Although Ronald Reagan is officially gone at the age of 93, I think we all know that he’s been mentally gone for years. And I think it was incredibly gutsy of Nancy Reagan–a woman whom I didn’t have much of an opinion of before–to come out publicly and stump for Stem Cell Research, which must have had the Bushites çráppìņg a brick. Reagan is/was practically the patron saint of the GOP, and Mrs. Patron Saint stepped up to the plate and waved the banner for scientific advancement that’s currently being washed up on the shoals of theological dogma.
With Mrs. Reagan no longer in the position of caretaker to her husband who, as she delicately and sorrowfully put it, had long ago embarked on a twilight journey where she could not follow (or something to that effect), I’m hoping she barnstorms the country and manages to turn around Neocon thinking about the incredible benefits of stem cell research.
PAD
• 
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 Ðìçk 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 šhìŧ, 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 Ðìçk 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 hëll 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-ášš 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 çráppìņg 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