Read, bookmark (or better yet print it out so you don't lose it when the story is dropped) and remember what it says.

"Stem Cells Might Cause Brain Tumors"

There are those campaigning to open up federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on new embryonic lines.

There are important realities in the sentence that I just wrote that are often passed by.

• There is already federal funding for existing embryonic lines
• There is  private funding for new lines
• research on new embryonic lines is NOT illegal, it's just that the federal government is not funding it

Something that I did not know (HT parableman) is that

Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.

From what I understand, the idea is for stem-cells to replicate into brain cells that release dopamine.  And...

Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.

But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.

The article says that

Scientists have long feared that human embryonic stem cells could turn into tumors, because of their pliability.

(but it doesn't give a source)

If this article is accurate and Goldman's team's suspicions bear out, this could have an impact on the was we argue against (or for) stem cell research.

"Life is short...stay awake for it."

(3 Weight Watchers points...just right for breakfast)

From Reformed Catholicism.

John Calvin (as opposed to Roman Catholicism and Martin Luther) maintained that the "real presence" of Christ is present in the Lord's Supper.

And yet, not the "carnal" or physical presence.  As the writer of this article says,

He [Calvin] asserted that Christ is truly present in the sacrament, but that his presence is brought about through the agency of the Holy Spirit, uniting the believer with the body and blood of Christ to be fed spiritually. Calvin, in agreement with Zwingli, believed that Christ’s body is in heaven and that it therefore cannot be contained locally in the Eucharist, but he did not think that Zwingli did justice to Christ’s words of institution, to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 10:16, or to the ancient tradition of the church. He believed in a spiritual understanding of the Presence that, in his opinion, is no less real than the localized understanding affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church and by Luther.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is essential to one's walk with God.  There is something mystical about this meal (mystical in the "having a spiritual reality" meaning of the word).  There is something beautiful in partaking of communion.

The Bible clearly teaches the bodily ascension into heaven - the real, physical body of Christ is not here on earth.  To accept the reality of the dual nature of Christ (fully man and fully God) gives us the possibility of the "real" spiritual presence of Christ in communion, but not the physical presence.

It is also interesting to note that for all their claims that Calvinists destroy the plain sense of the words of institution “this is”, ubiquitarians themselves destroy the plain sense of the passages concerning Christ’s bodily ascension into heaven, which is that the God man Jesus Christ moved locally from one place to another in which place his physical body resides. (Remember all His talk about how He was about to “go” to His Father and “come again”?) Either way, both sides are constrained to hold an unliteral understanding of one passage of Scripture or the other.

I've heard this issue brought up like a mantra...making it an issue of division, instead of the unity it was meant to bring.  I like this paragraph:

In the end, one thing we all must confess is that we are dealing with a tremendous and unfathomable mystery here. Let us tremble before the majesty of our divine-human King and shudder at the thought of treating our fellow worshipers with contempt, lest we be guilty of despising His beloved children whom he feeds graciously with the wonderful substance of his true body and blood. He has granted to His Church the tremendous blessing of feeding on His flesh and blood that it might be united in him, not so that we could exalt ourselves over one another and tear his body apart like a bunch of ravenous heathen cannibals.

This is a "Carnival of Beauty" "assignment" that sent me down memory lane.

My "baby" is reminding me that she's going to be 18 in a few weeks. She's my "surprise".

My Tom was born first - before that I'd been on fertility pills for four years, I'd "lost" five babies, including Tom's twin. I'd been told by my doctor (a fertility specialist) that the chances of me being able to get pregnant again was "slim to none". My body was not any less "weird" after Tom was born and at one point my GP prescribed provera.

Normally, a doctor would insist on a pregnancy test before writing the Rx, but I was not normal. I had the prescription filled and was ready to take it the next morning. I had a "bug" and wasn't feeling well and it sort of dawned on me that

1. the last time I'd felt that terrible all the time - I was pregnant
2. the only time I didn't feel terrible was when my tummy was "unrestricted" by the clothes I was wearing.

So I called and doc said, "well, sure...I guess we could do a test..." I was so sure that I couldn't be that I didn't even tell my husband I was having the test done!  (uh....honey...you'd better sit down)
SURPRISE!

I was nearly four months along before I caught on!

Granted, this gift from God (Amanda) was a bigger (life changing) surprise than many folks get, but I've never had a better one.

I read Barbara Curtis' "Mommy Life" blog nearly every day (although I rarely comment there or anywhere lately).  This week she wrote a post about a divorced mom with five kids.

This mom says that she's been a "baby Christian" for fifteen years and had seen little or no growth in her life.  The letter that Barbara posted from the mom said that she's Roman Catholic, but did not say if she had been in that church her entire Christian life.  Her youngest child is four years old and her husband abandoned her when she was pregnant with that child.

Barbara's advice included looking outside the Roman Catholic church for food and roots.

I would join her in that advice (I'd love it if that single mom were to find this post and contact this single mom).

The reason is simple - support for single moms.

If a divorce person came to me and asked about churches, I would not recommend a church that condemns all divorce.  This divorced mom has had a rough walk already and it's going to get tougher.  It doesn't sound as though she had a husband who "washed her in the Word" (a Godly husband leading her).

I certainly would not recommend being (staying or finding) a church (any church) that will hold a divorce against her for the rest of her life.

The Roman Catholic church is not the only church that holds a "divorce debt" against a person for life.  This is not about the Roman Catholic church and whether they have right or wrong doctrine.  This is about divorced parents (or divorced non-parents) looking for forgiveness in a church (and there are many churches) that holds that debt against them.

Part of a research paper I wrote included, "How the Church Sees Singles".  It can be HARD for a single person to find a church where they fit in.  I would offer this advice to single people:  Don't be afraid to look for a church that will accept you and support you where your life has put you.

For the single mom that wrote this letter to Barbara Curtis - she's divorced.  Strike one.  If she dates, strike two.  If she finds her "someone", well...the church that she is currently in will not (I believe) marry that couple.  In the church that she is in, she has no hope...NO HOPE...to find love and her "happily ever after".

After fifteen years of  "no growth", this single mom needs to find a church where she will not only grow, she needs a place where she (and her children) can flourish - be accepted, loved and cared for.  Why would anybody discourage this?

Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, is quoted in a speech to President Ronald Reagan:

I have learned the danger of indifference, the crime of indifference. For the opposite of love, I have learned is not hate, but indifference. Jews were killed by the enemy but betrayed by their so-called allies, who found political reasons to justify their indifference or passivity. What have I learned? When there is obvious injustice and principles are violated – when human lives and dignity are at stake – when your allies find reasons to justify their silence or indifference, neutrality is a sin.

There are too many churches who are either indifferent towards divorced moms, or worse.  If a single mom is in one of these churches, I'd encourage her to get out.  It doesn't matter what denomination we're talking about.

Didn't go so well...

So...back to the daily postings that I'm pretty sure nobody reads, but that I know are there...(mind game)

Goals

1. Drink all my water (or green tea) every day.
2. "Eat the rainbow" (red, green, yellow/white, purple and orange fruits and veggies) every day.
3. Cook lunch 3 days instead of buying (high sodium) frozen lunches
4. Really get my two daily servings in.
5. Blog two new WW-friendly recipes that I've actually cooked (and eaten).
6. And (of course) stay within the points I'm alloted.

I'm reading through a "Ten Country Survey of Pentecostals"  (HT: Boars Head Tavern).

There's some pretty expected inforamation that compares Pentecostals, Charismatics, (sometimes) "other" Christians and "all" Christians.

What caught my eye was a question about the "U.S. Led War on Terror".  In the United States, Christians in general  - and Pentecostals and Charistmatics even more so - support the war on terror.  That's not particulary surprising.

It's the other parts of the world that are interesting.

In Latin America, South Africa, and South Korea, the war is very much NOT supported.

In northern Africa, India, and the Phillipines, the war IS supported.  In the Phillipines, Christians support the war on terror more than Christians in the United States do.

Outside of the United States, what is the difference in the political and/or religious climate in these regions of the world?

The population of Muslims.

I think this is normal for me, this time of year.  But, here's a couple of updates...

1. I either did really well, or really terrible on my test.  I don't think there's an in-between.
2. I'm either looking at sleeping with a CPAP or having surgery - if I can I'll opt for the surgery.
3. My son's car died.  Really died.

I'm in a women's Bible study on Wednesday evenings and I'm sure I'll be blogging about that and I have lots of posts started, I'm just swimming in anatomical terminology and I need to get "balanced"

On the "anatomical terminology", here's a cute kid story:

One of my students was walking with me and I (sort of) study 2 or 3 seconds at a time.  I asked, "quick, what's a sarcomere?"  His pointed off to a corner and said, "I think there's one over there."  This is also the student that said, "I can't be Romeo...I'm Spanish."  (for the record, he's Bosnian).

(This is the "science lab" that I've been putting off - it's the last requirement before I transfer.  I should have taken geology)

hopefully I'll be better this weekend...

Lecture exam on integumentary system, skeletal system, muscle system.

Need to know all of the chemical processes needed for muscle contraction...

I normally don't have trouble with classes, but this one is kicking my butt.  I don't know what I'm doing wrong, but labelling parts of things (like the parts of a long bone, parts of a sarcolemma (or whatever), parts of a muscle (all of the little thingies inside), parts of the layers of skin, yada, yada...

And I sign up for next semesters classes...I need to choose between getting back on the math track (needed to transfer) or retaking Spanish 101.

And I'm definately taking a Dreamweaver course.

I don't usually "do politics" here, but this relates directly to me.

I'm not big on unions; my labor union is for this proposal, but I've voted in ways contrary to their recommendations before and I will again.

This is about making sure public schools funding keeps up with inflation.

From a "pro-5" site

WHAT IS PROPOSAL 5?
Proposal 5 is an education ballot initiative that requires the State of Michigan to provide annual funding increases at the rate of inflation (based on the previous year’s Consumer Price Index) to local public K-12 schools, intermediate school districts, community colleges and higher education institutions.

It also requires the State to fund any deficiencies in the School Aid Fund from the General Fund, allow base funding for school districts with declining enrollment to use a three-year average; cap Retirement Fund contribution for public schools, community college and universities and require the State to pay remaining portion. 

Proposal 5 reduces funding gap between school districts receiving basic per-pupil foundation allowance and those receiving maximum foundation allowance.

I intended to also post a clip from an "anti-5" site, but they're in pdf and wouldn't let me cut and paste - I'm too lazy today to retype.

Basically, for both sides, it's about funding.  The "anti's" say that the funding increase is not tied to performance.  HELLO?  "No Child Left Behind" ties the school directly to performance.  If the school doesn't perform, the government takes it over.

The "anti's" say that it's about staff pay and pensions.  Well....yes.  Actually, it is.  Staff pay and pensions are part of running a school.  For any business, staffing is a part of the overhead.

Put another way...

Over the last four years, our state legislatures have voted themselves a raise of about 40%.

But public schools don't deserve to keep up with inflation.