Well, it was about time we got some good news. Yesterday, my 89 year old grandmother hit me with a big one: She is sick of George Bush. Bear in mind, this is woman who is card carrying member of the Republican party, voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and is as conservative as they come.
Her reasons, and I am quoting:
"All those young boys...what are they dying for in Iraq? Nothing."
"My brother in law died from Lou Gehrig's disease. I sat by his bedside and watched him die and he didn't have to go, y'know Mark, I read a lot about stem cell research and for the life of me I can't understand what President Bush is thinking. If he had to sit by the bedsides of some of these sick people...well, he'd probably change his mind."
Amen, Mommo. Amen.
10 comments:
Since she has enough time on her hands to read so much about stem cell research, perhaps she should invest the time to read the offical administration position on the issue. Then she might understand what GWB is thinking, don't you think?
A statement that actually eloquently summarizes the position either has not yet been uttered by GWB or has not gotten widespread attention, unfortunately.
well written Mark and your grandmother's slipping faith in the capabilities of this Administration, seem to be a tide turning within the GOP.. this caught my eye earlier:
' Republican support for Iraq war slips '
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070627/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq;_ylt=AgYtQjI9KlKOWt5ccxkqxw2s0NUE
i do not have a fundamental problem with stem cell research if it's tightly controlled & supervised and if it's PROVEN (independently & empirically proven: not by the payroll scientists of the giant pharmeceuticals, whose bottom line is profit when coming up with 'wonderdrugs' that rarely live up to the media hype) to work or significantly improve the quality of precious lives.
Otherwise, i have a fear along the lines mentioned by PL earlier, that there will be a sprawling & unregulated industry of creating embryos to dissect, for no other reason (no positive reason that is, such as lifesaving) than increasing profit. We live in that kind of world. And yes, no one doubts for a second as PL mentioned, that you have to lie to get to the top -- but if that's a sad fact of life because of the money and interests-driven way the political system operates (in any country but on an unprecedented scale in the states...) it still doesn't make pathological deception acceptable.
If you can't trust your leaders, because they've lied or been wrong about EVERYTHING (or let's say, 88% of policies) and i know some people say re: Iraq and the New Middle East -- No, give them time! this is a 30 year-project minimum, rome wasn't built in a day, germany & japan were bombed by the allies for YEARS before they succumbed -- bollocks & flashback vietnam. It's one (negative if fact of life) thing deceiving your way to the top, it's another continuing to perfect the talent for eight years at the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars (which could have been spent on education!! Jobs!! Katrina-prevention!! Free emergency and basic medical healthcare for every citizen!! or hey, if we REALLY care about the welfare of other peoples, making vital drugs like anti-AIDS free instead of unaffordable in the Third World) and lives, each of which are as precious and irreplaceable as yours or mine to somebody.
PL,
I think the presidents position has been made clear...he will veto anything that involves additional government funds for stem cell research. You seem to have summarized the situation as a judgment call on his part to protect the beliefs of a small segment (the minority)of the countries population. I think the judgment and his rational behind making it demand scrutiny and in my opinion it is not enough to simply say that it is against his beliefs, especially when his other actions show a blatant disregard of life (if not the lives of our citizens, the lives of people in other countries), something that IS directly against his purported beliefs. It is hypocritical and while you may find nothing wrong with him making the judgment call, I think it is short sighted and ignorant.
What should be done in a situation where decisions about life and death run contrary to the beliefs of a minority of people? That issue should be resolved by the population as a whole. This is, after all, a democratic society with the ability to make up its own collective mind. Put it to a vote. Preferably not one done using Diebold electronic voting machines.
I am against turning stem cell research over to the private sector. This entire process needs to be regulated with oversight and that will simply not happen in the private sector. Sure there are tons of money to be made, and gee wouldn't be great if business made a killing on cures for diseases...its good for the companies, its good for the shareholders, its good for the people who can afford the cure, but what about those folks who can't afford it? Tough luck? What if it was you who couldn't afford it? Or worse yet, what if they made it affordable, but only through putting yourself into debt for the rest of your life? Just another loan to pay off. Too many what-ifs and things that could happen. Government is not perfect, but it is open to the public and with some smart planning, it could work. I know that will inflame all of you small-government conservatives out there, but I challenge you to come up with a better way to make the process of stem-cell research open to the public, able to be monitored, and allow for some control over the process.
This thing, stem-cell research, has the potential to affect every human being on this planet in the short and long term. We are playing with the very forces of creation, whether you believe in God's creation or evolution. This is not some gimmick to make a fortune on, it is our future. Don't we deserve an opportunity to have some say in the process?
Correct me if I'm wrong, John, but we're a democratic republic and not a democracy. I'm no political scholar, but I understand the very essence of our government to be that our elected officials speak for us, particularly those that are in the minority. Your argument is that stem cell research is such an important topic that majority-vote ought to decide. Conceptually I don't disagree with that. But that seems an awfully slippery slope to me. Is gay marriage an important enough issue? What about education funding? Exploration of space? Certainly an overhaul of the medical system is such an issue, right?
I just don't understand (obviously, you might be saying to yourself) the argument that somehow this issue stands out above any other thereby earning it the distinction of being decided by the well-meaning but ignorant, mouth-breathing hicks (if you are to believe Markadelphia) of this country. The same people that think Paris Hilton going to jail is urgent, breaking news are the same people that you want making the call on how the government funds stem cell research? Really? I think we can do, and are doing, better than that.
Although, I do have to give the general population more credit than I just did. Again I refer to the variance in poll numbers based on exactly how the question of additional funding is posed. Posed as "do you support additional govt funding for embryonic stem cell research that could cure Alzheimer's", there aren't many people that are going to say no to that. But when posed as "do you support additional govt funding for embryonic stem cell research knowing that many scientists believe other research efforts that do not involve embryos can achieve the same results", the majority so gleefully held forth by the Democrats is razor thin, if it exists at all.
Also, I don't believe your first sentence re: the summary of the President's position is actually accurate. Alas, the very nature of the problem. The President has laid out fairly specific guidelines for what additional types of research he will approve funding. The belief that "he will veto anything that involves additional government funds for stem cell research" is simply inaccurate, though popularly held, thanks in no small part to the efforts of the Dems to perpetuate it.
Actually, America has always been a Constitutional Republic.
…been traveling and I see I’ve missed some things...
Question:
Have you considered simply skipping the middleman and working with these millionaires you know to donate this money directly to the companies doing the research? (Side note: I thought medical & pharmaceutical companies were generally demonized by the left?) What I mean is, if your friend has millions and so-and-so from the last post has millions and George Soros has billions, why do you need my tax dollars? Why not skip the middleman? Look at the numbers... You’ll all get together and put say, $50 million into trying to get the President out of office so that you can pass a bill which will, what, set aside maybe $20 million to the research you’re requesting? Why not just donate directly and/or focus that money on advertising to get additional donors to your cause? You’d probably 1) generate more money for your cause 2) not have to deal w/ bureaucratic red tape, 3) not have to dig your hand into the taxpayers pocket and 4) not have to deal with people who find it a morally questionable practice. Wouldn’t we all be a lot happier????????
RLD,
Thanks. I stand corrected. I'm not all that bright.
The problem as I see it with skipping the middleman is that private industry exists to make profit. How would the people who have no money increase the profit margins of said company? Donations would be limited at best.
Take the oil industry for example....most people curse the oil companies for their price gauging but what else do you expect? They have to increase profits every quarter or face layoffs. The same thing would happen if private industry took on stem cell. Too profit driven.
I have a blog column coming at some point in the future which will address this issue further...I will be interviewing one of the notorious "Gang of 200" and he will tell you why charities don't work and why corporations are unhelpful in this area.
I disagree (isn't that a shock). First off, private industry is involved in stem cell research (to my knowledge) and they are free research away at their hearts content...just without federal funding. But my point is, if there is profit to be had, i.e. if there are breakthroughs to be made, then people in the know will invest. ...simple market economics. The pharmaceutical industry that I referred to is clearly an industry that reaps the profits of successful R&D. Why should stem cell research be any different? The fact of the matter is that there has been breakthrough after breakthrough w/ regular stem cells and little from the embryonic side. You’re big on pointing out that people do all sorts of horrible things out of greed. Apply that same point here. Surely if there is money to be made, some of these people who you claim are willing to go to war to make a buck would likewise find nothing morally questionable w/ this stem cell research if they could also make a buck…
Well, you'll get no argument from me in regards to people in government being greedy. Timely, though, that we are having this discussion as the movie which Fox News describes as "uplifting and exhiliarting"--Sicko. Moore details in the film what happens when private industry runs things without government oversight and when saving money and profit are place ahead of people's lives.
Me and Crab are going next week, wanna go?
Post a Comment