Show Notes: Tuesday, November 7

We talked for a bit about the actual process of voting today. It’s a credit to County Clerk Wendy Noren that everybody I talked to said they were through the lines at the polling places very quickly.

Our guest was author and intelligence analyst Laura Mansfield, who passed along some very interesting responses from the jihadi websites to the death sentence passed on Saddam Hussein.

As I post this, the election results are still coming in. It’s too early to call in the race between Senator Jim Talent and Claire McCaskill, but the early lead for Talent has dwindled to about 4-5 percentage points. Since it appears that Kansas City and St. Louis haven’t reported yet, it’s very possible that Missouri’s senate seat could swing to the Democrats, which is what appears to be happening in Virginia in the race between Jim Webb and Sen. George Allen.

Amendment 2 is trailing by about 5 percentage points, but again, I won’t celebrate until the counties around St. Louis and Kansas City count their votes.

The Daily Intelligence Briefing:

Pittsburgh college students held on $1M bond
57 Iraqi police charged with torture
Violent clash in capital of Kyrgyzstan
Researchers apply for permission to create cow-human hybrids
The money behind Amendment 2
Analysts outraged over US tinkering with employment figures
‘For Sale’ is the sign of the times
New York City to let people pick their gender


3 responses to “Show Notes: Tuesday, November 7

  1. I was on the fence on Amendment 2 right up until the time I stepped into the booth. Ended up voting in favor of it in the end. I think the research is important, both in terms of pure research and the ability of the State to continue to position itself as a leader in the life sciences. I don’t care for the idea of a Constitutional amendment, but on something like this I decided it was worth supporting.

  2. I agree that supporting life sciences research is worthwhile–but not in the state constitution.

    See this article in the Kansas City Business Journal. It’s clear that commercializing the research has been part of Stowers’ agenda since the get-go. And we in Missouri have just protected his investment by granting his researchers constitutional protection to proceed with no oversight from the state legislature.

  3. Thanks for the info, Derek. I’m not sure how much the Stowers stand to personally benefit – I still can’t find that out. But I’d point out that the Stowers donate a lot of money to research, not just in Missouri, where they have no ownership interest at all and no ability to recover and of the money. I’ve met them a couple of times and heard Jim Stowers speak more than once on their motivation behind the Stowers Institute and the other philanthropy they do, and my sense is that they’re doing it because they really believe in the cause and have more money than they could ever want or need. So I was a bit disheartened to see in many places in the media (or at least in the media opposed to Amendment 2) the implication that the Stowers are in the thing only for the money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s