Bound Stems

Like everything else in America that affects organisms made of 200 of the smallest metabolically functional units of life, the citizen fight over embryonic stem cells is a violent one. Why? Because the word “embryonic” implies that this type of stem cell research has something to do with babies. And in America, babies are a big deal.

Some researchers regard this as the greatest potential for the alleviation of human suffering since the advent of antibiotics, and that’s something to cheer for. All national polls report that the American public overwhelmingly supports the continuation of embryonic stem cell research and the institution of federally-funded embryonic stem cell research programs. Still, there is a loud 30 percent of the public—probably the same 30 percent that want the 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling overturned—that say that compromising the development of a test-tube embryo is ending a potential life.

Yes, while many pro-lifers believe that the proper moral course of action is to save existing life through embryonic stem cell therapy, there are some staunch pro-lifers and pro-life organizations that regard the destruction of the blastocyst (a laboratory-fertilized human egg too small to be viewed by the naked eye) as murder.

It is both those for and against embryonic stem cell research who celebrate whenever some development that will supposedly “revolutionize the field” comes along. This seems to happen frequently, however, so when I read this article in the New York Times, I wasn’t exactly jumping for joy.

Yes, thankfully for our crazed, bipartisan nation, the scientific community has discovered a couple methods that can produce fully pluripotent stem cells, including embryonic stem cells, without harming the human embryo. But like many famed “middle ground” suggestions of the past and present, this one isn’t exactly time- or cost-effective.

With every new “discovery” up until now, researchers have warned that it may take ten or more years to perfect the process (a decade in which millions upon millions of lives that could be saved, might be lost). When this article said “the reprogrammed cells, the scientists report, appear to behave very much like human embryonic stem cells”—emphasis on the word appear, my hopes were basically dashed.

I am confident that in my lifetime, if I am to live a long life, the United States can move stem cell science forward while addressing the moral and ethical concerns of the minority. Maybe this breakthrough really is a breakthrough—or more of a breakthrough than the breakthroughs of the past. In the meantime, my vote goes toward doing all we can to save existing lives and reduce existing pain, even if it means stopping the development of a microscopic, laboratory-made, blob-like blastocyst.

Romneyfodder.

Try as one might to follow presidential campaigning in its early stages, it is far too hard to get a handle on who's worth watching if all you hear about are catfights and skin-deep differences. Obama is black, Clinton is a woman (and they hate one another), and Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (and he hates Reverand Al Sharpton just like the larger Christian base).

Admittedly, the third isn't exactly ''skin-deep.'' Personal faith is something that penetrates much deeper than pigments or chromosomes. Every news source and political pundit has taken issue with or interest in Mitt Romney's religious affiliation, and understandably. In a country steeped deep in tradition, anything deemed ''unusual''—in this case, not being a Protestant up for the presidency—is something newsworthy, just like policemen in Bangkok being forced to wear a Hello Kitty armband as punishment for rule-breaking or realistic, cardboard cut-outs of toddlers helping slow drivers down.

When I saw this story in The New York Times, I was pleasantly surprised. It focuses on the factors that shaped Romney's politics. Lucky for the writer, it was experiences in mission work for his church that did such. More opportunity to point out Romney-is-a-Mormon and claim, let's-all-read-into-that! It's tiring, really.

Should religion be such a big issue in decision-making offices of the United States, though? Many say ''aye!'', but I say ''nay!''

It's simple, really . . . at least in my mind. Obviously spirituality can influence political positions and policy rooted in goodwill or, you know, justifying torture in a time of unjustifiable war. The ancient tomes you or I cling to can provide guidance in every issue of the heart, but it is the Constitution of the United States of America, the Supreme Court rulings regarding it, and all other laws and regulations that govern the land that elected officials need to recognize first and foremost.

There are both liberal and conservative Christians, for example, who claim their values and, from there, political positions are derived from their faith. Scripture can be as widely interpreted as abstract art, and the Bible can read like a set of rules to some and like a call for love and acceptance to others. Despite sharing a religion or sharing a lack of religion, politicians and citizens alike are all over the spectrum of beliefs and causes.

And still, I guess it's a really big deal that Mitt Romney is a Mormon. Apparently that's deemed ''unusual''—like he lives by some obscure set of values that do not fall under the Republican umbrella he holds. According to the Times article, in his time at BYU, men couldn't have long hair and women couldn't expose their shoulders. What's more Republican than that?

I vote for the realization that every sect of every religion is bizarre to someone on the outside. If that doesn't force you into questioning everything you've ever been told for at least 30 seconds, I hope it at least stimulates someone to stop caring that Mr. Romney is a Mormon and start considering his politics when interviewing him rather than what he does in chapel.

That's a divine vision that I could write a book about.

Sarcasm in commentary

Countless people flock to The Onion when they’re looking for a laugh. Whether they can get their hands on the printed publications in the cities where it’s available, are willing to pay a subscription to have it delivered to them, or utilize the online service for free, they know if it’s a dose of satire their diets are calling for, The Onion is the place to find it.

Unsurprisingly, the fact that The Onion isn’t a credible new source seems to escape a lot of people, some of whom are lucky (or unlucky) enough to have forms of mass communication at their fingertips.

According to Wikipedia, an article on Harry Potter inciting kids to practice witchcraft was believed by many to be real and was forwarded by many “concerned Christians.” Columnist, Ellen Makkai, and others who believe the Harry Potter books “recruit” children to Satanism have also been taken in by the article, using quotes from it as evidence for their claims.

In 1998, controversial minister Fred Phelps posted the Onion article “‘98 Homosexual-Recruitment Drive Nearing Goal” on his God Hates Fags website as “proof” that gay people were indeed actively trying to “recruit” others.

A blog entitled “Join the Monthly Call to Life” denounced the article “I’m Totally Psyched About This Abortion!” for the fictional author’s enthusiasm about getting an abortion. The post remains on the website. The blogger in a subsequent post indicated that she had been made aware of the satire by commenters, yet still accepted the fictional name in the byline as that of the actual author.

Mistakes like these (and yes, there are others) are laughable because they seem to give The Onion a valid reason to poke fun.

In my own opinion pieces, my preferred method of taking a position is using sarcasm to point out the flaws I perceive in the opposite argument. The Onion, with its serious reporting style in its comic “news” articles, seems to be utilizing the same tools to make a point. Sarcasm is the cleanest way to state an opinion. You can’t be accused of taking the matter too seriously (or seriously at all, in some cases), so you can’t be effectively mocked by opposers. It’s a ticket to success—just look at the reporting method of Stephen Colbert!

In The Onion’s 1999 article on abortion, the writer made her (or his, depending) opinion rather clear in passages like this one:

“As I pushed my way through the crowd, one of the picketers yelled, “How could you do this? How could you kill a child?” What? It’s more like, “How could I wait this long?” It wasn’t until now that I was lucky enough to be pregnant with a child I had no means to support. I tell you, for a long time, I thought it would never happen to me!”

Obviously the writer was portraying the supposed women who, without conscience (and perhaps even with pleasure), choose to have abortions. In the replying blog, the blogger calls The Onion “writer” and abortion fetishist a murderer, and tells her that “Every baby you see from that moment on is going to wake you up to the realization that you killed your child.”

“I’m Totally Psyched About This Abortion!” is, clearly, a commentary on the type of people who write blogs like “Join the Monthly Call to Life”—the blogger’s reaction to it was exactly the type of reaction the author was mocking (and trying to evoke) in the first place.

As exemplified by this article, the supreme brilliance of sarcasm in opinion-stating is that its original intent is to mock. When others try to reply without an equal or superior wit and knack for sarcasm, the mocking of the original writer will only continue. For that reason, I turn to The Onion for more than just the laughs . . . I turn to The Onion in pure admiration. If I had it my way, all commentary would take this form.

Climate Conference

Mayor Rybak was in Seattle today for the Mayors Climate Protection Summit – a part of the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement signed by the mayor in 2005. According to Wikipedia (a shaky source, perhaps), the "U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement," initiated by Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, seeks the pledges of mayors from all the states to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012, in line with the Kyoto Protocol. A whopping 514 mayors have hopped on board and signed the Agreement to date, so by no means is Minneapolis one of the few cities trying to put on a ''green'' face.

In his blog commentary on buzz.mn, editor James Lileks took a popular position on his city's attempt at cutting down bad-stuff-emissions. ''I'm going to make a wild prediction here: nothing Minneapolis does one way or the other will effect global warming. You could burn the entire city down to ashes, and the amount of carbon dioxide produced wouldn't equal the CO2 thrown off daily by ten Chinese Lead Factories.''

He did mention that he thought trying to conserve energy and promote ''density'' was a good idea, but nonetheless slighted the idea of Minneapolis working to meet the Kyoto Protocol.

I do understand, in the scope of things, that just one individual or one city can't do much to stop the beast that is global warming. I get it. But has it not been stressed enough that every little bit adds up to a lot of green thinkers and a positive effect on our sustainable environment? No one can look to the next guy or the bigger city and hope that, with better resources and funding, they can make up for where we lag behind. It isn't practical.

Climate protection needs to be a trend that catches on like Pay It Forward. Every little bit counts, and every lit bit is necessary. An entire city—even one that's just Minneapolis-sized—cutting down emissions by seven percent is more than a ''little bit''. No, it won't reseal a hole in the atmosphere. But by way of trends, if 514 American cities do their part, there will be a change, and that is undeniable.