I knew Thomas Friedman is a rich guy; most people with fame, multiple books, and lots of speaking gigs are. But I didn't realize he rode with the billionaires. Apparently his wife of almost 30 years is a Bucksbaum of the billionaire real estate entity. Her family owns something like 200 million square feet of retail space.
No wonder Friedman has always been so simplistically optimistic about globalization. And she's a Stanford grad, too; yet one more reason to think about grad school out there...
3 comments:
Just a mom searching the internet to find out if this professor is a real "bonified" dude...and if he actually wrote this email. Found you. Thank you for the verification.
I have to admit that I am perplexed as to how it is so simple for you to assume "lies" in the professor's email, and yet--claiming to have READ the amendment--you can't even understand why people think it is deceptive. ??
HINT: The Constitutional Amendment CLAIMS to ban cloning. But it does not. Now, we can quibble about whether or not Missourians would agree the SCNT is OK or not, but I simply do not want to vote for a bill that claims something that is not true. It doesn't ban cloning. It claims to do so. That is most certainly deceptive.
In another place the bill CLAIMS to not allow paying women for eggs, but then quickly says that it is OK to pay women for eggs. Again, we can quibble over whether or not it is OK to pay women for eggs, but the bill should not claim one thing but then actually do another. That is deceptive.
There are other things I do not like about the bill, but my general rule is: IF I am not SURE about a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, then I vote NO. I happen to think that is wise. You might disagree, but that doesn't make me deceptive or nutty.
I think people with different views can learn from each other, but if we want to really understand an issue we need to make an effort to hear the other position.
I can see why those who make money off of SCNT would want this bill to pass, because it guarantees NO obstruction of ANY kind, no matter what we learn in the future.
I can also see why those who have no concern about where the line between human and fertilized cell lies might think "Well, I'd like for them to try any cure they can." But I imagine many who simply care about curing disease might get uncomfortable if they realized this initiative might FORCE the legislature to fund embryonic cell research in later years, when other research might look more promising. {I base that on the clauses where no prejudice against anything that is legal federally will be allowed. "Prejudice" is a rather broad term.)
I would think that an intelligent young man could at least understand the strong opposition to this bill. Instead you label the opposition as right-wingers and religious nuts.
I happen to be a little squishy on SCNT...I can see how we might be able to someday make the process work without creating a potential human or without destroying one. I'm not a knee-jerk, conservative, nut case. BTW, there are many intelligent, nice, loving, religious, right-wing people out here in the world. They actually care about healing disease and pain. In fact, many of us have spent our lives up to our elbows in caring for the sick and wounded.
I am married to a doctor and scientist and I work with doctors daily. I am even less comfortable leaving research decisions up to them than leaving them up to politicians. (Scary thought, no?!) At least politicians realize that there IS a public out there to consider. Docs and scientists can get their heads down into their work so close that they can't see petri dishes for the cells. They can forget that there is a public out there--beyond their research--to consider.
Initiatives should be written with care, so that it is clear to all what we mean to do. When I read the initiative, there appears to have been a plan to obfuscate.
I hope Missourians vote NO on 2.
Anonymous, I'll try to write something a little longer either over lunch or when I get home. The short response, though, goes like this.
Do you really think that the public message from opponents through ads like those run by Vitae and Life Communications and sermons and homilies from some priests and pastors who say little more than vote no capture the issue fairly and accurately?
So, for some more detail. I'll basically go down what you said with some thoughts of my own. As a general commentary, I would suggest that this is about as straightforward as a law or constitutional amendment can get. If you want to see a deceptive, complex, convoluted piece of legislation, try the Military Commissions Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, or the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Have you read things that are clearer than this amendment?
1) You're welcome. I'm not a mom, by the way.
2) Lies themselves sometimes are quite complex, but calling something a lie is pretty simple. As far as Professor Harbour, go back and read what I said. I said most of the email wasn't outright lies, but rather omissions or red herrings. There is a great difference between someone finding something deceptive and that same person lying about the thing they find deceptive. That's what I'm talking about; the opponents who are lying about what the amendment says. Of course I can understand why some people disagree; I have been steeped in the modern fundamentalist conflict with science basically my whole life. I remember the Southern Baptist Convention when it still pretended to represent most Baptists. Both of my grandfathers were preachers.
3) No, you are most wrong. The amendment does not claim to ban cloning. This is very important. Cloning is an incredibly useful practice. What is banned is human cloning. And the definition of human cloning is the very common sense definition of implanting a blastocyst made by SCNT in a woman's womb. There is no way to make a baby without implantation in the womb. And, under the amendment, any attempt to do so is criminalized. The only people who claim the bill bans cloning are opponents because they're trying to confuse people, just as you are confused. The amendment is not deceptive; some of the groups opposing it are.
4) What the amendment says is "No person may, for valuable consideration, purchase or sell human blastocysts or eggs for stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures." I'm not sure why you keep using this language of "clamis", by the way. It's a constitutional amendment; what it says isn't just a claim. It's the actual language that will be the law of the land. There are very clear definitions explaining that women can be compensated for reasonable costs involved in the process of donating eggs but they cannot receive financial gain or advantage.
5) I concur that the burden of proof should rest on those wishing to make constitutional changes, particularly when the method is ballot initiative. That tactic has sometimes been taken advantage of in ways that I think don't really reflect the desire of a state's citizens. In Missouri, for example, I think it's pretty clear that people were willing to allow riverboat gambling, not casinos that happen to be near water.
6) This is perhaps the core of the problem. If you listen to the groups most vocally opposing the amendment, one comes to one of two possibilities. Either they're some combination of ignorant and stupid, or they're lying about the real reasons they oppose the amendment. What message do you hear from the Vitae Foundation or Life Communications Fund?
7) What are you talking about? First, most research in Missouri is (or more accurately, would be) done at non-profits. Second, it does not guarantee SCNT no matter what without obstruction. It guarantees Missouri lawmakers can't outlaw the practice if it's legal under federal law. Third, if something happens that makes Missourians appalled by SCNT, but the rest of America loves it, Missourians can always amend the constitution. And fourth, look at the huge numbers of patient organizations endorsing the amendment. It is grossly inaccurate to imply that scientists have a vested interest and nobody else cares.
8) It's quite possible there will be some studies funded that turn out to be less successful than others that could have been funded. Welcome to the world of scientific grants. What the amendment does here is two things. It prevents legislators and decision-makers from penalizing institutions that conduct embryonic stem cell research by withholding other funds (for example, if the state withheld medicaid funding to hospitals that have any researchers working with embryonic stem cells, that would effectively ban the research in hospitals, even though, technically, the research would remain legal). Second, it prevents regulations unique to embryonic stem cell research which restrict otherwise legal activities or create disincentives for researchers. For example, you couldn't pass a law saying that embryonic stem cell researchers have to file an extra, complicated tax return that other Missouri doctors don't have to file. That certainly will involve a certain amount of figuring out what that means in practice through city councils and court opinions, but nothing out of the ordinary there. In fact, I think it's very integrated with the point of the amendment. Namely, government action in Missouri can't obstruct research legal under federal law. An amendment without part 7 wouldn't have much of an effect at all; there are lots of ways of banning things without actually passing a law banning it.
9) It is because I understand the real reasons for opposing the amendment that I am so appalled by the public opposition that gets seen on sports shows and the network news. I think that the misdirection, deception, and outright lying does a disservice to people who really do have a moral objection, as well. Embryonic stem cell research is but a small part of the basic philosophical issue surrounding eggs and sperm and SCNT and so forth. Basically what the ad campaign has done is reinforce ever more strongly the belief that religious moral opposition to something is just crass politics of moronic radicalism. In other places, I'm having to explain how anyone could possibly oppose the amendment.
10) One thing I find particularly disturbing is the lack of moderate voices who oppose the amendment in the publicly aired opposition. I think some supporters would be surprised that there are very serious people who do have problems with SCNT. Germany and Italy, I think, have pretty strict restrictions on SCNT. Perhaps this is a good time to reiterate that if the federal government banned SCNT, the amendment doesn't keep it legal in Missouri. But this gets back to asking why be so deceptive, when the effect is to feed the perception that people who oppose the amendment are radicals or have ulterior motives?
11) Well said except that last sentence. This is an incredibly clear and direct initiative. Obfuscate? How would you write a more direct initiative? It's even been litigated in court, and the court agreed with the summary statment that will appear on the ballot.
12) There I disagree. But I would support more honest dialogue about beginning of life issues. I agree we're basically creating camps (and have been for some time) that aren't really interested in hearing each other. I find that a negative development, and my passionate distaste for the ads I've seen is partly due to how much they foster knee-jerk irrational reactions from both supporters and opponents.
But only partly. When Patricia Heaton says that "low income women will be seduced by big checks", she's an actress delivering an inaccurate line. In a comedy show, that could be funny. Elsewhere, that's called a lie.
Post a Comment