Critics of the California stem cell program are prescribing major surgery: their procedure, Senate Bill 1565, (Kuehl, Runner) amounts to a re-do of the program California voted into law.

Should we close our eyes and let them do it? What if they are wrong?

Make no mistake: Senate Bill 1565 is no routine checkup. It is a full-scale major operation.

And there is nothing wrong with the patient...

Cross-posted on Healthy Eating Healthy Planet

On June 11, 2008 I stopped eating meat.

Now I also abstain from fish and most eggs and dairy. After I posted a diary on Daily Kos on June 22 to update my progress on this vegetarian journey, I was referred by another vegetarian to the PETA website where I signed up for a free vegetarian starter kit. It hasn't yet arrived, but their emails have. Today they asked me to email the Smithfield ham people because of some absolutely terrible things some of their contract farmers do to the pigs and piglets they raise.

More after the jump.

Today's 5-4 ruling that rejects the death penalty for child rapists shows the clear divide not just on the Supreme Court, but in American society in large.  If we needed any further example of how polarized we are in this country, decisions such as these are more than eager to point it out.  If we needed a means to gauge how we have evolved over the centuries, this easily provides it.  

This decision also makes a strong case for the need to elect Barack Obama in November.  A McCain Presidency would swing the balance of the court ever more resolutely towards the right and undermine reform measures passed by what will likely still be a Democratic-controlled Congress.  The majority of American society still favors the procedure, but our appointed and elected gatekeepers have asserted they know better than the rest of us and made the decisions for ourselves.  This authoritarian impulse one either embraces as a necessary means of control or rails against as running contrary to the popular will.    

The strength of America is not her military might, nor her economic power. It’s not that we have better people or a more hospitable climate. All of the above helps a great deal to create an environment where diversity, our greatest strength of all, exists peacefully.

Diversity, in this context, is not just about race or gender; although those are included categories. It’s much broader and harder to define. It’s about cowboys and Indians; Socs and Greasers; blue-collar and white-collar; preppy and grunge; and homophobes and queens just to name a few examples. Our diversity isn’t always perfect, but it’s usually productive, because, sometimes, sadly, conflict leads to progress.

This past Monday, I was hanging out in a classroom during recess with two little French girls of African descent. They were talking to me about what's excited large parts of the French population these past few months: Barack Obama.

"Are you voting for John McCain or Barack Obama?" they asked me. I wish I could somehow express in writing how they pronounced the names in French; it's really cute.

They were excited, one said, because he'd be the first African president of the US. Their teacher corrected them and said he's African American, and there's a difference, to which one girl replied with a very French "Mais quand même!" (But still!)

It's the cuter and more inspiring part of what I've noticed out here - Barack Obama was generally preferred to Hillary Clinton out here, but, now that he's sealed the nomination, the world community has come down solidly in favor of an Obama presidency.

Yesterday was a difficult day for me.  For those of you who remember my diary about my mother watching the Wisconsin returns while she lay dying, her ashes were interred yesterday.  I couldn't travel back across the country for it, so I had the weird experience of muting the RBC meeting telecast when my Dad called to talk about the experience, just before Harold Ickes made his speech about the Michigan compromise.  

I was upset all day -- tense about the committee hearings, missing my mom; at one point, my husband and I were talking about the space shuttle launch, and I said, "I can't remember if my parents ever watched Huntley-Brinkley.  I'll have to ask my mom."  And then I remembered, and burst into tears.

But something hit me, as I was watching Norah O'Donnell anchoring the shuttled launch.

The email was simple, elegant, and damn near perfect.  It made me remember that we are still on track and steady focused on the goal - no matter how sloppy, frustrating, and fearful Daily Kos gets in the meantime.  It made me that much more confident.

I want to thank you for everything you have done to take us this far -- farther than anyone predicted, expected, or even believed possible.

And I want to remind you that you will make all the difference in the epic challenge ahead.

Thank you,

Barack Obama

Full email after the break.

A series of recent diaries have emphasized the need to keep our eyes on the prize so to speak and cautioned against getting so worked up that we commit fratricide.  While I have never done a simply personal diary, my colleagues have moved me to do so in support of their calls for caution.  Pardon me if I touch upon ground that others have, but on the questions of tone in political discourse, we are dealing with a topic that is difficult to discuss in the abstract, and as progressives, we will inevitably have overlap in our views and experiences.  

At the same time, because political change is so dependent on maintaining motivation within the rank and file membership, the tone question warrants exploration from a multiplicity of perspectives.  I know that I have benefited from the reflections of my fellow diarists, and I hope the thoughts that follow will do the same in some fashion for others.

For those of you who thought a fire had been sparked inside your heart last year, who thought a new dawn glittered the sky on the horizon of an era of progress and enlightenment, but whose roaring fire has been reduced to a flicker, if not extinguished, by the current political climate of the Democratic primaries, I offer this:

Name for me, if you can, one great political movement or leader whose revolution was not born out of darker times and the darker tendencies of people. Looking inward, questioning, and finding one's true direction or true beliefs is something we must do as a rite of passage to truly meet progress and to create that bold new world. Part of that process is burning the "house" down, only to rebuild, and to rise from the ashes.

The Democratic Party is burning its house down. And what will rise from the ruins, most vigorously, is the progress we seek.

Obama's substantial win in the Mississippi primary last night, as many have noted, means that he has captured the majority of states in the Democratic primary which once composed the 11 that fought for the Confederate States of America during the Civil War.  In a region of the country accused by many of still fighting that conflict, I am glad that many of us have decided to lie down our guns and our bayonets.    

Just a simple diary with a simple poem to express my feelings about 2008 in comparison to 1968. I wasn't alive that far back (born in 1981) but I've drawn a lot from the spirit of that decade (the 60s) and the inspirational figures that came from it.

So therefore, I give you a poem. Please enjoy and feel free to respond with your own poetry.

I leave you with a quote on poetry from JFK himself:

John F.Kennedy

When power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitation. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses.

THE PRIVILEGE OF STANDING WITH A GREAT PROGRESSIVE by Mimi Kennedy

"The arc of history bends towards justice," in the words of Dr. King. And this year we can see it bending - and the fulcrum is our '08 ballot box. As PDA National Chair, I now have the privilege of flying to Maryland to stand with the brilliant Donna Edwards in her final push towards victory in challenging inert Democratic incumbent Al Wynn. In this I join Jim Dean of Democracy for America and Gloria Totten of Progressive Majority. Donna is a hope for us all.

As of Midnight Central Time, the projected delegate count runs this way, according to MSNBC.

OBAMA: 841
CLINTON: 837

The Iraqi Parliment has just passed a monumental piece of legislation that has assured peace and tranquility in the formerly troubled country for generations to come: a new flag has been approved...temporarily...to be used until someone comes up with a better idea.  Follow the link, grab a bucket and get ready to catch the stream of hope that will flow from your monitor like watermelon flavored syrup.

Change has become the "buzzword," of both parties. It might mean what we want it to mean, or it might be increased Federal control over civil liberties. It might mean "changing" the profile of nuclear power into a solution for our energy woes. What does change mean?

As Yogi Berra said, "It’s déjà vu all over again."

I got a little freaked out this weekend. But, the story actually starts a couple of years ago.

Now, even the Republican candidates have taken up the cry, "Change!" We need "Change!" Even Hillary Clinton is crying, "Change!" Everyone wants change, right?

No. Not me.

Maybe you’ve heard: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." I don’t want things to stay the same. So, candidates--Democratic candidates--give that word change a rest. There’s a better word, one the Republicans can’t co-opt.

To say that the country is polarized is a nice and easy way of explaining the current ideological divide in the United States. A more accurate description, however, is that we are facing a complete and utter disagreement about reality and about the evidence that is being presented in support of it. Almost any polarizing issue facing the American people is the result of not only conflicting ideologies, but also of conflicting evidence and conflicting accounts of history. Free market adherents blame socialized services for slowing down the economic growth under Reagan. Those who dream of universal coverage denounce the profits being made by HMOs and claim that they are to blame for the astronomical price of coverage. Clinton supporters see a great inheritance squandered away by an irresponsible president. Bush supporters see him as cleaning up the mess of an equally irresponsible commander in chief.