Comments on: So Who’s Vulnerable? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/ Where science collides with life, slams into culture, crashes with politics, and gets totaled. Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:28:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: The Science Pundit http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2654 The Science Pundit Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:07:15 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2654 I'll vote for Casey, but I voted for Pennachio in the primary. The arguments against stem cell research don't even border on rational as far as I can tell. It's truly frustrating. I’ll vote for Casey, but I voted for Pennachio in the primary. The arguments against stem cell research don’t even border on rational as far as I can tell. It’s truly frustrating.

]]> By: Gridlockisgood http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2653 Gridlockisgood Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:12:27 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2653 "Gridlock, if it comes to that, is far perferable to what we have now." I think that's how a lot of folks feel, but tragically, if that is really the case, there is no point in having a President or Congress at all. The basic underlying problem seems to be that a significant fraction of the people who have made Washington politics a career are far more interested in advancing their own agendas and those of the monied interests that put them in power than they are in doing what is best for the country as a whole or even the individual states they represent. Don't get me wrong. I believe our Constitutional system of federalism is brilliant and the primary reason for our great success as a country in the past, but the system has been almost compeletely co-opted, and "gamed" (ie corrupted) by career politicians beholden to and doing the work of monied interests. “Gridlock, if it comes to that, is far perferable to what we have now.”

I think that’s how a lot of folks feel, but tragically, if that is really the case, there is no point in having a President or Congress at all.

The basic underlying problem seems to be that a significant fraction of the people who have made Washington politics a career are far more interested in advancing their own agendas and those of the monied interests that put them in power than they are in doing what is best for the country as a whole or even the individual states they represent.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe our Constitutional system of federalism is brilliant and the primary reason for our great success as a country in the past, but the system has been almost compeletely co-opted, and “gamed” (ie corrupted) by career politicians beholden to and doing the work of monied interests.

]]> By: Keanus http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2652 Keanus Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:49:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2652 I'm a Pennsylvania resident and I'll vote for Casey, not because I like his views--many I do not--but in ousting Santorum we not only rid the Senate of one destructive man but we also are one senator closer to having control shift to the Democrats. And, if I've learned one thing since 2002, having one party control both houses of Congress and the executive is a disaster. Gridlock, if it comes to that, is far perferable to what we have now. I’m a Pennsylvania resident and I’ll vote for Casey, not because I like his views–many I do not–but in ousting Santorum we not only rid the Senate of one destructive man but we also are one senator closer to having control shift to the Democrats. And, if I’ve learned one thing since 2002, having one party control both houses of Congress and the executive is a disaster. Gridlock, if it comes to that, is far perferable to what we have now.

]]> By: jimvj http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2651 jimvj Thu, 20 Jul 2006 19:18:51 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2651 Slightly OT. WaPo published a timeline of the Stem Cell Debate that seems skimpy. In particular, I seem to remember that Clinton deliberately abstained from installing any policy on the very new science, leaving his successor a blank slate. I'm sure there are other omissions. Is there a better timeline anywhere? Is there a need for one? Slightly OT. WaPo published a timeline of the Stem Cell Debate that seems skimpy. In particular, I seem to remember that Clinton deliberately abstained from installing any policy on the very new science, leaving his successor a blank slate.

I’m sure there are other omissions. Is there a better timeline anywhere? Is there a need for one?

]]> By: Laurie Mann http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2650 Laurie Mann Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:21:33 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2650 Casey is awfully close to Santorum in many ways. The only reason I'm voting for him is he's not Santorum. Santorum sometimes does backpedal, like he did on "intelligent design" (sic). It's unlikely that stem cells would be one of his flip-flops. http://www.dumprick.com Casey is awfully close to Santorum in many ways. The only reason I’m voting for him is he’s not Santorum.

Santorum sometimes does backpedal, like he did on “intelligent design” (sic). It’s unlikely that stem cells would be one of his flip-flops.

http://www.dumprick.com

]]> By: Matthew C. Nisbet http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2649 Matthew C. Nisbet Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:25:03 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2649 I have this overview on how Bush came out on top yesterday in the battle over the visual. http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2006/07/on_stem_cell_bills_bush_co_win.php I have this overview on how Bush came out on top yesterday in the battle over the visual.

http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2006/07/on_stem_cell_bills_bush_co_win.php

]]> By: Emily http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2648 Emily Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:34:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2648 RE: do you have a website reference for the Senate vote? I'd like to know how Allen and Warner (both VA) voted. Allen (up for re-election!) voted NO, while Warner voted YES. Allen is opposed by former Republican turned Democrat Jim "Born Fighting" Webb. Webb recently stated his support for stem cell research here (http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=68). RE: do you have a website reference for the Senate vote? I’d like to know how Allen and Warner (both VA) voted.

Allen (up for re-election!) voted NO, while Warner voted YES. Allen is opposed by former Republican turned Democrat Jim “Born Fighting” Webb. Webb recently stated his support for stem cell research here (http://www.webbforsenate.com/press/release.php?id=68).

]]> By: SLC http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2647 SLC Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:07:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2647 The Republicans will successfully change the subject by running against same sex marriage. The Republicans will successfully change the subject by running against same sex marriage.

]]> By: Fred Bortz http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2646 Fred Bortz Thu, 20 Jul 2006 11:26:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2646 Thanks, Alan. On this issue, there's basically no difference for us Pennsylvanians. Casey even uses the language of science abusers: "There are many promising techniques under development that don't require destroying the embryo..." That's probably true in the literal sense, but it distorts the status of the science, overstating the promise of alternative approaches while not acknowledging that the most promising techniques use embryonic stem cells. Researchers following other paths are doing so for one of two reasons, or both: (1) they have moral objections to destroying embryos to harvest the cells; (2) their funding is for research in another direction. Why can't anyone say this? "I realize we may be following a less promising scientific path, but I view the other as morally wrong because it takes a human life. As long as I am in a position to pass judgment on Federal spending, I can't support embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds." I wouldn't agree with it--I'd even argue the points, but I would certainly respect it as both morally and scientifically honest. I guess I'm still an idealist after all these years! Thanks, Alan.

On this issue, there’s basically no difference for us Pennsylvanians. Casey even uses the language of science abusers:

“There are many promising techniques under development that don’t require destroying the embryo…”

That’s probably true in the literal sense, but it distorts the status of the science, overstating the promise of alternative approaches while not acknowledging that the most promising techniques use embryonic stem cells. Researchers following other paths are doing so for one of two reasons, or both: (1) they have moral objections to destroying embryos to harvest the cells; (2) their funding is for research in another direction.

Why can’t anyone say this? “I realize we may be following a less promising scientific path, but I view the other as morally wrong because it takes a human life. As long as I am in a position to pass judgment on Federal spending, I can’t support embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds.”

I wouldn’t agree with it–I’d even argue the points, but I would certainly respect it as both morally and scientifically honest.

I guess I’m still an idealist after all these years!

]]> By: Alan B. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2645 Alan B. Thu, 20 Jul 2006 07:50:13 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2006/07/19/so-whos-vulnerable/#comment-2645 Here is the position of Bob Casey, Santorum's opponent in November: I would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research. As a US Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn't destroy an embryo. There are many promising techniques under development that don't require destroying the embryo and there's good reason to hope that soon we'll be able to remove the politics from this issue. I also strongly support increased federal funding for research on stem cells derived from adult cells, bone marrow and placentas - areas where tremendous progress has already been made. Here is the position of Bob Casey, Santorum’s opponent in November:
I would oppose the Castle bill to expand federal support of embryonic stem cell research. As a US Senator, I will strongly support funding for stem cell research that doesn’t destroy an embryo. There are many promising techniques under development that don’t require destroying the embryo and there’s good reason to hope that soon we’ll be able to remove the politics from this issue. I also strongly support increased federal funding for research on stem cells derived from adult cells, bone marrow and placentas – areas where tremendous progress has already been made.

]]>