Sunday, October 29, 2006

Indefinite-to-Permanent Hiatus

Believe me, it's not that I've run out of things to say. It's just that I have to attend to other responsibilities which are more pressing and more profitable (personally and economically) than just ranting and raving here.

I had intended to do a few more posts on the clone & kill amendment and the latest round of deceit in Alan Meitler's Wyandotte County church closing process, but it would all be for naught. The Stowers people will keep spending money on their lies all the same, and the chancery rats and their consultant will keep scheming to suppress their one embarrassing success story, and scheming to wipe out what's left of the Church in Wyandotte County, all the same, whether I'm posting or not. It doesn't really matter, so I'm not going to postpone the end of the blog and the resumption of my real life to see how those two issues will end.

I'll leave the blog up for now, because the closed church photos still generate some interest (and it's good for the people in Wyandotte County to have access to the KCMO tour so they can come to grips with the destruction and waste that lies ahead). But don't expect any more posts soon. Or for that matter, ever.

So long, and thanks for stopping by.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Uniformity of worship?

There is much going on in the Curmudgeon world right now, so I don't have time to write up what I've heard about the Kansas Church Closing process, nor to set down on paper some thoughts I've developed on the supposed liberation of the old rite and whether that will mean the dispersal of traditional Catholics from their own communities to the 5am Sunday traditional Mass in every run-of-the-mill suburban barn parish. But eventually....

In the meantime, you've got to visit Rorate Caeli for a photographic analysis of the unity of rite that the modern Bishops are so eager to preserve in the face of the supposed "liberation" of the old Rite.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Threats from the Cloning crowd

It appears that the cloning folks are a little upset that people are calling them what they are: damned liars. They had their lawyers threaten a television station that had the temerity to run an anti-cloning ad. Here's the article, with a hat tip (again) to Wolftracker:

Biotechs use legal threat to try to halt anti-cloning ad

The blood-money lawyers had the gall to say "The pointed and false content in the advertisements themselves amount to defamation against the Amendment's supporters." What bullshit! Pointed and false? Look in the mirror!

Are lawyers permitted to assist their clients in a fraud, or is that against the ethics rules? Are lawyers permitted to make false statements as they're representing someone? You lawyers are doing both, every time you say that what you want to do isn't cloning. Your clients are intentionally misleading voters. They are committing a fraud. What's the difference between redefining "cloning" to exclude cloning, and then putting a ballot in front of a voter that bans cloning (without telling them you've made up a new, counter-intuitive definition) and redefining "innocent" to mean "guilty" and then putting a plea agreement that (doesn't include the redefinition) in front of an accused man?

Why doesn't somebody go after these guys? Not just the Stowers people and the organizations that are lending their names to the puppet coalition, but their lawyers, too?


On a lighter note, there was a nice feature in the Catholic Key about one of the guys on the ground floor of the shoestring effort to stop the cloning amendment. Here it is:

Brain cancer doesn't slow artist in battle against Missouri cloning Amendment 2

Here's a snippet that has particular relevance given the nastiness with which the pro-cloning people are hiding their deceit and their cowardice:

With funding from an "anonymous" friend who put up the cash to make them, Wright came up with the "They're Lying. It's Cloning. Vote No." bumper sticker that has been seen in both St. Louis and Kansas City.

His friend wishes to avoid any legal entanglements with the well-financed proponents of Amendment 2. Wright doesn't care.

"What are they going to do? Sue a guy with brain cancer?" he

And how! Although I'd guess that Mr. Wright might rethink that given the story above. It doesn't seem to be about compassion, despite the slick ads, does it?

Samples of Mr. Wright's work are featured in previous posts, HERE and HERE and HERE.

Another dissenter's lecture coming up: Need a correspondent!

Noted dissenter and Boston College professor Fr. Michael Himes is lecturing at Saint Mary College in Leavenworth on on Thursday evening, October 26. He isn't quite as prominent as, say, Fr. Richard McBrien or Bp. Tom Gumbleton or Frances Kissling, but he's just as "out there." I'd like to get coverage.However, I can't make it to Leavenworth for this. I ticked off my usual correspondent, who covered the day-long Kathleen Sebelius rally (the "Kansans for the Common Good" conference), and he's not willing to cover it for me, either. I need a new correspondent. Any takers?Email me at

Thursday, October 19, 2006

A Margaret Sanger Blog

One of my early posts in September 2005 discussed the organization of a Sanger Society. (Scroll down to September 28, 2005)

Well, as it happens, there is, apparently, someone thinking the same thing. Visit the following blog:

Hat tip to Wolftracker

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

A great explanation of the Missouri cloning money trail

A fellow who reads this blog emailed me a response he wrote to help a friend of his answer a very good question that I'm not sure I fully understood until tonight: It is really true that Amendment 2 will cause public money to be used for embryonic stem cell and cloning research? The answer is "yes," but of course, it's a convoluted "yes." Assuming that he forwarded this to me to share with the world, I'm posting it here with only minor edits:

The Question:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Stem Cell Question
Hey XXXXXXX, I was having a debate on the Stem Cell amendment at work, trying to convince a few people that there are both moral and political reasons to vote no. As they are both for scientific advancement, they don’t care so much about the moral implications, but they were intrigued by the public funds being used for private profit argument. But then they did their own research and found this.
YES on 2 also makes good economic sense for our state. Amendment 2 does not ask for or require state funding for any type of stem cell research. In fact, it will generate new state revenues and quality jobs by ensuring that Missouri medical institutions can keep and attract private funding for stem cell research. In addition, the development of stem cell cures for costly diseases like diabetes would significantly reduce health care costs for patients – and help reduce taxpayer-funded Medicaid costs.

This info came from the link below.

Is there any good way to prove that this site is lying? Now they think the info I’ve been providing is false. I can do my own digging, but since you’ve been so involved in the effort I thought you were a good person to contact.


XXXXXXXXXX. . . . . . . .

The Answer:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: Stem Cell Question

An excellent question you ask about public funding for Embryonic Stem Cell and cloning research! The answer is a little lengthy and convoluted, and few people (outside of those who negotiate economic incentives for a living, and lawyers and professors who play sophistical games with language) really understand how the bad guys will exploit the system. I hope you don't mind that I'm going to answer your question anonymously and forward it to a blogger or two that I know for wider circulation.

Before you read all this, print out the actual amendment language which I've attached. [CLICK HERE TO GET IT] Note that this is NOT the ballot language you'll see in November; the general public is too stupid (think the bad guys), to read and vote on the actual amendment language. The ballot contains just a "plain language" gloss on this operative language--and a convenient one that allows the bad guys and their allies in the Secretary of State's office to add and the judiciary to maintain another layer of obfuscation. For our purposes, we need to look at the real amendment language.

The whole amendment is just a big dirty lawyer's trick, of course. Most obviously, they've redefined "cloning" from the generally accepted scientific definition to a new one that excludes Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT), the method by which other mammals, including Dolly the sheep, are cloned, and the method of cloning human beings, who, if not killed for medical experiments within a few weeks of creation, would develop as babies that are genetically identical to the donors of the cell nuclei). In the real world, words mean what they mean. In politics, words have no meaning at all. But in legal documents (legislation and contracts), words can mean whatever the drafter wants them to mean, because it's a closed system in which the drafter controls the definitions.

Now, to your answer: you must start by saying that on its face, the Amendment does not call for the direct allocation of public funds for the research. But this is another dirty lawyer's trick.

First, see Section 38(d)2(7). This section seems like it's saying that embryonic stem cell (ESC) and cloning researchers must follow state and local laws of general applicability. But the requirement that anyone follow generally applicable law is always presumed, and it's not necessary to state that in a constitutional amendment, is it? The real purpose for this section is found in the phrase " the extent that any such laws do not (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures . . . or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures."

The real effect of this section is to exempt ESC and cloning researchers from laws of general applicability if (i.e., "to the extent that") such laws inhibit their research. How far does this go? If there is a state regulation that recognized parental ownership of frozen embryos stored at fertility clinics (a tragedy in itself), and dictates that the embryos cannot be intentionally destroyed or otherwise used without the parents' permission, then, well, that is a generally applicable law. But if that generally applicable restriction on use of other people's embryos is determined to "obstruct or discourage" ESC research, the ESC researchers are exempt from it. The amendment would let the researchers go in and simply commandeer the embryos without parental permission (but it would prohibit the researchers from compensating the parents for their loss, of course). If there are laws to protect patient safety or privacy, but those laws tend to "obstruct or discourage" ESC and cloning research, then the ESC and cloning researchers are exempt from them. Taken to an extreme, if there are state laws against using human tissues (e.g., a woman's ova) for research without the donor's informed consent, ESC and cloning researchers would be exempt from those laws if they could show it obstructs or discourages ESC and cloning research. Likewise, if there are state laws prohibiting public funds from being used in ESC and cloning research (and there are, under the Missouri Department of Economic Development and the Missouri Development Finance Board regulations, as we recently learned), those regulations are invalidated "to the extent that" they "prevent, restrict, obstruct or discourage" ESC and cloning research, which, of course, they do!

Now let's look at Section 38(b)5. This Section is even more straightforward in facilitating public funding of ESC and cloning research. It doesn't directly appropriate money, of course. But as you may know, there are a gazillion ways to divert public money to private purposes. At the local level, companies with policital clout (or who hire lawyers and consultants with political clout) can divert property taxes, sales taxes, and earnings taxes generated by their activities from the public coffers back into their own pockets. The programs to do this are myriad: Chapter 100 plans, Chapter 353 plans, Tax Increment Financing plans, Industrial Revenue Bonds, LCRA programs, etc., etc. At the state level, additional programs like the "Missouri Quality Jobs" program, state-level tax increment financing plans, state economic development grants, and other jobs training programs can result in diversion of tax revenues from the public coffers back into private hands. Some of these programs are "entitlements"; i.e., if you meet the qualifications, you get the money. Others of these programs, like TIF financing, are discretionary: city or state officials ultimately make a policy decision to approve or deny public funding under the program for any reason or no reason. Ordinarily, local and state governments are cautious in granting incentives like TIF financing, and they reserve that financing only for what they, as the policy-makers, deem to be the most worthwhile projects for their community.

Knowing that, now read Section 38(b)5, and you can see what they're getting at:
To ensure that no governmental body or official arbitrarily restricts funds designated for purposes other than stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures as a means of inhibiting lawful stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures, no state or local governmental body or official shall eliminate, reduce, deny, or withhold any public funds provided or eligible to be provided to a person that (i) lawfully conducts stem cell research or provides stem cell therapies and cures, allows for such research or therpies and cures to be conducted or provided on its premises, or is otherwise associated with such research or therpies and cures . . . on account of, or otherwise for the purpose of creating disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with, or preventing, restricting, obstructing, or discouraging, such stem cell-related activities.
What does this mean? This means that if a ESC and cloning research group applies for public money through one of these economic incentive packages, and they meet the bare objective qualifications for the program, they cannot be denied funding under a program (even if it's a discretionary program). If you're on the Booneville City Council and someone comes to you with a request for TIF assistance on their new hotel or Best Buy store or widget factory, you have some discretion. You get to decide whether the hotel or store or factory is so important to the City of Booneville that it's worth diverting tax dollars to construct it. But if Cloneandkill, Inc., applies for TIF financing on a new lab to be built in Booneville (yes, in Booneville), then so long as they meet the bare minimum requirements, it would seem that you, as a government official, would not have any discretion: you may not "eliminate, reduce, deny or withhold any public funds" from Cloneandkill. Cloneandkill and allied companies, foundations, and universities get better, rubber-stamp treatment of their scientifically dubious and morally heinous ESC projects than any other sort of commercial or scientific endeavor. If they don't get every cent of "corporate welfare" that they request, instead of negotiating with the city or the state as ordinary applicants would, they can simply go to court and argue that the denial is unconstitutional.

So you can see (I hope) that the door to funding is opened wide by Amendment 2, and thanks to Section 38(c)7, which I won't retype here, the door can't be closed, except by repeal of the amendment. The two sections I discussed above don't expressly appropriate money to the ESC crowd (unlike California, where the Clone-and-Kill referendum did expressly appropriate many millions of taxpayer dollars), but they do make it almost impossible to refuse the ESC crowd any opportunity to dip into the public trough.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

What passes for journalism these days...

It's a shame what passes for serious reporting from major newspapers these days. All the reporters do is read blogs, I guess. For the last week or so, there's been buzz around the liberation of the old Mass. When the newspapers finally catch on to the rumors, they seem to do little more than read the blog buzz.

For example:

Pope Set to Bring Back Latin Mass that Divided the Church, from the Times of London. My friend, Orville told me to ignore the "divisive" headline. Of course I will. The Times is right. It was the old Mass that divided the Church, not the newfangled one, nor the modernists who sought to wipe out the old Mass. The Times tells us "An indult permitting the celebration of the Tridentine Mass could help to bring remaining Lefebvrists and many other traditional Catholics back to the fold." I just love the word "Lefebvrists," don't you? The Times uses it indiscriminately to refer to everyone who has a beef with Bugnini, apparently--even the priests of Campos who were never part of the SSPX. What's wrong with calling them "traditionalists"? Did they call Catholic Answers to get the "correct" terminology? Is the Times a neo-Catholic organ, too?

Pope Set to Ease Latin Mass Restrictions, from the Washington Post. We learn here that the leader of the Society of St. Pius X (you know, the "Lefebvrists") is headed by a "Bishop Bernard." Would that be Bishop Fellay? Here also, the Post trots out one of their own favorite adjectives from the stylebook, "ultraconservative.". What the hell is an "ultraconservative", anyways? I've run into all kinds of folks: counterrevolutionaries, reactionaries, paleo-conservatives,"crunchy-cons," neo-conservatives (unfortunately), "moderates," "liberals," "progressives," Maoists, Marxists, anarchists, and fascists. I've met orthodox, dissenters, heretics, infidels, and apostates. But I've never yet met an "ultraconservative," either in political or religious circles.

Anyways, I hope that the blog buzz that these people have turned into newspaper articles comes to fruition, and that whatever the Pope has supposedly signed is actually released, and that it is a meaningful step forward (i.e., that it doesn't give recalcitrant bishops any discretion to prohibit the public celebration of the old Mass).

But I certainly have my doubts.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

Flashback to 1968

The Remnant has reprinted an article from Time magazine in 1968 on the state of the church 38 years ago. As frustrating as the situation in the Church is in 2006, with the acceptance, even the institutionalization, of dissent and the appointment of bishops who have more in common with the angry, foolish young Catholic priests and laymen of 1968 than with the Bishops of that era, we should be thankful that the chaos and the rate of decline we saw in that era has not continued. The liberals have had their heyday, and they've risen to power, but at least now they're starting to die off, and those who remain seem as fearful of a counterrevolution as the hierarchy was then of a revolution.

And we'll give them a counterrevolution, now, won't we!

Monday, October 09, 2006

If anybody wants to buy me a ticket to Belize....

If anybody wants to buy me a ticket to Belize, I'll let them. But I'd prefer to wait another year: Jerry Jeff's two week-long shows in February 2007 are sold out.

Friday, October 06, 2006

We'll know what to make of it very soon....

A few weeks ago, the Holy Father established a new traditionalist society, the Institute of the Good Shepherd. It's a smallish institute for priests and seminarians who, for various reasons, became disassociated with the Society of St. Pius X. There was minor blog buzz on this development back then, and it basically fell into two currents:
  • The first current of thought was that the Pope was taking another step towards restoring a place for traditional Catholicism, in the meantime accommodating priests who needed a "place to land," and setting things up for a broader, bigger arrangement that would do justice for the old Mass and for traditional Catholics. These former SSPX guys were just the advance party for the great restoration that was to come.
  • The other current of thought was that the Pope, being dissatisfied with the lack of progress in SSPX negotiations, was going to try to drive a wedge into the SSPX--to lure and divide the irregular traddies into smaller groups, grind them to powder, and remold them as rather-more-staid-than-usual, altar-girls-optional newfangled Catholics.
Of course, the latter current of thought was floated by everyone from whacked-out sedevacantists, to wary traditionalists, to self-righteous neo-Caths of the "the-Pope-is-infallible-even-when-kissing-the-Koran-or-Roger-Mahony" stripe. I'm proud to say that I never took any position at all on the matter. I just didn't seem inclined to speculate at the time, was more focused on other things, and dismissed the event as merely a local accommodation for some clerics that needed a hand up, and not a portent of something more. If this were some great foreshadowing of the restoration to come, I didn't see evidence of it from this distance. If this were a devious plan, I didn't see evidence of that either.

But here we are, just a few weeks later, and it seems we'll soon know the answer. Unlike the Fraternity of St. Peter, who didn't fully appreciate the short length of the leash held by the modernists until 12 years after the fact (the 2000 General Chapter interventions and Protocol 1411), the Institute is likely to know the cost of their accommodations right away.

Just a few weeks ago, via the Cornell Catholic Circle, we heard from the suit-n-tie wearing Vicar General of Bordeaux, Pere Jean Rouet, that the whole report was a "disinformation" that was not consented to by the Archbishop of Bordeaux, Cardinal Jean-Pierre Ricard.

Now yesterday, we heard from the Cardinal himself, via a Catholic World News report:

By entering into full communion, the cardinal said, the traditionalist priests are accepting "the actual magisterium of the Pope and the bishops." More pointedly, he added that the Good Shepherd institute should show "a clear position regarding the magisterial act that was the Second Vatican Council, and the promulgation of its documents." The generous offer extended to the traditionalists, he insisted, must not "reopen questions about the path the Lord has chosen for the Church during the last 40 years."

...However, the group can only be active in a diocese with the permission of the local bishop. The traditionalist clerics, he added, would need "a very good reason to have pastoral care for the faithful."

In Bordeaux, Cardinal Ricard said, the Good Shepherd institute could only begin pastoral activites after signing an agreement with the archdiocese. With that agreement in place, he said, a parish church could be put at the disposal of the traditionalist clerics "for a fixed period of time."

Quite eager, Cardinal Ricard is, to put those embarrassing traditionalists under his yoke, eh? Let's see....a "very good reason to have pastoral care for the faithful"? What might that be? How about this: They will actually have people assisting at their Mass and going to their confessionals, unlike your own secularized, newfangled Froggie priests singing their french "Kumaya, mon Dieu" music in empty churches! And as for the fear they might "reopen questions about the path the Lord has chosen for the Church during the last 40 years," um, well, yer Eminence, I doubt you really want to consider that question closed, because at the moment, there's only one honest answer that can be given to it, Cardinal Froggie.

Of course, you know, Cardinal Ricard sits on the Ecclesia Dei commission, which gives one insight into the makeup and object of that commission. And of course, you know, Ricard personally has no reason to defer to the Holy Father, who has already designated a church in Bordeaux for them. Cardinal Ricard, I suppose, is going to send the gendarmes to the church to make sure no laymen get in to assist at Mass, against the intentions of Rome? Or perhaps he's going to forbid the new Institute the use of it notwithstanding papal decree? Then we'll know who's really "schismatic," to use Catholic World News' favorite adjective, won't we!

Frankly, I'm glad all this is happening so fast! Ricard and his minions' lashing out at the new institute will flesh out the situation much more quickly. If Rome puts the Frenchie bishops back in line, we'll see hope on the horizon for a restoration. If Rome stands aside and lets the frogs drive the new institute into the ground like they have their own dioceses, then we'll know the time for restoration has not yet come. Had Ricard and his VC shown a little more restraint in talking to the media, the institute might have been lulled into a more vulnerable position. But they didn't, and now everyone's watching. We should know what all this means very soon.

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Monsignori !!!!

The Holy Father, on Bishop Finn's petition, has bestowed the highest presbyterial honor Protonotary Apostolic, upon the pastor of Our Lady of Good Counsel. Monsignor William J. Blacet has been a monsignor since 1968 and now in his 60th year of priestly service. In the dozen years since he was "demoted" from Cathedral Rector, has guided the little midtown church to which he was exiled from insolvency, deterioration, and certain closure to a thriving parish of young families and a refuge (novus ordo) from liturgical abuse and heterodox preaching. When he started, Good Counsel was a quiet place--partially shagged-out in the 1970s, and populated by just a few gray heads. Now, the church is mostly restored, the pews and vestibule are crammed full of children, and the baptismal font and cnfessionals are in regular service. People drive 50 miles or more to be a part of the Good Counsel family, and only leave when cross over to the traditional Mass, or they move far, far away. God bless Msgr. Blacet.

At the same time, His Holiness appointed ten other diocesan priests to his household clergy (only two of whom I know personally or by reputation):

  • Reverend Monsignor A. Robert Murphy, Vicar General, Prelate of Honor
  • Reverend Monsignor Bradley S. Offutt, Chancellor (and key player in the restoration of Old St. Patrick's Oratory), Prelate of Honor
  • Reverend Monsignor Robert S. Gregory, Rector of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception, Prelate of Honor
  • Reverend Monsignor Richard M. Dierkes, Pastor of St. Joseph Co-Cathedral, Prelate of Honor
  • Reverend Monsignor Donald S. Miller, Chaplain to His Holiness
  • Reverend Monsignor Ralph L. Kaiser, Pastor of the Church of the Santa Fe, Chaplain to His Holiness
  • Reverend Monsignor John E. Leitner, Chaplain to His Holiness
  • Reverend Monsignor Lawrence A. Speichinger, Chaplain to His Holiness
  • Reverend Monsignor Joseph A. Mancuso, Pastor of St. Andrew Parish, Chaplain to His Holiness
  • Reverend Monsignor R. William Caldwell, Pastor of St. Ann Parish, Excelsior Springs, Chaplain to His Holiness

According to the Old St. Patrick website (click on News and Events) These are the first Monsignori appointed from our diocese since 1968. Since then, of course, great care has been taken to appear egalitarian and maintain a good show to cover for the polyester-clad, modernist elite who've been officing on Gillham Road. How happy it is to see Bishop Finn returning to a fine tradition and honoring his priests in this manner!

Your just have to love the prospect of 10 more cassocks with violet piping and birettas with violet tassles. Hopefully the 10 new Monsignori will take a cue from Msgr. Blacet, who returned to wearing his piped cassock and biretta just a few years ago.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Cass County Pro-Cloning Rally Report

As I mentioned last week in The Clone & Kill Coalition is having a seminar... , the Stowers train moved through Cass County last night. My stable of roving (and somewhat masochistic) correspondents has grown again, to include frequent commenter "Cranky," who gives us this report (and who, unlike my previous correspondent, didn't ask me for money):


Phew! I just returned from Satan's workshop, where about 30 of the deceived, the ignorant, and the willfully malicious were hangin' with Stower's handsome, eloquent puppet. Sorry I didn't catch his name.

They marked me right at the door – guy wearing church clothing, carrying a sheaf of loose papers. NOBODY carries papers in deepest, darkest Cass Co. unless they're a lawyer (there are no attorneys in Cass Co, just lawyers) or a process server. Or otherwise out to make trouble, which I was. Once I got into the gym, where the presentation was already in progress, I was flanked by the three women who were working the front door. (I wasn't late.) I thought that was weird – why did all three of them search me out and surround me?

I let the Mouth of Stowers give his presentation, which was naught but slickly packaged lies, one tumbling out after the other. The presentation was extremely thin on scientific facts, extremely thick on emotional, huggy-bunny "how can we let those mean, mean lawmakers in Jeff City ruin our precious chances for a perfect life, free from all pain and suffering, followed by eternal torment in Hell?"

There was ONE slide on the science behind Clone-and-Kill, and a great, steaming pile of unscientific crap – but it was GOOD unscientific crap. Here are the main points:

  • It's NOT cloning. No, no, NO! Just what it is remains undefined, but it's definitely NOT cloning. Even though the Mouth of Stowers said that the process produced an exact genetic copy of the donor. Naw, THAT'S not cloning. It's......something else.
  • The eggs required will come from the patient's dear old Mom, and his sisters, and his aunts, and his daughters, and great-grand-daughters, and may Almighty God help those poor guys whose womenfolk aren't willing to have their ovum hormonically squeezed out of them. The Mouth of Stowers (MOS) made it seem that all it would take was ONE egg, and, Voila! there would be a cure, all shiny and new and just laying there on the table! Cool!
  • Amendment 2 is all but required for the continued economic growth of Missouri, kinda like the Royals. Or the downtown stadium. Without it, Stowers might just take his ball and go home! And we all know what that would do to the economy! I mean, before Stowers built Mordor on the Plaza, the economy of the State was just, I don't know, not good!
  • Just look at all these doctors, and patient advocacy groups, who are behind this wholesale slaughter of human life! There are LOTS of them. So Amendment 2 MUST be good, right?
  • It's not about human life, or abortion, or anything like that! (Chuckle, chuckle.) If anybody tries to tell you it is, just ignore them. They're just silly, silly. Neanderthals, really, or Ostrogoths, Pay no attention to them! (Chuckle, chuckle.) We are sophisticated, and scientific, and so modern!
  • Religious people are against us. But look! We have Jack Danforth! He's an Ordained Episcopal Minister, and if he thinks it's OK, it's OK!
  • Are there cures now? No. But look-we've only been killing human embryos since 1998 or so! We haven't had the time to really get funky. We need that TIME, which the evil Matt Bartle tried to take from us. Bad Bartle! But if you vote yea, everything will be fine. So trust us - there will be cures SOMEDAY, we promise. Really.
  • There are 400,000 frozen embryos out there (really, trust us, there are) that the evil George Bush won't let us have! If we could just have this frosty population of a medium-sized city, which we could then kill, my, wouldn't all our lives be rosy!

Then it was Q & A time, which I blew big time. MOS asked for questions, and I sat on my tongue, waiting to see if there were "friendlies" in the crowd. There weren't. It was devolving rapidly into a Stowers love fest, which I decided to break up the way I know best. Tactlessly.

I told the MOS that "you don't 'grow' stem cells, sir, as you have erroneously claimed over and over again in your presentation. You grow a human baby, which you then kill...."

The room erupted, predictably, in jeers and catcalls. "It's not a baby, it's a ball of cells!" And etcetera. The usual pro-abort "logic". The woman behind me began a hyperintellectual litany of "Do you eat eggs? Do you eat eggs? Is it a chicken, or an egg? It's an unfertilized ball of cells!" Over, and over, and over.

The guy next to her told me he had three genetic diseases, and he needed a new liver. "And I don't care how many stems cells die before I get it!" he said. Oh, you're gonna get it, alright, I thought to myself. A group of women behind those two ethicists asked me, "When this amendment passes, and your children get a disease, what are you gonna tell them?" I pointed to Mr Disease Trifecta sitting behind me, and I said, "I hope that, unlike this gentleman, that they will be unwilling to take human lives to heal themselves."

Then the room just exploded with inane pro-choice cliches. The three chicks who shadowed me got up, and one of them said, "If anyone would like a more productive line of questions, MOS is going to step over here." My cue to step over there, and out the door, being followed by one of my Democratic Escorts.

I bought a bottle of wine on the way home.

Until next time,

Monday, October 02, 2006

I really didn't set out to make this a political blog...

But so it seems to have been over the last few weeks. I'll get back to my usual fare of poorly-thought-out observations on obscure religious stuff soon, I promise. But for now:

First, Wolftracker has a post up on Missouri's Claire McCaskill, who's running the same show in the Missouri senate race as Sebelius is running in her Kansas gubenatorial reelection bid.

Meanwhile, a correspondent forwarded me pictures of the electronic billboards that are running, thanks to Missouri Right to Life, at a few places around town. If you like them, and if you've got electronic billboards in your neck-of-the-woods, and you've got some money to spend (I have no idea how much it would take), you might contact Missouri Right to Life. I can't imagine they'd object to getting a wider reach on these: