PeterDavid.net

Here, here, Peter...WELL said!

If this comes across as righteous i apologize...

One of the reason the liberal attitude so often becomes law is that, on a long enough time line, even the most hard-stanced conservatives will find themselves longing for liberal policies because of a personal contact.

case in point: It easy to be against stem-cell research until its you watching your husband die of alzheimers, or as in my case, my father dying of parkinsons.

another case in point that could matter someday: If you were Dick Cheney, whos daughter is openly a lesbian, would be able to look in your little girl's eyes and tell her that she couldn't commit to someone she loves forever just so that the country could have a "better" moral stance?

Or, now that her husband is dead, she could re-embrace the right and stop campaigning for it, saying she "has seen the light."

Holy shit, I had no idea he died until just reading the blog now.

For a good explanation about how stem cell research and cloning should be legal, I'd suggest Michael Shermer's The Borderlands of Science, or his book The Science of Good and Evil.

"If you were Dick Cheney, whos daughter is openly a lesbian, would be able to look in your little girl's eyes and tell her that she couldn't commit to someone she loves forever just so that the country could have a "better" moral stance?"

Is there anything to indicate that his daughter is in favor of gay marriage? I mean, maybe she also thinks marriage should be reserved for heterosexual couples. I don't assume that just because someone is gay, they're in favor of it.

Either way, I'm guessing that, yeah, he could look her in the eye and tell her he doesn't believe she should be able to marry. I don't think it'd be much of a problem.

PAD

I was flipping through the channels last night, seeing what news they had. The predominant item was Reagan's passing. Oh yeah, Smarty Jones didn't win and there was more US soldiers dying in Iraq, but the BIG THING was Reagan's death.

MSNBC kept showing the hearst leaving the property to take the body to the funeral home. Folks like Andrea Mitchell and Pat Buchanan telling their tales were used as voiceovers as the procession happened.

As a kid, I thought Reagan was a great man. Still in my possession is a birthday greeting he sent me while he was still in office, something I got due to a scout thing. I found the man to be very stoic, as if he was a Captain America-esque leader to rally behind.

But what about now? The Middle East is still a mess, and our Russian ties are worse than they were then. Sure, the Berlin Wall is down, but our government gives attitude to countries that won't support our battle with Saddam. Companies that began to send their work overseas for cheaper labor costs are still doing it.

Except for generating an interest in jelly beans, I'm not sure why I liked the guy.

Russian relations may not be stupendous right now, but "our Russian ties are worse than they were then". Worse than they were during the Cold War? If you going to bash the man, at least make sense.

Peter:

I agree with you as to your comments regarding Nancy Reagan. I sure hope that she continues with her pleas for more stem cell research. I never liked the woman during her White House years, but I do have to respect her courage during the last ten years.

The question is if Nancy Reagan continues stumping for stem cell research, will the Neocons in the GOP start attacking her in the open?

President Reagan's Passing:

I will never forgive the man for his social policies, but I wouldn't wish his illness and death on anyone - except for every single member of Al Queda.

What I have a real problem with, and it's something we'll be witnessing in the next few weeks, is the Romanization of our leaders. Think about it. We've had the U.S.S John F. Kennedy, the Kennedy Space Center, (and the temporary change from Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy), The Kennedy Center for Performing Arts, etc. etc.

Now certain Republicans have their chance to give one of their own the mantle of godhood. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan, The Reagan building in D.C., Airports, etc. etc. Caesar never had it so good. We now have our government building monuments to themselves that make the Roman arches and the past porkbarrel projects here in the USA pale by comparison.

I'll never forget when JFK jr., who I admire for trying to break away from the family "legacy", died. Oh, the reference to JFK, RFK, Camelot, my how that just grated. The references to "American Royalty" as if that were a GOOD thing. Echhh. When I saw Dan Rather tearfully reading the lyrics from CAMELOT, I just wanted to puke.

Morn Mr. Reagan's passing. Run the obituaries, sing his praises. Just stop deifying dead politicians. They are only people, ordinary monkey boy humans like the rest of us.

Leave Rome dead and buried, with a stake through Caesar's heart. Leave that crap out of the political life of the USA.

Chuck

I would much rather have our buildings named for leaders who are now gone, whether I agreed with their policies or not, than the selling of names to the highest corporate bidder. The past presidents at least served our country. Now we have ball fields advertising the company with the most cash instead of interesting names with a history behind them. Veterens stadium in Philly would be an example of a name I could proudly discuss with my daughter. Why it was named this and who we are honoring. Now I get to tell her the corporations are just taking over everything.

I certainly didn't agree with most of Reagans policies, but there was never a doubt that he loved this country and wanted the best for it. He also tried bringing people together, instead of creating dissension. I am sorry for his wife, family and his many admirers.

"The question is if Nancy Reagan continues stumping for stem cell research, will the Neocons in the GOP start attacking her in the open?"

No way. They'll find respectful ways to disagree with her, and be all empathetic about her loss, etc., etc. But there's no way they lump her in with Richard Clarke or Hillary Clinton or whoever a Neocon target would be and try every which way to villify her. I just don't see it.

PAD

Wow, Peter didn't completely dump on (all) the Republicans like he always does and I'm impressed he didn't take another cheap shot at Reagan like so many have done at the expense of him passing away.

My problem, and the problem many people have, with stem cell research is that they want to use embryonic stem cells. Fortunately, embryonic stem cells are not the only potential source for regenerative medical treatments. There are also adult stem cells, umbilical-cord-blood stem cells, and other cellular-based treatments that do not use embryos at all. many of the diseases that embryonic cells are supposed to treat may be ameliorated with adult-stem-cell and related therapies far more quickly.

Really? Kinda seemed like he did. I thought the "mentally gone" quote was a little insensitive, myself.

That wasn't a slam. That was literal fact. It was a fair medical description of the hell he's been in. You might prefer a more delicate phrase, but I can't imagine a more accurate one.

Last night I was watching C-SPAN while they were televising a speach Reagan made in 1964 in support of Goldwater's presidential run. After a few minutes of Reagan speaking about the issues of the day I realized that he was talking about the here and now. In 40 years nothing has changed. Our government still operates on a system of whose-hand-wipes-whose-ass and every decision is based on the answer to a single question: Can we get away with it.

Personally, I have no grudge against Ronald Reagan. He served the status quo with the best of them.

I, too, hope that Nancy Reagan makes a big noise in favor of stem-cell research. I don't want to get too deep into that subject because I'll just piss myself off.

On the subject of monuments, well, I just roll my eyes everytime they waste money on one. Anyone who is truly working for the people would be thoroughly disturbed by such things. I often wonder why no one asks where the money comes from, what cutbacks are made, when these monuments are built. Can't we just slap their faces on a coin?

First let me im say im glad Mr Reagan has passed hopefully in peace.By that i mean he and his family were obviously suffering with a horrible disease.Alzheimers is a ghastly condition that is debilitating for both the person and their loved ones.Its a dreadful way to
"live" or die.I may not have agreed with all of his policies but I hope he and his families final moments were peaceful.
I do hope that Nancy Reagan and others do keep lobbying for stem cell research.The misguided notion that it is immoral or wrong is insane.Its more immoral to have the technology available to prevent a disease or at least treat and cure it and do nothing about it at all.Religous beliefs should have nothing to do with hindering something that could benefit so many people.
I work in the medical field and have patients that I see everyday that could benefit from the use of stem cell research.It makes more sense to me to put the time and money into it rather than let it be developed by private industry where the same restrictions and ethics may not be in place.
As far as the Presidential memorials i think its kind of silly to dedicate some thing to someone who is already immortalized in history ,after all they were the freaking President.
Hopefully other posters dont turn this into another "liberal"vs "conservative "or what ever else sort of labels we want to give ourselves debate.

PAD,

Moral question: If sacrificing a new born child's life would save 100 people, would it be worth it? If it saved a million? (I assume the answer is no.)

I recognize you most likely do not believe life begins at conception, but there is absolutely no medical way to know when life begins. Forgive me if I err on the side of caution and refuse to sacrifice what I see as a totally innocent life, no different than a child who is 1 day old.

Of even greater concern is that there is absolutely no solid, scientifically proven benefit to using stem cells from an unborn _______(fill in the blank based on your personal views). There is overwhelming evidence that adult stem cells have consistently done the very things that embryonic stem cells are supposed to do. Why use stem cells that have no proven value when there is a more than adequate equivalent? Of course I recognize the fact that research may prove step cells from an unborn child may be just as effective as those from an adult if the research is allowed to continue. But to imply that conservatives who oppose research for moral reasons are heartless and callously condemn people to their fate is simply not the case.

I do not condemn Nancy Reagan. I recongnize her pain. Perhaps she may have held this opinion even if Ronald Reagan had not suffered from this disease -- I don't expect her to share every view her husband held. But it is time that there was more honesty about the so called "incredible benefits of stem cell research."

Jim in Iowa

Clarification:

Reading my post, I perhaps was too strong in saying "there is absolutely no solid, scientifically proven benefit to using stem cells" (referring to cells from a fetus). There are some initial indications. My point, as said later, is that there is solid, proven results from adult stem cells. This argument is as much over the morality of abortion as it is anything else.

Jim in Iowa

Mr. Wartian: Abortion is already legal. If infanticide was also legal, then I would support deriving some good from the remains. It's not like they are forcing women to have abortions in order to harvest stem cells. Frankly put, abortion will always exist. There's no closing that box. But why not help those who need the help?

yeah, really admirable the way she abandonned deeply held convinctions and start supporting stem cell research just because her husband had something to gain by it. Selfish and self-centered if you ask me.

If something is wrong, its wrong. Its not wrong unless you can benefit from it.

As past history has shown, being legal and being right are two very different things. At one point, slavery was legal. That did not make it right.

I fully understand abortion is currently legal, and that it is unlikely to be made fully illegal. But advancing stem cell research could clearly lead someone to purposefully becoming pregnant in order to sell the stem cells. Where does it stop? I am not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, and fully acknowledge they are weak. But that does not always mean they are wrong. (Case in point: Nazi Germany)

There IS a way to help those who need help, so your point is irrelevant. Let me turn the question around: If adult stem cells are effective, why is there such a focus on only using stem cells from a fetus?

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that abortion is a "necessary evil" in a few cases. Why make it the norm, and in fact, medically neeed? Why do we value life so little?

I cannot prove when life begins. But neither can anyone else. Until there is a way to scientifially do so, it is immoral to support abortion (at least in all but some extremely rare cases).

Jim in Iowa

Hmmmm, funny that, even a person's death is used for a political agenda. Except for enacting laws (like the Amber Alerts and such) I can't recall any conservatives doing this. If so, I sure would like a list. I love ya Cowboy Pete but if Clinton or Gore or even Jimmy Carter had died yesterday you wouldn't see me talking about what horrible people they were, it's called respect for the dead. Thanks...

There was a great article in the Washington Post today about the whole "Reagan naming" movement, including putting him on the Dime and possibly even Mt. Rushmore.

BTW, there already is a USS Ronald Reagan. They've been showing footage of its commission for the last 1.5 days here in Hampton Roads, where the ship was built and Nancy came for the ceremony.

There are those who consider Mt Rushmore a work of art. Adding Reagan or anyone else to it, regardless of how you feel about him, would be wrongheaded.

Brian

As far as Mt. Rushmore goes, I believe the Park Service has said the rock couldn't withstand adding another head to it. I presume that means it would collapse or otherwise be seriously damaged.

//I fully understand abortion is currently legal, and that it is unlikely to be made fully illegal. But advancing stem cell research could clearly lead someone to purposefully becoming pregnant in order to sell the stem cells. Where does it stop? I am not a fan of "slippery slope" arguments, and fully acknowledge//

You know I've heard this argument before and I have to say it is one of the dumbest arguments I have ever heard. The idea that a woman would get herself knocked up, go though the physical pain and inconvience of being pregnant then aborting the fetus, (also not a confortable procedure and like any surgical procedure not without risk), just to get a few bucks for selling stem cells, (as if reasearchers are paying big bucks for these cells). Absurd. This is like saying pratice autopsy's at a Medical school should be illegal because people might start killing off thier realitives or themselves to sell the corpses.

I'm impressed he didn't take another cheap shot at Reagan like so many have done at the expense of him passing away.

You know, most of the criticism I've seen of Reagan in the past day has been from individuals as a response to the media's complete lack of criticism. Respect for the dead is all well and good, but it doesn't mean we should celebrate Reagan as the ender of the cold war and the source of American prosperity while ignoring little things like Iran-Contra, massive cuts in health care for the poor and mentally ill, and the huge deficits created by Reaganomics.

Also, being up here in Canada, I can't help but notice that American channels are largely ignoring D-Day coverage in favor of Reagan coverage, which is really a diservice to our veterans.

And yet Darrin history is full of corpse-robbers, "Ressurectionist Men" and people that sell their children into slavery all over the world...... even selling their kids for crack. What's so crazy about what you were talking about again?

Chuck, Presidential monuments are nothing new. Ever noticed that big obelisk-looking thing in the national capital city... come to think of it, that town was named for someone, wasn't it? The examples you mention with Reagan don't even support your point, though. USS Reagan needed to be built and had to be named for someone or something, the same for the Reagan executive office building, and Reagan National Airport was already in existence. It's hardly a case of the government building monuments to themselves. Addressing your thesis on its merits, I see no problems with naming parcels of real estate in honor of people who have served their country.

Incidentally, PAD, Nancy Reagan isn't the only Republican in favor of stem cells. Bush probably had "the Bushites crapping a brick" a few years ago when he approved stem cell research.

Re: Nancy Reagan being a hypocrite for coming out in favor of stem cell research once it hit her personally. There's the old sayings that:

1) A conservative is a liberal who's been mugged.

2) A liberal is a conservative who's been arrested.

No one can really research every position they hold, and often having to really do so when said position hits home can change one's mind on that specific bit without changing one's overall stance on things.

And, having seen my stepfather go through Alzheimer's to the point where he's now in a home and whether he recognizes his wife of 25+ years is a day by day hit or miss, when I reach the age where this might be happening, I plan to do the following.

1) Get relatively painless suicide pill.

2) Put pill on my bathroom wash basin.

3) Put sign next to pill reading "If you don't remember why this pill is here, take it."

I'm *not* joking.

Abortion is already legal. If infanticide was also legal, then I would support deriving some good from the remains. - SER

So legal equals right? Back in the day the Supreme Court also said slavery was legal. Did that make it right?

Just because you say that abortion is legal don't expect those of us who view it as murder to say, "Oh! Yah, its legal, what were we thinking?"

Until it can be proven that the unborn is not a living being then they should have every opportunity to experience life, liberty, and happiness. Their lives are no less important than the person who may benifit from the unborn's cells.

"yeah, really admirable the way she abandonned deeply held convinctions and start supporting stem cell research just because her husband had something to gain by it. Selfish and self-centered if you ask me.
If something is wrong, its wrong. Its not wrong unless you can benefit from it."

"No one can really research every position they hold"

Tom, I'm a liberal, but I'm going to have to agree with John here. People should think hard before taking a serious position on anything, not doing this is what leads many people to make crappy decisions, *cough, war in Iraq, cough.*

"(1) Get relatively painless suicide pill.

2) Put pill on my bathroom wash basin.

3) Put sign next to pill reading "If you don't remember why this pill is here, take it.")"

You say your not joking, but it's pretty funny; in a sad way, (considering that you will do this.)

There's a great quote from E.R. from someone with Alzhiemers: "I was thinking of committing suicide, but I wasn't sure when I should do it. If I did it too early, I'd miss out on what little life I had left. If I waited too long, I wouldn't remember to do it." It's a very fine line, knowing when to end things.

As for stem cell research, there was an excellent article in the back of last week's Time or Newsweek (sorry, forgot which) explaining that most of the stem cells used in the research are leftovers that are destroyed anyway. The fear of a massive abortion/fetus-for-cell-selling wave is the same sort of imagined slippery slope that has the NRA believing that if assault weapons are banned, next every single firearm will be tossed on a burning fire.

And yes, we alwasy lionize the dead. Give it a year or two for the critical books to come out.

The fear of a massive abortion/fetus-for-cell-selling wave is the same sort of imagined slippery slope that has the NRA believing that if assault weapons are banned, next every single firearm will be tossed on a burning fire.

A) I'm not too worried about massive abortions or the selling of cells. Knowing that some, if even a small part, of the cells will be coming from an aborted baby is enough for me to be against the use of embryonic stem cells.

B) In the U.K., where assault weapons among others are in fact banned, Olympians who compte in the biathlon must come to America to practice. Why? Because the guns they use are outlawed. I don't know...that sounds pretty extreme.

Umbilical-cord-blood stem cells is the most logical way to go. Stem cell research has become so political, logic has been thrown out of the window. There would be a plentiful supply if they just went with this.

I don't recall anyone here or elsewhere castigating Reagan. In fact, the worst I've heard anyone say is that they may have disagreed with the man but he was personally very well liked.

As for stem-cell research - I don't see Bush's coming out against it as a conservative issue. It seems to me to be a function of his agenda as a fundamentalist Christian.

And by the way, if people are against this sort of thing for life-saving purposes, then why are those same people not against test-tube babies and artificial fertilization which certainly is something that the bible-thumpers should have railed against as "playing god".

You want castigation? My roommate's planning a fourth of July party to celebrate Reagan's death. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the man but this seems pretty disturbing to me.

then why are those same people not against test-tube babies and artificial fertilization

One is seen as a miracle so that women who are barren can have children and the other is seen as the killing of an innocent life, which had no choice in the matter, so that its cells may be used in research.

"Wow, Peter didn't completely dump on (all) the Republicans like he always does and I'm impressed he didn't take another cheap shot at Reagan like so many have done at the expense of him passing away."

I don't trash talk the recently deceased.

PAD

"As for stem-cell research - I don't see Bush's coming out against it as a conservative issue. It seems to me to be a function of his agenda as a fundamentalist Christian."

Bush didn't come out against it. In fact, we was to the left of the conservative agenda on it. Was his position perfect? Nope. But it was better than most conservative's position. He had no problem with Stem Cell research in general, but merely stated that government funded research would be limited to exisiting stem cell strands (of which there are plenty). The privately funded research can still use any stem cell search, and seeing the major profit drug companies make, I don't see them having a problem spending their own money.

He could have banned stem cell research altogether, which would have been the party line. Say what you want about the guy, but sometimes, he will break from the party line to make the choice he believes in.

Jerry

"Really? Kinda seemed like he did. I thought the "mentally gone" quote was a little insensitive, myself."

No, saying "mentally buh-bye" or some such would have been insensitive. "Mentally gone" is a quick and realistic summation: His mental capacities were gone. One would have to dig really hard, or have a gargantuan chip on a shoulder, to find that a cheap shot.

PAD

"Moral question: If sacrificing a new born child's life would save 100 people, would it be worth it?"

Depends. Does the child grow up to be Hitler? And are the 100 people liberals or conservatives?

PAD

"yeah, really admirable the way she abandonned deeply held convinctions and start supporting stem cell research just because her husband had something to gain by it. Selfish and self-centered if you ask me."

Oh, that's tripe. I don't recall reading what her convictions were regarding stem cell research at any point, and unless you do and can cite it, there's no grounds to say that she's abandoned deeply held convictions. Furthermore, even if that were the case, she certainly wouldn't be the first person to do a 180 on a topic when it hits home. That's not being selfish and self-centered. That's just being human.

PAD

"Hmmmm, funny that, even a person's death is used for a political agenda. Except for enacting laws (like the Amber Alerts and such) I can't recall any conservatives doing this. If so, I sure would like a list. I love ya Cowboy Pete but if Clinton or Gore or even Jimmy Carter had died yesterday you wouldn't see me talking about what horrible people they were, it's called respect for the dead. Thanks..."

You seem to be saying I was talking about what a horrible person Reagan was. Since I wasn't, you might want to indulge in respect for accuracy while you're at it.

PAD

PAD,

Several times in your comments you use the term "neocon" to describe the wing of the Republican party that strongly opposes embryonic stem sell research. I think you've got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy. As a general rule, the neo-con wing of the GOP (along with the relatively small group libertarian-leaning Republican) would be the least likely group to oppose stem cell research.

Most the Republican opposition to embryonic stem cell research comes from the social conservative / "religious right" wing of the party. Bush II is an interesting case because he's not a neo-con. He freely mixes both social conservative and neo-con positions in his administration. (He doesn't offer much to the economic conservatives or the "small-l" libertarians in the party.) Whether this is because of Bush's deep conviction, or because he's trying to keep a very ideologically disparate party together by being all things to all people--I couldn't tell you.

Carl Henderson

One is seen as a miracle so that women who are barren can have children and the other is seen as the killing of an innocent life, which had no choice in the matter, so that its cells may be used in research.

You DID realize that the stem cell research was depending on fertilized zygotes from fertility clinics that were going to be destroyed anyway, right?

Doesn't look like you're thinking this through....

Jim Wartian:

Moral question: If sacrificing a new born child's life would save 100 people, would it be worth it? If it saved a million? (I assume the answer is no.)

As PAD has put in his books, never assume...

To answer, let me ask you a question: Is it any different when a soldier sacrifices himself to save a city, and the residents never know his name? They're both sacrifices. In reality, what is the difference between a soldier dying while saving a city and the stem cells from a baby who'll never be born saving millions of people from a variety of diseases?

JERRY WALL: "Bush didn't come out against [stem cell research]."

Ah, but for all intents and purposes, he did.

Aside from the fact that he publicly and repeatedly stated his opposition to it when he was running for President, let's look at what he actually did.

"On August 9, 2001, at 9:00 p.m. EDT, the President announced his decision to allow Federal funds to be used for research on existing human embryonic stem cell lines as long as prior to his announcement (1) the derivation process (which commences with the removal of the inner cell mass from the blastocyst) had already been initiated and (2) the embryo from which the stem cell line was derived no longer had the possibility of development as a human being.

In addition, the President established the following criteria that must be met:

* The stem cells must have been derived from an embryo that was created for reproductive purposes;
* The embryo was no longer needed for these purposes;
* Informed consent must have been obtained for the donation of the embryo;
* No financial inducements were provided for donation of the embryo."

So--he allowed exactly sixty derivations out of the thousands of possible stem cell lines to be used, thus putting a stop to further research.

Of those sixty, however, only nineteen actual lines are available. If Bush hadn't put an end to research outside those sixty derivations, more labs would be working on the problem, more dericvations would be worked with, and there would be a much, much greater chance that those derivations would yield lines which would expand into undifferentiated cell cultures.

However, this administration has time and again proved itself adversarial to science and scientists, so just throw all those chances for disease cures out the window ...

Dave Bjorlin:

You asked a good question. My problem is not that ships and buildings were built to honor someone, especially someone whose legacy and historical importance was established through time. I refer especially to the Washington monument and Lincoln memorial. The FDR memorial was not funded until recently. Of course, the navy did build the U.S.S. Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1947. Still, the names of the very largest warships were reserved for those who died, usually some years later. Now they're not even waiting for the person to die. I'm not just talking about thousand-foot-long ships or buildings, but the whole construction of a mythology around a person, the practical diefication of a leader. The aping of the process of turning the latest Caesar into a god. There will be no more carriers named Lexington or Satatoga because now they're being turned into farewell gifts to a politial retiree.

That's just a little too Roman for my taste.

Chuck

Damnit. That should be SARATOGA.

Sheesh.

*You seem to be saying I was talking about what a horrible person Reagan was. Since I wasn't, you might want to indulge in respect for accuracy while you're at it.*

Sorry Peter, I think I took the "mental capacities" comment as a shot. You reinterated what you mean and I apologize. Thanks! Carl

Bloody hell, an ex-pres turns into a corpse and I'm bombarded with overly sappy news coverage. The guy was president, he croaked, get over it. I'm sick of seeing Reagan's face plastered on every TV screen and newspaper I look at.

Andrew,
What would you RATHER see? More images from Iraq to get you in a bad mood like a few weeks ago? You have no clue and even less class, to tastelessly bash someone who has just died, and whose life impacted all of us in some way, whether we agreed with him or not.

Karen,
Extremely classy comments, especially coming from someone who I KNOW disagreed with Reagan more often than not.
And I agree with you on supporting structures and the like named after leaders who cared about and gave to this country. I mean, I am no big fan of the Kennedys and their "mystique", but it was much cooler (and appropriate, IMO) to have the Redskins playing in RFK Stadium (named after Bobby, natch) than the current FedEx Field.
And I miss Veterans Stadium, too.

PAD,
Your comments throughout this blog have been totally respectful, and the majority of the posters have followed your lead.
Reagan's death has hit me hard, so I thank you.

Chuck,
Re: The "deifying of dead politicians".
I underdstand what you say to a point. Yes, they are human.
But mythmaking is extremely important. It is why we have always had fictional characters, from The Iliad and the Odyssey to Superman. It is good to have an ideal not just for "escapism", but to have something to aspire to. Because if Rocky Balboa can overcome his daunting challenges then maybe we can as well. And if Peter Parker can still be unappreciated after saving the world for the 1000th time, well it makes it easier to take your boss or whoever not appreciating you.
In the same way, I do feel the best of our leaders are heroes as well. They make decisions, tough decisions that affect lives. Reagan was quoted as saying he set out to change the nation and wound up changing the world. Shouldn't such a man be remembered. Shouldn't we demand it? So that someone may say, "Who was this guy?" and maybe learn about his/her accomplishments? In the same way, don't Martin Luther King, Jr.; Gandhi; and others' names be honored, revered and remembered.
Yes, we're all people. But some choose to do more with their lives than others do. They deserve to be honored and remembered.

Here's a link to one story about Nancy Reagan's coming out in favor of stem cell research:

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/050904_nw_reagan.html

I don't see any problem with Nancy having an opinion that differs from any other conservative or "neocom" (whatever that means this week). Will she change many minds? Probably not, but it's always good to see a differing of opinions instead of all members of any group agreeing on everything.

Mitch,
"In 40 years, nothing has changed."
Uh, NOTHING has changed in the past 40 years? This is an extremely cynical statement, and flies in the face of reality.

"He served the status quo with the best of them."
What are you talking about? For starters, he employed a much more aggressive strategy against the Soviet Union, which helped bring about the end of the Cold War, which had had many scared about Mutually Assured Destruction/ Nuclear Annihilation for decades.
We also enjoyed a prosperity and economic expansion that we had not seen since the '50s, due to drastically slashing tax rates, especially insane 70% and 90% ones. The economic policies he initiated wound up helping Clinton with his equally impressive economic expansion.

"On the subject of monuments, well, I just roll my eyes everytime they waste money on one."
Why? Honoring our history and important figures is important.

"Anyone who is truly working for the people would be thoroughly disturbed by such things".
Please get off your high horse. Parents are SUPPOSED to take care of their children, but acknowledgement in the form of a Mother's Day or birthday gift or whatever by their children would hardly be considered out of bounds. You're SUPPOSED to do your job at work, but if you do it very well, you may be named Employee of the Week or the month or get a bonus or whatever.
Why begrudge someone recognition and honors?

"I often wonder why no one asks where the money comes from"
Because for those of us who actually pay attention to such things, we know that the money for things such as the long overdue World War II Memorial and the in development Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial usually comes entirely by donations by the public. I know, because I have already sent some money for the MLK one. Because I WANTED to.

"What cutbacks are made, when these monuments are built"
None. Okay?

"Can't we just slap their faces on a coin".
Actually, there has been a movement for a while now to get Ronald Reagan's visage on American currency. This will only gather steam now. The three options discussed are:
1.) Replacing FDR on the dime
2.) Having FDR be on half the dim4es, and reagan on the other half
3.) Replacing Alexander Hamilton on the Ten-Dollar bill. Right now, this option is the leading candidate to see fruition. as one pushing for the move said, "He wasn't a President, and he wasn't a very good shot."

And on that 'note', wouldn't be nice to see MLK on some denomination?

I think you've got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy.

The idea of the "neocon" seems to indicate, not what you state, but more of a return to the hard-core values that the Republicans hold so dear.

For comparision, it's not unlike the idea of neo-Nazi's taking to heart the things that real Nazi's believed in.

What are you talking about? For starters, he employed a much more aggressive strategy against the Soviet Union, which helped bring about the end of the Cold War, which had had many scared about Mutually Assured Destruction/ Nuclear Annihilation for decades.

And that aggressive strategy, in the beginning, included putting the Arms Race into fifth gear. Sure, in the end, it accelerated the spending of the Soviets so the gov't collapsed upon itself, but it also means we've got more nukes to deal with in the long run.

The Cold War would've ended regardless, and for exactly the reason I stated above (the gov't collapsing upon itself). Reagan just sped up the process, and it hasn't exactly done the Russians alot of good.

"So--he allowed exactly sixty derivations out of the thousands of possible stem cell lines to be used, thus putting a stop to further research."

Nope. As I stated, and as even you stated, you didn't limited any of the thousands of possible stem cell lines to be used. He just limited it to 60 which will be allowed to use federal funds.

And send the lines are self replicating, the 60 provides a significant amount to the researchers which rely on federal funds.

Again, the major pharm companies, the ones that will most likely make the big breakthroughs, don't need nor deserve federal funding for the research they are doing. Do you expect them to not make BILLIONS on whatever they develope?

AIDS research gets more money in this country than breast cancer (Which kills many more people) yet have you seen how expensive the drugs are?

Regardless, you had a republican president, who under pressure by the repub base to totally ban all stem cell research, came out with a compromise. As I said in my first post, it wasn't perfect, but it's a lot better than it could have been.

Mr. Maida,

Thank your for taking the time to respond to my rantings and for answering some of my questions. I intend to respond to you in greater detail later today. I'm currently at work so an in-depth response is out for the time being.

Salutations,

Mitch Evans

"3.) Replacing Alexander Hamilton on the Ten-Dollar bill. Right now, this option is the leading candidate to see fruition. as one pushing for the move said, "He wasn't a President, and he wasn't a very good shot." "

Oh, boy...

First of all, so what if he wasn't President? He served in two cabinet positions under two administrations and he invented the American economy. From scratch. That's a pretty mind-boggling achievement, and it's been more enduring than a lot of the achievements of others, including many Presidents. (See Forrest MacDonald's "Hamilton: A Biography" for the gory economic details.)

Secondly, it's not that Hamilton was a bad shot. Hell, he was a war hero. He charged Cornwallis's forces and came out alive at the age of 23. He had no INTENTION of shooting at Burr at all. (When he was pulled into his boat by his friends after being shot, he handed over his gun and warned his second to be careful, as it was still loaded. In his delirium, he didn't realize that he had pulled the trigger, probably a reflex when he heard/felt Burr's shot.)

Sorry. I'm sort of a Hamilton fan. :) I'd hate to see him taken off the ten-spot. Once upon a time, he was very highly regarded, considered the second most important American in history, after Washington. These days, we seem to have forgotten his achievements.

Those who think Reagan's death has hit you hard, why? You weren't prepared for it?

When it comes to the death of a famous person, I think first of the family that is left behind. In this case, the family has had several years to prepare themselves. They knew it was coming. And it's probably (I'm not in their minds so I can't know for sure) a relief.

Reagan's life wasn't cut short. He did not die a young man. He was in his 90s, and it was his time. This is not a reflection of my support or lack of support of his policies. People die every day -- why should the death of a 90+ year old man suffering from Alzheimer's hit anyone outside of close family and friends hard?

She tells every one "just say no to drugs" and she's an idiot.

She comes out for Stem Cell Research and she's the next Stephen Hawking.

What's next? Desperate for a kidney? Have a kid and take one of theirs.

>>"Moral question: If sacrificing a new born >>child's life would save 100 people, would it >>be worth it?"
>>
>>Depends. Does the child grow up to be Hitler? >>And are the 100 people liberals or >>conservatives?
>>
>>PAD

Ok, PAD, you made me laugh. Which is why I still read you (most of the time)even when I am probably the opposite on so many issues.

I notice that no one has answered my central question: If adult stem cells work, why is there a demand to use stem cells from embryoes (or however you spell it!)? It at least appears that there is a bigger agenda at work (on both sides of the argument).

Jim in Iowa

To Grev:

>To answer, let me ask you a question: Is it any >different when a soldier sacrifices himself to >save a city, and the residents never know his >name? They're both sacrifices. In reality, what >is the difference between a soldier dying while >saving a city and the stem cells from a baby >who'll never be born saving millions of people >from a variety of diseases?

There is one very clear difference: One sacrifice was by choice, the other was not. A soldier, even if he was drafted, still is making some choice to be there and some choice in what he does. If he at all conciously chooses to try to save another, it is a deliberate sacrifice.

If, as I believe, an unborn child is a human being, it is clear the child has no choice. In fact, that choice is taken away.

If you cannot see this difference, then our views of reality don't even intersect. You don't have to agree with me that the child is an innocent human being, but please understand my position at least enough to recognize that your question is patently absurd. I would no more advocate sacrificing an unborn child than I would a one year old kid.

Jim in Iowa

"Several times in your comments you use the term "neocon" to describe the wing of the Republican party that strongly opposes embryonic stem sell research. I think you've got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy. As a general rule, the neo-con wing of the GOP (along with the relatively small group libertarian-leaning Republican) would be the least likely group to oppose stem cell research."

Thanks for the clarification. At this point I was pretty much using Neocon to cover the most extreme aspects of Bush's right wing supporters. I didn't know there was that kind of distinction.

PAD

"In reality, what is the difference between a soldier dying while saving a city and the stem cells from a baby who'll never be born saving millions of people from a variety of diseases?"

That the former might just have volunteered for it and the latter did not?
"yeah, really admirable the way she abandonned deeply held convinctions and start supporting stem cell research just because her husband had something to gain by it. Selfish and self-centered if you ask me."

If he's already dead, she has nothing more to gain by it. If she continues her efforts that alone should prove her sincerity.

"Actually, there has been a movement for a while now to get Ronald Reagan's visage on American currency. This will only gather steam now. The three options discussed are:
1.) Replacing FDR on the dime..."

Why can't North American currency be like the Japanese one? They don't have politicians on theirs. Rather, it's USEFUL people such as writers, teachers, so forth. On the paper currency, anyway. The coins have objects/symbols.

"3) Put sign next to pill reading "If you don't remember why this pill is here, take it."
I'm *not* joking.
You say your not joking, but it's pretty funny; in a sad way, (considering that you will do this.)"

Sad, yes. But the alternative?

I took mother to a small chapel for Christmas Eve service last year. This chapel was located in an old folks' home literally two doors down from her place. The two front rows of pews were missing, and the space was occupied by a couple of rows of wheelchair-bound residents.

Partway through the service, there was a brief interruption while a couple of nurses came in and handed them various medicines. This drew my attention in their direction and I wish it hadn't because it really threw a damper on the evening noting the blank, barely-there expression on those faces, eyes devoid of any real life or awareness.

There are those (including my mother) who think I should try to eat a little healthier and take a little better care of myself. Maybe I should. But, given a choice between dying of a heart attack before I reach 60, and living to be 90, but as a vegetable for the last few years, well ...

Jim,

To adress your question, the problem with using adult stem cells (from what I have read) is that they are very limited in what can be done with them. An adult stem cell is still somewhat 'programed' with what functions they can perform. You cannot, for example, use an adult stem cell to repair nerv damage. The fetal stem cell is still essentially a blank slate and can be made (theoretically) to do all manner of things.

And while I'm here, I might as well gripe some. I'm all for stem cell research, and have no moral qualms in the use of fertilized cells that would otherwise have been discarded. However, I think that other supporters are overzealous in their claims that this research WILL cure this or that. It only has the potential right now. Nothing is assured. I think to go around and state that it CAN cure disease x gives people the wrong impression.

Now, I'm not talking to anyone specific, or any one comment made in particular. Its just someting I pick up on posts from time to time. No personal attacks, please.

One thing that I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned on this blog...apparently, Mr. Reagan's favorite newspaper strip was Spider-Man (I saw that on 60 Minutes last night).

That almost makes me like him. Actually, that's unfair; in the case of every president whose time in office gave me the heebie-jeebies, once they were out of office (and couldn't hurt me any longer), I stopped being grumpy at them.

As far as having to deal with something personally causing someone to do a one-eighty on their convictions, I'm going to have to go with PAD on this one; until my mother developed dementia, I didn't give it a second thought (apart from it being unfortunate for everyone involved). If her position on Alzheimer's research has changed, well...life is change.

Regardless of one's opinion of Mrs. Reagan, she's comported herself admirably since Mr. Reagan's condition became public. I only hope that I do half as well as she has.

While I don't exactly share the opinion of being a huge fan of Hamilton, I don't think he ought to be replaced on the ten. Did anybody notice that the bicentennial of his death is in about a month? (July 11, 1804). I relish in being able to whip out a ten to exlain who Hamilton was. It occurs to me that much of the point of memorializing people on things like money is so that these figures remain in our consciousness, so that the younger generations that follow their passing can look at these everyday symbols (or statues) and ask, "Who's that?" and learn something. To start replacing the old icons with fresher ones strikes me as turning our back on our history.
If there must be some monetary memorial to Reagan, how about the back of quarters, which hardly seems sacrosanct in light of the state series (which I think is real cool, by the way)

Pete

It's good that Mr. David doesn't wish to "talk trash about the dead," as he says. It's nice to have manners. However, on the other side of the aisle, people like Rush, Michael Wiener and Hannity have rarely shown that kind of consideration for their opponents. I don't recall that kind of consideration when Paul Wellstone died. And on a local level, when a gay man dies, holding up a sign saying "God Hates Fags" or "He's Burning in Hell Now" at the funeral is considered in the best of taste by evangelicals.

It's always accepted that the left is supposed to have manners, and the right is permitted not to. Now that there are some liberals taking Rush's liberties for their own, the right is getting offended. Gee, does it hurt much?

We've already got the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan, the Reagan International Airport, the Reagan Building, and, in northern LA, the Reagan Freeway (often the butt of jokes by Angelinos, who used to say it was just like a Reagan speech - starting nowhere in particular, ending nowhere near any point of interest, and wandering all over the place in between). Why would we need to put Reagan on money, or a mountain?

Thomas E. Reed,

Actually, unless you have some quotes to back it up, everything I recall about when Paul Wellstone died, Rush didn't attack him at all. He merely broke the news, spoke his regrets, and moved on. Did he spend the day speaking Wellstone's praise? Nope. But neither did he attack him. Not sure anyone else did either. The Right was fairly respectful of Wellstone after his death, until the election rally disguies as a funeral.

But if you have quotes or evidence to back up your statements, I'd love to see them. Other than, well, "everyone just knows Rush would say that".

And as for the ""God Hates Fags" or "He's Burning in Hell Now" signs at a funeral, most leading republican and even people such as Glenn Beck, Rush, Hannity and more codemn that type of behavior...there are always wackos....I don't group all liberals in with the people who've been posting as some sites hoping that Reagan is burning in hell, or hoping that America gets nuked. But there are liberals saying those things....

You can always find extremes to make your point. How bout we just deal with rational people. Al Franken and Ann Coultie remain outside please...lol

I agree with Nancy's new stance on stemcell research. But, let's face it, it was inspired purely by self-interest and not a longing to better humanity, much like Chris Reave. Now if she had said it BEFORE the Gipper had to start wearing Depends, THEN I'd be impressed! (And, is it just me, or does Nancy look EXACTLY like the Joker?!?)

*****

"Do you suppose that waiting hands on eyes/Veronica has gone to hide/And all the time she laughs at those/Who call her name and steal her clothes." --Elvis Costello's take on Alzheimer's

"And on a local level, when a gay man dies, holding up a sign saying "God Hates Fags" or "He's Burning in Hell Now" at the funeral is considered in the best of taste by evangelicals."

Wow, if that isn't the most insulting thing I've heard this week (though, admittedly, it's early). Christians, by and large, love people. That a nut job like Phelps hides behind a label is sad; that someone actually believes he represents the rest of us, that's worse.

Christians, by and large, love people. That a nut job like Phelps hides behind a label is sad; that someone actually believes he represents the rest of us, that's worse.

The problem ends up being that perhaps Christians don't do enough in general to try and put themselves above the bad ones that say and do such things.

All in all, thinking about the whole Reagan thing, some things come to mind.

First, everybody goes on about how he was a great speaker. Well, he ought to be - he started out as a sports announcer in the Quad Cities and Des Moines, IA and then became a rather successful actor.

Second, while I think his death is important, it's rather a shame that it is overshadowing the 60th Anniversary of D-Day. Something I heard recently said that WWII vets are dying by the thousands every day.
So when they had a moment of silence for Reagan before the vets at the Cubs game yesterday, I could only shake my head.

But overall, I'm still stuck looking at his presidency from a pair of binoculars, as I wasn't really old enough to remember anything he did in office.

Shortdawg the comment about the man wearing Depends is unnecessary,there is nothing funny about the effects of Alzheimers.As far as Mrs Reagans 'appearance she is 80 some odd years old
why do you care how she looks??
As far as it be self serving maybe so,but if her interest changes peoples'opinions or gets more interest in it ,i can live with her being self serving.By the way ,its Reeve not Reave.
There was another comment earlier from someone about artificial means of conception to help barren women concieve.Just a thought ,maybe there is reason not all people should be able to have children,there are alot of abused,neglected and unwanted kids on this planet.Maybe that same time could be spent to care for the kids we already have instead of making new ones for those who cant procreate on their own.

By the way i was kinda pissed the coverage was taken away from the veterans.The news really should have been all about them.There is a patient at my job who was all over the pacific and i believe lost brother or cousin during D-Day.I get the importance of a presidents' death
but if not for these guys he made not have had a chance to be President of the U.S.
Jerome: I miss the Vet too :(

Does anyone know what’s going to happen when we cure all these diseases? People are going to live longer. Is that a good thing? Selfishly, no, I don’t want to die. I don’t want my wife, or little girl or any member of my family to die. I don’t wish death on most anyone. But, and I think that you tree huggers out there should be able to appreciate this, we have 6 billion people living on this planet. 6 BILLION. If less & less start to die off, and more people being born how are we going to take care of everyone. This planet can only hold so long, especially to the species that is at the top of the food chain, with no natural predators.

I’m sorry to sound harsh, I lost 2 grandmothers & my mother to cancer, so I’ve dealt with the horrible pain of loosing people to a disease, but disease is part of life as well as vital to population control. As it is, people have lived the longest in years over the last 100 years. Yes, I am aware of all the benefits stem cell research can provide, I however am the ultimate pessimist and say “What in the world are we going to do with 13 X-Men?” (Prof X, Giant Size X-Men 1). More people is more animals slaughtered for food, more trees torn down to make room for housing, more destruction of the environment.

I saw someone comment on cloning. Cloning of humans is bad because we are going to create a 3rd class of citizens & who is to say they will be given rights or that they won’t be discriminated against. Again, we have 6 billion people, why do we need to clone humans. If anything, start cloning cows and chickens to feed all these people. Or how about endangered species

Joe V.

"And on a local level, when a gay man dies, holding up a sign saying "God Hates Fags" or "He's Burning in Hell Now" at the funeral is considered in the best of taste by evangelicals."

To tar all evangelicals with having the level of hatred of Fred Phelps--a guy who can find no real church that would want him--puts you a whole lot closer to his way of thinking than the people you tried to condemn.

I support stem cell research but my own experiences in bioresearch make me question PAD's statement about "the incredible benefits of stem cell research". It needs the word "potential". Dropping fetal cells on the brains of victims of wasting brain diseases has the potential to cure them...or kill them quickly from multiple tumors. Time will tell.

Personally I'm expecting a lot more from nanotechnology, and this is from someone who just a few years ago thought that it was DNA research that was going to solve all of our problems...

Attempts to clone research chimps has shown that there seems to be something in the genome of primates that resists cloning by any means we have available today. I don't think masses of cloned humans are any kind of worry right now...

We are cloning cattle to feed people. It works fine - as long as you don't tell people the beef is cloned. They seem to have a tendency to freak out and assume there's something inherently more dangerous about the meat, just because it was subjected to a high-tech procedure early in its genesis. However, the real problem with starvation today doesn't seem to be a matter of food supply - it's a matter of getting the food to the people who need to eat. Somalia makes a wonderful example. For decades, the warlords of Somalia have maintained a grip on the region, long after the logic of history would have suggested their obsolescence, by controlling the availability of food - rebel against your local warlord, and starve. We tried to ship food in there once. Some of you are old enough to remember the result.

As for living space, perhaps we will exceed the carrying capacity of this planet. However, there are eight other planets in this system, along with a large number of moons, a larger number of asteroids, quite a few comets, and an unending supply of solar energy. There's no good reason why we can't take advantage of all that...

Personally, I dislike that most national-level memorials/tributes (currency, etc.) are given to a whopping two groups; politicians and soldiers. And I count folk like Martin Luther King as politicians/leaders of a large group of people. I suspect it's not a coincidence that it's politicians deciding to honor other politicians.

Personally, I think life is much more impacted by scientists/engineers (admittedly I have my own personal bias here) and perhaps writers. If you had to pick the most worldclass influential person of the 1990s, would you go with Bush I, Clinton, or Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web? But Bush and Clinton get libraries and similar memorials, while Berners-Lee almost certainly won't.

Re: No more USS Saratoga

Actually, Chuck, the shift is much more subtle. Traditionally battleships were named for states, cruisers for cities, destroyers for people, carriers for battles (hence the USS Saratoga you mentioned) and submarines for fish. Following World War II the naming system was changed. Ballistic missile submarines are named for states (Ohio Class), attack submarines for cities (Los Angeles Class), cruisers for battles (Ticonderoga Class), and both carriers and destroyers for people (Nimitz and Arleigh Burke Classes... you might do better complaining about the Navy naming everything after retired CNOs). It's the fish that get shafted, not the historic names.

Deano,
Nice comments. Thanks for addressing the tastelessness of the depends and joker remarks.
I also understand what you are saying in regard to "neglected, unwanted" kids. But I don't think that necessarily goes hand in hand with "too many" children.
In Philly last year, there were a horrifically high number of high-profile incidents involving the death/torture/rape of children.
Most of these, unfortunately, are by friends or family members.
How can we protect them all? The sad and scary answer is we can't.
No matter how many children there are.

"Several times in your comments you use the term "neocon" to describe the wing of the Republican party that strongly opposes embryonic stem sell research. I think you've got your Republican subgroups confused. The Neo-conservatives tend to be socially liberal and support a very aggressive foreign policy. As a general rule, the neo-con wing of the GOP (along with the relatively small group libertarian-leaning Republican) would be the least likely group to oppose stem cell research."

Thanks for the clarification. At this point I was pretty much using Neocon to cover the most extreme aspects of Bush's right wing supporters. I didn't know there was that kind of distinction.

PAD

Me neither. I didn't even know there was a term for people like me. Apart from "asshole lawyer" of course.

Mr. Maida,

As promised, my responses...

"Uh, NOTHING has changed in the past 40 years? This is an extremely cynical statement, and flies in the face of reality."

Yes, I am cynical (for reasons I won't go into here) and I'll admit that my cynicism tends to skew my 'world-view.' The point I was trying to make, and I should have articulated it far better than I did, was that the issues of 1964 are still issues in 2004. That in 40 years time these issues have not been adequately adressed or acted upon. If I knew where to find a transcript of that speach I'd direct you to it because it's quite interesting and it illustrates, quite well if you ask me, the stagnation that we are in with the two-party system.

The "status quo" comment I made was not so much a shot at Reagan as it was at the career polititians, those that have a vested interest in the status quo as it helps to maintain their power-base.

Monuments. I think of them as a waste of money because, and this may just be a 'Mitch thing', I believe that the best way to honor and show our gratitude to those that came before us is to demonstrate it in our deeds. Think of it as an 'actions speak louder than words' aproach. On the other hand, since a good deal of these monuments are funded by donations (thanks for that tidbit by the way. I wasn't aware of that), who am I to tell you how to spend your money?

"What cutbacks are made, when these monuments are built"
None. Okay?"
Okay.

"Please get off your high horse."
It would seem that I attempted to lead my high horse to water and, indeed, it wouldn't drink. Consider me dismounted.

"Can't we just slap their faces on a coin".
"Actually, there has been a movement for a while now to get Ronald Reagan's visage on American currency"

Someone had mentioned the back of the quarter in response to your statement. I don't think that would be a bad idea. Perhaps an "American Heroes" series for the back sides of paper money would work as well? Maybe have two fronts. The five dollar bill could have one front with the visage of Martin Luther King along with the current front of Lincoln. Sort of a testament to "Ever Growing Freedom." I think something like that would be justifyable. Personally, I'd like to see a Rosa Parks Silver Dollar. To my mind she's a real hero. I bet she wouldn't think so.

In any case Mr. Maida, thanks again for making me think. Always a good thing.

Salutations,

Mitch Evans

When you disagree with a politican, are you disagreeing with the person or their opinions?
When Reagan was in office, I disagreed with a lot of his domestic policies because most of them affected people below a certain income level. Usually me and my family.
When Reagan left office, the first Bush continued those same ideals, but my disagreement was still with the policies, not the person.
My sympathy actually went out to Reagan when the Alzheimers news first went public.
Regardless of your political ideals, you have to have at least some sympthay for a family who just lost a member, as well as respect for a woman who put up with who knows what for the last ten years before the end.

Mitch,
You're welcome. Thanks for the conversation! You make valid points as well. The "Ever Growing Freedom" idea is pretty cool. And, yes, actions are more a tribute than ststues or museums, but sometimes the people honored by the statues/museums can inspire someone to take action!

Mr. Maida,

You're welcome as well. I agree that inspiration is an important factor in life. Not to toot my own horn, but the more I think about this 'Ever Growing Freedom' idea the more I like it. I just wish I had a way to impliment it.

Until next time Mr. Maida.

Salutations,

Mitch

The comments above about overpopulation may have to be rethought--there is growing evidence that the problem of the next 100 years may well be the economic fallout of reduced birthrates in most parts of the world.

read THE EMPTY CRADLE for an interesting perspective. The USA will be ok for a while due mostly to our immigration rate but Europe and especially Japan will be facing serious problems soon. I know that this flies in the face of everything we've been told (and what I've been teaching my students) but it is definitely worth pondering.

The population statistics are for developed nations. Overpopulation is really hurting 3rd world countries.

Karen,
Yes. That is why democracy, better education and prosperity are so important. It seems insane, but one of the reasons so many Third World nations have such high birthrates is BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE DIE YOUNG. Due to starvation, war, AIDS, etc. So they have a lot of children in the hopes that some make it to adulthood.
Religion and culture plays a large role in a lot of these areas as well.
But women, when empowered and educated, will almost always choose to have less children.
And, yes, i feel the conventional wisdom about "overpopulation" is horrifically incorrect, and will be proven to be so.
We are paying our farmers NOT to grow food, for heaven's sake.
We have more than enough food and resources to keep everyone healthy and fed, but it is an enormous international political problem that prevents us from doing so. In some countries, famine is used as a WEAPON instead of war against certain groups.
We have plenty of space, too. We would just need to show a capacity to share.

Craig,
1.)It is extremely unfair to keep linking all Christians to the hateful zealots who do things like hold "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" signs. I have seen such behavior in Philadelphia, and it really is repulsive. But to tar all Christians with the same brush would be like those who tar all members of the Islamic faith with a "terrorist" brush.

2.) The Cold War would not have ended regardless. That is revisionist history. I remember those who said Communism in general and the USSR could never be truly defeated (much like people talking about terrorism today). It's easy to say something was inevitable after the hard work has been done to achieve it. It is also incorrect.

3.) As far as the Russians, they had to live through Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler (somehow, this is ignored by EVERYONE) and decades of "bad harvests". Slowly but surely things are getting better for them, which was impossible under the rule of the Sickle and Hammer (and many are immigrating here as well).

It is extremely unfair to keep linking all Christians to the hateful zealots who do things like hold "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" signs.

Yes, it is extremely unfair. Now, what are the Christians going to do about it?

(somehow, this is ignored by EVERYONE)

Actually, I just made a comment somewhere else the other night on this fact.

"Personally, I'd like to see a Rosa Parks Silver Dollar. To my mind she's a real hero. I bet she wouldn't think so."

My wife once had the privilege of meeting Rosa Parks in person. She asked Ms. Parks what led her to her act of rebellion on that bus. Ms. Parks' reply: "Rebellion? Heavens, child, I was just tired and wanted to sit down!"

That simple reply, although Ms. Parks still wouldn't think so, was another life-changing act - it made Hillary rethink a lot of her militant attitude of the time, which meant that by the time she met me, she was ready to see me as a person, not as a color... :)

"My wife once had the privilege of meeting Rosa Parks in person. She asked Ms. Parks what led her to her act of rebellion on that bus. Ms. Parks' reply: "Rebellion? Heavens, child, I was just tired and wanted to sit down!"

That simple reply, although Ms. Parks still wouldn't think so, was another life-changing act - it made Hillary rethink a lot of her militant attitude of the time, which meant that by the time she met me, she was ready to see me as a person, not as a color... :)"

That's a cool story. And it's why I think highly of Rosa Parks. One doesn't have to be militant to have a huge impact. In fact I'd say that being militant is taking the easy way out and only serves ones ego.

Salutations,

Mitch

"It is extremely unfair to keep linking all Christians to the hateful zealots who do things like hold "AIDS KILLS FAGS DEAD" signs."

"Yes, it is extremely unfair. Now, what are the Christians going to do about it?"

Um...hope that the people who are so ignorant that they yield to their bigotry against an entire group based on the actions of a few will learn the error of their ways before they allow their hatred to make them even more miserable than they doubtless already are? I mean, what the hell CAN one do? If a person is determined to be a hater there is precious little that one can reasonable do.

I would hope that they don't sweat it too much. If you know a person hates you and you know the reason, and the reason is a defect in the haters logic...go on with your life, there are plenty of better people to spend time on.

Re: No more USS Saratoga

"Actually, Chuck, the shift is much more subtle. Traditionally battleships were named for states, cruisers for cities, destroyers for people, carriers for battles (hence the USS Saratoga you mentioned) and submarines for fish. Following World War II the naming system was changed. Ballistic missile submarines are named for states (Ohio Class), attack submarines for cities (Los Angeles Class), cruisers for battles (Ticonderoga Class), and both carriers and destroyers for people (Nimitz and Arleigh Burke Classes... you might do better complaining about the Navy naming everything after retired CNOs). It's the fish that get shafted, not the historic names."

There have always been exceptions to the rules:
Carriers were named RANGER, WASP, HORNET, CABOT, etc.
The original SSBN (ballistic missile Subs) were the 21 for freedom named after great people (Alexander Hamilton, Kamehameha, Simon Bolivar, George Washington, Daniel Boone, etc.)
The shift to name subs after cities and states came in the 80s with the decline of cruisers and battleships and Admiral Hyman Rickover, the head of the nuclear Navy, stated that "Fish don't Vote" as his reason for that change. (and one of the Los Angeles Class is named after Rickover)

Arleigh Burke was a natural name for a destroyer class because that was where the Admiral earned his fame. He led Destroyer squadrons in World War II.

Naming of Carriers is now purely political (Vinson was an influential member of Congress, Stinson was a Senator from Miss., Reagan and Bush were Republican Presidents). As are some other decisions - the next class of destroyers was to be named after Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, but the Bush Administration cancelled that because Zumwalt was a dedicated Democrat.

I mean, what the hell CAN one do?

Well, speaking up in defense of yourself and those who are being stepped on doesn't hurt.

You have these religious zealots that want to blame 9/11 on gays and such (I think everybody can take a guess at who I'm talking about), yet there aren't alot of people speaking out against him from within his own religion.

The gays have to speak for themselves. It's almost a silent approval, in a way.

If you know a person hates you and you know the reason, and the reason is a defect in the haters logic...go on with your life, there are plenty of better people to spend time on.

Sorry, can't ignore Bush and those like him when they're in charge of how soon this planet gets blown to bits. :)

originally posted by Mitch Evans:

"That's a cool story. And it's why I think highly of Rosa Parks. One doesn't have to be militant to have a huge impact. In fact I'd say that being militant is taking the easy way out and only serves ones ego."

It's worth keeping in mind that Rosa Parks was a dedicated long-time civil rights activist at the time she sat down on that bus.

If by "militant" you mean "advocating violence," then she was not a militant. If by "militant" you mean "extremely committed to a cause, to the extent your detractors think you are too partisan and extreme," then she was a militant.

In the 1950s and early 1960s a favorite line of "moderates" on the civil rights issue was to condemn the "extremists" on both sides -- i.e. to condemn the KKK one hand and to condemn Martin Luther King, the Freedom Riders, the sit-in folks, etc., on the other.

In the 1960s a more violent wing of the civil rights movement emerged, and that's what people think of now when they think of militants. But Rosa Parks was considered (and condemned as) a militant in her day.

Sometimes militancy isn't such a bad thing.

(Wish I could play music in this post. I'd play the Judy Collins song, "It Isn't Nice".

It isn't nice to go to prison.
It isn't nice to go to jail.
There are nicer ways to do things,
But the nice ways always fail.

It isn't nice, it isn't nice.
You told us once, you told us twice.
But if that's freedom's price
We don't mind.)

I love the Rosa parks story.Its refreshing to hear someone who is not into overstating what she
did.
Kind of Zen in its simplicity .Agree with other posters that not all acts of importance have to be radical or premeditated :)

Nova Land:
"If by "militant" you mean "advocating violence," then she was not a militant. If by "militant" you mean "extremely committed to a cause, to the extent your detractors think you are too partisan and extreme," then she was a militant."

I did, in fact, mean 'advocating violence.' Don't get me wrong, though. Violence does have it's place, specifically the defense of myself and others against an agressor. As long as it's tempered by the apropriate force rule I have no problem with violence. Violence for it's own sake, on the other hand, is nothing more than an ego boost for those who lack creativity.

Once again it seems that I was not explicit enough in my posting. My apologies.

Salutations,

Mitch

I'm a couple days late and way down the page, but I've gotta comment.

Don't expect too much from stem cell research. It amazes me how naive the researchers are being, even with negative evidence accumulating.

Stem cells, being completely or partly undifferentiated (the recent article was wrong - reproductive embryos are only good for a few stem cell applications), don't tend to set off rejection in the donor. But the whole point is that they will eventually differentiate to replace damaged or dead cells, and at that point they will be someone else's cells stuck among the donor's, and they will be rejected - and steps to prevent that present their own massive difficulties.

I don't like science censorship on moral / religious grounds (but those who hold the purse strings often make these kinds of judgments), but the eggs in this basket probably won't make much of an omelet.

Or I'm wrong. Whatever.

Craig,
A lot of Christians do speak out on these things. Maybe you don't hear them, but they do.
In fact, although I'm not actively involved in organized religion anymore, you can count me as one of them.
Do you know who Benny Hinn is? If not, he's sort of like Jerry Falwell.
Anyway, there was a discussion going on about Leonardo Dicaprio and what path his career would take (this is RIGHT after "Titanic", when he was red-hot).
Somebody in the group made a stupid )and irrelevant) comment about Dicaprio being gay. Benny Hinn then got involved, and said that if that were true Dicaprio would burn in hell just like all gays.
When I took exception, and said that hell is for the "Hitlers of the world", he responded that "gays are just as bad as the Hitlers of the world".
Nearly all the group backed me, and I still don't know if he realizes how much he hurt his cause that day.

Benny Hinn is a charlatan who creates elaborate stage shows built around him "laying hands" on carefully selected "sick" people in his audience and healing them. His opinion on any subject is completely useless.

Derek,
how do you know that? have you been to any of his crusades? how do you know those people aren't really sick?

I know because I don't believe in people with superpowers just like I don't believe in Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, fairy tales or that pro wrestling is real.
I also saw a Dateline episode where they exposed certain people who claimed to be cured of certain diseases like Lou Gehrigs by Benny Hinn to have never been ill to begin with. They also showed how he keeps the really sick in the back where they are unable to get close to the stage when he calls for sick people to let him lay hands while his staff picks the lucky recipients of Benny's magic touch.

Further, in the Gospels and Acts, when Christ and His disciples healed the sick, did they ask first for the sick to believe, or did they use the curing as a means of persuasion?

If you're healing people miraculously, it shouldn't matter what they believe. You're not supposed to be using the power of *their* faith; you're supposed to be using the power of *your* faith.

"Truly I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, 'Move hence to yonder place' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible to you." (Matt. 17:20)

Note that He said nothing about the *mountain's* faith in anything at all.

Benny Hinn, on the other hand, demands that anyone he "heals" first profess faith in Christ, and then be healed *through that faith.* This tells me that, whether the healing be true or no, Hinn himself is a charlatan, doing nothing for these people, yet taking their "donations" anyway.

Let's use the people on Death Row for to supply us with organs for transplants. If they're going to die anyway, let's make their lives count for something. And they have a chance to help save the lives of many to atone for the ones they took..

"Let's use the people on Death Row for to supply us with organs for transplants. If they're going to die anyway, let's make their lives count for something. And they have a chance to help save the lives of many to atone for the ones they took.."

See "Niven, Larry" - in particular, "The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton" (collection) and "A Gift From Earth" (novel).

It's not just Christians that carry "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" signs. A decade or so there was a semi-famous heavy metal singer (hardly a public avower of Christianity) wore a T-shirt with that saying in an MTV interview.

He later apologized for it. Not out of Christian regret or guilt, but something like "My grandma died of cancer, and I wouldn't want to see a shirt that said 'Cancer Kills Grandmas Dead.'"

A jerk is a jerk, regardless of faith. We should all point out jerky comments. But I'll admit that jerks are moderately more likely to listen to their same peer group (other Christians, etc) than anyone else.

DEE,

I have NO respect for you. Go away. If you haven't figured it out by now, this is PAD blog..Not yours. He's free to express his view HIS way. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. NOTHING Peter said was false. I LOVED RR; He was the right man, at the right time, in the right job.

That being said, the man had Alzheimers for crying out loud!! He couldn't remember his name much less anything else. He WAS in the twilight of his years, he even said so himself!!

The stem cell research comment was also right. You have a Christian whipped, bible thumper in office right now that made a decision on stem cell research that will affect EVERYONE. Stem cell research is the holy grail of science. It has the possibilities to cure a great many problems. Bush was wrong in limiting federal research on it. Not only do Biotech firms stand to lose BILLIONS on that kind of research, cures that would have help RR now will take longer to come by thanks AGAIN to our tunnel visioned President.

Bashing Mr. David for his Jewish faith makes you look like a Nazi you prick. Grow up, get out, and use your head. BUSH as been the WORST president we've EVER had. I can't wait to vote him out of office!!

Hi, Peter!

> "Moral question: If sacrificing a new born child's life would save 100 people, would it be worth it?"

>Depends. Does the child grow up to be Hitler? And are the 100 people liberals or conservatives?

Hmm. Isn't the impossibility (for us) of such knowledge related to what drove Captain Marvel around the bend?

Cheers,

Michael

James,

President Reagan was also " a Christian whipped, bible thumper" as you so eloquently put it. He never hid the fact he was. Reagan just happened to be more popular then our current President. So please try to leave the religion aspect out of it.

& as has been mentioned before, just in case you missed it, Dee has beeen shrouded. Let it go. & as has also been mentioned before Bush is for stem cell reasearch.

If you want a satanic, budhist, atheist, or muslim president in the white house please vote for one. Oh wait, there aren't any.

There are already nearly 200 replies to this, so I had to skip a lot for time. Apologies if I'm repeating anything.

I don't agree with the circular logic of the GOP on embryonic stem cell research. Harvesting ESCs is murder to the beliefs espoused - so fertility clinics must be guilty of murder too: a large number of the fertalized embryos are just thrown away unused.

They also want to hinder other potential research: scientists found a way to get past the potential moral quagmire by using therapeutic cloning of cells, so the GOP decided _therapeutic_ cloning meant _reproductive_ cloning (copying needed cells as opposed to creating full humans) so they nixed THAT.

Adult stem cells have not been proven effective. It will take about a decade of research before they can determine their benefits. ESC would still take some time, maybe not that much.

I'm a living example of people who may be helped by the research: I'm one of the over 4 million people worldwide with multiple sclerosis. After almost 9 years, I'm still not as affected as some - but research might help people like Annette Funicello and Richard Prior to walk again, or Montel Williams not to have constant agony.

One of the last message posters said we shouldn't bring religion into this, but that's exactly what the President did. He took advice from his most devoutly religious Catholic voters and the Pope to make his decision in 2001. I'm like Peter (Jewish) so I don't ascribe to the sane beliefs. The only moral view in this is: do you choose a technology that may help millions, or do you choose to follow religious beliefs and allow all those people to suffer?

In my opinion, Dubya made the wrong choice.

Oh wait, there aren't any.

But that's not the point, is it?

It shouldn't matter what your religious preferences are becuase they shouldn't influence your job as President in the way it has for Reagan and Bush Jr.

Unlike some, I could care less about the candidate's religion unless they sit there and "I'm working for God", which is what Bush has done.

Speaking of Reagan, I was curious what the etiquette is about putting a flag at half staff when it's a large flag on a relatively short (say 20 feet at most) flagpole. Last week I noticed that a business had a flag on such a flagpole at full height; and wondered if it hadn't been lowered because doing so would've let the bottom of the flag touch the ground, or simply because they chose not to.

So, if a flagpole is less than a certain height, is the procedure to not lower the flag, because it would then touch the ground?

Rick

Peter said: "I'm hoping she barnstorms the country and manages to turn around Neocon thinking about the incredible benefits of stem cell research."

It amazes me how the term "neocon" has been so misused and abused. Do you honestly think Paul Wolfowitz, Irving Kristol (and son Bill), Doug Feith, Richard Perle, and other foreign policy "neocons" have given more than a second's thought to stem cell research. (Bush's main man on the issue of bioethics is University of Chicago prof Leon Kass is an ethicist and religious scholar who focuses not a bit in the neocon foreign policy sphere.)

Stem cell researh simply isn't a "neocon" issue. Neo-conservatism is essentially the assumption of American exceptionalism in the world, based on both our ideas and power, and the judicious but assertive use of our power to spread our ideas. Reasonable minds can agree or disagree about the rightness of Neoconservative principles (and indeed about the primary assumption of American exceptionalism) and can certainly debate whether it is being employed correctly at both the strategic and tactical levels (I would argue that Iraq was the wrong choice at this time, for example, in our ongoing was against Islamic terrorists, but Wolfowitz et. al. saw Iraq as the perfect place to ignite democracy in that part of the world). But the way the term "neocon" gets used as a pejorative from both the right (e.g. Pat Buchanan) and left is lazy and prejudicial and has very little to do with what neoconservatism is actually about.

Posted by jsstag at June 14, 2004 12:20 PM

Just to throw another log on the whole presidential religiousness discussion, did anyone else perceive in Ron Reagan Jr.'s eulogy a slight dig at the current president? When Reagan Jr. said:

"Dad was also a deeply, unabashedly religious man. But he never made the fatal mistake of so many politicians wearing his faith on his sleeve to gain political advantage. True, after he was shot and nearly killed early in his presidency, he came to believe that God had spared him in order that he might do good. But he accepted that as a responsibility, not a mandate. And there is a profound difference."

I couldn't help think that the distinction he was drawing was to the current president. I'll leave it to historians to determine how appropriate that distinction is, but I thought it a subtle way to address the issue in a eulogy.

Rick Keating writes:

Speaking of Reagan, I was curious what the etiquette is about putting a flag at half staff when it's a large flag on a relatively short (say 20 feet at most) flagpole. Last week I noticed that a business had a flag on such a flagpole at full height; and wondered if it hadn't been lowered because doing so would've let the bottom of the flag touch the ground, or simply because they chose not to.

So, if a flagpole is less than a certain height, is the procedure to not lower the flag, because it would then touch the ground?

There's a great site for flag regulations at http://www.ushistory.org/betsy/flagetiq.html.

There doesn't appear to be anything specifically there about not half-masting a flag if it's too large, but there are guidelines therea about how large your flag should be depending on the the size of your pole. If you follow those guidelines (e.g. a 5 foot by 8 foot flag should be used for a 25 foot flagpole) it seems that you'd be able to half-mast a flag without excessive worry about it touching the ground.

So it may be the case that that business is flying too large a flag, or (as you guess) that they simply chose not to participate.