Stem cell research is supported by more than 70 percent of Americans, but opposed by evangelicals and conservative Catholics. Particularly in light of Bush's veto of a popular stem cell bill, there is an opportunity to push the majority of Americans who reflexively vote in favor of marriage/civil union bans to view the religious right's agenda with deeper skepticism. But if left-leaning gay activists instead attack the theocrats broadly for opposing all things liberal, as they've done-repeatedly-in the past, this opportunity will, sadly, be lost.
More. Ralph Reed loses (big time) in his effort to become Georgia's lieutenant governor. Hurrah! No doubt more due to his corrupt lobbying with Jack Abramoff than because of his leadership of the Christian right, but still another opportunity to reveal the theocrats as blind guides.
Still more. From a July 21 Wall Street Journal article, Stem-Cell Issue: Republicans' Undoing? (WSJ subscribers only):
As the party has grown more socially conservative over the past quarter-century, the suburbs where many Republicans live have become more diverse and politically independent, marked by a mix of fiscal conservatism and social liberalism that is testing Republicans' dominance there.
The party has to decide if it wants to keep placating hard-line social conservative activists and lose the 'burbs. Moderate Democrats, of course, would have a better chance here if their party wasn't also bending over backwards to placate its own hard-line, Daily Kos-inflamed activist base.
32 Comments for “An Opportunity.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
The solution to “left-leaning gay activists” having control of the forum is for right-leaning gay activists to speak up in significant numbers. So far, the silence is deafening.
I wonder if it would do any good for all of us who know gay Republicans make a phone call today and ask them to come out and speak out?
I talked to a County Board member last Friday, encouraging him to speak out against the proposed amendment in Wisconsin, and I’m planning to talk to a City Council board member over in Reedsburg when I see him later in the week. Its time for Republican gays and lesbians to get into the fight, folks.
posted by Mark on
I support private stem cell research but oppose all government funded research. There was nothing wrong with Bush’s veto. I am just appalled that it was his first veto ever.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Its time for Republican gays and lesbians to get into the fight, folks
They typically do — after the election is over. They tell sob stories of how awful and horrible they felt about the GOP’s treatment of them, and how they SUFFERED! And then they explain why they regrettably still have to support the Republicans and give them money.
They’re worthless, that’s why their criticism of liberals, libertarians, etc. is so hollow. What have conservative gays done to further gay rights? Please, name me just one significant accomplishment.
posted by Eva Young on
Corruption isn’t what did Reed in. It was that the corruption was over gambling. He was also connected to forced abortions. (His opponent used this in ads).
http://lloydletta.blogspot.com/2006/07/good-riddance-to-bad-rubbish-ralph.html
posted by William on
I have a highly placed source in the republican party who once told me that about the time when Ralph Reed was a intern here in Washington. Apparently, he would do anything to get ahead and make the right connections, including giving blow jobs.
So whenever I see the little bastard talk so piously of the his religion, I just remember that his religion has HIM at the center of it….
posted by Bobby on
“Stem cell research is supported by more than 70 percent of Americans”
–Oh, I get it, so the majority rules ONLY when it’s an issue you agree with.
Isn’t that a little hypocritical?
posted by Bobby on
Here’s a story about a Canadian Profesor who faces a Human Rights complaint for his views against homosexuality.
Perhaps this website ought to cover more stories like this
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06053109.html
posted by Thomas Horsville on
This professor\\’s argumentation is certainly entertaining: he refuses to face his university\\’s human rights tribunal because the proceedings might be used in a court of law. Yet another Christian troublemaker trying to evade his employer\\’s reasonable disciplinary process with legal grandiloquence and persecution fantasies.
posted by Bobby on
So you think a professor should face a human rights tribunal? Since when is criticizing gays or anyone a violation of human rights? Getting beat up with a baseball bat is a violation of human rights, getting criticized is free speech.
It’s obvious that some gays are so in love with themselves that if Hitler had been gay they’d be defending him!
It sickens me, Thomas, that you won’t defend free speech.
posted by kittynboi on
Perhaps this website ought to cover more stories like this
Why?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“So you think a professor should face a human rights tribunal?”
I think an employee should follow the disciplinary process set up by its employer and expose his side of the story. Then, if he’s not satisfied by the outcome, he can legitimately resort to a court of law. Why, in the present case, the professor thinks he can exempt himself from his university’s disciplinary process is anyone’s guess.
“It sickens me, Thomas, that you won’t defend free speech.”
This professor is certainly free to express his personal opinions but certainly not on an academic website used to give course information, at least not without having to answer the concerns his university may have.
posted by Bobby on
Professors used their academic websites to express all kinds of views, most of them leftwing. He is being singled out because he expressed a homophobic view. If his view had been “The Catholic church should celebrate same-sex marriage” he would not be in trouble. I think you’re trying to hard to defend censorship.
As for the reason why this website should cover stories like this, here’s why: The gay community has dirt, and rather than hide it under the carpet, we must deal with it.
Sucesful communities deal with their problems, they don’t deny them or close their eyes or pretend they aren’t there. Bill Cosby has done it for blacks, igf must do it for gays.
posted by kittynboi on
So, should the religious right be doing the same? Should they address all their own dirt? Or does doing that only apply to liberals?
On the flipside; would you be so gung ho about free speech if the professor in question said America deserved 9-11?
Are you consistent across the board, bobbie, or are these examples “different” somehow?
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Professors used their academic websites to express all kinds of views, most of them leftwing.”
That’s certainly unfortunate that professors use their academic websites to express views unrelated to their curriculum. But that’s no real problem if their university has no objection. In the present case, university officials apparently had an objection, and chose to investigate the matter. They asked for explanations that the professor refused to give, as if his employer’s disciplinary process didn’t apply to him.
“I think you’re trying to hard to defend censorship.”
Sorry but an employer has a right to protect itself from the excesses of its employees (for instance, when an employee paid to teach Scottish history uses his position to spread homophobic views). In any other situation, you would defend the employer’s right to discipline its employees, or even to fire them at will.
posted by kittynboi on
Oh look/ WE don’t have to talk hypothetically.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/21/Sept.11.prof.ap/index.html
What should be done HERE bobbie? Will you suck it up and admit this guy should also have his speech defended, or will you make excuses?
posted by raj on
Bobby | July 21, 2006, 7:11am |
Here’s a story about a Canadian Profesor who faces a Human Rights complaint for his views against homosexuality.
Do you troll obscure right-wing web sites to try to discover things like this that you can post here, Herschell?
So you think a professor should face a human rights tribunal? Since when is criticizing gays or anyone a violation of human rights?
Apparently, you are really too dumb to recognize that the dear professor may have the right of free speech–I guess it escaped your notice that the case is in Canada–but he doesn’t necessarily have the right to be exempt from any and all consequences that may flow from his exercise of his presumptive right of free speech. Nobody does.
If someone says something that embarrasses his employer, whether or not whether what he says was said during work time, he could be dismissed in a moment. A violation of free speech? No, decidedly not.
Bobby | July 22, 2006, 1:00am |
Professors used their academic websites to express all kinds of views, most of them leftwing.
I’m glad that you have done an exhaustive study of what professors use their academic websites for, but this is irrelevant to the case that you cited. Why? Because the dear professor in the case that you cited had posted on a private web site, not his academic web site.
posted by Bobby on
I don’t care about the American-hating professor in Madisson, Wisconsin (link provided by our resident party-boy, kittenboi). He doesn’t need to get fired, just having the media humiliate him will be enough.
Thomas and Raj, if a professor had compared Bush to Hitler, you’d all be defending his free speech rights. Why won’t you admit you only defend people you like and agree with?
The first amendment doesn’t end at the office, nor does it exclude offensive speech.
There are professors of Islamic Studies in college calling for the destruction of Israel and they still have their jobs.
That doesn’t piss me off, what pisses me off is that the college only protects leftwing opinions.
posted by Thomas Horsville on
“Thomas and Raj, if a professor had compared Bush to Hitler, you’d all be defending his free speech rights.”
No, because what is said is almost irrelevant. Much more important is how it is said. Was the statement posted on a personal website, or on an academic website usually used to disseminate course information? Was the professor’s university affiliation mentioned on the site? Did the professor assert or imply that his university endorsed his opinion? If confronted by his university about the statement, did the professor follow the disciplinary process in place?
In the case you raised, students who paid to be taught about Scottish history ended up being called perverts by their instructor. I certainly understand why the university has a problem with that.
posted by kittynboi on
I’m not a partyboy. The most I’ve ever had to drink in all my life was half a glass of wine.
“”””He doesn’t need to get fired, just having the media humiliate him will be enough.””””
If the media did not humiliate him, would you want him fired then?
posted by Bobby on
No kittynboi, I defend free speech even when it offends me. If someone pisses me off with a nasty comment, I give them a much nastier comment. One area where I don’t agree with O’reilly is hate speech. He doesn’t like hate speech, I do.
When I went to a public community college, I was requiered to take Intro to Environmental Sciences, I had to put up with a teacher that hated corporations, cars, capitalism, consumerism, traditionalism and many things I hold dear. And he did it with my tax dollars. He offended me many times, and I hated his guts, but I never tried to get him fired nor did I filed a complaint. I just gave him a bad review when all students had to fill those up.
Life is harsh, gentleman, you don’t censor other people, or allow the censorship of speech just because you don’t like the contents.
Protect free speech now or lose it tomorrow.
posted by kittynboi on
You still haven’t responded to my coprrecting you. I’ve never been to a rave or drank alchohol or anything like that, so your characterization of me is inaccurate.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Jumping back to the original blogpost, I don’t think Bush’s veto is a bad thing at all. He simply banned federal funds from being spent on stem-cell research — not research on stem cells themselves — and the federal government has no real place in such research anyway. Profitable advanced research with potential to lead to new therapies or cures is already richly funded by the industry — to the tune of $3 billion already in the case of stem cells.
That Republicans would get upset about this bill would only indicate that they’re as fascinated with milk from the big-government teat as their Democratic rivals. Yet another area where there’s not much difference between the old parties, eh?
posted by ETJB on
Yawn! Most of the suburbianites that I knew are perfectly willing to keep voting Republican, as long as the party does its smoke and mirrors campaign.
posted by Crag2 on
Okay, I’m confused here. Apart from the libertarians here, you guys want all manner of statist restrictions on abortion, but pre-
embryonic stem cell
research is okay?
I’m sorry, I have problems with this position…
Craig
Wellington, New Zealand
posted by raj on
Bobby | July 22, 2006, 10:00am |
Thomas and Raj, if a professor had compared Bush to Hitler, you’d all be defending his free speech rights.
Of course I’d be defending his right to free speech. What you wouldn’t find me doing is defending his right not to to be disciplined by his employer for making such a statement. There is a difference, which I’m sure even you might be able to understand.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | July 22, 2006, 5:53pm
Profitable advanced research with potential to lead to new therapies or cures is already richly funded by the industry — to the tune of $3 billion already in the case of stem cells.
Citation, please. This sounds suspiciously like the US$3 billion bond issue recently authorized by California voters to fund stem cell research.
From what I have read, there is virtually no private investment in the US for human embryonic stem cell research. There is some private investment in the US for human adult stem cell research. There’s a significant difference, and adult stem cells are not as useful in therapies since they are not as adaptive and can harbor increased potential to cause cancer and other diseases.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Citation, please.
It’s a citation from the UK government on the situation in the USA. I cannot produce a link to the actual statistic — although I did find this interesting link:
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/107632703322066732
In just the area of cloning (a small subset of stem cell research), you’ve got $200 million per year being spent in R&D.
In general, government shouldn’t have a place in “medical research” to begin with. It inevitably retards the advancement and commercializing of life-saving therapies and cures. Getting rid of the FDA bureaucracy would also save millions of lives and reduce costs/waiting times for medication.
Not having federal involvement in stem cell spending is a major victory for real science — it means no federal bullying of researchers nor political-agenda-driven “research.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
there is virtually no private investment in the US for human embryonic stem cell research
If that’s truly the case, then it suggests that the technology has no diagnostic or therapeutic utility and thus, government money shouldn’t be thrown into it either.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The solution to “left-leaning gay activists” having control of the forum is for right-leaning gay activists to speak up in significant numbers. So far, the silence is deafening.
Give us a reason for why we should stick up for hatemongering people who criticize and insult us, our religion, our beliefs, and our political affiliations.
If you wanted help, Tom, you should have said something when those selfsame gay leftists were calling us “Jewish Nazis”, “kapos”, “self-loathing”, and all the other nice names that were out there. But you chose to support the leftist whackjobs, and you can pay for it.
Realize that we’ve had to live our entire lives as out people ostracized by the gay community, and we’ve managed quite nicely. But now you expect us to put our credibility on the line for people who have shown us nothing but hate? Forget it.
posted by Bobby on
“You still haven’t responded to my coprrecting you. I’ve never been to a rave or drank alchohol or anything like that, so your characterization of me is inaccurate.”
Fine, I was wrong. I apologize. There.
“What you wouldn’t find me doing is defending his right not to to be disciplined by his employer for making such a statement.”
—OK Raj, let me try to see it from your point of view. I have an employee who says something that offends me. Do I have the right to drag him to court?
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | July 24, 2006, 7:53am |
That’s interesting, but one seriously wonders the extent to which private investment in biotech (in this case, cloning and stem cell research) is developing improvements on basic research that was seeded in large part by government financing. That was certainly the case in the computer industry–with which I am intimately familiar.
It is extremely rare that private investors will invest in basic research.
posted by raj on
Bobby | July 24, 2006, 9:24pm |
OK Raj, let me try to see it from your point of view. I have an employee who says something that offends me. Do I have the right to drag him to court?
What the heck does this have to do with what was said before?