Readers respond and who can blame them?

Dear faithful readers (or – for accuracy’s sake – dear dad)
I recently discovered my readership, at least for the moment, has increased by one. Dad sent one of my columns to its subject, which only seems fair, and happily the subject replied.
Here’s a brief overview: I wrote a commentary based on some things a friend of mine and her daughter said to me (at different times) and why I disagreed with what they said. The commentary probably seemed offensive to the friend in question, just as what inspired it seemed offensive to me. But her reply was nevertheless gracious in most ways. So in this commentary, I will respond. This is not a retort. It is a reply. There is a difference.
In my article I mentioned that my friend’s 11-year-old daughter had, in my words, bitterly accused me of invading a country for no reason. In her response, my friend said she would have a talk with her daughter, as she despises this kind of “opinionated and extremely disrespectful talk.” Thank you, Lisa. She also admitted that her daughter is most likely influenced by her parents and probably did not do the research necessary to substantiate this opinion. First of all, let me say I was not offended by your daughter. I was merely surprised at the strength of what to me appeared to be bitterness or possibly even anger.
Lisa emphasized throughout her letter her respect and gratefulness to the men and women who are sacrificing their lives on the battlefield. Again I thank you. It’s important for those Soldiers out there to feel they have support. She said that even though she may disagree with the president’s decision to send us out there, she knows that the Soldiers fight out of loyalty to their country. She said she keeps newspaper clippings about their deaths pinned to the wall, so as she walks out the door she can remember to stop and pray for those men and women. This is a really good idea and I might start doing it myself. It’s so easy to forget now that I’m back in the states, what those guys are going through. I’m not sure we’re praying to the same God, but I thank you nonetheless.
There was only one part of the letter that surprised me. In my commentary, I mentioned that Lisa told me she had talked to an Iraqi citizen who said he’d never go back to Iraq after we bombed it so badly. In her response, Lisa said she didn’t remember this happening. Okay. She went on to say that she had never known any Iraqi citizens, and would never, ever, ever say something like this to a Soldier who had served this country. She said she did not recall even talking to me about the war.
I am not offended (see, I’m getting better). But I am, as I mentioned, surprised. I admit that I am a journalist. This is an undeniable fact, or believe me, I would be the first to deny it. It’s like a disease. But I am not so deeply infected that I would make something up, especially about a friend, just to prove a point. If the conversation in question had not taken place, I would not have said it did. Let me refresh your memory. You told me this gentleman was formerly a school teacher in Iraq, and that he said we had devastated his country. This is not a direct quote. I said something along the lines of, “yes, some of them did feel that way.” We also talked about education for women in Iraq among other benign subjects that didn’t actually touch on the combat itself.
In conclusion, Lisa, I enjoyed talking to you. I admit there was an element of discomfort based on the fact that our opinions, our faiths, indeed our most deeply rooted beliefs have become so different from each other where they used to be the same. I am talking about God here, not politics. But I appreciate your support, as I’m sure all the Soldiers do. I continue to pray for you and your children.
p.s. Do you want to be on my mailing list? Come on, it’ll be fun.

Evil president bans progress

I got in an argument with an acquaintance the other night about the moral pros and cons of cloning humans and embryonic stem cell research.
Admittedly this was a stupid thing to do on my part, since my opponent was both drunk and an idiot. In the future I will learn to choose my battles. But since the argument did in fact take place, despite all the rational reasons why it should not, I will share it with you, so you can also feel just slightly dumber.
My argument: 1. Scientists have achieved much more with adult stem cell research than embryonic stem cell research (I don’t actually have any facts to back this up, but it sounded like it might be true, which is more than I can say for most of his retorts). 2. Human babies should be neither harvested nor cloned for stem cell research – obviously my faith-based morals influenced this argument, but to me that does not make it less valid. 3. You’re an idiot. 4. God did not intend us to create people. 5. Please stop hitting me.
His argument: 1. Stem cell research could save the world. 2. If you would give your own life to save millions of people, why shouldn’t you give the lives of babies? They can’t even think yet (it used to be liberals argued that life does not begin at conception. Now, apparently, the argument is that life does not begin until the child can form complete sentences and name all the animals. By this logic, a mother who drowns her newborn should not be charged with murder, since the baby “couldn’t even think yet,” and therefore probably didn’t mind.) 3. Now, thanks to President Bush, stem cell research is illegal in this country. 4. Yes it is illegal! Look it up. It is.
So I did look it up, and was interested to find out that less than two weeks ago, California voted to allocate $3 billion to support stem cell research. I thought it was interesting that the president would let them vote for something illegal.
In an Aug. 3 column for the Washington Post, Anne Applebaum, an advocate of liberalizing the national policy on stem cell research, nevertheless thought the waters murky enough to clear up in her column. “Stem cell research is not, in fact, either illegal or unfunded,” she said. “The federal budget in 2003 included $24.8 million for human embryonic stem cell research – up from zero in 2000.”
The idea that the research is illegal stems from the ban on federal funding for research involving fetal tissue or the harm of human embryos.
The fact is, the concept that the evil president is trying to prevent America from finding cures that will save the world, is mostly perpetuated by the rhetoric used in the democratic campaign, as Ms. Applebaum pointed out.
“Listening to all these speeches, you might come away with the impression that stem cell research is illegal in this country, and that if our recalcitrant, medieval, anti-science fundamentalist president would only “lift the ban” or lose the election, there would be ‘magic’ cures for old people with Alzheimers and children with diabetes,” she said.
Even scientists have not gone so far as my inebriated friend did, in saying that stem cell research will save the world. In all fairness, he later conceded that it might not save the whole world.