In the wake of Bush's rejection of the stem cell bill, it's important to acknowledge there are loyal conservatives who are well informed, who do employ critical analysis, and who unsurprisingly come to the obvious conclusion that the President's veto and his rationale for it makes no sense. For the dwindling remainder who still cling desperately to Bush’s nonsense, you'll see several interlocking themes crop up: transparent hypocrisy, blatant, comical, and seemingly willful ignorance, misrepresentation of alternatives, almost pathological cruelty, and blind, partisan hatred. Here’s one of the better written examples which utilizes some of those tactics:
Redstate -- Since the Democrat Congress did not heed the president’s veto warning when it passed its legislation, the president will now show them how stem cell research can be conducted without destroying embryos and without creating human life for the purpose of harvesting its parts.
This poster neglected to stress that the material was created by In Vitro Fertilization Clinics for the express purpose of treating infertility and ultimately going to be discarded. He chose instead to state it would be 'created for the purpose of harvesting its parts,' and clearly left the impression that Bush prevented that from happening. In fact, part B (1) of the SCREA states, "The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment."
We can perhaps forgive those conservatives who don't know better, and who inherently trust that their more informed comrades will provide them with sound information and honest assessment. But unless the RS author and others like him are sloppy or ignorant to a point that defies plausibility, they know exactly what they're doing. They are intentionally deceiving their readers to excuse one of the many unpopular and inexcusable failures of George Bush, with no thought for those they're potentially condemning to a lifetime of misery or death, and they deserve every bit of scorn that comes their way because of it.
I'm 48 years old, with a type II diabetes diagnosis now three and one-half years old, so I have a little self-interest in seeing medical science make some advancements in these arenas. And on the day that Michael Moore's SiCKO is slated for sneak preview, let me say that one of the things corporate medicine is very good at is maximizing their profit opportunities. And with the explosion of diabetes in the United States, even among children, corporate medicine is highly motivated to develop the latest treatments.Here in Houston -- indeed, less than five minutes away from where I sit typing -- is one of the finest medical centers in the world, with world-renowned experts hard at work researching and devising treatments, battling and even curing the most insidious diseases known to man.
But they remain hamstrung by the religious and moral zealots still clinging to control in our government.
The same question asked of those who ignited a civil war in the Middle East over a series of lies can be posed to those who would thwart the doctors trying to defeat cancer, multiple sclerosis, and diabetes:
How many more people have to die before you extremists will get the hell out of the way?