Al Agnew

Ham, I like Wiggle Warts because of the wide, slightly irregular wobble that is a little different from the Bandits. I've caught some big fish on them in Ozark streams. I've modified some that I use on the rivers, by grinding down the bill about 1/4. It makes the lure run about 5-6 feet deep at the deepest, instead of 7-8 feet, without changing the basic action much. They now make the Mid-Wart, which runs about 4 feet deep. I use unmodified ones in the lakes, on the rather rare occasion I fish the lakes.

Gonefishin', sorry if I jumped to a conclusion there, I was going on your equating me with the people who were against the Doolittle raid. And I wish I WAS a young feller. Wayne can tell you I'm not (just not as old as he is--bwa ha) Look guys, I don't disagree with you on anything about the necessity of fighting the terrorists, the dangers they present, the things they believe. The only thing I disagree with you on is whether this is the battle we're fighting in Iraq. We KNEW that al Qaeda was being sheltered in Afghanistan, that they were using the country as a training ground with the full support of the Taliban. We may or may not have known for sure that Saddam was trying to develop WMDs, and it was no more than a possibility that, if he had them, he would be willing to furnish them to al Qaeda. You couldn't find anybody in the intelligence community who disagreed on Afghanistan. You could find, if you looked, plenty who disagreed on the extent of the danger that Saddam posed. But that's neither here nor there. Like I said, for whatever reason we really went into Iraq, it's done, and the thing now is to decide what to do next. What we're doing isn't working very well. And none of us here on this board are going to solve the problem...it's just interesting to talk about and hear others' views.

Wayne, I don't buy your assertion that we've wiped out a bunch of al Qaeda people in Iraq. I've never seen any sources that put any kind of a number or percentage figure on how many of the people we've killed were foreign terrorists and how many were home grown Iraqis. Everything I've read points to most of the people who have been causing the trouble in Iraq being Iraqis. Like I said before, there were very few, if any, al Qaeda people in Iraq during Saddam's reign because he didn't trust them in his own country, and the Iraqis who have been fighting us since Saddam went down are doing so because we are in their country, not because they wanted us dead beforehand. If they are potential terrorists who would attack us in our own country, chances are we made them so. And before gonefishin or anybody else characterizes me as not wanting to fight terrorists...that's the whole point. That's who we SHOULD be fighting. I'm all for taking it to the terrorists on their own ground. I'm just not at all convinced that's what we're doing in Iraq. Cut and run...a great sound bite term for any idea that means setting some sort of a time line for getting out of Iraq, but it sounds like getting out as soon as possible at any cost. I don't think the vast majority of Democrats are calling for that. And I don't think setting a definite time line is a good idea, either. But, maybe the truest and scariest thing in Zakaria's article was the simple statement that we cannot politically (nor economically) sustain present operations in Iraq indefinitely. If there was real, tangible progress in Iraqi security, I think the people of America would support doing whatever it took to finish the job. But ask yourself this...is Iraq as a whole any safer and more secure now than it was 2 years ago? Is Baghdad? Geez, if both the U.S. and the Iraqi government can't secure the capital, something ain't going right. You don't have to believe that the dreaded media are ignoring the good things that are happening...the simple fact is that the number of BAD things that are happening is rising. A year or more ago, the Bush administration asserted that the escalating violence was the last desparate gasp of the terrorists. Well, it sure is a LONG last gasp.

Nope, gonefishin', still don't buy it. Al Qaeda doesn't give a hoot about Iraq. Few if any al Qaeda terrorists that we know of came from Iraq. Iraq was not a base for al Qaeda during Saddam's reign. Protecting Iraq, or running us out of there, is not in the stated goals of bin Laden and al Qaeda. In your example, we would protect Oregon because it's part of our country. Al Qaeda and the jihadists don't have a country, they have a perverted religion to which they are loyal. We would protect Oregon because it's part of America. They care about Iraq only to the extent that it's part of the whole Moslem "empire" they dream about, and they for sure don't care about the Iraqis. Where I think you're making a mistake is in equating the people who are trying their darnedest to blow up American soldiers to international terrorists. There are a few "outsiders" who are involved in Iraq, but mostly it's the Sunni minority and a portion of the Shias who want us out of there so bad they are trying to kill us. That's the key...THEY are Iraqis, and they want us out of Iraq. (The Sunnis also want to kill as many Shia as possible, especially those that are in the police or government, because they are afraid the Shia will kill THEM.) If we WERE driven out of Iraq, why would they come over here and keep killing us? They are not al Qaeda, and that's not their goal. The only case you can make is that if we were run out of Iraq, it's quite possible that the country would eventually become a base for international terrorists, as Afghanistan was. (And as a few other countries still are.)

You guys really should read Zakaria's article, like I said, it is the most comprehensive report on the state of affairs in Iraq and what we can actually accomplish there that I've seen in the media, period. You can find it at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15459024/site/newsweek/ Gonefishin', I think you're still thinking way too simplistically. HOW are we keeping al Qaeda tied up in Iraq? Do you honestly think that all the jihadists, or even a significant percentage of them, decided that the best way to hurt America was to go to Iraq and fight the U.S. Army? As Zakaria said, "This makes no sense. Qaeda terrorists from Iraq could have made their way to America at any point in the last three years. In fact, Iraq's borders are more porous today than they have ever been. If a terrorist wanted to inflict harm on U.S. civilians, he could drive across Anbar into Syria, then hop a plane to New York or Washington, D.C. Does the President really believe that because we're in Iraq, terrorists have forgotten that we're also in America?" In other words, NOTHING we are doing in Iraq is FORCING terrorists to fight us there instead of the U.S. They are doing so either because they don't have the means, or they don't have the will, to attack us on our soil instead. Our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with KEEPING them from having the means or the will, and if they did have it, our presence in Iraq wouldn't keep them from attacking us here. It's not simple math. The people we are fighting in Iraq are, quite simply, NOT the people who could and would attack us on American soil.

Smartest thing I've ever seen written on what to do in Iraq was an article by Fareed Zakaria in last week's Newsweek. And one of the things he noted, which I've believed for a long time, is that the whole idea of "fighting the terrorists in their own backyard so we don't have to fight them in ours" is pretty bogus. Come on...if you were al Queda, what would you rather do, blow up a few U.S. soldiers and a bunch of Iraqis, or do something else spectacularly brutal in America? If the terrorists had the will and the means, there's no way they'd stay in Iraq rather than doing another attack in the U.S. And there's no way that our being in Iraq is keeping them from it. The borders in that country are porous enough that every supposed al Queda agent in that country can easily leave at any time and at least make the attempt to get into the U.S. and do something. So I've never understood just how our being in Iraq is keeping them from coming over here. Seems to me that's just one more simplistic slogan with little basis in fact. You'll never convince me that Iraq ever had anything concrete to do with fighting terrorism. Saddam may have WMDs. But even if he did, he wasn't going to give them to terrorists, he was going to use them himself or keep them as a threat. And he was never willing to let terrorists use his country as a base, because he viewed that as a threat to his own power. Nope, I have always thought that the biggest (unstated) reason for invading Iraq was to replace the regime with one either friendly to us, or beholden to us, in order to stabilize and secure the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. And no, it wasn't about the price at the pump or even about the oil companies. It was about having a source of oil to replace Saudi oil if the Saudis ever get kicked out of Arabia (which is far from unlikely). Geopolitically, it only makes sense, given that this country's economy still depends upon oil, and having more secure sources of it will be all-important in the future, hopefully until we can develop other energy sources. But we couldn't just come right out and say it, so the Bush administration started out stating it was because of Saddam's WMDs, then when that didn't quite pan out because we couldn't find them, it devolved into a bunch of other reasons. Don't get me wrong. I'm still not convinced that invading Iraq didn't have some justification. And I'm not advocating just getting out at this point. I don't have so much of a quibble with Bush's decision to invade Iraq as I do with the way the aftermath of the successful invasion was handled.

Suicide is the bluff path...you gotta climb the bluff. It would be stupid and dangerous to try to carry a canoe up it. Cardiac is the long hill (first parking area you come to). It's just that, a long hill, probably a half mile hike uphill all the way. Doable, but geez, just paddle the danged canoe on down to Scotts Ford. Like Gavin said, it only takes a couple of hours, maybe less if you have a decent paddling canoe. And there are a couple of good areas to fish between Suicide and Scotts. Also...putting a canoe in at the Spring is problematic. I assume you mean putting in at the access. It's over a mile from there down to the spring, and not good trout water. Paddle through it, fish hard from the spring to the big pool below Suicide, then hit the good spots from there to Scotts. I've done that numerous times.

Ted, I don't see why not from a physical standpoint. My boat is capable of running in about 6 inches of water. During generation, the White and North Fork are a whole lot deeper than that. However, I think a jet boat owner has a special responsibility to have as light an impact as the technology will allow. Running a jet up through a riffle full of flyfishermen might not be a light impact. As a long time canoe angler, I am especially sensitive to the negative impact that jetboats have on small or crowded rivers. I have spent very little time on the White and even less on the North Fork, so I don't know how crowded they typically are, nor how many jetboats run them regularly. So I don't know how many funny (or perhaps dirty) looks you might get.

Ron, I've listened to Bush enough to pretty well know how he normally speaks, and this wasn't the same. I have no problem with it...after all, any politician will use whatever means available to fit in with whatever crowd they are speaking to in order to establish a rapport with them. I just kinda wonder if anybody else noticed, and if anybody felt a little put off by it. By the way, Bush's Texas accent was certainly not his original one, since he was mainly raised in the Northeast.

Well, if it was me and I was just going to get one boat, it wouldn't be either one. I'd get a good solo canoe. I've fished from all three (or four, if you count sit on top and sit in kayaks separately). The toon is stable, comfortable, carries plenty of gear. But it gets nowhere fast, and sometimes you just want or need to get across the lake or get down some long river pool to get to the next fishing spot. And toons are terrible if it's windy. Sure, you can use a trolling motor, but by the time you carry around the motor and battery and toon and gear and set it all up, you've wasted a lot of fishing time. Kayaks are great for getting places where others can't. They are fun to paddle and okay to fish from. But they are wet in cold weather, they aren't the most comfortable things to sit in all day (and the sit ins can be tough to get in and out of), because you sit so low in the water some kinds of fishing aren't as easy, and above all, they just can't carry much gear, or at least carry it conveniently. So...a good solo canoe can go about anywhere a kayak can. It's almost as good in the wind as a kayak, and far, far better than a toon. You can make it go fast enough if you want to. It's reasonably comfortable to sit in all day. It's fun to paddle. And...it carries all the gear you'll ever want to take. Overall, it's a more versatile craft than either the toon or a kayak. If you want this boat strictly for one type of fishing (like fishing small lakes), the toon might be your best choice. But if you want a craft that will do most anything and do it reasonably well, think about a canoe.

I listened to snippets of the President's speeches in SW MO today. Is it just me, or did he seem to make his speech patterns more "country-hick" than normal while speaking in our state? He sounded like he was trying to sound like Harry Truman...or a country-western singer.

Yeah, I bought it new at Ernies. They seem to be a very good place to do business. 16 ft. Blazer jonboat, 40 HP Evinrude Etec engine. Expect Mary to give you the evil eye the next time she sees you! He-he!

I know a lot of people say that the farther you go from a public access, the better the fishing is. However, that's not really been my experience. I'm just about as likely to catch fish near an access as I am farther away from it. Probably as much as anything it depends on the habitat. If you've got good habitat near an access, it'll have fish. A few examples...there is a 10 mile stretch of river that I float a lot. Access at the put-in is difficult, there is no public access in the middle of it, and the access at the take-out is a popular state park. I've caught more 18 inch plus smallmouths in the one mile stretch of river that runs through the park than I have at any other 1 mile stretch of that float. There is an MDC access on the same river, boat ramp, popular. The boat ramp happens to be on a nice pool. In the winter, I've caught more bass out of that pool than any other pool within 10 miles either way. Seems to me that most people who concentrate their fishing right around public accesses are not fishing for bass, and a lot of them aren't knowledgeable anglers. Also, it could very well be that the meat hogs who are killing more fish than the law allows, either keeping undersize fish, keeping more than their limit, fishing out of season, gigging game fish...probably get far enough away from the access that they feel safe before engaging in their illegal activities.

I had to take the new jetboat back down to Ernies Boats and Motors on Webb Creek, Clearwater Lake, because of a recall notice to replace the fuel filter on the motor. So wife and I decided to get it done yesterday, and then go on down to Current River for the day. The weather forecast was sounding good, partly to mostly cloudy, warm...but windy. I'd checked all the river levels, noting that the upper Current at Akers hadn't gotten but a very slight rise, but the Jacks Fork had gotten a pretty big rise during the last big rains on Friday. I figured the river below the Jacks Fork would still be up a bit, and since I'm still somewhat of a novice at running a jetboat and also have somewhat of an aversion to using one on anything but fairly large waters anyway, given all the times I've cussed the things when one came roaring by me while I was in a canoe on waters I considered too small for running them, I decided to go into Logyard and run a few miles upstream. We got to the river about 11 AM, to find it up about a foot from the very low levels it had been recently, and just slightly off color. The weather was as advertised. In fact, windy was an understatement. It was one of the windiest days I've spent on the river in a long time. And, unfortunately, it was also the perfect time for leaf fall. With the wind blowing them off the trees in huge masses, I've never seen so many leaves on the water, especially on a river the size of the Current in that area. Leaves and jet outboards don't mix well. I couldn't run more than a few hundred yards before leaves clogged the intake and I'd have to stop and get them off. So, after running just three miles or so, I decided it was time to stop and fish. Leaves in the masses these were make fishing almost impossible. With the water getting cold, I knew the smallmouths would be in areas off the stronger currents. Unfortunately, every eddy off the main current was a solid mass of leaves. Some of those leaf mats were as big as my house and looked thick enough to walk on. In stronger eddies, the mats didn't form, but there were leaves rolling in the current from top to bottom, with seldom a space of more than a foot that was clear. I was able to find some places where, with accurate casts, I could at least work a lure for a short distance before the leaves reached out and grabbed it or the line. I sure wish I could have fished more places, because the fish were there and they were hungry. I ended up with one nice 16.5 inch smallie, several more of 14-15 inches, and probably 12-15 fish altogether. They were hitting jerkbaits, crankbaits, jigs...pretty much whatever I could fish in the leaves and fish fairly slowly. But there were so many places I couldn't fish, and the incessant wind made the fishing tough even when I could avoid the leaves. The chain pickerel were as active as the bass. I had strikes from several nice ones in the 24-30 inch class, had one bite me off (high dollar Lucky Craft Pointer...bummer) and caught some little ones. All in all, it was one of the weirdest, toughest days I've fished in a while, but fun nevertheless. Mary finally got too cold--even though the air temp off the river was in the upper 60s and lower 70s, the wind coming off that water was biting at times--and we quit an hour or so before dark.

3wt, I understand your points. As for the two things on which you disagree with me, my point is that embryonic stem cells have all their DNA "turned on". They can become anything in the body. So, theoretically it would be possible to get them to divide and do just what they are designed to do...produce a fully formed human being. Obviously that's still theoretical, but it's a small jump from what is being attempted in the research right now, which is to stimulate them to produce specific organs. The question, however, is whether you are cloning stem cells or cloning an entire blastocyst in order to obtain the stem cells. Cloning stem cells is not the same as cloning a blastocyst. Your point about killing the blastocyst in order to obtain the stem cells is correct. Here again, we can argue all night the ethics of killing a blastocyst for stem cells that will otherwise be allowed to die anyway, as happens in iv fertilization. My viewpoint is still that we all draw the line somewhere, and if you draw it at conception, you gotta draw it there no matter what, or make exceptions. One of my exceptions would be blastocysts that are never going to become humans, anyway. I'm sorry, but I cannot consider a 50 cell blob to be a fully realized human. My definition of humanness falls somewhere else. But it isn't an easy question, for any thinking, feeling person, because there will always be points where you have to decide between the embryo and a living, breathing human, whether it be a Michael J. Fox or a victim of rape or a woman who may die if she carries a pregnancy to term or "just" a woman who absolutely psychologically and/or economically can't handle having a baby. A few of us will allow no exceptions, a lot of us will allow the exception somewhere along the line. Your default position, that conception is the only sure point, puts the life of the fertilized egg above that of anybody and everybody else, and thus it's not an easy position, either. Guys, I respect all of your viewpoints, and this has been an interesting and maybe valuable discussion, since it has gone a whole lot deeper than the TV commercials. Vote your conscience on this issue. I will mine.

I wasn't going to say anythung else about this but have to comment once more on the cloning thing. SCNT is at the heart of this matter, and very simply it is the cloning of cells by taking nuclear material (DNA) from one cell and transfering it to another from which the nuclear material has been removed, then stimulating the division of that cell to produce more cells just like it. Where it gets sticky is that, when you're talking about doing this with stem cells, it's using cells that, given the right stimulus, can become any organ in the body. So, when you get right down to it, you could argue that any embryonic stem cell is a potential human being. You wouldn't even HAVE to clone the cell, just take it out of the already existing blastocyst, stimulate it to divide, and presto, you got another blastocyst (embryo) just like the first one. So, what you have are at least a couple of ways to look at it. One, if you believe that a "human" at conception is fully human and entitled to all human rights, then NO interference of that embryo should be allowed, and also no iv fertilization, let alone abortion, should ever be allowed, because it interferes (lethally) with the development of that embryo into a human. No exceptions. But such a view, while being the only truly consistent black and white one, is shared by relatively few of us. Most would make exceptions, whether they be exceptions on abortion in order to protect the life and health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest, or iv in order to allow couples to have children they otherwise couldn't. Now here's another way to look at it. In embryonic stem cell technology, the theory is to take the DNA out of a stem cell, put it into another cell, and stimulate that cell to start dividing while also differentiating into the specific organ you are looking for. You don't need nor want a copy of the whole potential human you started from. Remember that 14 day prohibition in the initiative? It's there probably because when you get much past 14 days of development, the cells in the blastocyst are starting to differentiate into what will become organs. So, in a way, intent really does matter. That stem cell taken from an embryo is not much different from a cell taken off the skin of your nose. Both cells have all the DNA in the individual, except that in the stem cell that DNA is still open to everything, while off your nose all the DNA is turned off except the part that makes nose skin. And, it's really very little different from the adult stem cells that so many of you are for working with. If the goal is to stimulate those adult cells to turn back on all their DNA so that they can become any organ of the body (and that IS the goal), then each of those individual adult stem cells becomes no different from an embryonic stem cell. THEORETICALLY, they could also be stimulated to divide and become a cloned human. But, in reality they are just cells, and just like the embryonic cells, the goal is to clone the CELL and stimulate it to become a specific organ. Funny how nobody is arguing that an adult stem cell, let alone a nose skin cell, is fully a human OR capable of being used to clone a human. So when you're talking about this kind of science, the distinction between what is a human life really does begin to blur. Is a single cell a human being? That's what a fertilized egg is, no more, no less. Is a group of less than a hundred cells, each no different than the other, a human being? That's what a blastocyst is, no more, no less. If somebody handed you one and had you look at it under a microscope, you wouldn't have any idea what it was, and you certainly wouldn't recognize it as human. If they told you what it was, it would then become life with the potential to become a human and nothing else (outside of genetic manipulation, which is another whole topic of discussion). But would one cell taken from it be human in itself? And more importantly, would that cell, stimulated to divide and multiply AND start specializing into a specific human organ, THEN be a human? Yep, you can take that cell and theoretically put it in a petri dish and stimulate it to divide and follow its own course, and eventually you'd end up with an embryo that you could implant in a womb and grow into a baby. Or you can put it in the same petri dish and stimulate it to grow into a pancreas. So is it human or is it not? There ain't no easy answers, except to ban ALL interference with the natural development of a fertilized egg into a human baby. If that's your take on it, fine. You gotta be against in vitro, abortion in ALL cases, adult stem cell research, the whole ball of wax. Otherwise, you're making exceptions just like everybody else. Some make exceptions at one point, others at another. My take on it is, we're talking about fertilized eggs that would otherwise be thrown away. That's what happens in iv fertilization. The parents can opt to have the extra eggs (which are almost always produced in the process) thrown away, or kept on ice until they are no longer viable or they are sure they won't need them. By the way, it costs quite a bit of money to store the frozen eggs, which the parents must pay. Personally, I have no problem with not giving a cluster of totally undifferentiated cells(no beginnings of a brain, heart, or anything else recognizable) fully human status, so I have no problem with using them to produce something that is a human organ but not a human, in order to help those with serious diseases. I, just like the VAST majority of people in this country and on earth, would have a BIG problem with using them to clone another human being. That's why, to me, intent matters. And that's also why the fear that this is just the first step to human cloning is pretty irrational. Opposition to stem cell research is a valid viewpoint...that's where you're drawing that line. Others will draw the line at a different place, and their's will be just as valid a viewpoint. Opposition to it because you believe it is human cloning is questionable, to say the least.

Phil, I think he was speaking of embryonic stem cells. The lines of stem cells obtained and still usable from those President Bush okayed for entities receiving public funding number something like 17. The wider the range of genetic diversity, the better hope there is for scientific breakthroughs. Like I and Terrapin pointed out, adult stem cells just plain don't have anywhere near the potential that embryonic cells have. So far, no stem cells with anything like that potential have been found in umbilicals, either. And gonefishin', I guess you and I will have to agree to disagree. To discard a whole line of research, with so much hope for the future, simply because public funds might be put into it and somebody might make money from it, seems to me to be...well, I'm going to attempt to stay civil. Of course somebody will profit from it when it is perfected. But a whole lot of somebodys will benefit from it in ways we can barely imagine. I think I've said all I can on this subject.

The thing that makes stem cell technology promising in the first place is that you can theoretically induce stem cells to produce many different kinds of cells...cells for many different parts of the body. Problem with adult stem cells is that they don't have anywhere near the flexibility of embryonic stem cells. So far, I think the best that anybody has been able to do with adult stem cells is to actually treat a few blood disorders and cancers, and they have been isolated, from pigs, not humans, capable of becoming five different types of cells. On the other hand, embryonic stem cells are most definitely capable of becoming 200 different types of cells, since that's what they do...they are the cells that produce all the organs of the body. Most researchers agree that embryonic stem cells have MUCH greater potential to treat a vast array of diseases, compared to adult stem cells. Again, this is not a money issue so much as an issue of whether embryonic stem cell research will be assured of being allowed to continue in Missouri. The federal government has already cut off federal funds for all but a few existing lines of embryonic stem cells. The state is still free to do the same, or cut off state funds entirely, and that would not change if this amendment passes. The amendment sets up specific guidelines for embryonic stem cell research in Missouri, while protecting the ability of researchers in this state to continue working on it. And...if I understand it correctly, if you can clone existing stem cells, there is no need to clone humans. What would be the point? As long as you have stem cells to work with, gotten from existing stem cells and existing fertilized eggs from in vitro, you don't need whole cloned humans.

Phil...we're not talking about the guidelines you quoted. We're talking about the specific language of the initiative. IN MISSOURI, if the initiative passes, stem cells CANNOT come from eggs or blastocysts donated for money. Period. The language in the initiative is VERY clear on this. If the initiative FAILS, the current practice in Missouri as in other state, which may mean paying for eggs or blastocysts, remains in effect (unless and until the state legislature bans it, or bans all embryonic stem cell research). As for attorneys twisting the language...if I can read it and understand it perfectly, and I'm no lawyer, seems to me that it's pretty clear and straightforward. Kickinbass, in the area of human rights, you have a valid opinion. I happen to have a different one. And, according to your opinion, there should be NO in vitro fertilization, because it almost always results in extra embryos that will eventually be discarded (or killed, if you prefer). As to your other assertion, you are flat out wrong. Embryonic stem cell research is, at present, permitted in Missouri, but the reason for the initiative is that the MO Legislature has repeatedly and will continue to repeatedly attempt to ban it, since there is at present no law that affirms that it can take place. And, as I said before, just READ THE TEXT of the initiative. It does NOT require the public to pay the bill. It says that the state cannot withhold funding earmarked for other purposes from entities doing stem cell research. There is nothing that says that the state can't specifically say that any money they provide WILL NOT go to stem cell research, which is pretty much the way things are now.

C'mon, gonefishin', you know why it has to be voted on in this state. It's because the pro-life people are opposed to doing anything with a fertilized egg except letting it take its natural course, and they have a lot of power and support in Missouri. It has a lot to do with money, yes. But it's NOT being voted on to force Missouri taxpayer money to go to stem cell research. And, you could maybe look upon it as if Missouri residents WERE going to get monetary benefit from it, since the companies wanting to do the research are and will be putting money into the state's tax coffers. Again, read the text of the bill. Yes, you could maybe make a case that if an entity is getting money from the state for another purpose, and decides to do stem cell research, then it's getting money for one thing that frees it up to do another. But that's kinda like throwing the baby out with the bath water...if a university or other entity is doing stuff that is enough in the public interest that the state feels like it deserves support, it's still doing the stuff that deserves support even after it starts doing stem cell research. And, of course somebody is going to profit from stem cell research. That's capitalism. Even if the state would be helping fund the research, are you gonna not use the results--and deny the benefits to yourself and others--simply because somebody is making money off it? That's also throwing out the baby with the bath water. Phil, obviously a blastocyst is a fetus, in very early stages of development (note that the bill says no more than 14 days of development). That's the whole crux of the matter, and why the pro-life people are opposed to tampering with it. If you believe that a group of mostly undifferentiated cells (no brain or other recognizable organs yet) is a fully human being with all the rights of such, and with a soul or whatever it is that makes us human, then you WILL be opposed to this kind of research, as well as all abortions, the morning after pill, and in vitro fertilization (since in vitro produces a lot of extra fertilized eggs that are eventually thrown away). But seems to me this is mostly a religious viewpoint, and one not shared by everybody. We don't KNOW whether a group of cells that is not sentient (because it hasn't developed a brain yet) and not yet recognizable as human has a soul (or even IF there is such a thing as a soul). I don't want this to go into a religious argument, but that really is the whole basis for opposition to stem cell research. That's what the vote will be about, whether we want to take that religious viewpoint as a whole state...whether the state government will operate under that religious viewpoint in regards to this issue. Personally, it's a religious viewpoint that I don't share. And it goes against my grain to have to operate under somebody else's religious viewpoint when that viewpoint denies research on something that harms no one except a blastocyst, and has the potential to help so many.

You know, you guys oughta really read the full text of the initiative, rather than listening to all the lies and half-truths being said in all the ads against it. 1. Ads say that the need for stem cells will result in more young college women being "bribed" to donate their eggs for money. Text of the initiative SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS donation of eggs or blastocysts used in stem cell research for money. 2. The initiative specifically prohibits human cloning. There is a vast difference between human cloning and using already existing blastocysts to clone stem cells. 3. The initiative specifically prohibits producing human blastocysts for use in stem cell research, which means that only extra blastocysts produced as a result of in vitro fertilization can be used. And, it says that such blastocysts may only be used with the informed consent, in writing, of the people from which they come. It also says that such blastocysts cannot be used after a maximum of 14 days of cell division after fertilization (frozen blastocysts don't have cell division, so those produced in in vitro fertilization and kept frozen aren't subject to the 14 day limit). 4. The bill does NOT mandate that the state provide funds for stem cell research. What it does is prohibit the state from withholding funds or failing to provide funds FOR OTHER PURPOSES to entities which are also doing stem cell research. In other words, the state can't coerce researchers doing stem cell research by threatening to withhold non-stem-cell-research funds to them or their organizations. Read the text. The direction the ads have taken and the claims the anti-stem cell research people have made pretty much sicken me. If you believe that a fertilized egg is completely sancrosanct, even if it will otherwise be kept frozen for a period of years and then discarded, fine. But just stop spreading the misinformation. By the way, the full text is at www.sos.mo.gov./elections/2006/petitions/ppStemCell.asp

Yep, my experience is that you just never know in the fall. In my opinion, autumn is the most inconsistent time for smallmouth fishing. I've had some good days and a lot of mediocre to poor ones, no matter what the water temps are. One of the two best single days I've ever had for big smallmouths (four of them from 19-21 inches in four hours and 3 miles of fishing) came during deer season one year, when we'd had a couple of weeks of really warm weather. It was as if the big ones were getting in one more good feed while the water was warm, and they were hitting fast-moving lures in typical summertime places. I took the temp that day, and it was about 60 degrees. I got in one more trip that year before the cold weather really closed in...water temps that trip were in the upper 50s, and I managed to catch one big one of 19 inches. On the other hand, I've had plenty of autumn trips with water temps in the low 60s where the fishing was terrible. It's far from a hard and fast rule, but if the water temp is above 60 degrees, you almost need a cloudy, rainy day in the fall to do really well. Once it drops below 60 degrees, sunny afternoons seem to be better.

Isn't there a falls right at the junction? Also, Bryant is flowing considerably less than 200 cfs right now. I've found that on the rivers I'm more familiar with, you really need 250-300 cfs to safely run a jetboat. You can probably do it at 150 cfs if you don't mind sucking some gravel.

I agree, it reads much like a textbook, and the author seems to have purposely made it so. I found it interesting, but was hoping for better and more entertaining writing.

Think about this...the oil companies are obviously wedded to making money from oil. Anything that reduces the use of oil reduces their profit, period. And can you name ANY corporations that have more power and influence? The coal companies are almost as powerful. Anything that replaces oil also has the probability of replacing coal. Then think about all the ancillary companies that serve the fossil fuel industry, from Halliburton and other oil field development companies to the companies that make the machines that are used in mining coal. Then go a little farther. Ethanol from corn is a big thing now. Know how much influence the corn growers' lobby has? A LOT. Corn is not the most efficient fuel to produce ethanol, but it's what is being pushed. They know it won't replace oil as a vehicle fuel, but it sure brings in profits to corn growers and distillers, etc. Now...let's consider the auto companies. It's more profitable in the short run to keep producing the autos they know how to make. Sure, they all have research and development divisions that may be working on alternative fuel vehicles and drastic ways to cut down on fuel use. But corporations are beholden to their stockholders first, and the stockholders expect favorable quarterly bottom lines over deficit spending on research and development. Most of these industries get huge subsidies, tax breaks, and favorable treatment from the government. They are also among the largest donors to political campaigns. Meanwhile, the companies who are trying to come up with other alternatives get practically nothing, maybe because they aren't big enough or successful enough yet to have the surplus cash to donate to politicians? A truly cheap, efficient source of energy in itself has little potential for profit...the profit will come from the companies who develop the machines and power plants and vehicles that use it, and maybe the outlets that distribute it. But the start-up costs of such ventures will be huge. We've got this monster of a fossil fuel based economy just humming along, running itself (with help from the government). Changing will be expensive. Eventually it will become very profitable, but it'll take a lot to get it going, make it profitable, and meanwhile the industries with the power now will be kicking and screaming all the way.