I think it's silly that there are groups that just listen to radio talk shows waiting for something "offensive" they can raise a stink about. Pretty much everyone who has ever heard Limbaugh already has their opinion made up about him one way or the other, and what some group puts out as "shocking" news isn't going to change anybody's mind. On Michael J. Fox, he obviously has every right to appear in a commercial for McKaskill, however he has his facts wrong. Talent never voted to "criminalize the science" of stem cell research. He voted not to federally fund new lines of embryonic stem cells for research. The research is going on with private money already, and Talent has taken no action that halts that research.
1) Adult-line stem cell research is, like, barely stem cell research - saying you support stem cell, just not "embryonic" is preposterous, you do for all practical purposes NOT support stem cell research if you oppose usage of discarded embryos. that is not where the hard science it. 2) THE EMBRYOS ARE DISCARDED ANYWAY. I do not understand why the "principled" opponents of stem cell research do not hit harder at in Vitro fertilization clinics, the point where these "children" are being "murdered." If I thought those embryos wre murdered kids, I can imagine caring only about the ones that were used for science. It's a fraction. Logically, wouldn't we have no stem cell research if there were no discarded emrbyos? The reason it does not get attacked is political: try telling infertile couples that the government is going to restrict their feritilty options, and watch your poll numbers sink. It is easier to try to scare people about "cloning" and "evil heartless researchers" when talking to people about science (confusing and you have to be vaguel smart to understand things like biology or ethics or developing cures, etc). But try telling that to people who just want to have a kid; because in truth, it IS them, actually, who are creating all of these "innocent lives" that are being "destroyed" by scientists looking to cure ailments that cause sufferring and death to adults and children who are actually born already. Obviously, I do not buy the "destroying life" thing, i do not believe that is the case. But please, someone who does believe that, explain why stem cell research is the intervention point, rather than the acutal creation and discarding of embryos. Please please please help me with that logic. 3) Kurt Warner is really a moron, and so is Jeff Suppan and Patricia Heaton and whoever else is in that retaliation video. Really? What is their connection to this issue? MJF is a celebrity, a young man, dying from Parkinsons - the diasease most poised for stem cell assistance. That's relevant. Kurt and Jeff and Patricia are... tools? Why are they relevant? Because they are sort-of famous? Check, please. Kurt Warner is going to explain to me how A) government funded scientific research works B) How developing cures to diseases are "cloning" and how C) those kids in his foundation are better served by him tellling his story of faith and hardship than they are a cure to their freaking disease? REALLY? How much of an egomaniac do you have to be to raise money for a foundation but refuse grant applications from actual researchers because you would rather select organizations "guided by the personal experiences" of you and your wife. I am glad you and your wife's recipe for personal success can help sick people more than some bas-ass post doc in a lab figuring out the biology behind Parkinsons. I wishi I thought that much of my life story. That is is more useful to the world than better understandings and treatments and diagnoses for something like autisim. "Put that medicine down, kid, and listen to this story about my band." The stem cell debate is the worst of all them. Worse than Iraq, worse than Habeas Corpus, worse than Katrina, worse than all of them put together, People are dying now who do not need to be. Real people, with kids and jobs and families. Thank you for your help. Kurt and Jeff and Patricia. Go Tigers.
Alot of private money is being used for cancer research. Shall we discontinue govt funding as well? That is not how it works at all. If you are cutting NIH funding, you are stifling research, there is no way around that. NIH grants drives US-based science, you can not supplant that with private funding, only augment it. I am sorry, but you can not have it both ways, these opponents have to have some sack about the issue: if you prevent government institiutions from spending money to forward medical science, you are delaying a cure. Is it worth the sacrifice, yes or no.
CBrown, I actually agree with you about the inconsistency of a lot of politicians. I have a consistent view on this, it's opposite of yours, but I'm honest about it. I don't believe a child should ever be created artificially, and you're right, that probably is an unpopular position, which is one of the many reasons I would never get elected to office anywhere. Also, none of what you said contradicts the fact that what Fox actually says in the commercial is factually untrue. If he had stated the case the way you just did, it would have been a more accurate commercial, but the political strategists are not interested in accuracy, they're interested in what motivates people to vote, regardless of whether it is supported by facts or not.
And if Rush had argued against the commercial using your arguments then nobody would be raggin on him. Yours were based context, while Rush simply attacked Fox and accused him of faking it or purposefully not taking his meds.
At the same time MJ Fox had admitted to Diane Sawyer in a past interview about purposely not taking his meds before speaking on Capitol Hill awhile back, knowing the symptoms would be worse. At the same time, who can blame him? I'm sure it helped get his point across.
Here's the thing about private research. It actually is MORE unethical and promotes the precise things that conservatives supposedly oppose. Private research is completely unregulated. There are minimal to no regulations on how an embryo should be acquired and there's no ethical protocol on the methods of engaging iin research. Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research would create a race to the top in terms of ethical protocols. NIH grants are the MOST sought after and highly touted grants in the medical industry. Many of our most basic medical products today came because they were initiated with NIH grants. By allowing for NIH grants on embryonic stem cell research, top scientists would immediately move towards a mix of government and private funding, forcing private research grants to follow NIH protocol in order to continue funding top scientists. Also, if we don't subsidize this type of research, top scientists will continue to go abroad to countries that heavily subsidize this type of research and they'll go to countries with even fewer ethics regulation. Countries like South Korea have had reports of women being paid to commit abortions so that their embryos can be used for research. But by openly discouraging research in the US, we are unintentionally encouraging scientists to go abroad so they can engage in research in ways that all of us can agree are highly unethical. This is an incredibly complicated issue and I've only scratched the surface but that's just one specific area of ethics that I think conservatives are on the wrong side of. And more importantly, this isn't some black/white issue that occurs in a vaccum. Our actions have implications internationally and we can't just ignore that.
Watch the MJF ad again. He's talking about Talent's initial sponsorship of "an anticloning bill that would outlaw a promising form of embryonic stem-cell research." That he eventually withdrew his name from the bill doesn't change what MJF says... "He even wanted to..." If you put your name on a bill, that means you "wanted to." To be fair, the article I took the quote from does give Talent some props for thinking about the issue, and he's not the worst of the Repubs, which is faint praise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11410626/site/newsweek/
Well said. Like any of these sports people have a frikking clue what they are talking about. It's telling that there are no parkinson's patients standing up for the anti-stem cell research advertisement. In essence, it's all fluff. Look at these "celebrities", they must know what they're talking about! No substance, no rationale, just some dubious connection to human cloning. What a bunch of tools.
From www.dailykos.com ____________________ No wonder GOP freaking out at Michael J. Fox ad It really works. A new national study revealed that American voters' support for stem cell research increased after they viewed an ad featuring Michael J. Fox in which he expresses his support for candidates who are in favor of stem cell research. The study was conducted among 955 Americans by HCD Research and Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion (MCIPO) during October 24-25, to obtain Americans' views on the stem cell research before and after they watched the ad. The participants included self-reported Democrats, Republicans and Independents. They were asked to view the ad and respond to pre-and post-viewing questions regarding their opinions and emotions concerning the ad. Among the study findings: * Among all respondents, support for stem cell research increased from 78% prior to viewing the ad, to 83% after viewing the ad. Support among Democrats increased from 89% to 93%, support among Republicans increased from 66% to 68% and support among Independents increased from 80% to 87% after viewing the ad. * The level of concern regarding a candidate's view on stem cell research increased among all respondents from 57% prior to viewing the ad to 70% after viewing the ad. Among Democrats, the level of concern increased from 66% to 83% and Republicans' level of concern increased from 50% to 60%. Independents' level of concern increased from 58% to 69%. * The perception that the November election is relevant to the U.S. policy on stem cell research increased across all voter segments, with an increase of 9% among all respondents pre- and post-viewing from 62% to 71%. The Democrats' perception increased from 75% to 83%, Republicans' perception increased from 55% to 62% and Independents' perception increased from 60% to 68% pre- and post-viewing. * The advertisement elicited similar emotional responses from all responders with all voter segments indicating that they were "not bored and attentive" followed by "sorrowful, thankful, afraid and regretful." * The vast majority of responders indicated that the advertisement was believable with 76% of all responders reporting that it was "extremely believable" or "believable." Among party affiliation, 93% of Democrats 57% of Republicans and 78% of Independents indicated it "extremely believable" or "believable." Respondents were asked to indicate what candidate they would vote for in the U.S. House of Representatives election if it was held today before and after viewing the ad. * Republicans who indicated that they were voting for a Republican candidate decreased by 10% after viewing the ad (77% to 67%). Independents planning to vote for Democrats increased by 10%, from 39% to 49%. Those are devastating results, and particularly amplified in a tight 50/50 election.
The bill that Michael J. Fox is pushing makes cloning legal. That's a big reason why people are coming out against it and accusing his TV ad of being misleading. And McFly did admit both in a book and to Diane Sawyer in an interview that he purposely avoiding taking his meds before going in front of Congress. So if the media and posters on this messageboard wanna trash Rush and accuse him of being heartless and mean-spirited, fine. But Teen Wolf is definitely not above criticism since he agreed to appear in these ads. Oh, and one other thing. His ad also ran in Maryland where he's backing Cardin, the Democratic Senate candidate who voted AGAINST the very bill Fox is pushing.
That is what Rush and others have claimed. But if you look at the record. That is false. Cardin actually voted FOR the bill Fox is pushing. That is just another case of conservative media either intentionally or unintentionally getting it wrong. So you and the conservative media that is making the claim that Fox supported a candidate who voted against the bill are wrong. It is ashame that they were irresponsible in reporting that Cardin voted against the bill, and we see proof of that when good honest Rockets fans are duped by their false claims.
Cloning of cells, not humans. Human cloning is illegal. Oh, and one other thing. The bill Cardin voted against is not the one Fox supports... it was similar to the one bolded in the following article. Cardin voted for the serious one, not the one that gave pussilanimous politicians cover. _____________ Stem cell research vote a great sham Three measures under consideration in the Senate won't make a difference COMMENTARY By Robert Bazell Chief science and health correspondent NBC News Updated: 1:53 p.m. MT July 17, 2006 Call it the great stem cell sham. On Capitol Hill they know the script. In the next few days the Senate will debate and approve three measures covering embryonic stem cell research. President Bush will exercise the first veto of his administration, and Congress will fail to override it. Nothing will change, except that many senators, taking little risk in this election year, will be able to say they took principled stands for — or against — the research. In some cases, they will claim both. Here is a guide to the research and the bills up for consideration. The research Most everyone knows by now that embryonic stem (ES) cells are capable of becoming any type of cell in the body — blood, eyes, muscle, nerve, brain and bone, to name a few. Many scientists believe they hold the as yet unproven possibility of providing treatments for many diseases, including Parkinson’s, diabetes, spinal cord injury and cancer. The term "stem cell" creates confusion because there are many types of stem cells in the human body. The stem cell in the bone marrow for example can become any type of blood cell. But while adult stem cells might help with some diseases, many leading researcher believe ES cells hold by far the greatest promise. The dilemma Scientists obtain ES cells only by destroying embryos — at a stage when they are still a clump of cells invisible to the naked eye — less than a week after the egg was fertilized. There is no shortage. More than 400,000 remain frozen in fertility clinics across the country. Some people regard the destruction of these embryos as a desecration of human life. Others do not. Therein lies the ethical dilemma. In one of his first major acts as President, Bush attempted to forge a compromise by declaring that federal funding could pay only for research on cell lines that were already in existence in 2001. That Solomon-like effort simply failed. Today, there are about 21 existing human ES lines and many technical issues limit the research with them. The U.S. government, largely through the National Institutes of Health, pays for most significant basic research — not just in this country, but throughout the world. Many scientists believe the Bush restrictions have severely limited the research on ES cells. That is why advocates for people with diseases and disabilities, including such luminaries as Christopher Reeve, Michael J. Fox and Nancy Reagan have argued forcefully to end the restrictions The major bill By far the most significant piece of legislation is a Senate bill identical to a measure authored by Rep. Mike Castle, R-De., which passed the House last year by a vote of 238 to 194. This is what the stem cell research advocates view as the minimum necessary to advance the field. The bill would lift most restrictions on federal funding for ES research. The key exception: the actual destruction of the embryo cannot be paid by the federal government money. So, with private money, a researcher could go to a fertility clinic, and so long as the parents who produced the embryo give permission, he could harvest stem cells from a frozen embryo. Then, the same or a different scientist could use an NIH grant to work with the cells. The Senate decided to vote on this bill without allowing any amendments. Since the House approved it already that means it will go straight to the President for his veto. The frivolous bills The two Republican Senators from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum and Arlen Specter, authored one of the companion bills. It directs the federal government research establishment to search for means of obtaining embryonic stem cells from sources other than human embryos. This is meaningless for two reasons. The NIH and other agencies can already fund such research. The bill provides no new money to do it. And, although some complicated schemes have been proposed, no one knows how this could be accomplished. Its main goal is provide cover allowing anti-stem cell senators to say they are doing something positive The third bill, the “Fetus Farming Prohibition Act” from Sen. Santorum, along with Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan, would make it a crime to use stem cells (or any other tissue) if the material comes from a pregnancy initiated and terminated specifically to produce tissue. It also prohibits using tissue from human embryos grown in animals. No one I know is considering either scenario. As I mentioned, 400,000 frozen embryos remain in laboratory freezers so there is no need for wild schemes to get more. The end game Sources say Mr. Bush will veto only the substantive bill. The other two will pass the House quickly after the Senate approves them and the President will sign those into law. There is a slight chance the Senate will override the veto of the main bill, but the House definitely will not. The entire process will be orchestrated so that the President’s veto and the failed overrides will take place in less then 24 hours — as one legislative aide told me, “within one news cycle” — to minimize the publicity. Show over. © 2006 MSNBC Interactive URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13864044/
Man there have been a hella lot of statements on the board lately that were proved factually wrong on few posts later.
With some folks, it's as easy as using a Browning to shoot a fat, hobbled deer tied to a tree from 5 feet.
The right wingers of the republican party are our mullahs. They are our fanatics and imams who preach against progress and for the backwardness of society. They preach anything to do with sex is evil. They preach control of women's bodies. These guys are no different from the radical Islam we all look down upon. We need to see the danger they pose to our society. Let's take a page from what's going on in the middle east. Maybe if we can rid our society of think kind of thinking, we'll find the solution to rid all societies of such ignorance.
You need to edit your post immediately. That is the most blatantly predjudicial analogy I've seen in a long time. While I see the liberal view of this, I can also see the conserv side, as well. To the dems, these lives were never going to be created in the first place, so why not let it help someone. To the conservs, you are basically creating a life only to destroy it in hopes of other things. In my view, I wish science would simply keep searching. If it were me, I'd allow stem cell research on invitros for the next 30 years. In the meantime, scientists better come up with a better alternative. EDIT: And to those who think I don't know what I speak? I've had two pregnant women. I let them both decide. One decided to abort. The other is my soon to be 8 yr. old son. Don't tell me when life starts. I'm, unfortunately, fully aware.
