Ron Reagan (who wouldn't have this platform if his last name wasn't Reagan) just made a speech in which one would never know that embryonic research is perfectly legal in this country. I was also struck by this sophistry this morning listening to NPR, when they talked about "restrictions" on such research under the Bush Administration. I don't agree with the President's policy, but this is no more "restricting" such research than not funding artists by the NEA is "censorship."

The policy is that no federal funds will go to such research, not that it is forbidden. But if they told the truth about that, they probably wouldn't get the political pull that they hope to, and overthrow the evil Bush administration, that ostensibly forbids research that might have saved Ron's dad (not).

The irony is Alzheimer's is one of the diseases least likely to benefit from stem cell research.

This little prick, this know nothing, no-talent zero, who couldn't even make a living in television when his father was at the top of his powers, is now shamelessly hawking his ass to anyone who will pay, like the cheap Times Square hustler that he is. Last night I saw him on MSNBC, as the fifth liberal on a six member team of second rate hacks and has-beens. Today he is on a roll, putting his nose in places where qualified leaders refuse to tread. I fear that nose has been in even less savory places, but that I did not have the misfortune to witness.

He began by decrying how the other side has politicised an issue, when nothing could be farther from the truth, and proceeded to attempt to make it totally political. An issue that is, first and foremost, in the realm of science, and in that realm is not taken seriously. In other words, there is no controversy in scientific circles, yet this little scum smear seeks to make it an issue from which he can get attention. The issue? Human fetal stem cell tissue research. His point? He seeks to coerce the half of citizens who would rather not pay money to terminate what they conceive as human life, to so contribute. His means? Attempting to convince voters that A) such research is vital and B) denying millions of tax dollars to pursue such folly is reason enough to dump the Bush administration and therefore vote for his idol, JFK.

Actual, rather than political, research has discovered that human fetal stem cells are not a likely place to find useful medical treatments. Especially since we all carry around a virtually unlimited supply of our own stem cells. There is therefore no need to destroy human fetuses in order to "harvest" these alien, less useful, fetal cells. And, just in case there is a medical cure available here, there are a few programs going on, albeit without benefit of money from unwilling Americans. But this political hack and attention whore can not stop himself from trying to draw the spotlight to himself, and thus garner a few more unearned paychecks. Plus, as a liberal, he enjoys the rush of using the power of the State to make people pay for something that they find repugnant. And never forget the need that lefties seem to have to encourage more abortions, for whatever reason.

It is an incredible dichotomy: the son of the public figure whom I most admire, has managed to become the one for whom I have the greatest contempt.

Micheal,
If you are concerned about the destruction of embryos, you would best go after the fertity industry that pumps out vast surpluses of bastocysts that will never see a womb (and then explain your position to the would-be parents). Tying research to abortion is really a bit of a red herring...
A legitimate reason to research embryonic stem cells (to this non-biologist) would be fundamental research on development and differentiation-a good understanding of which is necessary for implementing many other treatments, not just stem cell related.

Rand:
Would it be fair to say that it is disingenuous to criticize Kerry's position on NASA funding if one is a space enthusiast?

BTW: Anyone notice Teresa hitting the Galieo-Cassini-Hubble trifecta? I suspect a geek in the future first family...

The real problem is not the lack of Federal funding - which is only 30-40% of all medical research funds - but rather the persistent attempts by the current adminstration to ban therapeutic cloning (or SCNT).

http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/help_support_stem_cell_research.cfm

Since therapeutic cloning is vital to all the most promising stem cell research, this means that much of it has gone unfunded. Private capital has been scared away for years now because a ban has been just a single (much delayed) senate vote away.

http://www.longevitymeme.org/projects/oppose_the_therapeutic_cloning_ban.cfm

On the topic of Alzheimer's and embryonic stem cell research, you should look at this:

http://www.chriscmooney.com/blog.asp?Id=972

Synopsis: no therapies likely to result in the short term, great benefits likely in the long term.

> BTW: Anyone notice Teresa hitting the Galieo-Cassini-Hubble trifecta? I suspect a geek in the future first family...

I just saw that while reading a transcript of the speech. I think that's the first time anybody associated with any of the presidential campaigns has actually mentioned any of those three missions, let alone all three.

Mr. Young;

No, it's not disingenuous to hit Kerry for lack of funding for space, since Rand isn't claiming Kerry wants to ban space travel. As Rand notes, if Ron Reagan had attacked the lack of federal funding then there would be no basis for the charge of sophistry.

Would it be fair to say that it is disingenuous to criticize Kerry's position on NASA funding if one is a space enthusiast?

I can't say, unless you elaborate on this statement. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't even know for sure what Kerry's position is on that subject. Or what it will be next week.

You hit it on the nose, Rand. Nobody knows, not Kerry himself (IMHO), what he will do on any issue. Both liberals and conservatives should think very hard before they vote for this cipher. We have never before seen a candidate for president whose rhetoric is so far removed from his actions of the last 40 years. I'll bet that not even his priest knows where he will stand on any issue- not even abortion- when push comes to shove, and he has to, for the first time in his life, actually make an executive decision, and wield executive power.

Michael Gersh said:

"He began by decrying how the other side has politicised an issue, when nothing could be farther from the truth, and proceeded to attempt to make it totally political."

Perhaps you are living on another planet? On this one, in the U.S. it is an extremely political issue.

"An issue that is, first and foremost, in the realm of science, and in that realm is not taken seriously."

Uh, sure. Never mind all the scientists that do believe it is very important long term research.

"In other words, there is no controversy in scientific circles ..."

Well, this is true. The argument against the research is based on a specific religious interpretation that a group of undifferentiated cells without organs or nervous system is a full human being.

Among other things, the Bush Administration was pushing a *TREATY* to ban reproductive cloning. If they did no more than limit Federal funding on specific research, I wouldn't mind too much - though it is basing research spending on specific religious beliefs, not science, and the Feds spend money on many things I don't like - but they have gone far beyond that. There's no doubt that their actions have limited private spending in this area.