Dontcha think?
Tomorrow should be an interesting day, methinks…
Where do I go for stem cell treatments? China!
So, I was listening to Morning Edition on NPR this morning when they had this article about stem-cell treatments offered by Beike Biotechnology – in China… The article specifically highlights how Americans with little hope of curing ailments (like a family’s blind 7-month-old daughter) are going to China to give these treatments a try. The company uses stem-cells harvested from umbilical cords, so they aren’t embryonic in nature (i.e. somewhat less controversial…). It’ll set you back upwards of $10,000-$20,000 (less the cost of actually getting to China to try it!).
I guess the problem I have with this is on two fronts:
1). There are a variety of ethical concerns from a scientific standpoint, in that (according to the article) there is little research in the field to suggest that implantation of these stem cells should yield any beneficial effect. And by “little research,” I mean in cell culture, rats, mice, etc. Essentially, it seems to me that these people are being given experimental treatments that shouldn’t be given to humans yet. It would be one thing if there was a great deal of promising data to suggest moving forward with human trials, but it seems like this company kind of decided to skip that part and just jump right in on people.
2). What does it say about American policy when people are willing to go to a different country to get these treatments (ethical or not…). According to the article, over 600 foreigners (not necessarily all Americans…) have gone to this company to get the treatment, which thereby means that there are people here in the US and other countries that want the option. However, there are so many restrictions here in the US on experimentation (let alone human trials) that these individuals are forced to go to countries that have “skipped” over the, perhaps, more proper procedures.
Perhaps if the US provided more funding and support for stem cell research, we wouldn’t have Americans traveling overseas to get experimental treatments for their 7-month-old children? I’m not even saying embryonic stem cells (although I’d still like to see more research on them), but even on umbilical cells – without proper funding and support, researchers can’t get the work done, thereby risking other, less ethical, groups coming forward with these treatments and offering them to the public.
Where exactly is the morality of denying money and support for stem cell research when it forces families to go overseas to get treatments that we could have developed ourselves?
"C" is for cookie…
So, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, did a little blurb for a site called TrueMajority.org. It seems to be mostly a liberal-leaning website, but I think they’re trying to bring a more moderate message to issues relevant to our time.
In the Flash animation (linked to above, if you click on the image…), you get him talking for a few minutes about what the site is, but mostly about his “Oreo Analogy”…which is why you should spend a minute and watch it. He breaks it down by saying one Oreo equals $10 billion, and the Dept. of Defense gets 40 Oreos. Then he describes how much our social programs get (Head Start, Education, etc.) and how much is going to the defenses of other nations that could hurt us (i.e. Russia, China, etc.).
Anyway, it’s amusing and enlightening. Working in science, I’m very aware of the NIH budget, where most science dollars in health research comes from. The NIH budget is $35 billion and hasn’t increased with inflation in years (meaning that we’ve effectively got decreases in funding progressively).
One Oreo cookie shaved off the top of that defense budget could help cure a lot of people. And help education. And feed the hungry.
And no, shaving a few cookies off the top of that stack won’t “let the terrorists win”…
“C” is for cookie…
So, Ben Cohen, co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, did a little blurb for a site called TrueMajority.org. It seems to be mostly a liberal-leaning website, but I think they’re trying to bring a more moderate message to issues relevant to our time.
In the Flash animation (linked to above, if you click on the image…), you get him talking for a few minutes about what the site is, but mostly about his “Oreo Analogy”…which is why you should spend a minute and watch it. He breaks it down by saying one Oreo equals $10 billion, and the Dept. of Defense gets 40 Oreos. Then he describes how much our social programs get (Head Start, Education, etc.) and how much is going to the defenses of other nations that could hurt us (i.e. Russia, China, etc.).
Anyway, it’s amusing and enlightening. Working in science, I’m very aware of the NIH budget, where most science dollars in health research comes from. The NIH budget is $35 billion and hasn’t increased with inflation in years (meaning that we’ve effectively got decreases in funding progressively).
One Oreo cookie shaved off the top of that defense budget could help cure a lot of people. And help education. And feed the hungry.
And no, shaving a few cookies off the top of that stack won’t “let the terrorists win”…
"Education" vs "Training"…
So, I finally watched “Jesus Camp” this weekend with Mom and Brooke, the latter of which had already seen it and subsequently shown it to the high school Sunday school class at church (heh…). The movie, for those that don’t know, is a documentary beginning in the spring in the general area of Lee’s Summit, MO (near Kansas City, of course) as kids there (ranging from ages 6-12) prepare to go off to summer camp in North Dakota; the kids then go to the camp, and then return. The camp is run by a Pentecostal minister that is preaching to them for the week. It’s close to 1.5 hrs long. Essentially, the movie is about how the evangelical movement in America is affecting the young children involved.
The neat thing about the movie is that it’s told solely from the perspective of the kids and the camp director, along with a sort of “counterpoint” presented through an evangelical radio host (that later interviews the camp director). The film makers say nothing in the movie, but allow the kids, parents and other figures to do all the talking. The people in the film speak for themselves, leaving little room for interpretation by the viewer.
Well, the thing is…because of this fact, you know that these people really believe what they’re saying, and it provides some cause for concern. The camp director is interviewed frequently throughout the film talking about “training” these kids. She constantly refers to it as “training,” and mentions multiple times how “people in other religions” start “training” their kids from the age of 3 to do everything and anything for their beliefs, including strapping a bomb to themselves. She literally talks about how “we Christians” need to start “training” our kids in a similar way.
Now, as my Mom so perceptively noticed, many of the kids depicted in this movie seemed to be brainwashed. Not playing with toys at the age of 9. Not playing video games. Not watching MTV. They were instead going up to a few old African American guys in the park asking if they knew “where they were going after they die.” They said heaven. The 9 year old girl said “are you sure?” They said “yes.” As she walked away with her mullet-donned accomplice (seriously…watch that video…), she says “I think they’re Muslim.”
I guess it’s concerning because, as the camp director says, these are the next generation of voters in our country. I know (or hope?) that this is an isolated group of evangelicals and that this is not how most of them go about things, but I have to wonder if their childhood isn’t being corrupted for something Jesus didn’t intend?
Perhaps I’d feel differently if they were talking about “education” rather than “training.” That word really has the connotation of preparing for a battle or war.
I don’t think I like where this is going.
“Education” vs “Training”…
So, I finally watched “Jesus Camp” this weekend with Mom and Brooke, the latter of which had already seen it and subsequently shown it to the high school Sunday school class at church (heh…). The movie, for those that don’t know, is a documentary beginning in the spring in the general area of Lee’s Summit, MO (near Kansas City, of course) as kids there (ranging from ages 6-12) prepare to go off to summer camp in North Dakota; the kids then go to the camp, and then return. The camp is run by a Pentecostal minister that is preaching to them for the week. It’s close to 1.5 hrs long. Essentially, the movie is about how the evangelical movement in America is affecting the young children involved.
The neat thing about the movie is that it’s told solely from the perspective of the kids and the camp director, along with a sort of “counterpoint” presented through an evangelical radio host (that later interviews the camp director). The film makers say nothing in the movie, but allow the kids, parents and other figures to do all the talking. The people in the film speak for themselves, leaving little room for interpretation by the viewer.
Well, the thing is…because of this fact, you know that these people really believe what they’re saying, and it provides some cause for concern. The camp director is interviewed frequently throughout the film talking about “training” these kids. She constantly refers to it as “training,” and mentions multiple times how “people in other religions” start “training” their kids from the age of 3 to do everything and anything for their beliefs, including strapping a bomb to themselves. She literally talks about how “we Christians” need to start “training” our kids in a similar way.
Now, as my Mom so perceptively noticed, many of the kids depicted in this movie seemed to be brainwashed. Not playing with toys at the age of 9. Not playing video games. Not watching MTV. They were instead going up to a few old African American guys in the park asking if they knew “where they were going after they die.” They said heaven. The 9 year old girl said “are you sure?” They said “yes.” As she walked away with her mullet-donned accomplice (seriously…watch that video…), she says “I think they’re Muslim.”
I guess it’s concerning because, as the camp director says, these are the next generation of voters in our country. I know (or hope?) that this is an isolated group of evangelicals and that this is not how most of them go about things, but I have to wonder if their childhood isn’t being corrupted for something Jesus didn’t intend?
Perhaps I’d feel differently if they were talking about “education” rather than “training.” That word really has the connotation of preparing for a battle or war.
I don’t think I like where this is going.
The Huckabee Transitive Property
So, for those that don’t watch these shows, here’s the deal:
Over the past few weeks, Stephen Colbert on “The Colbert Report” was taking credit for Mike Huckabee’s success in Iowa (and later primaries) because Huckabee came on his show just before the caucus. Thus, Colbert “made” Huckabee.
Conan O’Brien, on Late Nite with Conan O’Brien, then took credit for “making” Huckabee because he always refers to Chuck Norris in his show, and Norris is a Huckabee supporter…so thus, Conan “made” Huckabee.
Colbert was not happy about this and kept yelling at Conan over the airwaves, and vice versa. Finally, Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” comes on “The Colbert Report” to show a video where he, when on “The Jon Stewart Show” (MTV) in 1994, introduced the new host of “Late Nite,” Conan O’Brien. Thus, Stewart made Conan, Stewart made Colbert…Stewart made Huckabee.
Apparently, last Friday night, Conan threatened to descend from network television to the depths of cable TV to Comedy Central if Colbert and Stewart brought it up again, after showing evidence that he was actually the doctor that delivered both Colbert and Stewart (a “doctored” photo, of course…yet strangely hilarious…).
Well, of course, Colbert stops by “The Daily Show” at 10:00 to see Stewart, talk about it…and then Conan shows up. They’re gonna fight it out, but Stewart says he has to wait until the end of his show. They wait…but by the time Stewart is done, Colbert has left to start his own show. Stewart and Conan then go on “The Colbert Report.” Of course, Colbert has to finish his show, and by the time he’s done…Conan has to do his show…down the hall…
The battle royale culminates in the video above. Colbert and Stewart get in an all-out brawl on “Late Nite”…and it’s pretty hilarious…
I mean, the video is funny enough without reading all this back-story I just provided…but for those that want to know why they’re fighting…there you go… 😛
P.S. All this stuff I just wrote is on YouTube in different clips, but I didn’t want to post all of it…the above is, by far, the best part…
Oba-mania?
“The reason that this is important, again, is that Senator Clinton, I think fairly, has claimed that she’s got the experience on ‘day 1’ and part of the argument that I’m making in this campaign is that it is important to be right on ‘day 1’ and that the judgment that I’ve presented on this issue [Iraq] and some other issues is relevant to how we’re gonna make decisions in the future. It’s not just a function of looking backwards, it’s a function of looking forwards, and how are we going to be able to make serious decisions in a dangerous world?”
— Barack Obama; Democratic Primary Debate, Hollywood, CA; Jan 31, 2008
So, I’m honestly not sure I’m even registered for the Primary, and still not completely sure which way I’d swing. I mean, I’m voting for a Democrat regardless of who the nominee, but I think I’d still lean Obama, were I to actually vote on Feb 5th. Listening to tonight’s “debate” on CNN tonight, they really agreed on nearly every issue except for a few relatively slight differences. The entire debate was more of a “conversation,” as there weren’t all that many barbs exchanged (with the possible exception of the quote above, which I kinda liked…).
At this point, I’m thinking more strategically for who I want to win the nomination. If Mitt Romney is the nominee for the Republicans, then either Obama or Clinton will win (providing there aren’t any major screw-ups by their respective campaigns). If McCain is the nominee, however, I think Obama would have a better chance competing against him – and if it came down to McCain vs Clinton, I really don’t think I’d mind him winning as much as I minded Bush winning in 2000/2004. McCain and Clinton both voted for the same war, come from the same generation, and arguably have comparable experience – but Obama represents a much clearer distinction between the two potential Presidential candidates. I think Romney would get hammered, but McCain would stand a fighting, if not good, chance to go all the way.
So, this raises two questions: (1) Would I rather have McCain win the nomination and have a tougher time getting a Democrat in to the White House, or would I rather risk having Romney be the nominee and have the Democrats screw up this election like 2004, perhaps actually having Romney win?, and (2) As with the first question, do I rather have Obama get the nomination, but perhaps not hold his own against McCain’s “experience,” or have Clinton go against the Republicans and energize the Christian Right to come back to the polls?
It’s a complicated election year, and it’s proving to be fascinating.
I’m just glad “A Daily Show” and “The ColberT ReporT” are back… 😛
Edit: My voter registration card arrived. I get to vote in the Primary. 🙂
A bit on the disturbing side…
Dr. Macarthur alerted me to this blurb at The Washington Monthly, a liberal-leaning blog, that highlights another blog posting at Time Magazine regarding the most recent Republican debate.
Essentially, they took 30 Republican “base” voters from St. Petersburg, FL and gave them a dial device to record their reactions in “real-time” to what was said during the debate. For example, if Romney was speaking and you agreed, you’d turn your dial up toward “100,” and if you disagreed you’d turn it down toward “0.” In this way, you can generally gauge the reactions for anything said by a given candidate. Now, keep in mind, these are a sample of people and may not (or may?) represent the general feelings of Republican “base” voters around the country. Honestly, I hope these aren’t the general feelings of the “base”…
Many of the reactions were to be expected (i.e. no one liked Ron Paul’s Iraq stance, most liked Romney…), but there were a few responses that surprised even me… From the article:
“In the next segment–the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee’s college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants–I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, ‘After all, these are children of God,’ the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s).”
And secondly:
“When John McCain started talking about torture–specifically, about waterboarding–the dials plummeted again. Lower even than for the illegal Children of God. Down to the low 20s, which, given the natural averaging of a focus group, is about as low as you can go. Afterwards, Luntz asked the group why they seemed to be in favor of torture. ‘I don’t have any problem pouring water on the face of a man who killed 3000 Americans on 9/11,’ said John Shevlin, a retired federal law enforcement officer. The group applauded, appallingly.”
Now, I can’t say I was only slightly surprised by the reaction to McCain’s stance against torture by the “base,” but I was a flabbergasted by their response to Huckabee.
I guess I think it really says something when the majority of your base of voters say they are God-fearing, church-going people…and yet they don’t agree that the children of illegal immigrants are not “God’s children” and that torture is perfectly fine. That, or anything to help impoverished people. Seriously. I mean, I would have thought that an ordained minister would have a pretty good shot at the nomination, if you just look at “base” voters, but…I guess not?
Just sounds a bit hypocritical…perhaps I’m mistaken…
Note: I read the Time blog posting first, then wrote this up…then read through the comments below the Time posting…you may wanna flip through those, as they call the source of the data into question and the blogger in general. I dunno who’s right, of course, but it’s still rather frightening…
Political Compass
So, on Facebook, some of you may have added the “Political Compass” application… The problem with this thingie is that it gives you 10 questions, all of which really only determine your political views based on social issues, rather than financial. As in, it’ll ask you about abortion, but nothing about “fiscal responsibility,” a traditionally conservative issue (not so much in today’s political climate, of course…).
Brooke shot me a link (from Liz?) to the real Political Compass, however, a separate website with 6 pages of many different questions that have a bit more range. Here’s how I fared:
Here are how other political figures are depicted to fall on the graph:
Needless to say, I’m rather glad I’m on the complete opposite side from Bush… 😛 The other interesting thing is that Brooke and I had different answers for some questions, yet we still fell in nearly exactly the same place…
So yeah, if you do the survey, lemme know how accurate it is for you. Personally, I think I’m in good company…
Yet, I do take exception to the “Right” being “Neo-Liberalism”…