 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
What They Thought July 3, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||||
Alan
Caruba A friend of mine, the president of a New York public relations firm, has a big stake in the success of embryonic stem cell (ESC) research because his wife, a childhood sweetheart and mother of his children, was diagnosed with Secondary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis many years ago and requires constant care. To encourage passage of proposed legislation that would increase federal funding for ESC, he has created a “Walk a Mile in My Shoes” campaign (Jericho Communications, 304 Hudson Street, Suite 700, New York, NY 10013) asking people to send the President a million pairs of old shoes to demonstrate public support for the bill that would provide more funding. After the message is presented to the White House, the shoes will be donated to charity. For more information, contact stemcell@jerichopr.com. Stem cell research offers the promise of cures, but lost in the debate about federal funding is the fact that there are two forms, embryonic and adult. What you rarely read or hear about is Adult Stem Cell research (ASC). The reason is two-fold. First, ESC has gotten better public relations, but the use of embryos also lies at the heart of a moral tug-of-war between primarily fundamentalist Christians and the scientists advocating more funding for research. Secondly, ASC, which may prove to be more promising, gets almost no media coverage because, quite frankly, most reporters are either abysmally ignorant of the progress that has already been made or are biased toward ESC, thanks to the way its advocates have effectively promised to cure every disease or injury in sight, and the conflict that neatly divides those for and against it. Journalism thrives on conflict. Frankly, I hope my friend’s wife and all the others in need of a cure can find it, whether it comes from either ESC or ASC. I am personally less concerned about the ethics of using embryos if, in fact, they are going to be destroyed anyway. What I do know is that my colleague, Michael Fumento, one of the leading science writers in the nation, reports that, “Adult stem cells routinely treat or cure more than 80 different diseases, while no ESC research is anywhere near becoming a human clinical trial.” ASC represents real progress, but you aren’t reading about it because the political debate about ESC funding is drowning out this important fact. “Moreover,” notes Fumento, adult stem cells “are obtained without the ethical conflicts of harvesting human embryos.” In short, the process of cloning using a human embryo, widely opposed by right-to-life advocates, is not a factor thanks to the advances already made with ASC research. ESC’s only advantage is that they can become all cell types, but ASC’s have the ability to convert into all three “germ layers” formed during early embryonic development. One involves connective tissues, muscles and the circulatory system. Another involves skin and nervous system cells, and the third involves the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract, and endocrine glands. Thus, ASC’s can address a whole host of diseases and injuries. Should we abandon ESC research? No, but neither should we succumb to the hyperbole about their ability to cure all ills to the extent that we ignore ASC research. Right now, ESC’s don’t cure anything. The political battle will focus on the moral and ethical issues, but politics is already influencing the number of research grants being administered by the National Institutes of Health. They tilt strongly to ESC research. From 2001 to the present there have been 750 ESC research grants, whereas ASC’s have received only 140 such grants, with an additional 139 for research on umbilical-cord stem cells. Politics, too, is clearly influencing President Bush’s resistance. The role of Christian evangelicals was critical to his winning the last two elections. There is a touch of irony involved in the political debate occurring. As the legislation seeking more ESC funding continues to make it way through Congress, we can expect Nancy Reagan, the wife of the former president, to play a role supporting it. What you are not likely to hear, however, is that there is not a huge surplus of embryos for such research. Writing in a June 5 edition of the Chicago Tribune, Steve Chapman reported that, “Just 2.2 percent of the embryos (currently available) have been designated for disposal and less than 3 percent for research. The latter group amounts to about 11,000.” According to a RAND study, these would yield no more than 275 stem-cell lines. For the task of curing major diseases, an article in Scientific American last year said, "hundreds of thousands" of lines may be needed — which "could require millions of discarded embryos." As these facts become more widely known, the ethics battles may recede. Adult stem cells would, at this point, appear to hold a far greater promise. Either way, what I and countless others want is to see research proceed and the promise of stem cell research to end the suffering of those afflicted diseases and injuries which are the cause so much grief today be fulfilled. |
||||||||
R.A.
Hawkins Quite a few people have been talking about the breaking of the housing market bubble lately. It will happen eventually and it probably isn’t that far off. It may well provide that catalyst that finalizes the psychologically conjugal connectivity between the radical left and right. It will also be used by the Democrats to slide in whatever miscreant (Hillary) or mistercreant (Kerry) they are trying to push into the White House. I have a friend who was in real estate the year Bill Clinton got into office. He said lenders were telling some people in hushed voices not to buy a house at that time because they would lose their behinds. Somebody wanted to make sure they maintained the image of a failed Bush 41 economy until after the election. After the election real estate began to sell again. What a miracle. If you will think back you will remember that the economy suddenly began to turn around before WJC actually got into office. You radicals will all have to feel back since thinking isn’t allowed. If you’re in California, join hands and share your feelings. At the time when good ol' WJC got out of office, he was trying to allow margin call trading on the stock exchange. He lost that one because it was one of the contributing factors in the Great Depression. I know a few people who were around back then. They didn’t think it was so great. But there is something that has made a comeback from that era and it is just as insidious. It is a lot like margin call trading only it is with houses. It is known as an interest only loan. With an interest only loan, one doesn’t have to pay anything against the principle for three to seven years. This allows some people to spend their money on other things rather than build up real equity. Many people have used this type of loan to purchase houses that are way outside their range. I read one comment from some guy that got one of these loans so he could buy his dream home. He said that if it weren’t for that loan he would still be a renter.Yes and one pill makes you bigger and one pill makes you small. It was like a fantasy land rant to me. He doesn’t realize that he is essentially still a renter and it’s against a loan he isn’t touching the principle on for years. The loan is also designed for people who aren’t planning on staying in that house for long. The only way they can turn any kind of a profit on it is to sell at a higher price the next time. Eventually this will reach critical mass and trigger the breaking of that bubble. One fine day, even the silly people will admit that well, you just want too much for that house. That is when the bubble will break. Here is one comment from Bankrate.com that says it all: “The concept is not a new one; back in the Roaring Twenties, interest-only mortgages were commonplace. At the end of the term, homeowners typically refinanced. The system worked great unless your home lost value or you lost your job. Which is exactly what happened when the Great Depression hit. Foreclosures skyrocketed, and lenders abruptly stopped writing interest-only loans.” They went on to say that these types of loans continued to be used in Great Britain. Do you think for one moment that it is an accident for this to be happening at a time when we are losing jobs? Right now, seventy percent of the new loans in San Francisco are interest only loans. A few years ago it was about three percent. This kind of loan reemerged about the time that Bill Clinton was leaving office. When this bubble breaks, all of the demagogues will begin to crawl out of the woodwork and from under rocks. I can already hear the war cry. “It’s the Jew bankers that did this to us.” Do you know what happened after the Roaring Twenties? The Nazis emerged. This time, it will be here. Before they all begin making their claims, I would like to make a point to all of the conspiracy nuts out there. I’ll even put it in quotation marks so it will be more quotable. “Yes, maybe it was a conspiracy. There is a problem with conspiracies; they only work on corruptible and stupid people. Jews didn’t do this; we did. This was done to us by people who were supposedly educated in our universities. It was done to create the environment required to foment revolution. And because of this, we in America are no longer allowed to be amused that a bunch of Indians gave us an island for a bunch of beads.” When the bubble breaks in the home state of Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein, it will spread across our entire economy. This is nothing more than another tentacle of the red octopus. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
I like a good 9/11 memorial. I guess that statement looks weirder in print than it sounded in my head. But I think you know what I’m getting at. Many towns in the New York City area—in fact, many towns across the country—have put up memorials over the last few years, either in honor of locals who lost their lives on 9/11 or simply in honor of 9/11 overall. I enjoy these memorials, inasmuch as you can possibly “enjoy” such a thing. To this day, I can read the placard of a 9/11 victim, see a single word like “mother” or “father,” and start to get choked up. It’s interesting to see the different approaches people take to building these things. I’ve seen a beautiful pair of marble Twin Tower replicas, for instance, surrounded by a tasteful rock garden. I’ve seen two flags flying side by side, like the towers once stood. I’ve even seen WTC replicas built on people’s lawns and in front of fire houses (some, rudimentary models built with wood from Home Depot; others, with office lights, blinking antennas, and all the attention to detail you’d usually find on a model railroad). In New York right now, there’s a bit of a controversy over plans to build a museum called the International Freedom Center at Ground Zero. Plans call for the IFC to function as a “narrative of hope,” where memories of 9/11 will be on display alongside historical information on genocide, slavery, and other human rights abuses. This has the families of some 9/11 victims outraged. A 9/11 memorial, they say, should be just that: a 9/11 memorial. None of this other stuff. In May, the Ground Zero rebuilding plans also came under attack from Donald Trump. Trump’s issue was not with the Freedom Center, but rather the proposed Freedom Tower—a 1,776-foot structure that’ll take the WTC’s place as the signature figure on New York City’s skyline. “It is the worst pile of crap architecture I have ever seen in my life,” Trump said of the Freedom Tower. His alternative? Rebuild the original Twin Towers—only a hundred feet taller. As Trump puts it: “If something happened to the Statue of Liberty, you wouldn’t rebuild it as something other than the Statue of Liberty.” He has a point. Last week, the House of Representatives approved a constitutional amendment banning “physical desecration” of the American flag. If the amendment passes the Senate, it will then take just 38 states to change the Constitution and murder the First Amendment. “The voice of the American people has been heard and heeded,” according to Thomas Cadmus of the American Legion. “Poll after poll indicates that between 75 percent to 80 percent of the public support legal protection for Old Glory.” Rep. Randy Cunningham appeals to an even higher authority than the American people—namely, the people whose lives were affected by September 11th. “Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center,” he says. “Ask them and they will tell you: pass this amendment.” Mr. Cunningham’s logic is impeccable. What’s he suggesting here? That the deaths of 3,000 people count extra in a country of 300 million? Democratically speaking, that makes no sense. And even if we apply Mr. Cadmus’s estimation that 75 percent of Americans support the amendment, we’re still looking at something that goes against the individualistic spirit of the Constitution. This government was founded by men who would’ve thought nothing of burning the British flag—or even the American flag, if America pissed them off some. The First Amendment protects political speech precisely because it must be protected for freedom to survive. Mr. Cadmus doesn’t get that. In his mind, banning flag desecration somehow means the “voice of the people” has been heard. But what people, I ask you? The voice of the many over the few? Most Americans would never burn an American flag—even if they hate America. You don’t need an amendment to stop more than 75 percent of Americans from doing something they were never going to do. Yet it’s the constitutionally-protected right to burn the flag—for those few who’d do it—that makes the flag so special. This right conveys a certain respect for every person and every opinion—even the unpopular ones. That’s freedom. And that’s what America’s supposed to be about. If each 9/11 victim’s life was precious (and it was), then we have no business using their deaths to revoke the rights of living individuals. Either every person counts, or no person does. You can’t have it both ways. Randy Cunningham’s appeal to the Twin Towers represents the other side of “remembering 9/11”—the side that seeks to assign it a meaning that detracts from what actually occurred. People will debate why 9/11 happened for years to come. Some will say we were attacked because terrorists hate freedom. Others will say terrorists simply hate our foreign policy. There’s a place for such disagreements, and that place is called debate. You want to remember what happened on 9/11? Take a look at the people who died. Take a look at the friends and families and pets they left behind. Remember the pain you felt. And the shock. And the awe. Remember the grief and the heartache—the madness that a lack of respect for human life can cause. I don’t care who you are, where you live, or what geopolitical cause is bugging you. Every soul on Earth has a story. Every person is somebody’s mother or father, or loved one, or kid. You want to remember what happened on 9/11? Show me footage. Show me pictures of victims in happier times. I don’t need a “narrative.” I don’t need an amendment. My heart will fill in the blanks. Any heart would. Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
|
No column this week. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||||
Are you ready for the next trade agreement? Before denouncing all those anarchists for disrupting the peaceful tranquillity of a Miami afternoon, think about all those additional benefits from an entire Western Hemisphere expansion of NAFTA. Go directly to the latest November 21, 2003, third draft of FTAA agreement for proof that America will be restricted from enacting protective measures to stem the hemorrhage of the trade deficit Article 5. Tariff Elimination Program
Are you ready for a dramatic increase in outflow of wealth from the United States to the rest of the Americas? Yep, that’s what you get under the Free Trade deception. Remember all those promises that exports to Mexico would raise the standard of living on both sides of the borders? Well, you should already know this sad record. So why do we, the American public, need another sell out trade agreement? Obviously the masters of the supra global corporate/state want to increase their strangle hold on international commerce. Still have doubts, try this one on for size: Inter-governmental agreements
[Legal][designated]monopolies
State enterprises
So it’s OK to have, maintain or create a monopoly if it is approved and it is appropriate for governments to engage in state enterprises for profit. Sounds like the free aspect of trade has a privileged status and the economy for the public has a socialism that only profits the STATE. But don’t be too concerned about these conclusions. The prime objective is to maintain order and those demonstrators in Miami are out to disrupt the progress of a unified economy for the New World! So when “Eight legal observers sent to monitor Miami police during trade protests were arrested, and four were beaten by officers”, why should you care? Surely, you can’t have a Seattle rampage in every city that holds a trade meeting, so say the defenders of the corporate model that ensures the economic domination of government regulation. The silence from the mainstream press is always directed away from addressing what economic policies will benefit the average American taxpayer. The coverage is always directed at the agitators who are opposed to capitalism. And you can always count on the spin that sells the false notion that the version of business that directs the global economy is representative of free enterprise. Contrary to such bull . . . the distorted vestiges of capitalism have already been destroyed and substituted with a telluric economy of, for, and by the plutocracy. The alternative is certainly not a fanciful redistribution from the wealthy to the underprivileged. Only naive fools would place their faith in a government solution to create prosperity. Proponents of benevolence, expropriated from the productive are economic midgets. However, the masters of the universe that advance global regimentation, as the control of all the means of production is consolidated among their own kind; are antagonists of all mankind. Since the civil liberties of a free society are being sold at discount, don’t expect that there will be a holiday rush to stock up on tolerance. Both the affluence of Americans and the freedoms from government intervention will be diminished with an expansion of trade agreements that favor only elites. When the anti-globalists speak out they have their own agenda for gaining political influence. Yet, the substance in their argument often offers a compelling case. In the view of Mexican parliamentary Deputy Carlos Heredia Zubieta of the center-left opposition Party of the Democratic Revolution speaks to the NAFTA experience: “If you look at the macroeconomic figures, it's true: Inflation is under control, the deficit is manageable, there is fiscal and monetary discipline, and exports are growing," Heredia Zubieta said. "But the beneficiaries are only a small circle of corporations with ties to the international economy, to the detriment of the majority of small and medium-sized local companies and workers and citizens in general," he argued. Domestic firms have registered zero growth or worse, while only the export sector, represented by local subsidiaries of transnational corporations, has expanded. "The domestic market is not growing. On the contrary, the buying power of Mexicans has fallen steadily over the years.” Proponents of the Free Trade Area of the Americas are unable to substantiate that this new trade agreement would alter this pattern. Without a vigorous, open and public debate on all the issues related to international trade, the imbalances that are harming our own domestic economy will never be corrected. The press is beholden to the corporate/state consortium, they will not moderate such a discussion. The multinational cartels are driven to eliminate real competition. And most elected politicians are too fearful to buck a system that helped to create and continually protect. Miami will not be the last demonstration. The riot police will persist in applying their tactics. The IMF and World Bank will extend their micromanagement. And the rest of us will be forced to reduce our expectations for future economic independence. Not exactly the formula of abundance for a free people . . .
|
||||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Saturday, July 9, 2005 11:04 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||||
