Wanna Know Why I'm Voting for McCaskill?

Wanna Know Why I'm Voting for McCaskill?

So, today, Sept. 11th of all days, I finally got a response to an email message I sent to Jim Talent several months ago. Admittedly, it wasn't on the top of my priority list, since I probably just made a few changes to an action alert from one of the many distro lists on which my name is filed. Most likely, in this case it was via the American Diabetes Association.

This message was about embryonic stem cell research (yes, you can also guess how I'm voting on Amendment 2 in November!), and probably was a reply to a message I sent back in May or June, given the subject line: "Re: One Year is Too Long; Pass H.R.810 NOW." (more on HR 810, which the Senate did finally pass July 18th but of course Pres. Bush vetoed it).

The text of the reply from Talent's office was surprisingly lengthy, and included an attached PDF of a speech he made back in February 2005 (identical to this one posted on National Review's web site), explaining why he so strongly opposed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Out of fairness, I've copied the full text of the Senator's email response below. This is a very complex, emotionally charged issue, no doubt. Nevertheless, I feel something missing in Senator Talent's response. While Claire McCaskill sure ain't perfect, I still think she'd represent my views better on many issues, including this one.

Dear Mr. Frank:

Thank you for contacting me to discuss stem cell research. I appreciate the time you have taken to share your views with me, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

In the Senate, I have supported more than $2 billion in funding for stem cell research, including adult, umbilical cord, and embryonic stem cell research. I believe this research is important and that it is too early to say that there is no value to pluripotent stem cell research in general.

I've spent the better part of a year researching this issue, meeting with people on all sides: groups who oppose cloning embryos to get stem cells, scientists who support it, parents who don't know who or what to believe but who are desperate for a cure for their children. Many to whom I've spoken have strong opinions about the underlying moral issues. In every case, I respected the sincerity and passion of those whom I spoke with. I have strong opinions of my own.

I believe human beings are precious. I am concerned about the tendency of our society to devalue people because they are too old, too young, or too inconvenient to have around. At the same time, I understand the desperation of parents whose children are sick or dying and who are desperate for treatments that will make them well. I want to help find cures for these children-but I also want them to grow up in a society that values them for their inherent dignity-for who they are, regardless of their age, infirmity, level of success or achievement.

The reason this issue is difficult is that there is an area of overlap between cloning and stem cells. Some scientists believe that stem cells from a cloned human embryo may have unique advantages for medical research. I think it is too early to say that there is no value to pluripotent stem cell research in general, so long as it does not harm or clone human embryos. As a result, I have been investigating new scientific developments to see whether we can strike a balance that allows both stem cell research to relieve human suffering and the protection against human cloning. The newest medical research shows that alternatives are available which make such a balanced position possible. These alternative methods could make it possible in the near future to get every type of stem cell, including those that are patient specific and pluripotent, without cloning, creating, or harming a human embryo.

One of the alternative approaches is called Altered Nuclear Transfer (ANT). The author and most vocal champion of ANT is Dr. William Hurlbut of Stanford. Dr. Hurlbut assured me months ago that ANT was technologically feasible and would soon be validated through animal models. And, indeed, late last year stem cell biologists, Alexander Meissner and Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute at MIT, used ANT to produce fully functional pluripotent stem cells from a laboratory-construct without creating an embryo.

In a speech to the Senate, I also proposed a competition, to be managed by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would create incentives for our great research institutions to get patient specific pluripotent stem cells without risking the cloning or harming of an embryo. Simply put, the NIH would take applications from research institutions with plans to accomplish the goal. For example, the NIH could allocate $70 million dollars in total to the project, $10 million each for five institutions to conduct their comprehensive plans and then a prize of $20 million to the first institution to successfully produce patient specific pluripotent stem cells without cloning or harming a human embryo.

For all of these reasons, I voted enthusiastically for the alternative approaches and the prohibition against fetus farms in the Senate. I voted against H.R. 810, which uses tax dollars to fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. The Federal Government has never funded such research before, and that is not a line I wish to cross-especially since, as the alternatives show, it is possible to fund every type of stem cell research without cloning or destroying human embryos.

As you know, one of the difficulties with this issue is that much depends on understanding at least the basics of the science involved, and the science is complicated. Attached, please find a complete copy of my speech on this issue. I encourage you to take the time to read it. I would be interested in your further comments on this issue.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If I may be of further assistance, please don't hesitate to call or write

The Central Corridor: Cosmopolitan, Yet Parochial

The Central Corridor: Cosmopolitan, Yet Parochial

Most people casually divide the City of St. Louis into three areas: North St. Louis, South St. Louis, and the central corridor. Of course, those boundaries are very much unofficial, and hard to determine precisely.

Some just say the central corridor extends from downtown west to Forest Park, and maybe even to Clayton. Others mark it as the territory generally along Highway 40 (I-64). Sometimes the northern boundary is Delmar; sometimes it's Page/Cass. Sometimes 40 is the southern boundary; sometimes it's Chouteau; sometimes even I-44.

Politically, we usually call Ward 6, Ward 7, Ward 17, and Ward 28 central corridor wards. After redistricting, Ward 19 also is largely within the central corridor.

The neighborhoods within the corridor for sure are Downtown and Downtown West, Midtown and Grand Center, the Central West End, and DeBaliviere Place and Skinker-DeBaliviere. Forest Park, SLU, Harris-Stowe, (part of) WashU and all of WashU Med School, Barnes-Jewish and Children's Hospitals, maybe even SLU and Cardinal Glennon Hospitals, are in the central corridor.

The conventional belief is the central corridor is more cosmopolitan, higher income, better educated, and more ethnically and racially diverse than the rest of the city.

OK, then, why does it seem like so many central corridor people are parochial? They love their own neighborhoods -- and often, don't know much about the rest of the city, it seems.

For example, a generally positive front-page article from the August 30 West End Word about the opening of the new MetroLink line to Shrewsbury via Clayton included several oddly narrow-minded comments:

The final destination is Shrewsbury, a South County suburb that at least some locals would have found hard to place prior to this project.

Really? They must never go into Webster Groves, then. You pretty much have to go through Shrewsbury to get to Webster, except from the west. Also, I think many South Countians would not count Shrewsbury residents among their number. The unofficial northern boundary of South County is Watson Road -- which happens to be the southern boundary of both Shrewsbury and Webster Groves.

Andrew St. Johnston of the Central West End said the new line was impressive and worth the inconveniences endured by neighbors during the construction, such as the three-year closure of Forest Park Parkway. But he questioned whether taking the line beyond Maplewood to Shrewsbury was a good use of public money. “There’s nothing there,” he said.

Sheesh. Don't tell that to Kurt Odenwald. Besides which, there are two very good reasons the line ends at Shrewsbury Lansdowne I-44, straddling the city-county line. #1 is the location is the best available for a major terminal park-ride lot along I-44. #2 is, obvious to the casual observer standing on Lansdowne south of the terminal station, there are future plans for extending the line even further south. While funding and routing (either on the BNSF corridor or the River des Peres corridor) are uncertain, it will happen eventually.

Anyway, I realize almost everybody in St. Louis for any length of time, can be downright parochial about their own neighborhood and/or section of the region. It's still the case that few Southsiders go to the Northside, and vice versa. Most suburbanites don't venture downtown. Many Illinois residents rarely come into St. Louis; and vice versa. And most St. Charles Countians rarely come inside the I-270 beltway. I guess that's just how some people prefer to live.

As for me, I spend a great deal of time not only in my own neighborhood and others on the Southside, but also in the central corridor and in North County. We've also ventured a fair bit into Illinois, and occasionally head out to St. Charles, South County, and further afield locations. While I am proud to live in South St. Louis, as many of my ancestors did, I recognize the value of all the different parts of the immediate St. Louis region.

School & Home

School & Home

St. Louis Schools Watch online reports the return of School & Home, the award-winning newspaper published for many years by the St. Louis Public Schools.

Download the latest issue in PDF format. It features a list of all the schools for 2006-07, including principals and grade levels.

School & Home was, I think, the first place I was ever quoted in print! It was summer 1991, and I was in the district-wide gifted summer school at Enright CJA at 5351 Enright Ave.

Every couple weeks, we had an assembly where parents were invited to see what their kids had learned. These assemblies were held in the fourth floor auditorium: a big, long, open room with folding chairs, no stage, no elevator access, and certainly no a/c. Indeed, only two of the four stairways in the building could access that part of the 4th floor.

I was taking a summer class on the US Constitution. A lady from School & Home asked me about term limits. And I said:

"I'm against term limits because I think we need our more experienced Congressmen to stay."

Or something like that.

My first publication came somewhat earlier though.

I used to love drawing mazes. I made one with Snoopy on it. For some reason, we sent it to the Channel 9 Kids Club magazine.

And they printed it! I was seven years old -- 7 1/2, to be precise. That was 1986.

So, you might say I've been a published author for twenty years now! ;-)