CE Volume 3

[Thorngrub]

"[glow=brown,2,300]Your notion that a person can only care about the issue, or would think as you do on the issue, by knowing someone who's suffered from alzheimers is absurd. It's partially absurd because SCR is for so much more than just alzheimers. But it's even more absurd because it eludes to believing that the only way a person can care about an issue is if he or she is directly effected by it.
[/glow]" - Chrisfan

Your quote above, highlit in brown, is absurd.

For one, I never claimed nor did I even allude to any such idea that a person can only care about the issue by knowing someone who's suffered from alzheimers. And even if I had -- you seem to be completely oblivious to the teensy little fact that a reason such as althzeimer's is reason enough on its own merits to warrant such research.

How you made the jump to concluding my reasoning was even more absurd because I alluded that a person can only care about an issue by being affected by it is beyond me. I asked a simple question -- "Have you been affected by anyone in your family with Alztheimers?", and that is the best you can do? A simple "Why, no" would have sufficed. Instead you twist it around and throw it in my face, in some vain attempt to attack my viewpoint and turn it around for you. If anything is "absurd", it is your method and approach towards communicating here.


I suppose you require a "majority" of reasons in order to "justify" something like stem cell research; going back to rescue one lil demographic left out in the cold just ain't good enough, huh.

You sicken me.

[chrisfan]

Why do you continue to argue the validation of stem cell research with me? I've stated more than once that while I'm not completely decided on the issue, I lean towards supporting it, and believing that Bush should lift many of the restrictions on funding for it. So why do you continue to argue with me on something that we nearly agree on completely? ARe you that bored? Or that stupid?

[Ampage]

Oh, you two!

[Thorngrub]

lol, Chrisfan -- then what, pray tell, are we arguing about/discussing/needlessly bitching to & fro for-?

[chrisfan]

thorny said:

lol, Chrisfan -- then what, pray tell, are we arguing about/discussing/needlessly bitching to & fro for-?

ask yourself. You're the one whose been attacking me all afternoon for things I've never argued. Perhaps it's you that is bending over backwards until your spine snaps to disagree with whatever I say, no matter what it is.

[Thorngrub]

Well, whatever it is, I sense some crackling force between us . . .

[Mary]

In case anyone is interested, I managed to find the full text of Ron Reagan Jr's speech online:

Text of Ron Reagan's Speech at Convention

Tue Jul 27,10:56 PM ET


By The Associated Press

A text of Ron Reagan's speech as prepared for delivery Tuesday at the Democratic National Convention:

 

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.


A few of you may be surprised to see someone with my last name showing up to speak at a Democratic convention. Let me assure you, I am not here to make a political speech, and the topic at hand should notmust norhave anything to do with partisanship.


I am here tonight to talk about the issue of research into what may be the greatest medical breakthrough in our or in any lifetime: the use of embryonic stem cells — cells created using the material of our own bodies — to cure a wide range of fatal and debilitating illnesses: Parkinson's disease (news - web sites), multiple sclerosis, diabetes, lymphoma, spinal cord injuries, and much more. Millions are afflicted. Every year, every day, tragedy is visited upon families across the country, around the world.


Now, we may be able to put an end to this suffering. We only need to try. Some of you already know what I'm talking about when I say "embryonic stem cell research." Others of you are probably thinking, "Hmm, thats quite a mouthful, what is this all about?"


Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the incredible science involved. Let's say that ten or so years from now you are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. There is currently no cure and drug therapy, with its attendant side-effects, can only temporarily relieve the symptoms.


Now, imagine going to a doctor who, instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A hit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell's nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection. These stem cells are then driven to become the very neural cells that are defective in Parkinson's patients. And finally, those cells — with your DNA — are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells whose failure to produce adequate dopamine led to the Parkinson's disease in the first place.


In other words, you're cured. And another thing, these embryonic stem cells, they could continue to replicate indefinitely and, theoretically, can be induced to recreate virtually any tissue in your body. How'd you like to have your own personal biological repair kit standing by at the hospital? Sound like magic? Welcome to the future of medicine.


By the way, no fetal tissue is involved in this process. No fetuses are created, none destroyed. This all happens in the laboratory at the cellular level.


Now, there are those who would stand in the way of this remarkable future, who would deny the federal funding so crucial to basic research. They argue that interfering with the development of even the earliest stage embryo, even one that will never he implanted in a womb and will never develop into an actual fetus, is tantamount to murder. A few of these folks, needless to say, are just grinding a political axe and they should he ashamed of themselves. But many are well-meaning and sincere. Their belief is just that, an article of faith, and they are entitled to it.


But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many. And how can we affirm life if we abandon those whose own lives are so desperately at risk?


It is a hallmark of human intelligence that we are able to make distinctions. Yes, these cells could theoretically have the potential, under very different circumstances, to develop into human beings — that potential is where their magic lies. But they are not, in and of themselves, human beings. They have no fingers and toes, no brain or spinal cord. They have no thoughts, no fears. They feel no pain. Surely we can distinguish between these undifferentiated cells multiplying in a tissue culture and a living, breathing person — parent, a spouse, a child.


I know a child — well, she must be 13 now — I'd better call her a young woman. She has fingers and toes. She has a mind. She has memories. She has hopes. And she has juvenile diabetes.


Like so many kids with this disease, she has adjusted amazingly well. The insulin pump she wears — she's decorated hers with rhinestones. She can insert her own catheter needle. She has learned to sleep through the blood drawings in the wee hours of the morning. She's very brave. She is also quite bright and understands full well the progress of her disease and what that might ultimately mean: blindness, amputation, diabetic coma. Every day, she fights to have a future.


What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?


And, should we fail, how will we feel if, a few years from now, a more enlightened generation should fulfill the promise of embryonic stem cell therapy? Imagine what they would say of us who lacked the will.


No, we owe this young woman and all those who suffer — we owe ourselves — better than that. We are better than that. A wiser people, a finer nation. And for all of us in this fight, let me say: we will prevail.

 


The tide of history is with us. Like all generations who have come before ours, we are motivated by a thirst for knowledge and compelled to see others in need as fellow angels on an often difficult path, deserving of our compassion.

In a few months, we will face a choice. Yes, between two candidates and two parties, but more than that. We have a chance to take a giant stride forward for the good of all humanity. We can choose between the future and the past, between reason and ignorance, between true compassion and mere ideology. This is our moment, and we must not falter.

Whatever else you do come November 2nd, I urge you, please, cast a vote for embryonic stem cell research. Thank you for your time.

***

Cheers,
M

[Mary]

A couple of my own thoughts based on the text of the speech (I didn't actually hear it, so I'm obviously missing visual and aural cues and such)...

First, it doesn't actually appear that Reagan mentions Alzheimers Disease once in the entire speech, so unless the actual delivery was different, I'm not sure I really understand the criticism that stem cell research is actually more likely to benefit other diseases.

Second, I can to some degree see where chrisfan is coming from in terms of the excessive optimism of the speech, and the implication that this magical future will almost inevitably unfold should the federal government fully embrace stem cell research. However, I don't see it as nearly as infuriating, for a few reasons...

For one, it's always qualified. Reagan always speaks in the modal aspect - "may" instead of "will" - i.e. "what may be the greatest medical breakthrough" and "we may be able to put an end to this suffering." More importantly, though, I believe this kind of effusive optimism is simply rhetorical par for the course at a political convention, and if we were to become irate at every excessively optimistic promise and vision of the future offered in convention speeches, we'd be pretty much incapable of paying attention to any of them without storming out of the living room. The only thing about the speech that's really objectionable is his patently absurd insistence that it's a non-political, non-partisan speech. Aside from that, glowing, blindly optimistic visions of the boundless felicity of the future are pretty much a dime a dozen at Republican and Democratic presidential conventions alike, and I believe most people are more than capable of distinguishing the rhetorical performance involved in such speeches from the actual content.

Indeed, I'd remind the folks here that Reagan's father, the late president, was often accused by his opponents of using optimism to instill unrealistic hopes in people who were severely disadvantaged by historical circumstances or economic deprivation. There's a legitimate claim to be made against both the father and the son, but I really think the context of this particular speech mitigates against a very strong claim.

Cheers,
M

[RocDoc]

Mary sez:
For one, it's always qualified. Reagan always speaks in the modal aspect - "may" instead of "will"...

No.

...She's very brave. She is also quite bright and understands full well the progress of her disease and what that might ultimately mean: blindness, amputation, diabetic coma. Every day, she fights to have a future.


What excuse will we offer this young woman should we fail her now? What might we tell her children? Or the millions of others who suffer? That when given an opportunity to help, we turned away? That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve? That even though we knew better, we did nothing?


That facing political opposition, we lost our nerve?

"That facing political opposition"? Hmmmm, which hypothetical 'political opposition' or struggle in the far-off future might have he been referring to?
Um.
'Now', again is certainly strongly implied/inferred.

...and he's definitely TRYING to dump this real-time present 'failure' to find these cures square as hell on Bush's lap as though his approval, withheld here, dooms everyone. His excessively optimistic promise(s) and vision(s) of the future('typically')offered in convention speeches are simplistically painting the presence of Bush in the White House come January as an absolute failure regarding those folks with concerned families and sympathetic loved ones waiting w/bated breath for their 'certain' cures...

He's trying to make hay with bullshit, that's what irks me there.

And I haven't THAT much faith that too many WILL know that he's fancifully exaggerating just like guys at political conventions simply 'routinely' do.
Besides the fact that there are many more perceptive folks who'll simply will themselves to believe(against all intellectual evidence to dispute this rhetoric) because they've bought into the 'hate all things Bush'-line...they've simply steeled themselves as a matter of 'faith' now.

[Proud]

kind of a random point i'm about to make, but i personally believe women should also have to register for the selective service.

*wants people to comment on that belief in some way or another*

[Mary]

Sorry rocdoc, but I just don't see how those quotes establish that Ron Reagan is implying the inevitable triumph of stem cell research in vanquishing all these horrible diseases. So far as I can see, they simply imply that policies now can indeed vastly circumscribe the possibilities offered by stem cell research. This seems true to me.

I suppose you can never know if today's policies will cause a "failure" in the future because history never offers counterfactuals - but by this logic, it becomes absolutey logically impossible to criticize any current policies for their likely detrimental effect on the future insofar as you can never prove conclusively that different policies would bring a brighter future. That kind of approach certainly insulates incumbents from a variety of criticism, but it seems utterly antithetical to how political campaigns have been waged in this country throughout history.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. The speech seems like a typical political speech. I will be interested to see if you are equally outraged every time someone at the Republican convention suggests that a particular Kerry policy preference would bring about massive problems in the future.

****

Regarding Proudillness' post... funny you should mention this now, since I just taught Rostker v. Goldberg this morning, the 1981 Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld selective service registration only applying to men. The argument was that the purpose of registration is to serve a future draft, and that the purpose of the draft, in turn, is to raise combat troops, and that only men are eligible for most combat roles anyway. So it would make no sense to make women register for the draft when they can't serve in combat roles anyway. The dissents pointed out that only about 2/3rds of draftees are typicallly placed into combat roles anyway, so Rehnquist's reasoning in the majority opinion was specious.

Personally, I think in a way the issue of registration for the draft is one (or two) steps removed from the real issue, one which American society is loathe to address: whether the mililtary should lift combat restrictions on women, period. I agree with the dissents in Rostker that women should also register for the draft (incidetally all four Service Chiefs advocated in their testimony before the Court registering women for the draft) because we can also draft people for non-combat positions, but this rests on the assumption that combat exclusions continue to operate. What I'd really like to know is what would happen if a woman challenged combat exclusions themselves on equal protection grounds before the Court.

Cheers,
M

[Proud]

i'm talking about combat positions included.

[strat-0]

kind of a random point i'm about to make, but i personally believe women should also have to register for the selective service.

*wants people to comment on that belief in some way or another*

I’ll comment, Proud. That makes sense, since sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. But there are larger issues.

Men have more upper body strength than women, and lots of testosterone coursing through their veins. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the armed forces.

Women can serve very effectively in many areas of the service – fighter pilots, commanders, whatever. I don’t care – many have the necessary talents. But when you try to unisex the armed forces, you run into several problems. When you mix young men and young women together, you are going to get natural events that lead to a total breakdown in a fighting forces’ discipline. You’ve got to keep in mind, “this is your country’s army.” Quite frankly, I’d rather my army was a bunch of pretty scary, ugly m----fkrs. I’m talking about boots on the ground.

[Proud]

nothing wrong with what you just said at all. but i consider this a matter of "equality", and otherwise hypocracy from the government.

[stratman19]

I'm with strat-0 on this one. This is the goddamn military, and the military is no place to conduct social experiments.