10/11/04
There's an old saw that says "conservatives are liberals who have been mugged." I'd like to say that "liberals are conservatives who have seen their loved ones waste away from Alzheimer's and paralysis." You Republicans will find stem cells "ethically troubling" and "needing more research" until you actually watch a paralyzed family member stick a tube into their penis hole so they can urinate.
I mean, I guess I get it, if you actually believe the human spirit begins at conception. Personally, I don't care if you take all our sperm and eggs and make a super-race of whiny Scotsmen, but I respect your right to be squeamish about harvesting embryos for stem cells.
But mostly, you're just being inaccurate. The stem cells we'd like to research come from lines that ARE ALREADY AVAILABLE AND ARE GOING TO BE THROWN AWAY. Living in those tiny samples of tissue are the cells that could have saved Christopher Reeve this weekend, and will keep my mom from going blind before I have a child to show her.
Bush's pandering to the Religious Right has claimed another victim, and nobody will put the blame where it belongs. In the meantime, Reeve has died, and so has Jenifer Estess, two people I was SURE would make it. I was POSITIVE Chris Reeve would walk again, if only to make this country drop their prissy evangelical hang-ups and jump on the bus. I was POSITIVE Jenifer would get better, somehow sneak a stem cell into her breakfast, and emerge from her apartment to enjoy a Magnolia cupcake.
Instead, they die. And we sit around and wait for something that will never come from this President. I've tried every notion I could to get readers of this blog to vote differently (my current hero is Laurie from Manly Dorm), but think about this: if you get in a car accident tomorrow, and are rendered a paraplegic barely able to sip celery juice out of a straw, one of these Presidential candidates can actually do something about it.
Posted by irw at October 11, 2004 08:33 PMThanks for the compliment. I think you are right on with today's blog entry. I have Alzheimer's in my family, and my husband has Parkinson's in his. We will be quite the decrepit pair! One of my big nightmares is that our only child will be burdened with the two of us -- it would be a true horror show for her. Perhaps stem cell research will allow us to age with some kind of dignity intact. One more reason to vote Democratic!
Beyond the issue of stem cell research in particular, I don't think lots of voters appreciate what the Bush administration has done to scientific research in general. The marginal increases this administration has provided to the NIH budget have barely kept up with inflation, and as a result, research funding levels have dropped considerably. The only exception to this has been bioterrorism/defense, which has received increased funding. But for diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, cancers, etc... it has been much, much harder to get funding during the George W. years, and if it continued this way there's just a lot of work that would be neglected due to lack of funds. Furthermore, this administration's harsh anti-gay stance has colored its view on AIDS-related public health research and outreach efforts -- all NIH grants containing any words related to "gay" were being flagged (in fact, NIH extramural staff were being asked by Bush administration officials to provide names of any investigators who submitted grants containing gay-related language... a very scary Orwellian practice). I'm not sure if this demand has continued; I know NIH officials were balking at these requests. Regardless, federally funded research programs that examine HIV dynamics in gay populations have had to struggle to rewrite their grants to exclude this "sensitive language," -- an almost impossible request at times.
So regardless of how you feel about stem cell research in particular, if you are concerned about the state of medical research in this country in general -- there's only one choice for President. Of course, I think most people reading this blog already knew that.
Cris
Unrelated good news:
I attended the VFC concert last night in DC with a couple that are major Springstein fans. They are generally quiet regarding their politics, but leaning to the right. While driving home from the show they mentioned that they were in the undecided camp, but that the boss may have pushed them over the edge.
Greg,
I was at that concert as well. Nice to see so many people come out to support change. And the music rocked.
Steve
A little information for you all:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/edwards.stem.cell/
"The president and his supporters note that his administration is the first to offer any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, accusing Democrats of trying to create the impression that Bush has banned the practice.
"Criticizing Edwards' comment linking the lifting of Bush's policy to medical breakthroughs, Frist said research related to spinal cord injuries does not involve embryonic stem cells but rather adult stem cells, 'where the president has absolutely no restrictions, no limitations and there are about 140 treatments.'
"Embryonic stem cells are believed to be able to develop into more kinds of cells than adult stem cells, and thus more useful in potentially treating diseases. Yet some research indicates that might not be the case, and the National Institutes of Health has called for further study of both adult and embryonic stem cells.
"'Stem cell research is promising,' Frist said. 'The president vigorously promotes adult and embryonic stem cell research, but he does it with an ethical and moral framework.'"
Most medical breakthroughs come through the private sector, where there are no restrictions on embryonic stem cell research.
After tormenting myself with the bullshit from both of these candidates, I have decided that my Presidential votes will always be based on one thing. Who will killl the fewest humans? We can survive just about any economic policy and still live a quality of life far better than the average person we explode.
Unless we are the ones being exploded by an enemy we're unwilling to confront. Just a thought...
O.K. Merkin, never let it be said that I would ever shy away from confronting an enemy. Many a time it could be said that I imagined an enemy, just to have something to confront. In fact, as hard as I try to evolve, I still have the occasional itch that only a good ass kickin can scratch. Fortunately for the world, I have taken to stupid irrational behavior that only requires me to put my head through a window or two, to scratch the itch. Buying techno toys has had a marginal, though soothing effect as well. Anyway, you bring up an important point. The fact that Bushies think peace is somehow soft, makes me want to put a little "Shock & Awe" on your ass. Peace can involve Bad Ass Soldiers putting Bad Ass Terrorists in their graves, not big money governments putting big money bombs on big populations filled with people too poor to get away. Speaking of confrontation, your "just a thought" bullshit is just the kind of fear mongering that has smart people making stupid decisions. Now, I have a magnificent bottle of 18 year old MACALLANS sitting in my dining room. You can concede that the pursuit of peace does not imply a reluctance to defend and we share a dram of Scotlands finest. Refuse, and shall sshove it up your ass.
Thanks for that, um, offer, Salem.
I believe in peace through strength (thanks Dutch). Our military has the power to wipe Fallujah off the map, yet we don't. Why do you suppose that is? Maybe it's because we're not as bad as you think. We're not dropping "big money bombs on big populations," we take extraordinary care not to harm civilians or even religious and historical sites.
Wanting peace doesn't imply a reluctance to defend, but fantasizing that Saddam was only an imagined enemy does. And while you want to use force in self-defense, I don't want to wait until 1000's more are killed before acting on a gathering threat. I don't deny that your opposition to the war is a legitimate position, I just happen to think you're wrong.
Saddam refused to cooperate with the UN inspectors, repeatedly violated 17 UN resolutions, was bribing UN officials and French diplomats, fired almost daily on our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones, tried to assassinate a former president, harbored known terrorists and supported terrorist groups. We didn't connect the dots before 9/11, but we are now.
OK, the above comment was initially "refused for questionable content: US A." Ian's Blame-America-First liberalism prohibits the spelling of 1000s. Nice.
Yeah, that's a stupid quirk with the anti-spam software for the blog. I think it's because so many spam sites use that particular string to sell c*alis and v*agra and whatnot.
Funny that it makes me look like a frothy-mouthed commie, though.
In this test comment, I am including both US A and thousands to see what happens.
Later:
Okay, weird. There was a MT Blacklist rule that matched "USA" including the middle letters in "thousands." Not sure why.
I removed that rule. Let's see whether this comment is allowed.