and best for the people. The way that money influences our political system leads voters to many bad choices because voters don't really know a caniddates ability or position on the issues. They only know political spin. That is why Norma isn't debating. If she did the right choice would be apparant to voters just like it was apparant to the police, fire and teachers who endorsed Harpool before the newspaper did. If NOrma wins you can feel proud if you want to. But what pride is there in helping someone get elected who is less capable of serving the city, cstate and country we share?

Anonymous said...

9:42 here.

I have no desire to feel proud about Norma Champion doing anything as an elected official. (Did I say that in my previous post? No.)

Norma Champion is an embarrassment as a Senator. Of course I understand that the most important thing is what proves to be right and best for the people. I was simply trying to temper the "proud, you betcha" sentiment. For one, the News-Leader's endorsement is hardly a big deal. For another, there are 17 more days of campaigning left. We can all take time to be proud when Doug wins and sends Norma home for good.

Anonymous said...

Well, in the first place, No one has sucessfully cloned any animal, including Dolly. Dolly was a moaisic, coomprised of *three* different sets of DNA from *three* different parents. A clone will only contain the original nuclear and mitochondrial DNA.

This is *not* what is under discussion in SCNT. In addition, as noted above, to even have a chance at a clone the cell must be implanted unless some smart scientist like VD(J) gets out his basement test tubes and does a Brave New World lab in his kitchen.

The stem cell line, will be "cloned" only in the sense that we "clone" bacterial colonies, or other human cell lines, one of the most sucessful being named HeLa which are cells from an ovarian cancer first propogated (and that is the proper word) in 1966.

This is the big lie -- one of only several -- that the oponents of human health care are using. They are profoundly dishonest.