Kevin, George Sorros would happily fund the Schiavo law suit--the object of the game is to keep it in the media from now until elections. The polls show Bush took a big hit on that as he did on stem cell. If every dem who comes on the air asks why won't the presedent answer the stem cell question--you keep that in the paper--just the same way the NY Times keeps running Iraq and Gitmo prisoner abuse stories EVERYDAY. By BEING CLEVER and inferring I believe in aliens you have ducked the essential physics question--what made the president's head snap backwards when the limo came around from behind the sign?

Dick Morgan

Dick -

I did not infer you believed in aliens. I simply raised the possibility that you were an alien.

(I hope this doesn't get me abducted. If I disappear, will somebody please make certain that all my unpublished sonnets are submitted to the Nemerov by November 15. Thanks.)

Michael

"The second way to get Bush is the “Dukakis question”. “If one of Bush’s kids came down with a disease that embryonic stem cell research had a solid and proven treatment that would cure her—would Bush refuse treatment for her on religious grounds.”"

I’m not sure I understand how this will “get” Bush, nor do I think the question correctly states what his position is on the stem cell issue. My anticipation and hope is that he would hold to principles which he believes, regardless of how they would affect his family. He believes that it is wrong to kill embryos to do research that may save lives. Consistent with this, he has said Federal money cannot be used for this research. Now, since it is not against the law to kill embryos for research, the research can continue—just not with Federal support. That is my understanding on his position; I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The research continues--with Federal funding for everything except killing more embryos.

I always applaud a principled stand taken by someone when it appears to be against their best interests. An example is the son of a 911 victim who appeared on the O’Reilly Factor and said he was against our going into Afghanistan and against the war on terror. This was O’Reilly’s worst moment when he told the man to “shut up”—twice! While I disagree with the man’s conclusion, his stand is impressive because it appears to be against what an outsider would think his best interest: revenge on those who killed his father.

In the same way, I would hope Bush would say, “My child is precious to me, and I want everything medically possible done for her. But I will not compromise an ethical stand I have taken because you think it is in my best interest.”

What a terrible world this would be if everyone in positions of power made such decisions based on what was in their best interest, rather than on principles. Should I propose that the government give all engineers who have stupidly assumed the debt of a deadbeat kid tax relief, just because it would result in thousands of dollars in my pocket? Shame on me if I do.

But actually, Dick, I think you make a gross miscalculation by thinking that getting Bush will sink the Republicans next election. The Republicans will rise, maintain, or fall based on their performance in Congress and how it compares to what a majority of the voting public wants done, not based on a single person. You might want to concentrate on revealing what you believe to be Republican lapses there, or on changing public opinion from what it seems to be.

Best Regards,
DAT

Mr. Todd:

The president said he'd rather see hundreds of thousands of fertilized embryos used in invitro firtilization be destroyed as medical waste rather than allocate ANY OF OUR money to do STEM CELL research to help solve some of these desparate diseases. BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGIOUS REASONS HE SAID HE WOULD VETO SUCH A BILL.

And Michael, I confess, I am an illegal alien but I am in the safest country in the world for people like me (perhaps PEOPLE LIKE ME IS an over generalization) I have to go now--my beam of light is waiting and I hate being on the galactic meter.

Steve: Why did the president's head snap BACKWARDS when the limo came out from behind the sign--or are you still wandering about and they haven't found you yet? You introduced the subject into the thread.

p.s. Mr. Tod I commend you on your reasoned approach to this subject even though we disagree.

Dick Morgan

Dick,

Last I checked, Bush will not be able to run for a third term, so asking the "Dukakis question" (and why isn't it the Reagan question?) won't do much for the next Republican candidate other than give them a free opinion poll of what position to take to get the most votes.

With Kennedy, I generally don't concern myself with people who died before I was born. If people who were adults when it happened want to argue it, that's their bag, but if I must participate, I remember someone saying there was a woman with a polka-dot umbrella who everyone was talking about for three days after the shooting and then all talk in the media was squelched. I'll say her umbrella was one of those KGB poison-pellet-shooting specials and she'd just shot him in the throat when Oswald shot him with a regular bullet in a weird bit of synchronicity. In other words, a government assassin and a random nut chose the same moment to shoot him. What are the odds? But history is filled with weird coincidences like that.

As for Soros bankrolling a suit from Michael Shiavo againt Hannity, if the first two parties are willing, we'll see it. But I suspect one or both think it's a bad idea, so we won't.

What's the famous thing Santayana said??? About history?
"Those that do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Ah yeah, that's it!!!

Less famously, but just as interestingly, he also said:
"Before you contradict an old man, my fair friend, you should endeavor to understand him."

You cant argue something convincingly unless you know, and concern yourself, with what it is you're arguing about.... Knowing why you're arguing is just not good enough.
Lo

LO-thank you for that reminder. No one has yet answered the question why the President's head snapped backwards--and one doesn't have to be born during that time to answer it. The History Channel had an excellent exploration of all the various theories called the MEN WHO SHOT KENNEDY. One of the men who took the Zapruder film and enhanced the saturation and constrast of every frame. At the instant Kennedy's head snaps backwards you can see a sonic shock wave coming off his forehead. Normally you'd need polarized light for that to show--but sunlight is polarized. You can't get that shock wave from a bullet from behind. Last time I saw The MEN WHO SHOT KENNEDY THAT SECTION WAS MISSING. And I don't have a theory--just pointing out the evidence of two shooters.

As far as Bush not being able to run again--it's the stranglehold the Republicans have on EVERYTHING. This could knock off a few Republicans--they are already skittish about the stem cell thing. If it were me I'd have a genetically diseased person standing by every Democrat until it is equated in the public's mind everytime they see Bush-Republican Religious control over the sick.
Dick Morgan

Well, I don’t have Bush’s words at hand and so don’t know exactly what he said. From my standpoint, there is a huge difference between those responsible for creating the embryos deciding to trash them and deciding to use them for medical research. The immediate result is the same, of course: the death/destruction of the embryo. The long-term result is what I call the Feedstock Principle.

I first developed and articulated this principle (for myself only) after being the engineer for several solid waste districts. Each day they struggled to dispose of mounds of trash at a reasonable cost to the rate-payers. We designed a new landfill, and my engineering feasibility report became part of the package for issuing revenue bonds. The only way investors would buy such bonds was if all governments having any jurisdiction would pass ordinances stating that all the trash in the district must be disposed of in the landfill financed by those bonds. To potential bondholders, the solid waste was a source of revenue. To let that waste go elsewhere was detrimental to the bondholders. It thus ceased to be waste and became feedstock—raw material in a process of converting farmland to future, undetermined final use. In fact, the potential investors would have opposed efforts to reduce, reuse, and recycle had State law not mandated these.

If you use embryos for research, they cease to be surplus, unwanted life forms and become feedstock in the medical research process. Once you have a need for this feedstock, an ‘industry’ will sprout to produce the feedstock. You will find people creating embryos just for the purpose of selling them for stem-cell research. This would likely happen only after the current supply is exhausted. I understand that supply is rather large, and thus the ‘embryo mill industry’ will be a while in coming.

This probably seems like minutia to you, but I find no other way to handle it and be consistent with principles.

I still understand that embryonic stem cell research continues. It continues with Federal funds in strains created before August 2001, and it probably continues without Federal funds in strains created after this. Also, much research is going on with non-embryonic stem cells—with Federal funding. I reject the notion that Federal funding is the only potential source of money for this research. If it is important enough, with demonstrated potential of success, the funds will come regardless of whether the Federal government chooses to participate.

Best Regards,
DAT

DAT:

Your very well thought out response deserves an equal amount of effort on my part. You are treating this as. at minimum, a second order equation. I think in fairness to owning up to one's agenda's I should say I have a close member of my family who is going blind because of Retinitus Pigmentosis--which has already shown promise in early trials of stem cells therapy. Let's not let the "perfect" be the enemy of the "good".

Dick Morgan

Dick Morgan

Lo,

There's a difference between forgetting history and refusing to obsess over the previous generation's conspiracy theories. For me, Kennedy was shot, same as Lincoln, and beyond that the various alternate theories are simply the stuff of documentaries and docu-dramas. I'm more interested in 9/11 conspiracy theories, since they involve a defining moment of my adult life, but similarly I'm not going to demand that folk born after it freak out about something that for them is simply old history.

Besides which, even if there was a Kennedy conspiracy, assuming I live to a reasonable age, sometime in my lifetime everyone involved will be dead and so the question will be as relevant theories about John Wilkes Booth.