Thanks Vets

Like Christmas or Easter, Memorial Day is one of those times when we focus on something that should be foremost in our minds every day. Every blessing we enjoy in this country has been bought and paid for by the men and women who through the years have given of themselves, sometimes at tremendous personal sacrifice, to ensure our freedoms. So, yes, we salute them today. But what exactly are we honoring?

Do we applaud war? Not me. I abhor the death and destruction that war brings, especially on the innocent. But it is necessary to have a bunch of people in a free society who are willing to stand and defend the rest of us. I am the proud son and father of US servicemen. I came of age in the Vietnam era and participated in the draft. It was a lottery back then, and my number was not called. Although I despised the way the politicians were prosecuting the war, I would have done my duty if asked. Had I not been too old, I might have enlisted after 9/11; seriously.

We are not honoring mayhem and destruction. Killing people and breaking things is not typical Christian activity, but when there are people in the world intent on killing us and breaking our things, it is only wise to have a defensive force to withstand them. The Bible teaches that God ordained certain men to carry swords (that's first century imagery) to restrain evil. Might never makes right, but there are times when right must be defended by might.

Are we honoring the policy decisions of today's leaders. Not me. There are legitimate questions to be asked in light of the shrinking nature of the globe; the libertarians rightfully ask whether it is ultimately in our best interest to project our might into every conflict in any hemisphere. I may not go as far as say, Ron Paul, on this issue, but there is a real need to reconsider America's role in the world when our battles are being financed by our grandchildren. There are many hurting people in the world that compassionate hearts ache to heal, but it seems unwise to mortgage the future give aid today.

On this day we honor the people like my son and my father who did not consider their lives too dear to risk everything to protect the rest of us back home. Forget politics; forget fiscal accountability; forget discussions about Augustine's just war theory. Just remember and salute all those who make it possible to have a free debate about all such issues. Do it today and tomorrow and tomorrow, ad eternum. They deserve it.

Healthy Fear

"Conservatives' paranoid alternate-reality can be explained by their brain chemistry."

So says the sub head under "Republican Fear Factor" on a blog I stumbled onto this morning. Salon.com reprinted an Alternet blog reporting a University College London brain study which purports to identify differences in the way conservatives and liberals process information neurologically. This study is linked with one at University of Nebraska - Lincoln which draws similar conclusions according to Chris Mooney, author of The Republican Brain.

The two studies point out that the part of the brain known as amygdala are active in the human response to troubling situations. Citing differences in the relative size of the amygdala between conservatives and liberals, Mooney concludes that this “new research suggests [that] conservatism is largely a defensive ideology — and therefore, much more appealing to people who go through life sensitive and highly attuned to aversive or threatening aspects of their environments.”

I am not a neurologist, nor do I play one on TV, but even I know that the brain is incredibly complex. Five minutes of research reveals that the amygdala perform a far broader suite of activities than just inciting fear. For example, according to one encyclopedia, "The amygdala is also involved in the modulation of memory consolidation. Following any learning event, the long-term memory for the event is not formed instantaneously." I would like to suggest that a smaller amygdala might explain the liberals' apparent inability to remember promises or learn from history. I will not wait for any of our (primarily liberal) universities to confirm that.

My point is not to play dueling brain study. I would actually like to embrace what Mooney is implying. As a believer, I am inherently and proudly conservative. I wish to conserve tradition, morality, family, the Constitution and an orthodox interpretation of the Bible. I am genuinely concerned about threats to these dear principles. The Apostle Peter openly warns that our "enemy the Devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour." That is what I hear in Mooney's conclusion. If we do not remain "sensitive and highly attuned" (Mooney) or "alert and sober" (Peter) we end up as lion lunch -- or as liberals.

Whoa! Baby.

Warning: this post may contain references that will leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Something on my Facebook wall got my attention this morning. It seems I missed the exciting first round and came in on the end of the fight. Earlier this year a group called Children of God for Life instituted a boycott of PepsiCo for alleged use of embryonic stem cells in its flavor research. Pardon my gruesome thought, but I pictured ground up babies in my Pepsi, not unlike the collagen scare a few years ago.

My first thought was that this is another melodramatic hoax fueled by mindless Internet forwarders and Facebook posters. So I did what I usually do when I smell fish: I went to Snopes.com. I found that the tangents people have taken off on (like my baby flavoring nightmare) are completely unfounded. The issue is too complex for the simple minded, but since I respect my readers' mental powers, I will summarize what I think has happened.

PepsiCo contracted with a company called Senomyx to research ways to enhance flavor using less sugar, salt and MSG. These are goals almost everyone can support. What came to light earlier this year and caused all the stir is that Senomyx had used a test agent which had come from a strand of DNA taken from an embryonic kidney in the 1970's. No embryonic cells went into any Pspsi products, and no embryonic cells were used by the firm PepsiCo hired to do research.

What did happen is that one piece of human embryonic DNA was used over forty years ago to start a stem cell line which has prospered into "workhorses of cellular biology," according to Forbes' Michael Herper in a Snopes report on the issue. So the sacrifice of one embryo years ago led to the creation of a research tool which has been used regularly in the medical field, and now surfaces in a commercial application. As Herper points out, "No new fetal tissue has been used; the use of this cell line isn't leading to new abortions." In fact, the cells themselves are no longer human; they are genetically engineered tissue which sprang from a bit of human DNA.

No one is more disgusted by abortion and the toll of human lives taken than I am. If some one wants to boycott PepsiCo for funding Planned Parenthood or paying for abortions in its employee health coverage, I can understand. But to imply that all research which has even the remotest link to human cells is evil is going too far. By that reasoning we would have to be against organ donation (I know some Christians are.) By that reasoning we would have to shut down all research that uses any form of human cells, adult or embryonic (Say goodbye to all those wonder drugs we use so freely.) By that reasoning medical schools should not use cadavers to teach anatomy. Etcetera ad infinitum.

We are sometimes forced into dark places "that good may come," to borrow a line from Edith Wharton. I understand the need to close doors that might lead to new incentives to harvest embryonic cells. But in this case, the "damage" is long done, and only good may come. I see the use of genetically engineered material as an opportunity to create life from death. Not to stretch our spiritual mandate too thin, but is that not what we are called to do every day in this death dominated domain we inherited from our proto-parents?