Thanks, George
I would just like to send out a special thank you to George W. Bush for using his first ever veto to stop Congress from allowing expanded research on stem cells. That this research could possibly save me and millions like me from blindness, loss of limbs and early death is of no consequence. And that’s just the diabetics. Let’s not even get into the people suffering from Alzheimers, Parkinson’s and hundreds of other diseases. He stuck up for his principles and that’s what is important. They might be ridiculous, ignorant principles based on a complete lack of scientific and philosopical understanding of life, but he stuck up for them anyways.
Thanks, George. Thanks for putting this research back for 8 years. 8 years. Thanks for making it so I might never get to enjoy the benefits of it. And thanks to all of you who voted for him. Thanks alot. The next time you decide to vote for an autistic born-again christian fundamentalist failed-upward-because-of-his-last-name cokehead alcoholic because he’s a Republican and darnit, you have to maintain party loyalty, do me a favor. Go ahead and poke my eyes out, saw off my feet and kill me early. Let’s skip all the bullshit in between. Thanks.
Explore posts in the same categories: health, life, politics
July 20th, 2006 at 7:55 am
“stop Congress from allowing expanded research on stem cells.”
He actually just continued the ban on federal funding of a specific kind of ethically troublesome (for many people) stem-cell research. The research will continue as always, just privately. You can actually donate to Harvard’s embryonic stem-cell research via this page.
July 20th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Keith, as always I respect your opinion. But you are wrong, wrong, wrong. The “ethically troublesome” part of the stem cell research that he has banned funding for is only troublesome to those who have no concept of science or life, for that matter. It is simply red meat for his ass-backwards political base.
By banning the funding of the research he has effectively banned the research. The 25 million dollars that they give for adult stem cell research is a pittance in line with what is provided for the study “alternative medicine’s” like acupuncture and the use of St. John’s wort for treaing depression. That amount of money would be used up by one university in less than 2 years. And thanks for the link. I will send them the $100 I can spare. Now if we can only get 250,000 more people just like me, we can fund them for the next year and a half.
Without developing new lines of stem cells ( the 23 lines available are contaminated and not nearly enough for a serious clinical study), the research is effectively at a standstill. While some study is going on, it is a mere shadow of what could be done with the help that Congress was trying to provide.
So I believe that the sentence you quoted is quite accurate. “Expanded” is the keyword.
I hope the next time you vote you try and figure out if the candidate you support has a Medieval fundamentalist view of life. It is people like that steaming turd who purport to be so religious that are turning me off of Christianity. If that’s a Christian, I want no part of it.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:30 am
While I am anti-abortion, I would define myself more as a libertarian than as an anti-abortionist. I think, ultimately, keeping things in the private sector and out of politics is a good thing, which is also what this article argues for.
But, you have to admit, this is a political victory for the pro-embryonic research side. They were able to convince a majority of the representative bodies to agree with them, even though both of those bodies are conservative. That will make this issue that much more important for the upcoming elections, and if the votes go a certain way, by this time next year embryonic research could be fully federally funded.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Here’s a current article that’s also pertinent. Also, I meant to say in my last post, if it is an important issue in the elections, that means that it will likely get more funding than it would have otherwise, which would more than make up for the year lost.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:19 am
This issue has nothing to with abortion. The embryos are created in a petri dish in fertilization clinics and are approved for research of other kinds, since the unused embryos are routinely destroyed anyway. So don’t confuse unused embryos for fertility treatment with aborted fetuses. Bush’s first veto is a blow to humanity. Thanks Bush.
July 21st, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Thank you, Kevin. I now officially love you more than Keith.
July 22nd, 2006 at 7:11 am
Hey!
Officially? You filed all the paperwork and everything?
Dangit!
July 24th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Seriously, though, this is very much about abortion. The destruction of embryos is the main reason the Catholic church and most anti-abortion folk oppose in vitro fertilization.
Think of it this way: if someone said we should use people on death row for medical experiments, what Kevin is saying would be the equivalent of saying “this isn’t about the death penalty, there are no electric chairs and no lethal injections involved.” The question isn’t the method of destruction, it’s the rights of the thing being destroyed, or the societal cost involved in destroying it.
July 28th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
“The right of the thing being destroyed” is an odd phrase. If the ‘thing being destroyed’ is a glob of cells that could save a full-term baby, child, adolescent or adult from being the ‘thing being destroyed’ does that not warrant reconsideration?
Bush is an enigma. By his logic, it’s not ok to utilize the unborn to help the born, but it is just fine to send grown innocents into an insoluble, manufactured quagmire, then pretend their coffins aren’t coming home.
Fortunately, there are many groups doing research that even we liberals/progressives/democrats can support. Our family does, and I would hope for the sake of people with potentially curable diseases other folks will seek them out and help.
July 29th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“The next time you decide to vote for an autistic born-again christian fundamentalist”
What has that got to do with him making bad decisions? Being a Christian doesn’t prevent a person from being uninformed. God doesn’t sit you down and explain every part of life to you. The person has to pray and ask for guidance. If God gave George Bush guidance on this matter and he followed it then I’m afraid no matter how we feel, he was right. However I will say that George W. Bush would not be the first to use God as an excuse for something they did on their own.
July 29th, 2006 at 5:38 pm
Mary- Good point and nice to hear from you again.
Todd- Actually the important part is the fundamentalist part. Fundamentalist anythings tend to revel in their ignorance and use whatever religion they subscribe to to justify their ignorance. Part (though not all) of his problems with making good decisions is that he uses his fundie attitudes to justify being poorly informed and disinclined to be educated. The born-again part really speaks more to the fact that in his recent past he was (and might still be) an alcoholic and cokehead. I personally believe his being “born-again” was a cynical way to get the public to ignore his faults.
The christian part (and you should notice I didn’t capitalize it for a reason) is just the particular label he uses because it is popular in the good ole USA. If we were in Pakistan he would use muslim in the exact same way. I’m not denigrating Christians in general. Real Christians are good people, but being a real Christian is like really being honest. Everyone says they are, few actually are. And I’m not trying to imply that I belong to either group
.
July 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Fundamentalism actually has a pretty interesting history. If you’re interested, here’s a good rundown. It has a very specific historical meaning.
And Bush, by the way, is part of the United Methodist Church, which is a fairly liberal denomination.