Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.

It's particularly asinine at a convention. If it's not partisan, what's it doing there?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's particularly asinine at a convention. If it's not partisan, what's it doing there?

It was clearly partisan - he took several veiled shots at Bush . . .something like "we should do this to offer real compassion not give it lip service" and "let's put science above ideology." That said, I get why he spoke. From his perspective, and he has said this publicly, where else is he going to be able to get this kind of exposure for his cause?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Bush has agreed to fund research on existing stem lines. The crux of the issue is on new embryos created, but not needed, in the in vitro process.

I thought that the problem is that the "existing stem lines" actually approached nowhere near the 60 or so that Bush suggested there were when he implemented the policy. Instead, there's something like 16, which is apparently so limited that researchers can't do much meaningful work with them. So suggestions that the current playground is plenty big for scientists to run around in may not be true.

That said, I've just about exhausted my knowledge of the issue, and I'll defer to others here.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
2) The speech completely ignored the heart of the issue - namely, should the federal government be funding the harvesting of stem cells by destroying embryos? No one has a problem with funding research on existing cell lines. He never articulated the actual issue at hand.

Funny, I thought that the issue is the federal government refusing to allow stem cell research on embryos that already exist and are already being destroyed -- the ones that fertility clinics are creating and destroying every day.

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.

Kinda like when they say "it's not about the sex" or "it's not about the money."

Speaking of money, what exactly is our bet about the Yankees pitching this year? I'm sure that I'm losing, and I want to start saving now so that I can afford the bottle of Andre cold duck.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I thought the issue was that by refusing federal funding, it effectively shuts down scientific research in the area, because basic research is systemically dependent upon the presence of such funding, at least in part. My understanding was that if there's no federal involvement, it just doesn't happen. This ain't NPR, where you can easily cover the problem by selling more bookbags and coffee cups.

Basically, you have to get private funding and set up a separate institute that doesn't get federal funds. I understand that Harvard has set up a Harvard Stem Cell Institute to try and work around the problem. Of course, the irony is that without federal funding, Institutional Review Board oversight of the research is not mandated for the research to go forward. I would rather have the research go on in a federally funded institution with IRB oversight than some private lab, with no one looking into the ethics issues of experimenting on human subjects.

I know one researcher who flies to Brazil at least twice a month to conduct his research on coronary artery disease. His embryonic research here is with dogs, though he has a list of donors who would be happy to contribute to research here in the US.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I thought that the problem is that the "existing stem lines" actually approached nowhere near the 60 or so that Bush suggested there were when he implemented the policy. Instead, there's something like 16, which is apparently so limited that researchers can't do much meaningful work with them. So suggestions that the current playground is plenty big for scientists to run around in may not be true.

That said, I've just about exhausted my knowledge of the issue, and I'll defer to others here.

They also slightly tainted with rat tissue, so they're pretty useless for research on human disease.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Funny, I thought that the issue is the federal government refusing to allow stem cell research on embryos that already exist and are already being destroyed -- the ones that fertility clinics are creating and destroying every day.

Right, but that's the issue he apparently ignored. Slave? The issue isn't "stem cell research good or bad" Even Bush doesn't object to stem cell research in itself. The problem is that it requires, a least for a fair amount of it, embryos. The only source of embryos is, well, embryos that aren't needed for implantation.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Is the belief that the spouse of politicians are of particular poltical relevance a post-Hillary phenomenon, or does it go back further?

It goes back a whole lot further. I know you folks like to blame everything bad on Hillary, but Nancy Reagan didn't exactly hide from the spotlight (except when she was pulling Ronnie's strings -- no one liked to see that).

[SlaveNoMore]

Sidd Finch
It goes back a whole lot further. I know you folks like to blame everything bad on Hillary, but Nancy Reagan didn't exactly hide from the spotlight (except when she was pulling Ronnie's strings -- no one liked to see that).

There is a long history of convention speeches being presented by current First Ladies.

There is no precendent whatsoever for a 40 minute closing night speech given by a First Lady wannabe.

By the way, did she say anything - ANYTHING - about John Kerry in that speech?? If so, I missed it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I thought that the problem is that the "existing stem lines" actually approached nowhere near the 60 or so that Bush suggested there were when he implemented the policy. Instead, there's something like 16, which is apparently so limited that researchers can't do much meaningful work with them. So suggestions that the current playground is plenty big for scientists to run around in may not be true.

That said, I've just about exhausted my knowledge of the issue, and I'll defer to others here.

Bush will allow stem cell research after he's elected and no longer needs the right wingers for a base. I predict if he gets a second run, you'll see some of the Rockefeller Republican in him emerge on social issues. Back in the early 70s, his old man was a big proponent of govt funded birth control - they nicknamed him "Rubbers" for a bit - and his old man's track record showed he was pretty socially moderate. He only whored it up for the pro-life cabal when he ran for Pres. The Bushes are nothing if not arrogant and unconcerned about the effects of their actions. I predict W will have no problem dropping loads of his religious supporters down the well in his second term. I'm hoping the first casualty is Ashcroft.

All the "man on a mission from God" and "reborn" crap is an image he's stroking. In his heart, he's like his old man, whom I read he absolutely idolizes. I wouldn't doubt he laughs at the religious nuts in private. I'm certain his old man does.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Dave
If he needed votes (and running against the ghost of Mr. My Wife Don't Like Strip Clubs, he shouldn't), he'd probably pick up a few by asking the youth vote if they smell what the Barack is cookin'.

I keep reading about all the religious allusions in his speech, and I'm thinking the candidate who could simultaneously talk the lingo of the religious crowd and the wrestling crowd would be pretty damn unbeatable. Or maybe other politicians do this already, but me and the pointy-headed types in the media are just missing it entirely.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
3) Why does ANYONE ever feel the need to say "this is not a partisan speech" when you know that everything that follows will be partisan.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
There is a long history of convention speeches being presented by current First Ladies.

There is no precendent whatsoever for a 40 minute closing night speech given by a First Lady wannabe.

By the way, did she say anything - ANYTHING - about John Kerry in that speech?? If so, I missed it.

Teresa's rich and well traveled. She works very hard at the blase attitude of one who's done a lot and can speak to a lot of issues because she knows more than most about a lot of things.

And now she knows she can't speak for shit.

- Put her in the closet. She looks like a weathered Hillary wanna be. Everybody liked Bill, but no one wanted Hillary around, even though she seemed to know everything. I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Hillary and Barbara Streisand talk. Someone should have a tape recorder handy. That's where you'll find the cure for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

[SlaveNoMore]

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Right, but that's the issue he apparently ignored. Slave? The issue isn't "stem cell research good or bad" Even Bush doesn't object to stem cell research in itself. The problem is that it requires, a least for a fair amount of it, embryos. The only source of embryos is, well, embryos that aren't needed for implantation.

The casual watcher of that speech would be of the mistaken belief that the Bush Administration prevents any and all stem research. This is bunk.

1) The Bush Administration is the first administration of any to provide any funding to the research.

2) Federal funding continues to this day for research conducted on the 19 existing lines of stem-cells.

3) This does not, in fact, prevent anyone from doing research using the other 40-odd lines [the number may be off] currently existing in the world. However, to do so requires private money.

4) The question at issue is whether the Federal Government - ie the taxpayer - should be paying for the destruction of human embryos. It is a worthwhile discussion and I've yet to decide where I stand on this, actually. However, Ron's speech completely missed the point in what I think was a deliberate move.

5) His "personal medical repair kit" statement - although hopefully optimistic - is about as close to reality as Dr. McCoy's tricorder.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore

4) The question at issue is whether the Federal Government - ie the taxpayer - should be paying for the destruction of human embryos. It is a worthwhile discussion and I've yet to decide where I stand on this, actually. However, Ron's speech completely missed the point in what I think was a deliberate move.

So its the ole' "slipperly slope" vs. possibly saving some lives in the near future. God, I love the "slippery slope" - a lawyer with no argument's best friend. Its like saying "I may be fucked on the obvious logical answer - allow the research - so, I'm going to hector you with nightmares about how if we do what you're considering, the world will go to hell in a handbasket." If I were a judge, I'd bar the argument. It should be limited to where it belongs - winter sports discussions.