Typing this for the third time. I think my computer is scared of me now; I've been yelling at it all morning.
- Bush's approval rating is in the toilet. He's never been this low (to my knowledge, no president has), and he's dropping all the time. Congress is having the same problems; they've seen the warning signs, and they're reacting appropriately. This is a political hot potato, and unfortunately for Bush, he's got no one left to throw it to. I think this Bill approval shows that the majority of Americans want to go ahead with SCR, regardless of what Bush might say in his ridiculous speeches. When that many Republicans vote against you, you'd better re-think your strategy, especially when you're so unpopular. (Thanks to Oliver Willis for the link)
- If we don't participate in SCR, the Koreans win. I'm being flippant, but this is how these people think. I'm willing to bet that your average ya-hooin' Bush supporter would hate knowing that Korea will be considered the country leading the world in medical breakthroughs. President Cowboy won't be able to handle "We're #2."
- Rove won't let him. He knows better than anyone the lies and distortions behind Republican talking points. And he also knows that any blow against Bush is a blow against the future Republican presidential candidate. All of Bush's hand-holders have to realize that Bush won't be able to wiggle his way out of this one easily; a veto would look very bad for the lame duck.
- Connected to "plunging popularity," Bush is skating on very thin ice right now when it comes to scandal. The last thing he wants is more attention drawn to him by angered opponents. There's still a little matter of a not-so-secret-anymore memo that could cause quite a bit of trouble, indeed. Impeachment is a word you're starting to hear a lot more lately. (And speaking of which, what the hell does a guy have to do to get impeached in this country? Oh, right, get a hummer.)
-As Mister Shakes said in comments, there is a ton of potential money in SCR. Big Pharm holds quite a bit more power than a bunch of bible thumping loonies.
I think I had one or two other points, but they're lost in blogger and out of my grey matter now. You get the idea. Please feel free to comment, and add anything that I may have forgotten.
I'm about to click "publish post." It will wind up on my blog, if my computer knows what's good for it.
(I come from a cross-post down unda...)
More reasons Bush won't use the veto
Question of the Day: Bookends Edition
The Chemist posts a Question of the Day asking:
Which general area has President Bush mismanaged most egregiously? Is it the war on terror? The economy? Science in general? What do you think, and why?I replied: Is "the entire country" too broad? Because, honestly, I can't think of one thing I believe he hasn't egregiously mismanaged.
Which, in turn, inspired my Question of the Day, which is: Can you praise a single decision, policy, action, initiative, program, anything relating to Bush’s presidency? I mean, give me a name, any name, and I can usually come up with something pretty quickly, because I’m generally not an all-or-nothing analyst of politicians. Richard Nixon: EPA. Reagan: Department of Veterans Affairs. It’s usually not that difficult to come up with something praise-worthy. But I’m wracking my brain, and I can’t think of anything.
The Department of Homeland Security is the closest I can come, but aside from not considering it a Bush administration idea, since it was championed by Dems long before 9/11, I can’t consider it well-managed because it isn’t actually functioning as intended, and I can tell you from personal experience that the operations performed by DHS that used to be the province of the now-defunct INS are appallingly dysfunctional. So I’m at a loss. What have you got?
We are the Knights who say... how to be an effective opposition.
The Green Knight has Part Two of his "effective opposition" series up. Go read.
The Fallen
Ted Koppel and Nightline will repeat their special tribute to fallen soldiers:
One year since honoring the American service men and women killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Ted Koppel and ABC News "Nightline" will again pay tribute to the fallen by devoting an extended broadcast to reading the names and showing the photographs of more than 900 service members who have been killed in those countries over the last year.I personally always thought this was a nice idea, and so straightforward that I couldn’t believe it would be objectionable to anyone. Of course, the Right can find something objectionable about everything, so, with a whole new level of wingnuttiness, surprising even those as normally as unflappable as myself when it comes to their antics, the Right took off on a direct flight to Cuckooland, immediately deciding that simply acknowledging people were actually dying was the same as aiding and abetting the enemy. It was a relentless insanathon from the “Support the Troops” crowd as they called for Koppel’s head and decided that anyone who thought that recognizing the soldiers who had laid down their lives for the war the Right so resoundingly supports was somehow celebrating their deaths.
Titled "The Fallen," the special "Nightline" broadcast will air Memorial Day, Monday, May 30, 2005, at 11:35 p.m. ET on the ABC Television Network. ABC News Radio will air excerpts of the program.
[…]
Said "Nightline" executive producer Tom Bettag, "Too often we simply report casualties in terms of numbers. 'The Fallen' is our way of reminding viewers, regardless of their feelings about the war, that the men and women who have given their lives in our behalf are individuals with names and faces."
Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we, to recall what the righteous rightwing reaction was to last year’s attempt to honor the dead...
Our favorite media company, Sinclair Broadcasting Group, denounced the tribute as a political anti-war statement and refused to air it. (Sinclair, in case you’ve miraculously managed to forget, is the same group that ordered its affiliates to air an anti-Kerry film just before the election.)
Koppel was accused of trivializing the deaths of American soldiers. (Because, in wingnut world, hiding their coffins from public view honors them, but reading their names and showing their faces on a news broadcast trivializes their deaths.)
President of the Media Research Center, Brent Bozell, the media’s continued reliance on whose dubious expertise recently prompted Crooks and Liars to start a campaign demanding media fairness (more here), cited the program as having a “partisan nature” and a singular goal of turning “public opinion against the war.”
The program was ridiculed as a ratings gimmick and accused of being anti-war propaganda.
And the Freepers had a few choice words about the Nightline special, too (as always, not responsible for spelling and grammatical errors):
I'm speechless. This is clearly designed to turn the country against the war. This SOBs have no shame!!
Ted: F*** you and the perverted news operation you rode in on!
A**HOLES!! WHAT is WITH those guys!? What makes them want our country to fail SO much? Man Alive! I've never, EVER seen anything like the snake-in-the-grass shenanigans that the media and left are going into.
Ted, Goebbels would be proud.
Nice propaganda for the anti-war idiots. Folks who have died in Iraq deserve all the respect we can muster. But to have their death shamelessly used by Koppel in order to pursuade the country to abandon the very caused they died for is horrible.
What the H*ll do these morons hope to achieve? How does this help anybody? What is their D*mn point!!?
Ted is a sick, Anti-American bastard.
Sure, we'll watch it and weep and salute, but the mods and the Left will use the blood of the dead to elect Kerry and to surrender to the terrorists. I don't want the fallen to have died in vain-- the Left wants that.
And that was just from the first page of comments.
(Most Telling Comment Award goes to Folks who have died in Iraq deserve all the respect we can muster. If it's anywhere in the neighborhood of all the logic, compassion, intelligence, and/or ethics they can muster, it's no wonder that bumper magnets are considered the height of their support-the-troopsitude.)
I wonder if there will be as much outrage this year…or has the urge to create a media shitstorm over the names and faces of fallen soldiers ebbed a bit now that their boy has won his reelection?
Apparently, something is keeping me from posting this.
Well, I was typing this post out, and Word locked up. I don’t care what you Mac people say; this damn thing gives me nothing but problems. I can’t wait until I get my PC. (There. That ought to get some angry comments) So I'm typing it directly into blogger this time; at least I have "recover post" on here.
Anyway. Re-typing the post from memory, and here we go!
EDIT: Now blogger lost it. Recover post didn't work. Jesus jumping jackrabbits, I've been typing for an hour and it's all gone. Look, I'll post the first part of this now, and I'll re-type the letter later when my shaking hands aren't ready to throw this computer through the goddamned window.
So the Stem Cell Bill passed in Congress. Congratulations and Kudos to everyone that voted "yea" on getting this off the ground. As Chris points out here in comments, it's passed in the House, but it still has to pass in the Senate. And of course, there's always the threat of veto from the Chimp in Chief. I, however, am feeling positive about this... for once. I don't think Bush will veto this bill, and here's why:
- The House approved this bill by a vote of 238-194. Now, while that isn't a huge lead, it is significant. We're not talking "Bush Mandate" squeaking-by numbers. Obviously, many people in the House felt strongly about this bill, and many of them were Republican. (Kudos, by the way, to Repubs that voted against the wishes of Dear Leader) Bush may whine that "taxpayers" don't want Stem Cell Research (I'll refer to it as SCR from here on), but I think the vast majority of them do. And they know it. While the "pro-life" radicals (and I'm putting that in quotes from now on... they've shown time and again that they don't give a good goddamn about saving lives) may be very vocal and hysterical, I believe we have that good 'ol "silent majority" that would like to see this research go on. The possibilities of SCR seem almost magical at this point, the way experts speak about it, and it's been built up in the public's mind as a Godsend. Playing a baby's heartbeat over a sound system (that STILL completley disgusts me) won't change that, no matter how much they want it to, and Bush knows it.
- Bush is a coward. As much as he wants that Catholic vote, I think he knows if he uses his veto... his first veto to knock down possible life-saving medical research, the backlash will be astronomical. As he has shown time and again, he's more than willing to hide from an issue; remain silent on the subject and let someone else take the heat. If he lets the Senate kill this one, he can nod gravely and say he wanted that all along, and never have to use his veto. He'd much rather let someone else do his work for him.
(Cross-posted while sputtering obscenities)
Bloch Head
This is utterly ridiculous:
Special counsel Scott J. Bloch told a Senate panel yesterday that he lacks the legal authority to enforce the Bush administration's ban on discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation.Right. It has nothing to do with the institutionalized homophobia of which the Bush administration reeks, or Bloch’s own personal issues with gays and lesbians, even though Bloch (who was appointed by Bush in January of last year) has been repeatedly accused of failing to enforce the long-standing federal employment policy against bias based on sexual orientation and taking punitive action against whistle-blowers. It’s just those darn courts. And I think Block really proved that it has nothing to do whatsoever with his personal biases when he was asked whether he would recommend that Congress extend protections to include sexual orientation but declined to take a position. He might as well have said, “See, if you do that, though, I won’t be able to claim my hands are tied anymore!” Disingenuous prick.
If a federal manager fires, reassigns or takes some other action against an employee simply because that employee is gay, there is nothing in federal law that would permit the Office of Special Counsel to protect the worker, Bloch testified before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs subcommittee on oversight of government management, the federal workforce and the District of Columbia.
"We are limited by our enforcement statutes as Congress gives them," Bloch said, responding to a question from Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.). "The courts have specifically rejected sexual orientation as a class protection."
Referring to Bloch’s “insensitive” ultimatum issued to 12 career employees that they either accept reassignments to Dallas, Oakland, and Detroit offices with 10 days’ notice or be terminated, Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) noted (rather limply):
"I hope that because of this incident you've learned something in terms of taking a little more time in doing it."Bloch’s response?
"Yes, Senator…I'm learning new things every day."Well, my little learnin’ friend, here’s a lesson for you: STOP DISCRIMINATING AGAINST GAYS AND LESBIANS.
Okay, I guess that’s not as much a “lesson” as a “demand.” Tomato, tomahto.
Just knock it off, Bloch, you smug, arrogant, nasty homophobe.
Feingold's Heartbeat Detected
After declaring a Feingold potential presidential 2008 bid dead in the water, I’m pleased to report that there are still signs of life:
This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal.Feingold seems to be playing the Dean Angle (see: 2004 anti-war candidate), otherwise known as the Angry Liberal Angle, less commonly known as the Reasonable Yet Uncompromising Angle, and known only by me as My Angle.
In all seriousness, however, being reasonable yet uncompromising is exactly what the Democratic Party needs, and if Feingold’s going to be the one to step in and be the guy to clearly but passionately state the positions as eloquently as he did above, then maybe he can overcome the problems with his personal life that would inevitably cause him problems in a presidential race. If nothing else, straight-talking like that will be good for the other candidates—just like Dean was the last time around.
Even more just in from Stem Cell National Headquarters...*More typewriters*
WASHINGTON - Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House voted Tuesday to lift limits on embryonic stem cell research, a measure supporters said could accelerate cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.
Bush called the bill a mistake and said he would veto it. The House approved it by a 238-194 vote, far short of the two-thirds majority that would be needed to override a veto.
HA!
Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said the embryonic research bill would force taxpayers to finance "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings."
The rhetoric didn't sway many Democrats.
"I don't need a lecture from the majority leader on moral and ethical leadership," said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., referring to questions that have been raised about DeLay's travel, fundraising and associations with a lobbyist now under federal criminal investigation.
HA HA HA!
That's two blows to the Radical Republicans in one day! Take the pipe, bitches!
Now let's see if Bush has the balls to stick to his word and actually try and veto it. It's obviously a *lot* more popular than expected; I'm willing to bet he'll try and waffle his way out of it.
(I would have posted this last night, but blogger was acting really wonky. You should head over to Big Brass Blog and read Shakespeare's Sister's word on the subject; I think I'm a little more hopeful than she is. But she was able to state exactly what I was thinking about Doctor Heartbeat without spouting angry profanity like I was yesterday.)
(Wake me up...before you cross-post)
Finally
Well, it looks like we're back up and running now. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we'll stay online...
In the interim, I posted Stemtastic and Frist is a Shithead over at Big Brass Blog. Enjoy.
This Just In... From Stem Cell National Headquarters... *typewriter noises*
Gee, they're actually being adults. Well, sort of. You'll see what I mean.
WASHINGTON - Ignoring President Bush's veto threat, the House plunged into the dispute over stem cell research Tuesday, debating a bill that supporters said could accelerate cures for diseases but opponents viewed as akin to abortion.
Now that's what I like to hear.
"This is the right stem cell bill," said Majority Leader Tom DeLay. He urged members to reject the other bill, which he said would force taxpayers to finance "the dismemberment of living, distinct human beings."
What, like the FUCKING IRAQ WAR???
Gee, I made it three paragraphs into this study before my head exploded.
(Bush said) "This bill would take us across a critical ethical line by creating new incentives for the ongoing destruction of emerging human life," he said during a ceremony with children who had been "adopted" as frozen embryos. "Crossing this line would be a great mistake."
Yeah, surround yourself with kids. You fucking coward. I'm amazed he didn't work the word "freedom" in there somewhere.
Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, a doctor of obstetrics, played the sound of a fetal heartbeat over the House speaker system, declaring, "This is what it's all about, folks."
You disgust me.
Stem Cells DON'T HAVE HEARTBEATS, ASSHOLE.
Whoops, more brain all over the wall. Tsk.
"Being pro-life also means fighting for policies that will eliminate pain and suffering," said Rep. James R. Langevin, D-R.I., who was paralyzed at 16 in a gun accident.
Thank you. That's something the Republican Radicals always seem to forget. As George Carlin said: "If you're pre-born, you're fine. If you're pre-school, you're fucked!"
Go read the rest. I'm going to sit here and bang my head against the wall for a few hours.
(Oh cross-post, you came and you gave without taking..)
War News
14 U.S. Soldiers Killed in 3 Days in Iraq
Here’s all I’ve really got to say about that:
Jerk.
That must have felt like a pretty cool maneuver at the time, spending $1 million of taxpayers’ money to pretend to pilot (but really ride as a passenger in) a jet onto an aircraft carrier to declare our mission in Iraq accomplished. But our soldiers keep dying. More than a year after you made your dramatic photo op declaration, we’ve lost fourteen in the last three days alone. And still you won’t let their caskets be photographed, and even their own families are told lies about their deaths.
Do you still feel cool, flyboy?
Because I don’t. I feel really sad.
Saint Santorum
David Sirota isn’t happy about Sunday’s much-discussed New York Times Magazine profile of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), and having read the piece, I’m none too happy, either. Sirota picks out a passage describing Santorum’s alleged role as an anti-poverty crusader to illustrate how one-sided and manipulative the piece is; I was more taken with back-to-back statements like the following passage:
''Society's interest in marriage is the future,'' [Santorum] told me. ''It is the next generation. It is in providing a stable environment for the raising of children. That's why we give marriage a special status, not because people like to hang out together and have fun.''Get me a neck brace, stat! That juxtaposition left me with wicked case of whiplash. Is it simply appalling writing skills coupled with a compulsion to lie, or is Michael Sokolove unaware of the religious origins of a singularly procreative view of marriage? In either case, it’s spectacularly bad reporting, and equally stunning idiocy permeates the entirety of the piece, which, by the way, is entitled, “The Believer.” Blech.
Santorum rarely argues from a purely religious viewpoint.
Sirota notes that although the New York Times is a paper which he used to highly respect, and there are still some serious reporters doing decent work under its banner, it is nonetheless:
well on its way to becoming a laughingstock when it comes to political reporting. Its philosophy has crystallized around one singular axiom: don’t challenge people the political Establishment perceives to be all-powerful. The travesty is that this axiom is diametrically opposed to what the press’s mission is supposed to be.
[…]
For Santorum, the piece was the equivalent of what Monica Lewinsky did to President Clinton in the shadowy confines of the Oval Office. For the public, it was pathetic pandering propaganda that insults people’s intelligence. This, apparently, is the reward the paper gives out when politicians like Santorum publicly equate it to the Nazis. Not a tough piece, not even a fair piece - an absolute whitewash, replete with an angelic cover photo of Santorum, as if God's light is beaming down upon him from Heaven.
If that isn’t enough to make you want to puke out your guts, I don’t know what is.
[I]f something is going to be labeled "journalism," then it should at the very least tell the whole story – and not just provide us with 10 pages of overt fellating and genuflecting.Once again, I question when the media is ever going to wake the fuck up and realize the damage its doing to our nation. Or, if they ever will. Are the majority of our journalists so lazy, so jaded, so apathetic about what the role of the press is meant to be, that they care not whether they’re getting paid for producing actual journalism or propaganda?
The Times motto may still be "all the news that’s fit to print" – but increasingly, it is "all the right-wing spin that is fit to kiss the rear end of those in power." That is doing great harm to journalism – and to American democracy.
Our “newspapers of record” have begun to sound like broken records, spinning the same lameass tune over and over again, paired with one of the increasingly popular stylized photos of the story’s subject approximating a messiah- or saint-like figure, of which our national photo press corps, who have also clearly lost their fucking minds, have become so fond.
Does the media really want this country to become a theocracy? If not, they really need to rouse themselves from the mind-numbing complacency, paralyzing fear of retribution, Rove-induced hypnosis, or whatever malevolent spell, charm, incantation, or possession is keeping them from doing their damn jobs. Get with the motherfucking program. We need you.
Seven Nitwits
Via PSoTD:
Rush Limbaugh is declaring war on the Republican moderates—the 7 Nitwits, according to him.Considering that Lefties didn’t get anything out of this “deal” except whatever benefits we can reap from a rightwing backlash, I’m happy to see Rush is doing his part to help us out.
Question of the Day
We've done this one before, but it was fun the last time, and with Bulworth considering a gubernatorial run and Mr. Smith in our collective consciousness lately, I figured it was worth doing again.
What's the best political movie (feature or documentary) of all time?
I have a hard time answering this one, because I like so many of them, but at the moment, the one I feel compelled to watch most often is Bob Roberts.
Quote of the Day
Care of Shaker and Big Brass Blogger JJ, commenting on Paul the Spud’s earlier post about the two stem cell bills coming up for consideration in the House today and Bush’s vow to veto them:
***SIGH*** If only there was oil to be found in human embryos…Evil. (Yet delicious!)
Hmm...
The Green Knight wants to know:
Do any of these right-wingers ever know what they're talking about? Ever?Um, no.
More Rightwing Filibuster Fallout
They’re so seriously not happy with Frist right now (via AMERICAblog):
Note To Bill Frist: You SuckMy favorite part, by the way, is the first comment in his comments thread, left by none other than Shaker Jeff Fecke, who also authors The Blog of the Moderate Left:
To: Bill Frist, US Senate.
From: Mitch Berg, Schmuck Citizen and pissed-off former GOP contributor
Re: Your Infinite Cretinism
Senator Frist,
Mitch Berg here. You probably don't know who I am; I'm a typical schmuck. I write a blog, and I try to pitch in on GOP activities around Minnesota.
And on behalf of the entire GOP, I'm having a hard time walking right now - because you just boned your party up the a**.
No, not just the party; not just the assembly of suits and climbers and hangers-on that no doubt surrounds you at work every day. No, I'm talking about all of us who busted our asses overcoming a full-court media press (and continue to do so), and gave of our time and money until it hurt - hurt our wallets, our families, our relationships, our equilibrium. We gave them all with enthusiasm because we knew what was at stake; a whole generation of Supreme Court decisions.
So we gave. And you took.
And today, you looked us all in the face, and spat.
Reading Michelle and John and Ed, I'm about as depressed as I can be.
We won you a majority, pinhead. What the hell good is it? You think the Democrats are going to abide by your little gentleman's agreement? You got conned. You entered into an agreement with a Klansman, a drunk machine hack and a party bag man. You are the Neville Chamberlain of my generation.
I don't believe in Karma, but I believe what goes around comes around. And I guess you demonstrate it, Frist. The Democrats elect a pinhead doctor to lead their party - I guess it's only fair we did, too.
Thank God for Tom Delay. The least you could do is make it hard for the Dems to neutralize you, rather than walking off the cliff into the kool-aid vat on your own.
Captain Ed is right. Not one more dime. You have made me ashamed to be a Republican.
Oh, I'll bounce back. We all will - most of us, anyway. We'll have to. Because you showed us today - the grass roots have got to do it for themselves; we'll get no help from hamsters like you.
Sincerely - go back to medicine.
Mitch Berg
Saint Paul.
Mitch, what are you talking about? As a Democrat, I think Bill Frist is a great guy to be leading the Republicans.... ;)Hahahahaha! Way to go, Jeff.
(Seriously: if I was in your shoes, I'd be livid tonight. The GOP was completely wrong about this, but still....)
Save them Little Zygotes
Two Bills concentrating on Stem Cell Research are heading into the house today. Godspeed, little Bills.
WASHINGTON - Two bills that would loosen restrictions on federal funding for stem cell research take center stage Tuesday in the House, with disease victims pleading for help and President Bush vowing to veto legislation he says would let science destroy life to save life.
"This is not an easy vote for many Republicans ... and some Democrats, too, because you have pro-life and other arguments," said the sponsor of the more controversial bill, Rep. Mike Castle, R-Del. "There's a lot of tide against them voting for it."
No, there isn't. There is a minority group of religious zealots against them voting for it. But that group has deep pockets. Let's call a spade a spade. And what "other arguments" are there? Seriously? The only argument I've ever heard against Stem Cell research is "save the bebbehs." And as Digby showed us yesterday, the whole Save Lives argument is rather skewed. (Notice they've dropped that ridiculous "human cloning" angle.)
The debate is opening with emotional appeals from survivors of disease who credit stem cell science with saving their lives. The discussion will close before the vote with a message from Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas. Known for enforcing discipline on Republican ranks, Delay — like Bush — is opposed to the bill by Castle and Diana DeGette, D-Colo.
The Castle-DeGette bill would lift Bush's 2001 ban on new federally funded research on embryonic stem cells, a process that requires the destruction of human embryos.
Another bill sponsored by Reps. Chris Smith, R-N.J., and Artur Davis, D-Ala., has wide bipartisan support and backing from Bush. It would provide $79 million in federal money to increase the amount of umbilical cord blood for stem cell research and treatment and establish a national database for patients looking for matches.
Many lawmakers said they planned to vote for both stem cell research bills Tuesday.
Decrying science that destroys life to prolong other life, Bush last week promised to veto the Castle-DeGette bill, and some lawmakers were taking note.
The sponsors, who have been counting votes for weeks, predicted the bill would garner the 218 votes needed for passage but fall short of the 290 votes needed to sustain a veto.
The votes of about 20 members of both parties still were up for grabs, Castle said.
Driving the debate over these bills is deep emotion behind the promise — disputed in some camps — that stem cell research could provide treatment and perhaps cures for diseases as diverse as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and childhood diabetes.
Leading up to the floor action, supporters and opponents of the legislation gathered people with personal experience with stem cell research to tell their stories.
"As you consider the funding options for stem cell research, please remember me," Keone Penn, 18, said at a Capitol Hill news conference. He said he had been stricken with childhood sickle cell anemia and cured after a transplant from umbilical cord blood.
Penn, of Atlanta, said sickle cell anemia caused a stroke when he was 5. Treatment for the disease was so painful that he said he contemplated suicide four years later. Doctors predicted he would not live to adulthood, but because of the transplant, he turns 19 in two weeks.
"If it wasn't for cord blood, I'd probably be dead by now," he said.
Also appearing on Capitol Hill and with Bush at the White House were the parents of babies "adopted" as embryos. They object to the Castle-DeGette bill's premise that embryonic stem cell research makes use of fertilized eggs that would otherwise be discarded.
Blood saved from newborns' umbilical cords is rich in a type of stem cells that produce blood, the same kind that make up bone-marrow transplants. The
Institute of Medicine recently estimated that cord blood could help treat about 11,700 Americans a year with leukemia and other devastating diseases, yet most is routinely discarded.
Castle and DeGette said they expect their bill to soon be considered by the Senate. If it passes both chambers, they said, perhaps the White House would reconsider its opposition. Either way, Castle said, the discussion has inspired "a lot more interest in this issue."
The Castle-DeGette bill deals with embryonic stem cells, which are the building blocks for every tissue in the body. Attempting to harness those stem cells' regenerative powers is in very early research stages, but many scientists believe it has the potential to one day create breakthrough treatments.
Bush has not issued one veto in his entire "career" as President. If he vetos these bills, it will say volumes about him as a President, and as a human being.
I have serious doubts that Bush's stance on Stem Cell Research has anything to do with his beliefs, regardless of his "born again" status. (I think Bush's church attendance speaks for itself.) This is about courting the Catholic vote, as shown here. It is absurd that the beliefs of a minority group of religious radicals should affect the lives of so many. You simply cannot condemn thousands of people to death or a life of pain and disease for votes. If killing these Bills is simply for vote payback and insurance, the soul of our country is truly dead.
Now is the time for Bush to act truly Presidential. Voting for these bills would take baby steps towards repairing our damaged reputation in the eyes of the rest of the world. We could prove that once again, America will be the leader in scientific research and breakthroughs. Or, gasp! we could work with the South Koreans on the research that they have already done. We could move forward at a faster pace, and come ever closer to the possible medical breakthroughs that so many need so badly.
Now is the time. Please... for once... do the right thing.
(My bologna has a first name, it's C-R-O-S-S-P-O-S-T)
Discussion: Filibuster Deal
Here’s a copy of the filibuster deal brokered yesterday. Check it out.
I think it basically amounts to leaving us where we were before, except now the wingnuts get a couple of their judges. In return, we get the right to invoke a filibuster for awhile longer…until we actually try to use it, at which point we’ll probably end up toe-to-toe over the issue once again. Clearly, the best part of the deal for us is that the Freepers are going ballistic, but like I said last night, I’m not sure that will be enough to make up for the inevitably radicalization of our judiciary.
What do you think?
Mystery Solved
'Sarcasm' brain areas discovered:
By comparing healthy people and those with damage to different parts of the brain, they found the front of the brain was a key to understanding irony.So it’s like I suspected all along. The reason the Right has no sense of humor is because they’re brain-damaged.
Damage to any of three different areas could render individuals unable to understand sarcastic comments.
