Monday, July 31, 2006

Initiative, Invitations, & Information

It's been a while since I touched on Initiative and Referendum. (Gosh, I hope I spelled it correctly.) But since I'm strapped for time, I'm going to point you toward a couple of places that have done a much better job of covering the topic:

Don has created a wonderful and informative site at that tells you just about everything you need to know about I&R and which candidates support it.

Dan at Between the Links has also posted on the subject.

In other news, I've decided that I want to leave this space open for candidate guest blogs. If you are running for an Alabama office in 2006, consider this an invitation to use my blog as your electronic soapbox. If you are interested, please email me. (My new email address is now listed in my profile.) I also have a candidate questionnaire that you can fill out and send to me so that I can post it online. The questionnaire is simple, uniform, and will let readers know where you stand on important issues. Not to mention, guest blogs will really cut down on a busy mom's blogging workload.

UPDATE: Separation of Church and Common Sense

Thank you to Don for bringing this to my attention.

A while back, I wrote about the church in Chilton County that was not constructed according to building codes and, as a result, the roof caved in. I quote myself:

Depending on the policy, the insurance company may not pay up because building codes were not followed. If the insurance does come through, I suspect that the church will be paying some insanely high premiums from here on out.

My theory at the time was that insurance policies do not cover gross negligence, although I didn't state as much at the time. According to this article, I was right:

An insurance claim filed in Clanton, Ala. by a Chilton County church that suffered a roof collapse last month has been denied.

Maybe a lessen will be learned here. Then again, that doesn't seem to be the trend with the way the world works. As I live and breathe, somewhere in Mississippi...

Sunday, July 30, 2006

Saving Lives?

I've been a little... well... quiet lately. Truth is, my Internet service has been splotchy at best, lately. My husband and I are working to correct the problem, but if I seem to be a little less active, you'll know why. I'll try to contribute something on a once-a-week basis at the very least.

Now, to the subject at hand...

I'd like to touch on stem cell research, presidential vetoes, and the "sanctity of life."

Many have praised (or scorned) President Bush's recent veto of an appropriations bill because it funded stem cell research. I've heard those on the right jump for joy because they believe that this will preserve the lives of potential children. I've heard those on the left mumbling under their breath because they believe that this will keep scientists from being able to continue embryonic stem cell research. The truth is that neither side is completely correct.

The presidential veto did not save any lives at all. Those embryos that would have been used for stem cell research are going to be destroyed anyway, whether or not they are used for research. I supported this bill for that very reason. There are no attempts by Congress to fund the creation of embryos for the sole purpose of research. Rather, they wanted to take embryos that would have been otherwise destroyed and use those. I view an embryo as a human life. I'm very much pro-life. But I look at the situation this way: If someone is going to die, their life should serve some purpose before they die.

There was no legislation passed that would have prevented the destruction of these embryos. In fact, nothing that prevents research on embryonic stem cells saves lives. It simply provides a hinderance to giving any sort of meaning to the lives of these children before they are destroyed. At least, that's how I view it.

Now, don't worry. I'm going after the left-wing side of this, too.

The president did not "block" stem cell research, regardless as to what the left may have you think. Veto for this legislation merely prevented federal dollars from going toward this research. Research is not disallowed, and it can be funded privately and by state and local tax dollars. It also does not prevent future legislation from being passed that will allow federal funding. (Considering that the majority of Americans support stem cell research, this issue isn't likely to be dead.) It isn't the end of the world. Considering the way things seem to be going, this will pass after November, anyway-- with or without executive support.