Proposal 2

PROPOSAL 08-2
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN
EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN

The proposed constitutional amendment would:

• Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.
• Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
• Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
• Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.

Should this proposal be adopted?

Yes!

The easiest way to explain this vote is compassion versus ignorance. Compassion means allowing scientific research to take place that can lead to new discoveries. A no vote, cast out of ignorance means you will let your personal religious beliefs trump the good of all society. The Catholic church hierarchy and Right to Life lobbyists are fighting this issue on religious and moral grounds which might make sense if these embryos were not already being destroyed. If the "no" voters really had any conviction they would have their own proposal on the ballot to outlaw fertility treatments and in vitro fertilization. Allowing this research shows we are a society of reason, science and compassion. There simply is no reason to vote no unless you think a frozen embryo on the way to a garbage can has more right to 'its" life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness than someone suffering from a curable disease that won't be saved because the Puritans, witch-hunters and forces of moral purity have allowed their unfounded fears to take precedence over reason, compassion and science yet again.

Bogeyman arguments and superstition have been used to squash science for centuries (anyone remember the black helicopter crowd opposing flouride in drinking water not too long ago?). Fortunately, over time most of these absurdities find their way into the dustbin of history, another example of our ignorant past. Basing your vote against such a well thought out proposal, on the plots of science fiction novels is silly. The thought of not using these embryos that are already being discarded to save human lives is ridiculous and certainly not a "pro-life" position, it's also not a pro-science position or even a pro-economy position. Michigan has the potential to continue to press its investment in life sciences to build an economy for the 21st century and this proposal is one more step in that direction. We would be allowing scientists the ability to recycle materials for the possible betterment of mankind.

There simply is not argument to not vote YES on proposal 2- it's a matter of compassion.

Proposal 1

PROPOSAL 08-1
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF
MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS

The proposed law would:

• Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
• Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
• Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
• Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.

Should this proposal be adopted?

YES

Marijuana benefits seriously-ill and terminally-ill patients in that it provides pain relief and appetite enhancement. Any arguments about a slippery slope are nothing more than scare tactics that have nothing to do with the proposal as it stands. Many people have died in the state of Michigan without the ability to gain benefit from a drug that has proven to be of help in ensuring pain, and nausea relief. Allowing someone to die in any form of discomfort that is preventable, is nothing short of cruel. Marijuana gives doctors the ability help their patients terminal, or not and standing in the way are outdated, and cruel federal and state laws that turn a blind eye to the suffering of many citizens.

DDA should ante up with facts

When the Hastings City Council decided they wanted to tear down the old library building, citizen outrage forced them to reconsider the fate of the library which also once housed the local post office. Now, the beautiful and historic brick building that some wanted to be a parking lot (in a town filled with empty parking lots and available retail space) may be sold to an unknown consortium who turned in their bid well past the deadline, beating out the county which had made repeated requests to negotiate purchase of the building and was rebuffed by the city time and again. Many feel the late bid was made on behalf of one of the losing bidders in an attempt to get around the request for proposal (RFP) and the city's own rules.

The county wanted to have room for future expansion and felt the old library building which is right across the street from the courthouse would serve the purpose well. In addition, the city had an opportunity to ensure that any future growth of the county offices would be enriching the city's downtown. More workers downtown means more sales for local merchants even if the property is officially off the tax rolls. For some reason it seems the DDA or the city council did not want the county to purchase the property. Some feel this is the latest attempt by the DDA to grow at the expense of what is good for all of Hastings. In fact, it has now come to light that the DDA isn't passing along money from millages that should be going to services for the elderly, public safety and historic preservation. Many believe the fact that the property wouldn't enrich the DDA if it was purchased by the county is the main reason the county's attempts to purchase the old library were ignored.

Some important questions need to be answered by the Hastings City Council members and the DDA:
• Has the DDA become a beast too large to control, demanding ever-more tax money and choking off important services to the public such as infrastructure spending and important services? • Did the DDA turn down the lucrative offer from the county just so a losing bidder could slip in a winning bid well past the deadline after some insider informed them of what it would take to outbid the county? • Did the DDA violate it's own rules in awarding the bid to Encore whose bid was not only seriously late but also laughably vague- especially when part of the rules stated that the project would be awarded based on the creativity of the proposal? • Did members of the DDA tamper with the process? • Did members of the DDA have any communication with people from Encore or other bidders that could have resulted in a tainted and unfair bidding process which violated not only the spirit of the RFP but the letter of it as well?

It sure seems the answer to most of those question is a resounding YES to anyone watching the process. This highly questionable act happened right out in the open and so far there hasn't been much noise about it yet from the public. The original attempt to bulldoze the building was stopped by local citizens, This must also surely be rejected by an even more vocal public. The next meeting of the city council would be the perfect opportunity for opponents of the bungled bidding process to attempt to stop this injustice.

When the city council next meets, citizens of Hastings should be ready again to tell their elected officials that they are wrong, that the process was rigged and that someone smells in Hastings. The DDA is seriously out of control, attempting to become an independent government free from oversight, capturing valuable tax revenue and spending it on frills while the city infrastructure outside the DDA crumbles. Citizens with decaying curbs and gutters have serious reservations that the DDA has over-stepped it's bounds one too many times, that some people are power hungry and that the beast known as the DDA is choking off the oxygen to the rest of the city.

Many feel that the Encore proposal is really just a backdoor for the Gilmore Group, known for high end restaurants in West Michigan. This speculation increased when the secret plan hinted that it would require a large number of parking space for a business that would employ few full time employees. Many also worry that Hastings would gain a restaurant and perhaps lose 1-2 of it's existing restaurants. Should the DDA be trying to attract businesses that compete with existing business owners or should they be trying to find new ventures that would complement what we already have? For a town of modest means, Hastings has more than enough fine dining opportunities. What Hastings needs is more workers downtown to fill those restaurants during the lunch hours and more families in the city that can afford to frequent those places for dinner.

And now, out comes word that a city official accidentally slipped during a private conversation last week. A source told me that this public person talked as if Encore was one and the same as Gilmore. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue and perhaps it was a Fruedian slip- a "tell" in the parlance of the poker tables. It's time for citizens to ask questions, to call their bluff.

It is not about equality...It's about ME!

Sitting inside tonight nursing a cold. It seems it always comes on like this during the last really nice weekend of the year.
Anyway I have a box of tissues next to me, and a half a pot of hot tea on the stove. I am thankful that my disease did not afflict me during the work week. I did come down with a scratchy throat on Friday afternoon, but was able to make it through till the end of the day. I will have to judge tomorrow night whether or not to go to work on Monday.
Luckily for me (or rather planned) I have enough sick days to be able to take it off if I need to. I know a lot of people who seem to always have theirs used up this time of year, and have to take it on the chin (wallet) when the flu and cold season arrives. I cannot say for sure but many of those that seem to have used up all of their sick days by now always seem to be the ones that can ill afford to have days lost. I recognize that may be a rude judgment on my part, and am always willing to evidence to the contrary, but it just seems that way in my eyes.
Perhaps it is because they have a family, and must use these allowed days in order to take care of a sick loved one. There are a lot of married w/children in my place of work, and quite a few are women. Not that women are always the parent of choice to stay home in such a situation, but recognizing the uneven pay scale they are likely to be the better of two options. Not always, but one would have to be a ostrich to not see the evidence of such a choice.
But I digress, as this is about me, and my needs.
To be honest I see a case where fair pay for women really enters into why "I" have a cold. If the responsibility were to fall on the other parent once in a while I could see where the likelihood of my coming down with what can only be called as the black death (I'm confident) as often, would be lessened. It may very well be the effects of the putrid flavored elixir I downed a half hour ago, but it seems to me that if the family coffee can had a little more even funding for such occasions, parents would not have to choose to go to work when they are sick themselves. Hence being trapped with the grouchy Agnosticrat who curses the air he breathes every time a co-worker sneezes would not have be an option.
So please when the option comes up...if there is ever a re-introduction of the fair pay for women act...think of me (sitting here now, thinking of going nuclear with the NyQuil, and planning on jotting down my final wishes on a lightly lotioned, half used piece of tissue) and push your legislator to pass it. If this is not enough, please feel free to give your adress so that I might send you the other half of my tissue.

Obama's October Surprise!

The following is a review I wrote about the first presidential debate between McCain and Obama. I withheld it in order to contrast my opinion on the outcome of that debate to the second one that took place last night. I have changed nothing since wrote it.

As someone who is often called angry, I appreciate it when others are called out on not being angry enough. It occurs to me that many of those that feel as though during last Friday's debate Senator Obama seemed cold, and disconnected to the average persons pain have not realized that there is a difference in Obama's debate style, and the substance of his agenda. While it is sometimes necessary to resort to indignant speech in order to make a point to ones adversaries, it does not altogether win the hearts and minds of those you wish to join your cause. Most that would wish for such a thing are already in your camp. I try to watch these things with a keen eye for moments of opportunity to attack an opponent, I can clearly say there were times I saw opportunity for Obama on Friday night, and as a skillful politician I am quite sure Obama did also.
Anyone that assumes from the debate last Friday that Obama is disconnected from the pain of the average person, needs to merely take a look at his platform to see that this is not the case. Growing our economy (once again) from the bottom up as the United States did in order to free ourselves from our last great depression is the cornerstone of Obama's plan. While he may not have claimed during the debate to "feel the pain" of the average worker, or muttered emotional post traumatic claims of love for them, average people still can get the message he cares.
As pundits claim that there were no angry assertions, and knockout punches thrown from Obama during the debate, they can hardly say the same for his opponent. Scowls, and and nervous cackles were employed by McCain as emotional counterpoint to Obama's use of clearheaded debate on policy. To McCain's detriment he came across as the angry old guy. Likely if these same angry responses came from Obama he would have appeared as an enraged young black man after an old and defenseless American hero. I say this not as excuse, but simply as truth. Nevertheless it is merely a personal talking point, and likely the least of what Obama may have been thinking.
As a politico I enjoy a heated discussion as much as anyone that finds themselves reading my words on this blog. We are politico's. We are, whether we will admit it or not, creatures interested in, and products of, the partisan politics that have permeated the airwaves, and bandwidth of our nation for the last decade. For anyone to have read a political blog, listened to a heated screed on the radio, or rifled through the Sunday paper for the comments section, to say otherwise would be a bold faced lie. The same is true for the members of the press that indulge themselves in judgment of candidates based on ratings share, and affirmation of personal political views as they have been doing all week.
At the end of last weeks debate it was far clearer to me that Obama's debate style is not one that will garner the admiration of politicos like us. It never has been.
During the previous debates there were calls for Obama to give a knockout punch. A perplexed contingent of political junkies posted time, and time again on liberal, as well as conservative blogs, that he must bloody his opponent in order to win the nomination of his party. That in order to prove he has a acceptable style of leadership he must be willing to mire himself in the the day to day filth of political battle.
We were wrong, and he proved it.
Is this affirmation of a return to a less contemptible approach to leadership?
Maybe. To be sure it has awakened many who do not respect our lust for partisan blood letting. At the very least it seemed to throw off the timing of McCain who surely came to a debate looking for a fight.
For now it seems as though our talking point for "more respectable campaigning" seems to have been hijacked by someone who may have the intent to follow through with it.
Obama may have disappointed those like us, that wanted to see a brawl. We tuned in to see a real political fight, and found ourselves listening to one man give clear respectful answers, while the other seemed to sulk and spin.

A precipitous withdrawl?

Today it was announced that John McCain is pulling his ads and campaign staff from Michigan and canceling a campaign event planned for next week in Plymouth, essentially giving up hope of winning the state's 17 electoral votes. Until recently many people saw Michigan as an important swing state where McCain had a chance to play offense, given his 2 primary victories in 2000 and 2008, and force the Democratic candidate to defend a "blue" state that John Kerry won in 2004. Both campaigns have blanketed the state's airwaves and made repeated campaign appearances. Obama especially seems to have focused heavily on the state, coming here to receive the important endorsement of John Edwards and then returning to get the endorsement of Al Gore.

According to Five Thirty Eight, the polling average in Michigan is Obama +4.9. New polls have shown Obama with a double digit lead, increasing what had been a fairly consistent lead, except for the bounce McCain received with the announcement of his VP selection and the GOP convention. With the economy coming into play as the major campaign issue, McCain had no chance to win in the state most affected by the failed philosophy of trickle down economics which supports tax cuts for the wealthy and falling wages for workers along with the disastrous effects of globalization which promotes trading high paying American jobs for cheap products made overseas.

Obviously, many Tuesday morning quarterbacks will wonder what nominating Mitt Romney might have done for the campaign campaign. However, I think it's safe to say Romney wouldn't have guaranteed a McCain win in Michigan and certainly wouldn't have garnered the enthusiasm among the right wing base of the Republican Party like the Palin pick was designed to do. However, he may have been able to handle the media and campaign independently of McCain who has been forced to stick close to Palin, thus reducing in half the number of campaign stops the ticket can make in swing states.