The Daily Update: What You Can’t Read in the Newspaper

  • Fascinating: Self-Portraits Chroncile a Descent into Alzheimer’s. Source: The New York Times.
  • Neighbors Upset That Group Home Opened On Their Street Without Any Public Meeting or Notice. Online Town Talk.
  • Michael J. Fox Commercial for Claire McCaskill Creates Controversy. Watch it on YouTube.
  • Blanco Appoints Bridgett Brown To Board Overseeing Tobacco Settlement. Source: KALB.
  • Bush No Longer Rhetorically “Staying the Course” In Iraq. Source: CNN.com.

13 thoughts

  1. Michael is either misleading or was duped by the democrat contender in Missouri. Stem cell research is legal in Missouri and Jim Talent is NOT opposed to it. The democrats have played their usual tricks on the voters in this instance, write the law where it will mislead voters to think they’re voting FOR something to get it passed.

    Fox appears on the ad while he’s off his medication to show how bad the disease is, as if we didn’t know. He admitted that that’s what he did when he testified before congress to get funding.

    Reply

  3. Damn right I listened to Rush today. If you don’t listen to Rush or Laura or Sean you can’t get the facts from the slanted liberal media like Communist News Network and all.

    Reply

  6. As opposed to regurgitating Rush’s slant as absolute fact. Oh no he’s not slanted at all. He tells it like it is with no editorial commentary.

    Reply

  7. While I am going to have to pass on your hedged invite for fellatio, I would still like to take this opportunity to encourage you to spend time researching and reading for yourself. While it is easier to enter the arena of ideas plagiarizing quotes from extreme partisan pundits on either side, it has always seemed a bit more responsible to…how you say–think for yourself?

    Very best,
    Ben

    Reply

  10. Incidentally, here’s what Rush and Mary Davenport neglect while trying to whip you up into a frenzy:

    Yes, adult stem cells have produced 72 kinds of therapies (of which only a few are viable), because adult stem cells (as Davenport points out) are already differentiated into ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. They are not pluripotent, and while they can be used in several different types of organ therapies (heart, etc.) they cannot be used to treat spinal injuries or diseases like Parkinson’s. Also, adult stem cells are significantly more difficult to harvest and grow in a culture, and for stem cell therapies, large numbers of the cells are required.

    The Missouri Amendment (if you actually took time to read it) is not “doublespeak.” It differentiates between Dolly-the-sheep type cloning and therapeutic cloning–which is what most people consider to be the “double speak.” It does so because, while George Bush has authorized embryonic stem cell research, he did so for only 60 lines of previously destroyed embryos. There is an explicit ban on the destruction of any embryos in the future for the purposes of research. Supplies are limited and scarce. Amendment 2 in Missouri would allow researches to therapeutically clone those embryonic stem cells allowed by law to have enough cells to successfully research. The “somatic nuclear transfer” is mentioned specifically to restrict the possibility of human cloning and allay the fears of people who hear the word “cloning” and lose their minds.

    There is tremendous potential in embryonic stem cell research–if only you guys would be chill and let scientists actually DO the research. There are ways to distort the issues on both sides. Why is it that when Rush says, “Adult stem cells have produced 72 types of therapies,” he doesn’t even begin to address why people are still advocates for embryonic stem cell research? Because he’s an excellent speaker and pundit–and doesn’t say the last sentence. Without providing a little more information, he allows his listeners to inaccurately bridge the gap and assume that people who advocate embryonic stem cell research just want to kill babies because they can. Talk about spin, Heywood. That’s just irresponsible.

    Incidentally, none of the research I did for this response came from political commentators of any kind. In fact, a lot of it came from our beloved White House. You may view these articles (which may be boring to you, as they are free of rabid partisan hackery) here:

    National Institute of Health – Stem Cell Basics
    http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics6.asp

    The White House – Fact Sheet: Embryonic Stem Cell Research
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-1.html

    Missouri Amendment 2 (in its entirety, provided by the Secretary of State)
    http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2006petitions/ppStemCell.asp

    Reply

  12. While I appreciate the opinions of the founding members of Do No Harm, I am not especially impressed by a group of men who oppose everything from nanotechnology research to in vitro fertilization. The word “reactionary” comes to mind.

    I will leave this argument by saying that clearly there is merit in embryonic stem cell research if even President Bush has signed on to it, albeit in a limited capacity.

    Reply

  13. Anon 2:49,

    Ben M. is working to get scientific research uncensored by political or moral objectives. Your cited website is run by a coalition who clearly states these parameters:

    “COALITION OBJECTIVES

    1. To advance the development of medical treatments and therapies that do not require the destruction of human life, including the human embryo.
    2. To educate and inform public policy makers and the general public regarding these ethically acceptable and medically promising areas of research and treatment.
    3. To support continuation of federal laws prohibiting the federal funding of research that requires the destruction of human life, including the human embryo.”

    Not exactly a purely scientific endeavor.

    Also, Michael J. Fox did not say Jim Talent was opposed to stem cell research but to the EXPANSION of said research.

    Reply

Leave a comment