This quote about the stem-cell research haters:
The U has scheduled an event Thursday near the Capitol in which patients with Type I diabetes, Duchenne's muscular dystrophy and a lethal skin condition called epidermolysis bullosa will speak out against the legislation.
DFLers tried to change the bill's definition of cloning so embryonic stem cell research wouldn't be affected, but Republicans voted it down.
Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, questioned the entire research argument.
"If there had been any breakthroughs, if there were any breakthroughs on the horizons, this argument would be very different," Jungbauer said, adding that no constituent or researcher had contacted him to express any concerns over the issue. "But there won't be any breakthroughs."
The debate was similar to one that played out Tuesday night in both the House and Senate, where Republican majorities approved a ban on state funding of such research. Wednesday's Senate ban is wider because it makes the act of such research a misdemeanor, regardless of who's paying for it.
Never forget, the esteemed Senator from SD 48 has a track record which makes intelligent people decline to take the time to contact him. He co-sponsored with Michele Bachmann when she was a state senator, a bill that would have compelled the teaching of creationism (the "Intelligent Design" flavor) in Minnesota schools, as a part of the science curriculum.
SCIENCE.
Teaching creationism arguably would fit into the history curriculum, when teaching about the Crusades or the Inquisition or the incessant warfare troubling Europe after the Reformation; or the affront to Galileo; or flat-earth beliefs and denial of heliocentrism; but in 20th or 21st century science classes? Get real.
It insults every intelligent person in Minnesota to see that.
In some literature classes mythology of some ancient civilizations is studied, so that Judeo-Christian myths as well as Islamic outgrowths might arguably have a fit, there.
But creationism is not science and only some variety of town fool or mischief instigator might unwittingly or with a purpose confuse the two.
So, if your purpose is persuasion, why bother to write to Jungbauer over something where you know what he's going to do and say and vote, and you know Dayton will veto all that stupidity anyway?
My bet, that part of the report about no constituent writing, I bet that's false even though it sounded good to Jungbauer to declare it. Somebody surely must have written, before today, (all fools day), no matter how dismal the prospects of the effort. Any takers on the other side of that bet?
The funny farm, indeed.
----------------------------------
Don't blame me. I voted for Peter Perovich. For the reasonableness and balanced perspective Perovich offered, as opposed to hokey right-wingnuttery.