another late night rant about another "powerful catholic leader" I can't stinking stand.

this is really unbelievable. I mean seriously. If I remember correctly, 52% of Catholics voted for Obama; that's what REALLY has these extreme christians going. From HuffPo, last Friday, w/ my first thoughts in italic...sj

WASHINGTON — A powerful Catholic leader on Friday accused President Barack Obama of pushing an anti-life, anti-family agenda and called Notre Dame's invitation for him to speak scandalous.

Sad but true. He is powerful. His ilk, although fading fast from mattering, and dying off slowly but surely, are nothing if they're not powerful. These "powerful catholic leaders" influence a lot of people. By and large, they're not all that compassionate; they're not terribly bright either. But they are powerful. And they make things happen. Many, many, many people out there listen to "powerful catholic leaders," such as this guy (and the pope), and follow them. And when the pope says on a trip to Africa (a country that is imploding w/ more death than you can imagine, w/ AIDS and lack of education being a major culprit), that "condoms won't stop the spread of AIDS, and may actually help spread it," it doesn't matter that it's a 100%, absolute, proven, factual lie. What matters is these people listen to him. They can't help it. They're BELIEVE in him. How could the Pope be steering them wrong?! So they stop using condoms, and more people die, who otherwise, would not (with proper education, based on facts and science). Thanks, Pope! Now If that's not anti-life, I don't know what is!

Archbishop Raymond Burke, the first American to lead the Vatican supreme court, said Catholic universities should not give a platform, let alone honor, "those who teach and act publicly against the moral law."

Moral law? What a euphemism that is. I think it breaks down to what "one ought or ought not do." Look, no one who thinks we were all born sinners, and that some of us will live forever in heaven after we die, and the rest of us are going to hell when we die, is gonna dictate to me ANYTHING. Please. There is no moral law in the real world. And extreme christians wonder why the rest of us get so offended that they're church is polluting our state? Didn't we break away from England for this nonsense?

Notre Dame has asked Obama to deliver the commencement address on May 17, an invitation that has drawn criticism from a number of Catholics. The university has said the president will be honored as an inspiring leader who broke a historic racial barrier.

"The proposed granting of an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame University to our president, who is so aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda is rightly the source of the greatest scandal," Burke said to applause from the crowd at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

I love those in charge at Notre Dame University. Love them. It's too bad they have to put up w/ this religious leader who is just flat out lying (too bad for all of us), when he says that Obama is "aggressively advancing an anti-life and anti-family agenda." That's is an outright lie. No, he is not.

Obama supports abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research. He also repealed a policy that denied federal dollars to international relief organizations that provide abortions or abortion-related information. And he backs legislation that would prohibit state and local governments from interfering with a woman's right to obtain an abortion.

Beautiful; you go dog! That's why we hired you! But seriously, supporting women's rights, and funding research that SAVES lives, is good, right?

Burke called the confirmation of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, "the source of deepest embarrassment for Catholics."

Christ. The deepest? Is it really deeper than the "embarrassment" that Catholics feel when their church leaders, priests, cardinals and bishops coerce little boys into all forms of sex, and/or rape them outright; by the HUNDREDS, perhaps thousands? Cracka, please!!

Burke, who formerly led the Archdiocese of St. Louis before leaving for the Vatican, has made headlines in the past. In 2004, he said he would deny Communion to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, a Catholic who supports abortion rights as part of public policy.

Man, he's a real charmer. Yes, public policy is what matters in this country, and it's how we govern. We don't govern with religion! Again, isn't this why we left England?

In 2007, Burke indicated he would do the same to then-Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani. He also protested singer Sheryl Crow's appearance at a benefit for a Catholic children's hospital over her support for embryonic stem cell research. In January 2008, Burke called on Saint Louis University, a Jesuit school, to discipline college basketball coach Rick Majerus for publicly supporting abortion rights.

What does the Vatican want this guy for; their entertainment coordinator? Doesn't he have real work to do?

Burke said if Catholics are not willing to stand up for the church's teachings, "we are not worthy of the name Catholic."

Whatever, dude. Bottom line is, more and more Catholics are not willing (that's why the church's numbers are fading); in fact, they're deeming the Church's teachings (and leadership) not worthy. Why? Because they're seeing things more clearly these days; things that actually matter in their everyday lives, are trumping things that may or may not happen in their "after-lives."

I wish I could be there this Sunday to join the fight against this "powerful catholic leader" (a fight, HE started). But I'll have to settle for C-Span.

America's slow learning curve: example #14...

It's hardly going out on a limb, but in case there's any doubt, I'll restate the prediction I made about a decade ago: recreational marijuana use will be legal in most states in America, no later than 2020. If not, it will be the first time in American history, the United States Government passed up a chance to make hundreds of billions of dollars with such little effort. We're back to being a government for the people, by the people now, and the time has come to use the profits from legalizing weed to fix this country (check out the last line in this piece: "the public is going to drag the politicians into doing what is right." That kills me. Like it's NOT supposed to be that way!). There's enough money to be made by doing so to genuinely improve our education, healthcare, environment, and national security, among other things. This is to say nothing of the money we'll save NOT successfully fighting a large part of the drug war, or how far legalization will go in starting to unravel the utter mess we have on our southern border. And never mind the "gateway drug" mischaracterization: marijuana is no more a gateway drug than coffee is. Here's the latest, from California, a poll favoring legalization, and how it relates to Arnold's budget problem. sj

San Francisco Gate
Governor says he's open to debate on legal pot
Wyatt Buchanan, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Tuesday that the time is right to debate legalizing marijuana for recreational use in California.

The governor's comments were made as support grows nationwide for relaxing pot laws and only days after a poll found that for the first time a majority of California voters back legal marijuana. Also, a San Francisco legislator has proposed regulating and taxing marijuana to bring the state as much as $1.3 billion a year in extra revenue.

Schwarzenegger was cautious when answering a reporter's question Tuesday about whether the state should regulate and tax the substance, saying it is not time to go that far.

But, he said: "I think it's time for debate. I think all of those ideas of creating extra revenues - I'm always for an open debate on it."

The governor said California should look to the experiences of other nations around the world in relaxing laws on marijuana.

Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, has introduced a bill to regulate marijuana like alcohol, with people over 21 years old allowed to grow, buy, sell and possess cannabis - all of which are barred by federal law.

California voters in 1996 legalized marijuana for medical use with permission from a physician.

Ammiano said he was pleased the governor is "open-minded" on the issue and added that he was sure the two could "hash it out."

Under Ammiano's proposal, the state would impose a $50-an-ounce levy on sales of marijuana, which would boost state revenues by about $1.3 billion a year, according to an analysis by the State Board of Equalization. Betty Yee of San Francisco, who chairs the Board of Equalization, supports the measure.

"This has never just been about money," said Ammiano, who has long supported reforming marijuana laws. "It's also about the failure of the war on drugs and implementing a more enlightened policy. I've always anticipated that there could be a perfect storm of political will and public support, and obviously the federal policies are leaning more toward states' rights."

An ABC News/Washington Post poll last week found that 46 percent of Americans favored legalization of small amounts of pot for personal use, double the number who supported that a decade ago. A Field Poll also released last week found that 56 percent of California voters supported legalizing and taxing marijuana.

In March, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government would take a softer stance on medical marijuana dispensaries, with drug enforcement agents targeting only those who violate state and federal law. California is one of 13 states that allow marijuana use with a doctor's recommendation.

Many law enforcement organizations oppose changes in marijuana laws. The California Police Chiefs Association, in a report last month, concluded that marijuana dispensaries constitute "a clear violation of federal and state law; they invite more crime; and they compromise the health and welfare of law-abiding citizens."

But the head of that association said he, too, is open to a debate on legalizing pot.

"We keep walking around the 5,000-pound elephant in the room, which is should marijuana be legal?" said Bernard Melekian, president of the association and chief of police in Pasadena.

The Board of Equalization analysis predicts that legalization would drop the street value of marijuana by 50 percent and increase consumption by 40 percent.

Bruce Mirken, spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, which advocates legalization, said the governor's comments about marijuana are part of a "tectonic shift" in attitudes toward the issue.

"I think, frankly, the public is going to drag the politicians into doing what is right," he said.

Sometimes solutions are easy.

story below from LA Times.... sj

Obama to reverse Bush policy on embryonic stem cell research

White House sources say key restrictions on federal funding will be lifted Monday. Social conservatives protest that the move will 'aid the destruction of innocent human life.'

By Noam N. Levey and Karen Kaplan

4:24 PM PST, March 6, 2009

Reporting from Washington — President Obama on Monday plans to lift key restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, reversing one of the most controversial domestic policies of his predecessor, according to administration sources.

The move has been widely anticipated by scientists and patient-advocacy groups who chafed at President Bush's 2001 decision to bar federal funding for research on nearly all human embryonic stem cells.

Under the Bush policy, a limited set of embryonic stem cells created before August 2001 could be used in federally funded experiments.

But many scientists said that policy placed significant constraints on research aimed at producing cures for disease. Embryonic stem cells can grow into nearly any type of tissue in the body, and scientists are hoping to learn how to mold them into heart cells for cardiac patients, pancreas cells for diabetics and replacement brain cells for people with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's disease.

In changing the policy, Obama may further anger social conservatives who believe that the research is immoral because human embryos are destroyed in the course of obtaining stem cells. Many are already upset at Obama for reversing Bush administration policies that restricted abortion services.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said federal funding should be directed to research on stem cells not derived from embryos.

"The question is whether taxpayer dollars should be used to subsidize the destruction of precious human life," Boehner said in a statement Friday. "Millions of Americans strongly oppose that, and rightfully so. Taxpayer dollars should not aid the destruction of innocent human life."

Administration officials did not provide much detail Friday about the order that Obama plans to sign at a White House ceremony Monday.

One official said the president would emphasize "a return to sound science," a theme that Obama and other Democratic candidates talked about often during last year's presidential campaign.

Eight years ago, Bush cast the restrictions as a compromise that would allow scientific research to continue "without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos." Congress tried to lift his restrictions. Bush twice vetoed legislation to do so.

The restrictions became increasingly vexing for many scientists, who charged that they had slowed the pace of research.

"It was such a disaster," said Julie Baker, a stem cell researcher at Stanford University School of Medicine.

Reversing the policy would give federally funded scientists access to hundreds of newer stem cells that are free of the chromosomal abnormalities and animal molecules that they say make the so-called presidential cell lines essentially useless as potential medical therapies.

Many scientists are also eager to get their hands on the dozens of new lines that carry the genetic signatures of the diseases they study. None of the presidential lines have that feature.

American scientists are no longer at the vanguard of stem cell research, asserts a study published last year in the journal Cell Stem Cell.

In the paper, Aaron Levine, a public policy professor at Georgia Institute of Technology, found that whereas U.S. researchers published 46% of the world's top papers in the fields of molecular biology and genetics, they produced only 36% of the human embryonic stem cell studies.

ethics be damned: Pill could help you forget bad memories

you can't stop progress....sj


Findings could lead to better treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder
By Irene Klotz
Discovery Channel

Bad date last night? Take this pill and forget all about it.

In a bid to stem the harmful effects of fear triggered by haunting memories, psychologists have come up with a concoction that prevents the brain from reliving the bad experiences.

The findings may have implications for understanding and treating people suffering emotional disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, said University of Amsterdam psychologist Merel Kindt, the lead author of a paper in this week's issue of Nature Neuroscience.

Kindt and colleagues devised a test to see if the cycle of fear could be eased by interrupting the brain's ability to recreate a memory of a traumatic event.

Sixty volunteers were shown pictures of spiders and given a mild electrical shock to create bad memories. The next day, they saw the pictures again but half were given the drug propranolol, a beta-blocker commonly used to treat heart disease. The other half took a placebo pill.

The participants returned a third day and were shown the pictures again. The researchers found that people given propranolol had a much lower emotional response — measured by a startle reflex — to the images.

"The procedure did really eliminate a simple fear response, which is a promising basis for future treatments," Kindt wrote in an e-mail to Discovery News. "This was not possible before."

Psychologists typically try to treat memory-triggered stress disorders by teaching patents to modify their response to fear, but the technique is ineffective for many people.

"This method focuses on erasing the fear response," Kindt said.

Additional studies are planned to see if the results are long-lasting.

Daniel Sokol, who lectures on medical ethics at St. George's, University of London, cautioned that wiping out the effects of a bad memory may have unintentional consequences.

"I joined a chess club and lost to an eight-year girl," Sokol told Discovery News. "That was absolutely humiliating. I made a blunder, and I tell myself that I'll never make that mistake again. If you eradicate the memory, will the lesson still remain?

"A lot of our memories seem to be interconnected," he added. "I wonder if after the intervention if you could end up terribly confused, unable to understand why you're feeling a particular way. In essence, you might end up with some sort of dementia."