...give a whole new meaning to the "Left Behind" series.

...If you people will allow all science to run free of politics. Historially, times of science/tech development have been the times of greatest prosperity. For us, the last time that happened was the dot-com boom. If the administration were to announce an energy independence Apollo, I hereby promise to change my vote to Obama next time around.

"When Barack Obama removed George W. Bush's ban on federal funding for new embryonic stem cell research in March, the president cast his decision as part of a larger effort to remove politics from science. No longer would research, Obama said, be shackled by a "false choice between sound science and moral values." "

I would perhaps word it thusly:

"...the president cast his decision as part of a larger effort to remove morality from science. No longer would research, Obama said, be shackled by a "false choice between sound science and moral values." "

Why is it a false choice? I went to school with many liberal engineers who refused to work for the defense industry, on the grounds that they found it immoral to use their knowledge to build things that kill.

"In 2007, researchers announced the development of induced pluripotent stem cells (IPSCs) in humans -- adult cells reprogrammed to mimic embryonic stem cells. In theory, IPSCs could bring the political battle over stem cells to an end, since producing them does not involve embryos. But many scientific hurdles remain to be cleared before IPSCs can be considered a safe and complete replacement for embryonic stem cells."

So, why doesn't Obama earmark a few billion dollars for an initiative to expedite these "scientific hurdles," in the interest of fairness, or morality?

See, the thing is, Liberals just don't respect people who disagree with them, and they don't respect ideas that differ from theirs. Liberals demonize and smear and hate. Christians are coming at this issue from a moral standpoint. They don't want to see people suffer - Rush Limbaugh is not a spokesman for Christian Morality, by any means, although the Liberal media would like you to believe that he is. No, think of an anology: Slave labor. If we could have repaired the levees in New Orleans in a matter of weeks by shipping Chinese and Black slaves down South, making them work for free, for 14 hours a day, and it would have saved lives, would you have been for it? Well, it would have saved lives, right? I mean, it just takes too much time and money to do it with private contractors and government regulations. Is this a false choice between engineering and morality?

Yes, people suffering from degenerative diseases need our help. Yes, people who suffer from neurological diseases need our help. Of course they do. And nobody wants them to suffer. But from a certain Christian perspective, two wrongs do not make a right. If a person believes that human life begins at conception, then what is wrong with that? Why is that a horrible thing? And if this belief was given one iota of respect from our "Enlightened Liberals" - you know, the ones who destroyed the world economy - perhaps we could open new doors to new discoveries, heretofore unheard of, by trying different avenues.

You know, I used to be one of the mocking laughing Liberals. Then I actally started to talk to people, and try to understand them, and see their point of view. And no, I don't follow a party line, Liberal or Conservative, but it seems to me that on this issue, at least, the Conservatives have a very strong moral foundation. One thing that always shocks me is how short-sighted Liberals are. This could possibly open the door to a whole new world of biological tyranny, a nightmarish scenario of science-fiction proportions. It has already infested our food supply (courtesy of Monsanto and ADM), all with the blessing of Liberals in high places.

Let me just close by saying that the politicization of this moral issue is where all the hypocracy and ignorance lies - those in power using others for their own ends. That is almost always the case, with any policy issue. Do not look to Republican Senators and policy wonks for any moral insight on this issue. Go deeper. I wish we had thoughtful programming like Great Britian, where a few years ago I saw broadcast a panel of some of the world's leading scientists, theologists, and moralists talk about this very issue.

And you can't not politicize morality. All politics is moral, because the aim of politics is for the greater good, and the definition of "good" is a moral question.

... is it moral to throw away embryos that could be used to save, improve, and extend lives?

The small number of biotech jobs in Georgia has more to do with money and power than it does with the religious right or stem cells. Atlanta is a modern city, but it's a wasteland when it comes to biotech (despite the presence of Emory, GA Tech and UGA). I used to work there a few years ago, but the few biotechs that were there have mostly shut down. I moved back to the Northeast to find a job.

The biotech industry is constricting and consolidating in a few cities. Stem cells aren't the big issue - most biotechs have nothing to do with stem cells. Big pharma is moving out of most of the South and Midwest - they've bought out most of the players in those areas and decided it's cheaper to shut them down. And without the big companies, the smaller biotech companies struggle to get funding. If you're a biotech and you're located near a bunch of other biotechs, you're seem as a better financial risk than a biotech in the middle of "nowhere" - whether that "nowhere" is red or blue. There are plenty of blue states that also struggle to keep biotechs alive (Michigan for example). The biotechs are consolidating more and more in Boston, California, New Jersey and NC (and even Research Triangle is struggling).

Stem cells are a minor issue compared with the struggle to get funding. The competition isn't with blue states as much as it is with China or India.