Was President Obama right to reverse Bush’s stem cell policy?
One could imagine scientists tossing lab coats up in the air as President Obama signed an executive order lifting restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. I believe that all of us will benefit from the gains that are bound to come from this essential position.
Those morally opposed to the use of discarded embryos want cures for diabetes, cancer and heart disease as much as the rest of us. So they’re putting all their hope in the power of adult stem cell lines, an experiment in wishful thinking. To be fair, adult stem cells are invaluable in providing blood-replacement treatment. Yet they just don’t provide all the answers — if they did, why would scientists seek out the use of embryonic stem cells? Do we think they have some nefarious, ulterior motive?
The bottom line is that embryonic stem cells have the potential to replace any kind of cell that has been damaged, a flexibility that adult stem cells simply can’t replicate. That’s why embryonic stem cells are currently being used in a clinical trial to combat spinal cord injuries. (No such trial is being conducted with adult stem cells). Those morally opposed to the use of discarded embryos talk of dozens of “cures” that have arisen from the use of adult stem cells but they’re really talking about helpful treatments, not life-long, proven solutions.
Scientists around the globe fervently believe that embryonic stem cell research is our best hope of creating better treatments for a variety of conditions. In fact, they’re more than willing to work with Congress, the NIH and others to continue to develop strict and clear guidelines for the usage of these cells.
Today I asked a stem cell researcher how he felt when Obama signed the executive order changing U.S. science policy. “It was a day of increased hope that we could develop cures,” he told me, adding quickly that this victory doesn’t erase the many political and scientific challenges that face him every day.
So — champagne corks popping and cascading lab coats? Not so much. Yet with a policy in place that gives scientists the tools they need to fight disease, we may one day soon have far more to celebrate.
Was President Obama right to reverse Bush’s stem cell policy?
It is astounding that Andy would share the spin of the embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) movement as fact. It is simply not accurate to say that ESCR provides the likely gateway to “life-long solutions,” and adult stem cell research does not. Dr. James Thomson, the first scientist to coax stem cells from human embryos (and still a firm ESCR supporter), said in a September 2008 press conference that his business will be focusing on adult stem cells going forward, since “I personally believe that the future is in [those] cells.” Why? In 2007, Thomson and a group of Japanese scientists were the first to essentially reprogram adult stem cells into an embryonic state.
Andy also did not mention the overwhelming studies demonstrating problems with ESCR (such as tumor development, rejection and chromosomal abnormalities) that don’t exist with adult stem cells. Just because a particular clinical trial doesn’t include adult cells, doesn’t mean ESCR is more promising; in an exploding field where clinical breakthroughs are literally announced daily, its far more likely that someone hasn’t had time to experiment with that particular permutation yet.
In the end, though, all those issues are secondary. Embryonic stem cells do seem to promise a near-miraculous source of healing; but at what cost? Their miraculous healing power comes because of the miracle of life, which obviously must start at conception – or else all those embryonic stem cells would be dormant and powerless. Some believe those cells may someday be able to be routinely harvested without destroying the embryo. But until then, every bit of advancement from ESCR comes at the cost of a human life.
Down through history, we have always condemned unscrupulous medical people who kill the frail to save the strong – for example, the corrupt doctors in certain developing countries who harvest vital organs from living victims to save others. Yet if it is true that an embryo is a human baby, then that is exactly what scientists are doing if they destroy an embryo during stem cell extraction. If the miracle of a life has started, how tragic that we would view ending that life to cure someone else as something to “celebrate.”
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2010 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
404 comments Add your comment
Gale
March 27th, 2009
9:20 am
And yet, if those unused embryos were not used, they would be –with respect– tossed in the trash. This is just a path into another round of abortion in any form is evil.
Laughing
March 27th, 2009
9:48 am
Anyone who says that human life begins at conception is being downright silly. There is no basis, factual or rational, for such an outlandish claim.
Buddesatva
March 27th, 2009
9:51 am
Obama was correct. His decision is based on science and ethical judgement. The Bush administration was ossified by bumper sticker dogma.
Michael
March 27th, 2009
10:02 am
I agree with “Laughing,” life does not begin at conception, the biology of it simply says so. If we judge the end of life by when our hearts stop beating, shouldn’t we start life when our hearts START beating? Just an idea. I do however think it is sick and twisted that people do not think having an abortion at 6 months or so is not murder.
JNo
March 27th, 2009
10:04 am
Obama was definitely not correct. Describing his decision as “based on science and ethical judgement” couldn’t be further from the truth. There is nothing ethical about embryos dying so that we have the *potential* to cure certain diseases. It’s definitely far from ethical. And it is as political as Bush’s decision to do the opposite. Don’t kid yourselves.
I think that thinking life doesn’t begin at conception is downright silly. The fact that you can sit here and argue this point is only because you weren’t aborted or harvested for embryonic cells. There’s nothing outlandish about the claim at all. What’s outlandish are the laughable attempts by some to arbitrarily determine on their own when they think “life” should begin.
Jason
March 27th, 2009
10:07 am
Uhm, abortion is still legal in the USA and most people want it to stay that way.
Lamar
March 27th, 2009
10:08 am
Re: Bloomberg article today – advances in using skin cells. Bush is gone, people. Obama will stand or fail on his own. He is not the anti-Bush for goodness’ sake.
Outside1
March 27th, 2009
10:10 am
Laughing. If your life didn’t begin at conception, when did it begin? Aren’t you glad that your mother decided to let your life continue instead of discarding you as unwanted trash?
Gale. Abortion is tragic. First because women are in such a desperate position that abortion seems to be the best or only solution. And second because a human life is not given the opportunity to thrive.
I’ve often wondered how many great men and women who could have enriched our world and made it a better place to live had their lives snuffed out through abortion. If we don’t value people at their most immature and vulnerable state, how then can we value people as adults? Every life has meaning and every life has purpose. We who hold the power over those lives must accept our great responsibility to protect them and provide them the opportunity flourish.
Blah
March 27th, 2009
10:11 am
While neither of these presents a very deep argument for either side. I would agree that “life” would begin at conception. It always comes down to how you define “life.” And at conception, you are diploid (two sets of chromosomes) and are differentiating/dividing (in other word growing), so in a biological sense your “life” began. But then again, unfertilized eggs are also living and die, yet no one sheds a tear.
I also do not like how people who argue against embryonic stem cell research always avoid or otherwise do not address the fact that “harvesting” a fetus does not mean that anyone is getting pregnant for the purpose of creating embryonic stem cells for use in research. The “harvesting” (which is a word that probably shouldn’t be used cause it leads to confusion) only occurs for fetuses that are aborted or plan to be aborted. I do not see the problem with letting that child’s gift of life be used to heal someone else instead of wasted.
JNo
March 27th, 2009
10:13 am
Hard to understand how we call what we’re searching for on Mars “life” even though microscopic, but we refuse to call what is conceived within us life.
Steve
March 27th, 2009
10:18 am
Hey Laughing – When did you “become human”? Think about that for a while.
The Frog in Hot Water » Daily Buzz
March 27th, 2009
10:25 am
[...] “Was President Obama right to reverse Bush’s stem cell policy?,” Andrea Cornell Sarvady and Shaunti Feldhahn, Atlanta Journal-Constitution (March 27, 2009) [...]
JC
March 27th, 2009
10:33 am
I have Marfan syndrome, Celiac Disease and Asperger. I have a brain aneurysm and a thoracic aortic aneurysm, and possible lung cancer.
I would rather die with a clear conscience than use an immoral medical treatment.
The ends do not justify the means. You cannot defeat one evil by recourse to another evil. When an issue is “morally complex,” that just shows what happens when you adopt an “ends justify the means” philosophy.
David
March 27th, 2009
10:33 am
Pres. Obama’s decision was 99% political. The 1% non-political is because he believes like many that there is potential benefit from ESCR. To make the decision non-political, it would have been a thoughtful, fact filled presentation, and perhaps a little later in his term after he straightens out the economy, war on terror, education, cost of healthcare, …
I believe the only limitation on ESCR was a restriction on US Federal funds. Pres. Obama’s announcement should have included an assessment of all the progress in ESCR done around the world without US federal funds. It should have also included the results from work on the lines permitted within Pres. Bush’s limitations. Pres. Obama should have also included in his assessment how the Bush limitations have hindered research progress and how the US is falling behind as a result. However, he didn’t include any of this in his announcement. I don’t know if that is because there is no data to present. But I don’t think he was concerned about actual research results, I think he was simply paying a political debt and making a political statement.
lovelyliz
March 27th, 2009
10:37 am
When you consider the totality of their legislation/regulations, in the bigger scheme of things who was more “pro-life” President Bush vs. President Obama?
Baby vs Whale
March 27th, 2009
10:40 am
It’s amazing how calloused our world has become and how adamantly they hold to the bloody banner of abortion….It shows a disregard for life when many seem to embrace abortion as “the final solution” to one night stands, and then endorse the use of it’s “biproduct” for experimentation. Why not pursue Dr. Thomson’s breakthru in transforming the adult stem. Maybe it is pure greed on the part of researches that would find this additional step “cost prohibitive”….it’s just easier to take a dip into the bucket of aborted fetuses? I guess Hitler’s scientists justified his medical experimentation on what he deemed to be “sub-humans”. May God be merciful to us for arbitrarily determining when life begins and taking short cuts at the expense of the innocent human life.
The Other Jack
March 27th, 2009
10:50 am
We should definitely experiment on Embryos. Embryonic Stem cells have never worked while the stem cell research that Bush pushed, Placental stem cell research has saved thousands of lives. But there is no Hope or Change in the working science.
Definitely a good thing, just like the way all this Hope and Change is going to get us out of an unwanted war. Man, I’m glad we finally have an honest, smart person in the White House.
Gale
March 27th, 2009
10:51 am
So many interesting points to counter. Michael at 10:02. To bookend life with a measureable identifier? Since we can sustain a life by artificial means and sometimes bring the person back to a healthy state, how about using brain function instead? I don’t know when we see measurable brain function for a fetus, but I am pretty sure it can be measured. And while I would not call it murder, I do think abortions after the second trimester are tragic. The tragedy is that some woman had to make that painful decision. It is never an easy decision regardless of what the anti-abortion fanatics want to claim.
To several in the ‘every life is sacred’ camp: I believe in reincarnation. I honestly think that if a future life was stopped so my cells might provide a cure or treatment for someone, I would consider that life well spent.
I read a very interesting opinion a few weeks ago in a column for faith-based opinions. The person was discussing where the idea of ‘a human being with full rights begins when an egg is fertilized’. The idea was propsed by some major Catholic convention (I forget which paper was cited) in the 1600’s I think. Maybe I can track it down later. I looked it up at the time I read the article. It did not have broad backing then and clearly was not based on a passage in the Bible. Most of the world considered life to begin at ‘quickening’, which was when the fetus could be felt moving by the mother. I would say that is quite a few weeks after conception.
Mara
March 27th, 2009
10:51 am
JNo – What’s outlandish are the laughable attempts by some to arbitrarily determine on their own when they think “life” should begin.
and exactly do you think YOU’RE doing when you insist that ‘life’ begins at conception? You are being just as arbitrary as those who insist that ‘life’ begins at viability, or at birth.
Outside1 – If your life didn’t begin at conception, when did it begin?
and exactly *when* does ‘conception’ occur? When the sperm peirces the egg wall? When the chromosomes mix? When the first division of cells occurs? When the fertilized egg implants on the uterine wall?
Conception is a process not a particular instant in time.
I, personally, think that which makes us ‘human’ manifests when we take our first breath. So I have no problem with a few cells in a petri dish being manipulated to, hopefully, provide treatments and cures for deseases that kill or debilitate real, breathing, autonomous human beings. But that’s MY opinion, and it’s highly subjective.
Mara
March 27th, 2009
10:58 am
I guess Hitler’s scientists justified his medical experimentation on what he deemed to be “sub-humans”.
Wow. Godwin’s Law is proved so early today!
Baby vs Whale
March 27th, 2009
11:02 am
Mara, I hope we learn from the past…
Mara
March 27th, 2009
11:06 am
Baby vs Whale – Mara, I hope we learn from the past…
Yeah, wouldn’t that be nice…?
bird5
March 27th, 2009
11:23 am
There is a group of physicians, patients and other interested people working together to get treatment with adult stem cells legalized in the U.S. as it should be. Please ask your family and friends to sign up (”JOIN”), and get as many doctors to sign up as well. See The American Stem Cell Therapy Association site at
http://www.stemcelldocs.org
Baby vs Whale
March 27th, 2009
11:27 am
Mara, hopefully we’ll learn from our past.
David
March 27th, 2009
11:27 am
Here is an excellent opinion of Pres. Obama’s decision by none other than ten members of the President’s Council on Bioethics.
http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethicsforum/Post.aspx?id=3298
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
11:32 am
Jason, what studies show that most people want abortion legal? I believe the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal, not a vote of the people.
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
11:33 am
Gale, I agree they shouldn’t be thrown in the trash, they should be given a funeral.
The Other Jack
March 27th, 2009
11:40 am
Mara
Godwin’s Law. Now would be a good time for you to read what Godwin’s Law actually said. It never discredited the comparisons, but just pointed out that a comparison to NAZIs will eventually be made during a political discussion. It really makes sense. Germany was taken over by a political mantra that gained control of a very active German Media and used class warfare and labor unions to turn the most educated and cultural country in the world into fascists. I personally think that every child should have at least a year of teaching about nothing but the History of the NAZI Party.
The lessons that Goebbels taught us can not be ignored, as much as the media controlling party in the US would have them ignored.
The lessons that Josef Mengele taught us cannot be forgotten as much as the party that insists that human experiments take place insist that those lessons are not relevant.
In times like these, I think that every TV network should be showing documentaries about the 1930s and the 1940s and go into great detail about the techniques the NAZIs used.
There are not many holocaust survivors left. The lessons they learned will be lost forever if we have such disdain for discussing what they went through. History is the ultimate teacher. When we conveniently exclude one of the darkest times in our history, we are destined to repeat that history.
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
11:40 am
Remember, Barry thinks it OK to kill babies as they are coming out, or if an abortion fails to kill the baby, to kill it after it has been “surgically removed”. SO when he get’s his Nationalized Health Care in place, what is to stop him from no longer wasting dollar allocations on people say “OVER 78?” and not wasting dollar allocations to children with Down Syndrome? Then what next? 78 becomes 75, 75 becomes 70, 70 becomes 65. Children with this or that ailment are detected in the womb, and terminated, not by the parents, or “potential parents” but by the state run health care system. It’s slipperly slope this socialism.
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
11:43 am
Heil Barry!
lovelyliz
March 27th, 2009
11:45 am
“Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns…First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.”
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
11:56 am
Excerpt from Nightmares of our Fathers:
“I remember seeing Barry sitting on Monks Beach up on the North Shore of Oureading the communist manifesto smokin’ weed….he likes his Ganja, and he would never share it…”
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
11:57 am
When does viable life end?
Gale
March 27th, 2009
12:12 pm
Liz, thanks for the 11:45 facts. I read something unrelated at lunch that described a 6 week old fetus as basically a tube about the size of a pea, with spinal column and blood system beginning to form, largely indistinguishable from other creatures at that stage. It is actually pretty interesting stuff.
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
12:19 pm
We could hire teenage girls to come to our clinic, get knocked up by one of our “knockers”, hold the “Festus” in her womb for 6 weeks, then suck it our with a medical Hoover or Dirt Devil and harvest them thar stem cells! How much should we pay them! The time is right! Crisis mean Opportunity!
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
12:20 pm
Mara
March 27th, 2009
12:31 pm
TOJ, Godwin’s Law says that the LONGER the thread the more likely the comparison to Hitler or Nazi’s becomes. My point was that the comparison came much EARLIER than usual.
As for the Hitler comparison itself, we’re far less likely to lose the lessons of the Holocaust through the ignoring of history than we are through trivializing it. Which we do by speciously labling ANY action we might find repugnant as “nazi-like” and those who participate in said actions as some sort of “Hitler”.
Gale
March 27th, 2009
12:31 pm
I only mentioned six weeks because it was described in the article I read. The ESCR process uses embryos far less formed than six weeks. Other than supply eggs, women are not a part of the process at all. Once implanted, “science” has no desire to retrieve those embryos and everyone involved hopes they make it to term.
What you SHOULD worry about is the day science figures out how to reliably create embryos without sperm cells. I tell you, man, your days are numbered. (ominous spacey music)
Mara
March 27th, 2009
12:45 pm
Gale – *What you SHOULD worry about is the day science figures out how to reliably create embryos without sperm cells.*
Well, maybe not without ’sperm cells’ but certainly without men…
“Last year, scientists proved that they could not only create sperm in a petri dish, but also use that sperm to fertilize a mouse egg.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4227604
Gale
March 27th, 2009
1:02 pm
Mara, definitely without men. It requires a separate gene set to produce something other than a clone. But does that separate set really have to be a sperm cell? I’m just speculating because I sure don’t know the science. In reality, the research won’t become a viable substitution unless it is cost effective. I know people pay thousands for IVF so they can have their own baby and that sure isn’t cost effective when they could adopt instead. So who knows where that may lead?
JustaJew
March 27th, 2009
1:18 pm
TOJ,
be careful in your generalizations about the people of Germany in WWII. It was not a country of slobbering fascists as you seem to think. Goebbel didn’t have as much influence as the “documentaries” on the Discovery Channel might have you think. Most Germans thought he was a pompous ass and my most direct accouts, anyone with a brain in their head knew what an absolute evil the Nazi party was….
JustaJew
March 27th, 2009
1:18 pm
Thanks Gale and Mara, as if I already didn’t feel useless enough, lol
Jamel Ekeil
March 27th, 2009
1:42 pm
So that bisiness model won’t fly…Well then, in that case, I am against ESCR! And Nazis, and socialists, and especially Flying Spagetti Monsters theology! Oh, I am for partial birth birth.
chuck
March 27th, 2009
1:45 pm
From the article that David linked at 11:37:
*Because producing them does not require human ova, and because they are patient-specific stem cells that are less likely to be rejected by their recipients, they also have distinct scientific advantages. Indeed, on the day following President Obama’s announcement, an analysis in the New York Times noted that the embryonic stem cell research the president had touted “has been somewhat eclipsed by new advances.”*
As with most topics, people just don’t want to think about Barack HUSSEIN Obama being POLITICAL. I’m sorry, but if you think that executive order was ANYTHING BUT political, you are just naive. He is even more political than Clinton, and I never thought that was possible. If you are honest, you will have to admit that very little of what GW did was political. Unlike Clinton, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, and DICK CHENEY for that matter, GW actually has a moral compass. He for the most part made decisions based on his core beliefs. Something sadly lacking in Washington these days.
John
March 27th, 2009
1:46 pm
Obama’s decisions were scientifically stupid!
iPS and adult stem cells are cleaning embryonic stem cells clock.
ESCR is obsolete. It doesn’t matter how many embryos are available it won’t help.
See http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS09A02 for a start.
Gale
March 27th, 2009
1:49 pm
JustaJew, you know I am just teasing all you folks with that Y chomosone defect.
Mara
March 27th, 2009
1:54 pm
Gale – all you folks with that Y chomosone defect
LOL! They do say that the Y is a defective “X” you know
I’ve also read that all zygotes start out as female and don’t differentiate until the 10th week or thereabouts…
JaJ – ya know we love ya!
hugs to everybody. The weekend is a-callin’
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
1:57 pm
Mara and Gale you don’t need God, simple because you want to play one on TV!
chuck
March 27th, 2009
2:00 pm
To make myself a little clearer, THE ONLY REASON for funding embryonic stem cell research RATHER THAN adult stem cell research and placenta stem cell research is to ONCE AGAIN promote ABORTION and devalue the life of babies.
Here’s an idea though, HOW ABOUT the Government NOT FUNDING ANY SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. Even under President Bush there was NO PROHIBITION on the research, JUST NO FUNDING. Let scientists fund their own research. Give them the patents on their discoveries and let them profit from their WORK.
An alternative would be to not fund any research but then BUY the discoveries afterward.
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
2:00 pm
JustaJew, if they weren’t “slobbering fascists” then what happened is far worse. They just killed all them people cuz it was fun? No, it’s becuase they are fundementally flawed and don’t have God. Without God, moral relatity beging to creep. That is what Obama and his liberal cronies are attempting to do our country.
Logical Dude
March 27th, 2009
2:10 pm
The crux of the issue is this: Whether there is federal funding or not, those same embryos will be discarded. Fighting federal funding for embryonic stem cell research SAVES NO BABIES!
so why do you not like embryonic stem cell research? Because you save a baby? That is a false argument because you either use the embryo for scientific research, or you destroy the embryo. YOU DO NOT RESCUE THE EMBRYO.
Any questions?
Gale
March 27th, 2009
2:12 pm
Chuck, would you have the government stop funding research for ways to kill people, or just the stuff that might benefit people? Personally, I expect the goverenment to continue looking for ways to kill people whether they admit to it or not.
The Other Jack
March 27th, 2009
2:17 pm
JustAJew
First, have you ever been in an office that was nothing but women? Have you ever dealt with a company that was nothing but women? There’s only one thing women hate more than men: other women. We will always be needed, if nothing else but to listen to the way the women at work are so unfair.
My interest in the German people started when I was growing up. The nice woman across the street was German and had been a member of the NAZI Party. She told me lots of stories about the good days when Germany was finally coming out of the throes of WWI and people were beginning to work again, under the NAZI government. She told me about the plays and the radio dramas where Jews were always made out to be the real villain. It was always the greedy Jew that was the problem, certainly not the good Socialist German Worker.
Jews did a lot of business in Northern Europe and the National Socialist Workers Party was made up of people that supported the party that was against the ownership of that business. That class warfare . . . that hate was reinforced by a steady stream of propaganda films, plays and radio dramas that always had one central theme: Jews are bad. Class warfare is the easiest message to get across. Pol Pot used it. it is the easiest route to take. There will always be more poor people than rich. Jews controlled a lot of commerce. Commerce wasn’t very kind to a Socialist Worker so out with the pitch forks and the loading up of buses to threaten and intimidate the state dictated bad people . . . no wait. That was AIG. Totally different situation . . . I’m sure.
Are those tactics still being used by Hollywood to indoctrinate another educated and cultured populace? I think that they are, but that is up for you to decide on your own.
Goebbels may have been disliked, but the science he mastered is still being used and was used by the NAZIs to indoctrinate a populace.
But you need to be careful about what you are taught about the German people. If the German people knew what an absolute evil the NAZIs were, why did they send their sons to die for the Third Reich? Why were old men and young boys willing to use pitch forks and clubs to fight tanks to defend the Fuhrer?
I didn’t learn what i know about the Germans from a Discovery Channel Documentary. I learned a lot from personally knowing a NAZI. I learned a lot more from a thesis I wrote on Goebbels. And I have studied almost everything he had written.
I know that I am not going to be able to change anyone’s minds about anything. But at least we are talking about what the Germans did at this incredibly;y important time in our history. Mara claimed that using the lessons that NAZIs taught us trivialize the holocaust. I just can’t imagine that anyone would think that what is happening to our country and it’s economic standards is trivial. If ever before we needed to look at history as our teacher, now is the time.
Frau Nachbarn
March 27th, 2009
2:59 pm
Du bist einer liegenden verrückten Sohn einer Hündin. Du bist niemandes Freund. Aufenthalt weg von mir, Ausgeflippte.
chuck
March 27th, 2009
3:11 pm
Gale, National Defense is a constitutional DUTY of the federal government. While I think that we probably have enough ways to kill people, AT LEAST there is a constitutional REASON for funding that kind of research. No such constitutional authority exists for funding other types of research.
chuck
March 27th, 2009
3:12 pm
Have a nice weekend everybody. It’s nice when I get to pop in every once in awhile.
BTW, MOVING SUCKS.
Gale
March 27th, 2009
3:21 pm
Chuck, that really stretches the duty of the government to protect the people, but ok.
Troglodyke
March 27th, 2009
3:28 pm
I often wonder how many rapists, murderers and genocidal maniacs have never entered this world because they were aborted.
It goes both ways. And why are people so presumptuous to assume that “god” thinks abortion is wrong? Is it not part of “his plan”? Think about it, believers. Think hard.
Why don’t you hold one, Gandalf? Go ahead and have a little memorial service for every one, if you feel so inclined. It’s a free country.
<>
That’s very noble of you. I wish all the anti-science, anti “immoral medical treatment” folks felt the same.
Personally, I believe that if someone wants to oppose research on embryonic stem cells, then they also oppose all breakthroughs made with these cells, and all treatments. You voluntarily give up any right to any treatment that research might provide you in the future. Does that sound fair?
I also believe Christians should not be allowed to avail themselves of fertility treatments. If “god” wanted you to reproduce, he’d have made it possible the “normal way,” no?
Troglodyke
March 27th, 2009
3:30 pm
Sorry; I cannot figure out the formatting on these “new” blogs. The part of my post in italics was a response to JC’s post at 10:33.
Gandalf, the White!
March 27th, 2009
3:32 pm
Gale, killing enemies of the state is big business!
The Other Jack
March 27th, 2009
3:55 pm
Frau Nachbarn
Sie wissen nichts über meine Mutter, so hören Sie auf, ihre Namen zu nennen. Das Fernbleiben vom sozialistischen Schaum wie sich selbst wird kein Problem für mich sein.
Kataweb.it - Blog - diariotip » Blog Archive » News 27 marzo 2009.
March 27th, 2009
4:43 pm
[...] Journal Cardium reports on applicability of Corgentin to stem cell therapies. Rif.: PR Newswire Was President Obama right to reverse Bush’s stem cell policy ? Rif.: [...]
J-Tex
March 27th, 2009
9:38 pm
Fact – a huge number of embryos from fertility treatments are destroyed each year.
Fact – despite the claims of religious conservatives that there are, in fact, “homes” for these embryos – by homes, I mean not only wombs to carry these embryos to term but willing adopters to take in the babies once they’ve been gestated, there is zero support to suggest that this is, in fact, true.
Conclusion – given the above FACTS, the best benefit to mankind is to use these embryos that would otherwise be destroyed to research medical treatments that could cure disease.
FALLACY – Suggesting that because embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce a cure that it never will is simply false. Not only is this research in its nascent stages, but funding has been in short supply. This assumption is tantamount to suggesting that Jonas Salk, prior to his discovery of a vaccine for Polio, would NEVER discover a vaccine for polio simply because he had failed at the time to do so.
The Other Jack
March 28th, 2009
8:56 am
J-Tex
Fact: For every dollar that is spent on trying to make embryonic stem cells work, that same dollar is what has been thrown away. That same dollar could have been spent researching workable solutions. To equate Salk’s discovery is nonsense. I would equate someone researching blood letting. It has never worked and there are now other alternatives that do work, so why do we keep throwing money at a non-solution? It’s simple, It’s political
Placental and cord stem cells have all the potential of embryonic stem cells and they actually work and have worked for several years. The big difference is simple: Embryonic stem cells: The baby dies (or is never allowed to live). Placental and cord stem cells: The baby lives.
Personally, as long as embryos are not being created for the research (see Mengele, Josef), I couldn’t care less unless it is my tax dollar being spent. But of course my tax dollar will be spent for this and every other power grab that the democratic Congress can take.
J-Tex
March 28th, 2009
7:41 pm
It’s not nonsense, and it was a metaphor, not a specific comparison. To suggest that because discoveries have yet to be made that they will never be made is, simply put, flawed logic. If anything, blood letting is a far worse example. There is no scientific merit behind blood letting – merely superstition about humour, not to mention that the idea of scientific inquiry didn’t even exist when blood letting was a common practice. There IS a scientific basis for embryonic stem cell research, as one can easily discover by perusing the literature.
As for your own “fact”, that’s also poor logic, given the “just because it hasn’t happened yet means it never will” argument. Adult/placental stem cell research represents one stream of research, which is separate from embryonic research. One creates a false dilemma when one suggests that dollars must be given to one, rather than the other, in order to achieve results, or that dollars spent on one, rather than the other, are wasted. If stream B takes longer to come to fruition than stream A, then that investment is not wasted, merely deferred.
And the Mengele reference…you should above that sort of thing. Mengele experimented on living, sentient human beings. The medical techniques used to isolate embryos didn’t even exist during Mengele’s experiments – they didn’t become truly viable, one might argue, until the first embryo was successfully implanted in the late 70s. To equate the two is logically and intellectually dishonest, at best.
The big difference – in embryonic research there is no baby to live or die. There is a cell cluster that would otherwise be tossed in an incinerator. Pardon me if that’s a no-brainer for me.
The Other Jack
March 29th, 2009
10:56 am
J-Tex
Embryonic stem cells might work some day. If it would work, it would offer more options than other stem cell research. The problem is that while embryonic stem cell research was restricted in the US by a lack of tax payer money, it was researched heavily in some of the most scientifically advanced countries in the world. And the results? Nothing. Not one case has been tried that didn’t result in the stem cells becoming cancerous.
However, Placental stem cells, has CURED thousands. IS CURING thousands, but strangely enough, if you don’t know where to look, you will never see the coverage. Why do you think that is, J-Tex? Do you think that politics is not involved?
If we can use embryos that are not manufactured for that specific research, I say, sure, continue throwing money down the hole. But let’s concentrate on funding a science that is CURRENTLY SAVING LIVES. The kid with Ms doesn’t care about embryonic stem cells. They won’t help him. Placental stem cells will.
We have no say in our government and popular ideas that are touted in a very liberal leaning media are the ones that get the money. So you will win just like Harry Reid is getting his train to Disneyland. So instead of supporting a science that is working, our tax dollars are being thrown at something to satisfy a voting block.
A great way to do this would be to invest all the money into all stem cell research and hopefully, the advances in placental stem cells would help in the research with embryonic, but that’s not how liberals work. It is your way or the highway. NO money from the government that supports a working science, but all the money in the world for the Pro-Choice voting block. If you don’t think it is all about politics, you haven’t been paying attention.
As far as Mengele, you need to pick up a book before you lecture others. Mengele was known for his experiments on humans, but that was not his central mantra. He wanted to breed a race of humans for nothing more than spare parts. Have you heard of his research into twins? it was all about genetics and what parts could be used by who. And his problem is still the problem with stem cells. It takes a genetic link in order for the stem cells to work, just like it takes a a genetic link for organ transplants. It doesn’t always take a relative, but it does always take a related genetic structure.
As far as the “cell cluster” and the “zigote” and any other term you might have to discredit the value of another person, keep it to yourself. The problem with people like Mengele is that they had that same penchant for devaluing the lives of others to justify his mantra. That is disgusting to me. Maybe it’s because i have done extensive reading about the NAZIs and the central theme of almost every horrible thing they did started with the devaluing of the lives of others. That is why I would like for NAZI Indoctrination Styles and NAZI Viewpoints be a required subject in every single public school in the world. History is screaming at us to pay attention to the sins of the past, but some groups think of excuse after excuse why their lessons should not be learned. It devalues the holocaust, it is the Godwin rule: there are a thousand made up reasons why we should not pay attention to what the Germans did. Why do you think that a specific political stance here in the US wuld have such disdain for looking at history as a teacher?
ByteMe
March 29th, 2009
1:49 pm
I think Obama was wrong to do it, but my reasons are totally different from everyone else’s here.
I think it was wrong, because he should have gotten Congress to make it a law instead of an executive order. That way, Congressional Democrats get to be clear about where they stand on this in a way that separates them from Republicans AND Obama gets what he wants out of it.
I think it was a missed political opportunity. Had there not been so many other bigger issues to worry about, this is how it probably should have happened, but I guess people were busy with other things.
J-Tex
March 29th, 2009
6:32 pm
I assure you, Jack, that I have picked up many books. The reason that your Mengele reference is not really germane to this, or any other discussion, is that its intent was to introduce an emotional element into an otherwise rational discussion. It’s a classic association fallacy, sometimes referred to tongue-in-cheek as “reductio ad Nazium”. We all know that Hitler was bad. Mengele was bad. The Nazis were bad. So, associating any of the above with a particular topic is an attempt to suggest that said topic is inherently bad without having to truly delve into the issue.
The ethical issues involved with stem cell research are a constant source of discussion, as are ethical issues with any sort of research. I’m just a social scientist, in training if you will, and I have to not only maintain a national certification in research ethics but I have to run any proposed research through an Institutional Review Board, even if it just involves asking a people probing questions. To suggest that such rigor would not be applied to natural scientific research, particularly natural scientific research of such a sensitive nature, is to completely ignore the modern day research environment. I don’t think you will find a single scientist who would approve of breeding up embryos for the purposes of body replacement. The ethical considerations there are strongly defined. Your suggestion that Mengele’s atrocities would somehow become the norm is unwarranted and unsubstantiated.
As to your other point, you continue to create the false dilemma of research streams. Funding both adult/placental/cord stem cell research AND embryonic research simply increases the chances of viable cures resulting from them. There is no “my way or the highway” limitation here – no one is barring funding from the alternative stream, or suggesting that such streams be halted in favor of embryonic research. I’m not sure why you’re suggesting that such limitations exist. And, as far as I can tell, no one in the scientific community suggests that placental/adult/cord stem cell research ISN’T effective – they acknowledge its successes as much as they acknowledge the success of any research.
Finally, you may impugn my respect for life all you will. If using scientific terminology offends you, then perhaps this sort of discussion is not for you. I am inclined to overlook your oblique attempt to compare me, and frankly anyone who doesn’t agree with you, to Mengele, but others may not be so forgiving. You have no right, sir, to suggest that, based on a limited conversation, that I am operating by some “mantra” to devalue human life.
sharon
March 30th, 2009
1:17 am
Andy says, “To be fair, adult stem cells are invaluable in providing blood-replacement treatment. Yet they just don’t provide all the answers — if they did, why would scientists seek out the use of embryonic stem cells? Do we think they have some nefarious, ulterior motive?”
Funny you should ask — actually I DO SUSPECT some nefarious, ulterior, ego-boosting, god-complex motive on the part of the ’scientists’ who still want to experiments with embryonic stem cells. After so many years of research and comparisons in OTHER COUNTRIES, which have shown that adult stem cells are much more effective at treatments than embryonic stem cells, many scientists have come out and said that the embryonic stem cell solution is too unreliable, difficult to match with patients, and often times discarded as failures. But though an occasional article may bring that out, it seems to fall on deaf ears, and the lobbying continues. Almost, as tho’ the point is to win the argument rather than to save lives.
If that’s not a nefarious ulterior motive, what is?
Mara
March 30th, 2009
6:32 am
TOJ – Mara claimed that using the lessons that NAZIs taught us trivialize the holocaust
talk about mis-statment!! What I actually said was that the Holocaust is trivialized by “speciously labling ANY action we might find repugnant as “nazi-like” and those who participate in said actions as some sort of “Hitler”.”
You talk about all this that you’ve done, and read, and written about etc etc etc yet you can’t seem to accurately paraphrase a simple blog post! It’s annoying when you accuse people of saying something that, on any reasonable contextual reading, is NOT what was said.
But I will let the panel decide whether I said ‘likening the Holocaust to anything and everything we find abhorrent ends up trivializing the horrors of Auschwitz’ or if, as you accused, that ‘being aware of the things we learned about Nazi’s trivializes the holocaust’.
erpilot
March 30th, 2009
7:03 am
Of course life begins at conception, and science proves it. Look at the MRI. There are no limbs to be added. A child is there, just at an early stage of development. It’s unequivocal that is life at its earliest form. The catch line of the article is “embryonic cells SEEM TO PROMISE NEAR MIRACULOUS…” What hyperbole! To date, embryonic research has yielded ZERO results. 150 years ago, Darwin’s theory seemed to hold GREAT promise, yet NOT A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF MACRO EVOLUTION HAS EVER been observed in the fossil record. NOT ONE! Billions of fossils. Not one supports it! How long do you keep pursuing the theory without success before acknowledging it’s a bad theory? Princeton professor and Darwinist Peter Singer asserts “the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig”. He believes parents should have the “right” to kill their newborn up until 28 days of age. Why stop there? Why not 28 weeks? Or 28 months? or 28 years? In Holland more than 6000 babies were euthanized in accordance with Singer’s theory. How does one not connect infanticide to the Holocaust? In fact, German philosophers used the same Nietzchian philosophy to eliminate the “weaker” race. Hitler claimed they “…have not the right to exist”. That’s what the Right to Life community is stating: the right of human life supercedes the right of a person to choose.
Commissioner Zimmer
March 30th, 2009
7:34 am
The author of this article needs do some homework. Adult stem cells do in deed have the same pluripotent properties to be changed into other forms of cells. Adult stem cells are already treating patients in many ways right now. Embryonic stems cells have the negative effect of turning into tumors. Those are the facts. Why don’t you have a reporter report on them?
Lyrazel
March 30th, 2009
7:45 am
I would think the question should be: if new medical discoveries are made with embryonic stem cells–would you go for treatment or would you refrain from treatment based upon your beliefs.
The second question: if the cost be far more than conventional medicines will insurance companies be able to not cover said treatments. If the government actually gets involved in citizen health care would state budgets include experimental services–or would there be limitations (just senators can apply) or would states opt out of experimental medical treatments because of costs.
Third question would be what if there is no breakthrough. People want breakthroughs in medicine but they are never a sure bet–these scientists are well tutored medical professionals and bandy words like–promising–hope–potential– instead of actually saying–we have successfully done nothing yet.
Last and final question: will advertisers sell ads on TV directed at women to sell their embryos (like gold jewelry) can some wing-tipped entrepreneur open a chain of placenta collection clinics?
Save Us From the Religious Nuts
March 30th, 2009
8:06 am
Of course the President was right to reverse the Bush policy.
If you can freeze anything, and then thaw it, it’s not a human life.
Gale
March 30th, 2009
8:28 am
“So instead of supporting a science that is working, our tax dollars are being thrown at something to satisfy a voting block.”
Sounds like a standard definition of politics, TOJ. Our elected officials have one overriding priority, to be reelected. The funding for scientific research is a drop in the national budget. We want research here in America to keep our best minds here in America. We fund research into areas that show possibility because we don’t know at the start which area will produce new information. And sometimes, the information feeds and entirely different area. We don’t insist that research produce a product. That notion stiffles the nature of research.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
9:12 am
J-Tex_Talk about emotionally driven nonsense.
No one is calling you Mengele. And aaparently, no you haven’t picked up a book. Mengele’s known atrocities involved torturing people. I have repeatedly said that I was referring to his genetic research. Calm down and read, will you?
And BTW, If you can’t discuss historical parallels because they are too emotional for you, perhaps posting on a political forum is not for you.
And no one is restricting research into placental stem cells just like no one restricted embryonic stem cells. They just didn’t pay for it with tax payer money, so I guess to you, what you guys have been whining for for 8 years was not really a problem, huh? I would like to see my TAX dollars spent on a working science. Too much to ask?
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
9:17 am
Mara – No one called anyone any sort of Hitler. As I have said, I will continue to make comparisons with what is happening to our country with sins of the past. Right now, the Democratic Party is practically mirroring the actions of the NAZIs during the mid 1930s. That’s a fact. Obama fired the head of GM. Let me say that again: OBAMA FIRED THE HEAD OF GM. And you are worried that I am calling others Hitler.
If you would actually read what I write instead of looking for reasons to go emotional, perhaps you might see my point.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
9:24 am
Lyrazel
There are already placental collection companies that freeze the stem cells until they are needed. Of course they only work with specific family members. Look up Life Bank USA. They have been curing people for several years now.
But of course you have complete idiots like the one who call’s it’s self Save Us From the Religious Nuts who claims that human cells can’t be frozen. Imagine, that idiot votes. That would explain the mess we are in.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
9:26 am
Gale
I’d like to see more research into all of it, not just the political correct part. And I would also like to see the truth told by the media. Placental stem cell research has been completely privately funded, but it is working like a charm.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
9:31 am
From the Wall Street Journal:
U.S. Forces Ouster Of GM’s Wagoner
Obama moved to impose sweeping and hard-nosed restructuring measures on GM and Chrysler, including the ouster of GM’s Wagoner.
My God, What have we done? Elected officials firing corporate heads. Hope? Change? My God. I hope the Obama supporters are satisfied. Is this what you voted for?
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
9:41 am
Cost-benefit analysis.
Has anyone heard of this? This is a very large part of the medical approach listed in the stimulus bill. HMOs started doing it during the Clinton administration. Now it is becoming part of the law.
I hope all you guys are valuable enough to the government for them to allow life saving medical treatment. Is this nonsense? Did you ever imagine that the president would fire the head of GM?
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
10:04 am
30 minutes into the market opening and the DOW is down over 200.
As George Soros supported Obama, he bet against the dollar. I read where he has now made over a billion off our problems.
Soros: Supports Obama while betting against the US economy. Smart man.
Gale
March 30th, 2009
10:15 am
Now I have to read that article to get the story straight. I suspect it was the GM BOD that forced the CEO out in order to receive gov bailout funds. Personally, I think it would be better to let GM fail first and force restructuring. This just puts the second in command on the hot seat and gives people a scapegoat. We will see this CEO go to another company he can mismanage out of the public eye for a while.
As for life-saving medical anaysis; While I am sure if I or my loved one was in that position, I would want no expense spared. But prgmatically speaking, if a very expensive treatment would only sustain life for a brief period without offering any real quality of life improvement, is that expense justified? Many people make that decision for themselves when it is their own lives and their own families footing the expense. Continue to live for a few months with no hope of cure at the cost of everything I and my family owns, dooming my survivors to bankruptcy? Or die sooner with what little dignity I can muster. It is a tough decision I hope I will not have to make. It is easy to feel outrage when the decider is big government or big insureance company. But really, what would you decide? Spend a million on someone who will soon die even with the treatment, or spend the same million on someone with a reasonable hope of survival?
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
10:30 am
Gale
I also read the article. The BOD was told to fire the guy or lose their funding. Call it what you want but the Federal Government just fired the head of GM.
Yes, we all make decisions about the cost of treatment. I’m sure you have had to deal with a government bureaucracy. The maddening thing about this is the fact that to the people you are dealing with, you have no face, you have no life: you are a number on a piece of paper. Do you really want the unhappy bureaucrat that hates their life, setting in a drab corner and had a fight that morning with their spouse to decide whether you live or die?
Gale
March 30th, 2009
10:36 am
I somehow doubt a single individual would be tasked with the analysis or decision on life and death treatment. Besides, even in countries with full gov health care, people are not restricted from seeking treatment privately if the government deems the treatment not cost effective. I remember hearing about health care in the Netherlands, I think it was there. They think Americans are a bunch of wusses that we cannot deal with even simple illness without several prescriptions. On the other hand, doctors there make house calls.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
10:39 am
I wonder why the heads of the Unions that forced the US car companies into making really crappy cars and charging a fortune for them have not been even mentioned in all of this? (I don’t really wonder)
It’s like the Democrats are becoming a Socialist Party. Like a Union or a Workers Socialist Party. Wait, aren’t they the party in charge, making them a Nationalist Party?
I guess that we shouldn’t talk about this. It’s waaaaay too emotional for some people.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
10:48 am
Gale
Why would you doubt that only one or two people would make those decisions? We are talking specific offices making these decisions for millions of people. Are you telling me that you think that everyone will get a trial?
Gale, I don’t know how old you are, but if you are over 40, so far you have been left out of any help the government is offering. it is all about children for two reasons. One: it makes the dems look like they care. Two, it is much much cheaper. Few kids get sick. We will all get sick and die if we aren’t killed in an accident. Have you heard anything addressing that by this administration?
Obama is screwing up, BIG TIME. He is allowing a power hungry Congress to steer him into supporting things that will give those Congress People an incredible amount of power. And most will be there long after Obama has been thrown under the Bus.
Personally, for the sake of our country, I think Obama should be impeached as soon as possible, but the only problem with that is that Joe Biden would be president.
The Democrats will have to be allowed to continue to destroy our economy for two years until we can legally act and by vote, send them home.
Gale
March 30th, 2009
11:13 am
The biggest assistance to people over 40 is possibly prescription assistance. I am quite certain my own grandmother would have lived longer if she had not needed to decide between food and medicine. I am not crazy about the focus of children’s healthcare because I think they are going about it in the wrong way. It just encourages people to lay all the responsibility on the govermnent, when what really needs to happen is a parent home with a kid for a day. I would put in many more neighborhood clinics and allow nurse practicioners to treat many of the issues for children and adults and get those issues out of hospital ERs. That change, along with single payer insurance and electronic medical records, would also benefit many older Americans as well. I don’t really need a doctor most of the time, and I am rarely ill. But even the elders in my close aquaintance would benefit with this change. Let them stop by a nearby clinic for routine screening.
Without a way to keep simple cases out of the ER, the plan won’t help much. We cannot funnel well child visits through local ERs. We should not funnel childhood sniffles though ER. That only clogs the system.
Lyrazel
March 30th, 2009
11:24 am
When a company needs billions in handout cash from the government for operations–is it still a private corporation? Me thinks if you grab the goodie bag–you gotta pay the piper–
TOJ–when have elected union officials actually listened to members? Are union memberships effective for its members beyond influencing political candidates & creating lobbyists?
Gale
March 30th, 2009
11:27 am
TOJ, regarding cost/benefit of healthcare. Maybe we need Bruno’s input on thise since he seems more current in the healthcare industry. However, illnesses come in categories. Every illness is not life threatening. I am sure you agree that far. Our current insurance based healthcare does the same thing. Personal example: I need a bite guard or I will grind my teeth to nubs at night. My insurance will not pay for it because I am an adult and they only pay for child dental appliances. I can and did pay for it myself. An individual person at the insurance company did not make that decision. It was a policy based on the category. Simple issue, simple policy.
But suppose I have cancer that is rapidly spreading. A new drug that costs $10k a dose, MIGHT, keep me alive an extra year, but I will be sick as a dog while I take it and probably have to be hospitalized much of the time. If I don’t have the new drug, I will probably live six months, needing increasing pain medication and hospitalization near the end of that time. I do not believe a single person will make the decision for my treatment. I believe a decision of that magnitude would be a group decision made by people who understand what they are doing; not an overworked clerk. Do you honestly believe otherwise? And do you honestly believe it is any worse than what we have now?
Mara
March 30th, 2009
11:35 am
the Unions that forced the US car companies into making really crappy cars and charging a fortune for them
The Unions control the artists, the engineers, and designers who come up with the concepts!? And the engineers and developers that make the concept work? And decide which cars get built and which ones never get off the drawing board?!! Gee…I wonder if Buck and Joe working on the production line actually realize that they, and their buddies a’course, were the ones who decided that minivans and Hummers were the way to go, to the exclusion of everything else. I bet they were the ones who nixed R&D on electric cars (allowing Toyota to become the innovation leaders). And I’m positive that the only way the Dodge Nitro, Chrysler Sebring, or Chevy Uplander made it into production was because the Union guys absolutely LOVED ‘em!.
(/snark)
————————————————————————
Right now, the Democratic Party is practically mirroring the actions of the NAZIs during the mid 1930s
two words…Verschärfte Vernehmung. If you won’t repudiate ‘enhanced interrogation’ you’ve got no room to go around accusing others of acting like Nazi’s.
Factually speaking, there’s less linking Obama and the Democrats to socialism than there is joining Bush and the Republicans to fascism.
————————————————————————
If you would actually read what I write instead of looking for reasons to go emotional, perhaps you might see my point
“You’re BLACK!”, said the Pot.
“No, YOU’RE black!” said the Kettle.
“Huh-UH!”, said the Pot, “You are!”
“No, YOU are!”, Kettle said.
“No I’m not! You are!” Pot screamed.
ad nauseum…
————————————————————————
I guess that we shouldn’t talk about this. It’s waaaaay too emotional for some people.
see above -
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
11:52 am
Gale
I definitely agree with the problems of the ER. Horrible situation.
Our healthcare system definitely needs some changes. But Gale, I just do not trust our government. Our city government is a joke. Our state government officials seem like they let them out of the state hospital long enough to pass laws to spend the lottery money and do I really need to say anything about what is going on is Washington?
i think of all the things that have scared me the most was the AIG bus trips to intimidate the families of the executives at AIG. That is pure fascism. And it was encouraged by a liberally controlled media and sponsored by labor unions. It was a democrat effort from the get go and it all boils down to them covering their slimy butts because they KNEW what was in the bills that they wrote.
Think about that: Politicians that are so corrupt, so slimy that they sic mobs on private citizens to cover their own incompetence. And these same people would be in charge of the medical industry? No thanks.
Of course I really have no say. None of us really do.
I need to get back to work, and pardon my bitterness today. One of my best friends who was a huge Obama supporter landed a job in Costa Rica last week. Another close friend that also voted for Obama is selling her house and taking the money and putting it into gold and foreign currency exchange. These are two of the smartest people i know and one is bailing and the other is taking a huge lose on a million dollar house because she believes that this is only the beginning of our problems.
For the first time in years, I am looking at the end of my work. What that means to an independent contractor is once I finish up what I am doing, I am out of work. I have bid on four projects so far this year and lost all but one to a minority owned business. The last one, the minority business that won the bid had the grand scope of experience of producing one music video that never aired and has video taped their church service for two years. I have produced television for almost every network in the world for 30 years and I underbid the other company $6,000, but lost the bid. All three of the lost bids to minority owned companies were for government contracts.
Can you please explain to me why I should support or trust this government in any way?
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
12:32 pm
Mara
So you equate what the NAZIs did to their prisoners to our intell agencies depriving POWs of sleep and making them uncomfortable. But you don’t equste what they are doing now in the way of taking over major US companies and using the media to support their crimes as not what the NAZIs did. I see.
You are just not at the point that I can argue with you. You have to have at least a small amount of logic before my argument would work and apparently, that is missing from your thought process.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
1:53 pm
From Bllomberg as the DOW falls more than 300 points in one day:
In a decision that surprised lawmakers and analysts with its toughness, Obama said at the White House today “we cannot continue to excuse poor decisions” and “cannot make the survival of our auto industry dependent on an unending flow of taxpayer dollars.” He said the administration is also prepared to use bankruptcy to “help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger.”
We cannot continue to excuse poor decisions? And this is from THIS White House and THIS Congress? Holy Christ. What have we done?
Gandalf, the White!
March 30th, 2009
4:00 pm
YES TOJ! That place in Cuba was worst than, well worst than, SEAR Training! No that’s not even true, our solders, airman, sailors and marines go through more rigourous training excercises than what those terrorist went through. American is too weak to get the job done anymore. NO MORE TORTURE? What does Barry call those assine speaches he keeps giving? And pictures of his wife is pure torture! That Michelle is one Fugly woman!
Netbanker
March 30th, 2009
4:02 pm
Hey kids! Long time, no chat and I’m just running through today on my way to workout Boot Camp. Skimming through the responses shows the same round-about discussions as always that none of us will even likely solve. Theologans and scientists have studied the question of when life begins for hundreds of years and we still don’t have an answer. I don’t have it either.
I do have a healthy skepticism of the right to life folks arguing about the use of embryos that will end up as medical waste. What do you propose we do with them? Keep the little ‘humans’ frozen for ever and ever and ever? And this is good or preserves life, how exactly? If abortion is bad then is invitro infertilization also bad because it creates these little frozen balls of life as a byproduct? If abortion is playing God, isn’t IVF the same thing?
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
4:24 pm
Netbaker
Abortion isn’t playing God. It’s just an industry making a buck. . . and killing a child.
The Other Jack
March 30th, 2009
4:32 pm
Gandalf
I try to be open minded, but where anyone got that she was beautiful is a mystery to me. I know a lot of extremely hot Black women. She ain’t one of them. She’s probably a good person and now that she has been advised that being angry all the time just wasn’t working for her, she definitely looks better. But beautiful? I personally think that it is an insult to Black women, like they are judged on a lower scale. I think that says a lot about the racism that still exists in the MSM
Joy Kramer
March 30th, 2009
7:10 pm
Can someone please show me a picture of a stem cell? I want to see if it looks anything like my grandmother who has Alzheimer’s or my brother-in-law who can’t walk.
Ike
March 31st, 2009
3:40 am
Life might start at conception but there is a huge difference between a baby with hands toes eyes and legs and an embryo. Anyone who doesn’t see that really needs to get a grip. Those fetuses/ embryos are going in the trash. Is it better to just let them go to waste?