----- Original Message ----- From: "Gautam Mukunda" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 10:53 PM Subject: Re: John Edwards: John Kerry is Jesus
> --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Ahhhh....ok....But I have not seen anywhere where > > anyone has said it > > will happen in eight years. The product of such > > research will happen > > when it happens, but only after it is prodded to > > start. > > "They will get up and walk" seems pretty definitive to > me, Rob. Personally, I would require that Edwards had to have said "They will get up and walk within eight years" for me to make the argument you are making. I can't buy that argument from what I've seen because it seems like others are "filling in the blanks" between the lines and changing the meaning of what was *actually* spoken. (Partisans on all sides do this and I think we all recognise that.) > > Eh?.....then Bush did not make a ban regarding stem > > cells? > > That is new to me since I read articles complaining > > about this ban > > fairly often. > > And it isn't just about paralysis, remember. > > No, Bush was the first President to ever _approve_ of > stem cell research. It isn't even within the power of > the President to ban stem cell research. What Bush > did was much more subtle - he authorized federal > funding for stem cell research on stem cell lines that > were already in existence before he made the decision, > but did not allow federal funding for new stem cell > lines. There is no ban on stem cell research. You > can do any sort of research with private funding. You > can do research with federal funding on the old stem > cell lines. This is the major point of disagreement I think. I would think you would have to demonstrate that not a single federal dollar was spent researching stem cells prior to Bush. As I recall (and I could be wrong, forgive me in advance), there was federally funded research going on during Clintons presidency which is why there was an outcry when Bush banned further stem cell lines. It was a move in his pro-life agenda, equating stem cell research with abortion. This is what I recall from that period and why I am disagreeing with you. > > Now, the reason I disagree with the Administration's > position is that the number of lines in existence is > far lower than the Administration said it was when > they announced it, and in general I am highly > reluctant to limit scientific research. I think we are agreed in this. But I also find it to be just another move in Bush's politisation of science, and that is something I am very opposed to. That by itself is enough to keep me from supporting this administration in any way. (Just my personal opinion here) > But it > doesn't seem to me that this line is all that > promising. I'm obviously not a doctor, but there have > been exactly no cures, none, from this line of > research so far. Does that mean there will be? Of > course not. There may be. I hope that there will. Hmmmmm.....It seems to me that the medical research community, like other science research communities, is a self policing system, and that the competition for research dollars tends to weed out waste and outright dishonesty in a manner that reflects the ethic of the "market". I have faith that this line of research *will* bear fruit. (That particular argument is, hopefully, sufficiently conservative oriented to please you. It is exactly how I feel about the matter in any case and I hope it gives you a better idea of where I personally stand on such matters, as opposed to my fear that I am seen simply as a liberal partisan that I am not.) > But that fact surely aggravates the sin of a Vice > Presidential candidate promising that people will get > out of their wheelchairs and walk, if only you vote > for him. What the hell is wrong with these people? Language is often an imprecise tool, especially when speaking off the top of ones head. When writing, one has the leisure to consider ones words with much greater care and yet, look at how many times here on the list people have backed up and modified or restated something they had written previously. (Of course we know politicians don't particularly like to do this since they feel it makes them look bad.) Giving a speaker the benefit of the doubt in such regard may sometimes tell a different tale. xponent Gridlock Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
