An Edwards Outrage

10 thoughts on “An Edwards Outrage”

1. Well, spinal cord, maybe. But ‘spinal chord’ only if he is a guitar player for a certain disreputable 80s R&R band…

2. Heh heh heh.

3. Is that the best you can come up with today?

   First of all, Krauthammer’s not a neurologist, nor accident trauma specialist, and is as qualified to opine on the subject as you or I.

   Secondly, it was Krauthammer who made the implication that were it not for the Bush ban on new stem cell lines that Christopher Reed would be alive today, not Edwards. The outrage should be towards Krauthammer’s lie here (having him on a bioethics panel is surely absurd!)

   Secondly, Krauthammer’s “outrage” of demagoguery is outrageous in and of itself, and utterly misplaced. Reed’s ambition towards his condition led to new research, and his progress astonished his doctors. Krauthammer’s “advice” to patients to “live with it” is one of fostering dependency. The better strategy is not to be emotionally invested in an outcome one way or the other, but to fight like hell nonetheless. That’s how survivors survive, by all accounts.

   Now, let’s get to the meat of the matter: there is indeed a ban on using stem cell lines created after 2001. While Kerry and Edwards can be accused of using verbal shorthand here, Krauthammer’s lack of clarification on this point is indeed an outright lie. This is because Kerry and Edwards are right: many scientists are of the opinion that the US lines are inadquate for some kinds of resarch (turns out there’s different kinds of stem cells), the exact number of lines is in dispute, the way the cells are harvested makes them unsuitable for certain applications and there are even claims that some of the lines are contaminated by pollutants.

   Finally about Alzheimer’s disease: as it turns out, there’s shades of gray here too, and despite Krauthammer’s shouting of conventional wisdom on this point, there are other opinions. And that means Kerry and Edwards are right to make these points.

   Now I know that for some reason you want everything about Bush to be good and everything about Kerry and Edwards to be bad, but relying on Krauthammer, who will say anything to get Bush elected isn’t a good strategy.

   Besides you have far bigger things you should be considering.

4. First of all, Krauthammer?s not a neurologist, nor accident trauma specialist, and is as qualified to opine on the subject as you or I.

   Bzzzztttt…wrong. Krauthammer’s an M. D., a real doctor, who’s had thirty years to study spinal cord injuries and lots of motivation.

   And there is no “ban” on stem cell research in this country, any more than there’s a ban on abortions. States can fund it all day long, as can private interests, and California has a bill to do just that. But federal tax money will not fund questionable research without restrictions, either now or in the future, and that’s as it should be.

   Kerry has lied about this issue.

5. You know, the link I referenced earlier (here puts everything in perspective.

   (I might also add that this is getting even more play across the pond.)

   It’s an interesting phenomenon to me, to see people who are otherwise clear-headed and rational, and who would never work for a boss like George W. Bush going to extraordinary lengths to try to support him. Coincident – or perhaps required – for that support seems to be an unwillingness to admit any inconvenient facts.

   It is a complete and utter mystery to me.

6. Richard,

   Interesting to read the back-&-forths between you & John K.

   A couple of questions for you:

   Do you personally benefit from the President’s much-talked about tax cuts?

   Have you become a Christian?

   These aren’t snide or poking questions in any way. I’d really like to know.

   Yrs
   Kim

7. I am not nor or have I ever been a member of the Christian religion of of any other wacky cult (except one).

   The Bush tax cuts benefit all of us.

8. Just wondered. I mean, in reference to your comment on liking “Republican (Neo-Con, I presume) values.” Religion plays a pretty big part in those “values.”

   Can’t say I see how the Bush tax cut benefits me, but hey, I’m no economics wizard.

   All religions/metaphysics “whacky”?

   Have you seen that movie “The Corporation”? What’s your take on it?

   My father-in-law lifelong staunch Republican, but feels Bush not a true conservative, betrayed core conservative values. Opinions sound like Pat Buchanan.
   Been coming across other conservatives who won’t vote Bush (my brother-in-law, a corporate attorney another one)
   What’s your take?

   I work at Barnes & Noble. There I’ve met Dick Morris, Al Franken, Cornell West, & tomorrow night Thomas Frank, author of “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” will read/sign books/speak. Do you know this book?

   PS: Also met Salman Rushdie. We talked about India a little. He told me a joke:
   Ever heard of the Indian Theory of Relativity? Everything is for relatives.

   K.

9. The Republican Party has three major factions: a libertarian wing (Schwarzenegger/Giuliani) , a populist/nationalist wing (Buchanan), and a religious wing. Of these, the religious wing is the smallest.

   Primarily, Republicans favor market solutions over government programs, small government over big government, low taxes over high taxes, results-oriented schools over union-oriented schools, and strong national defense over reliance on corrupt international organizations.

   In short, capitalism over socialism. One thing we should have learned from the 20th century is that no ideology is more brutal and de-humanizing that socialism/communism: 100 million people were filled by communist regimes, more than all the religions in all of history killed in all the Inquisitions.

   Digest the message and apply it. Today, socialism/communism is no longer the great threat to freedom, and religious extremism has taken its place. And the Jihadi religious extremism of the suicide bombers is vastly more destructive than that of the John Ashcrofts and Pat Robertsons.

   This is the world we live in today.

10. I do want to digest your message–smugness aside & by the way not intended, just wanted (perhaps failed) to approach you with a touch of humor–afterall, I do detect a certain smugness in you, too–but that’s not the point. What I’m asking now is this: do you believe the Bush administration IS small government?

    I will go with you right now on your answer about the religious wing of the Republican Party being smallest, though not entirely sure.

    K.

Comments are closed.