Juan Cole and stem cell research: a rhetorical smackdown

I passed by Tierra y Libertad which linked an article from Juan Cole assessing Regan's presidency Fair enough and people will debate Regan's presidency for years; however, he becomes totally disingenious with respect how the Republican party 'severly limited' stem cell research to cure neurological diseases like Alzhiemer's due to supersitition.

With all due respect professor, don't you dare elide the fact that there are 2 different types of stem cells under research: fetal and adult. The professor conflates fetal stem cells with stem cell research. That's dishonest. Well I won't allow killing babies fetuses just to harvest those stem cells. If industralized countries adopted more pro-natal policies, they could use umbilical cords as one source for fetal stem cells.

In any case, I'm not American, couldn't care less about either political party but I'm certainly not superstitious by refusing to give a carte blanche to abort or clone babies in order to harvest their stem cells to cure various neurological diseases.

Further, there's a cognitive dissonace: why are Alzheimer sufferers more important than babies? In fact, if one won't respect life at conception, one can't respect life at the end or in between when facing incurable, degenerative diseases. Abortion and ethuanasia are a continuum of anti-life perspectives.
One last parting shot: it's so telling that boomers want to save themselves from those incurable degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's by sacrificing someone else. Babies and Alzheimer suffers are both worthy of protection; so let's not pit one against the other.

Martin: ou la manque de vision

Ce matin, je lisais dans la Gazette (abonn?s seulement mais vous pouvez enregistrez) que le Parti lib?ral multiplie les attaques contre Harper. Colter surtout articulait une vision apocoliptique d'Harper vis-?-vis la Charte canadienne. On m'excusera mais je 'ai vraiment eu beaucoup de r?verence envers ce document-l? et je ne fais pas de genuflexion de fa?on reflexive ? chaque fois que l'on cite. Je trouvais ?a dr?le de la part du Minist?re f?d?ral de Justice qu'il accusait Harper de politiciser la Cour supr?me!

En tout cas, en regardant le comportement de Martin, je conclus qu'il n'a jamais articul? une vision du pays au-d?l? de gagner le poste du Prime ministre f?d?ral. Donc, une fois qu'il a atteint le poste, il n'a rien d'autre ? dire puisqu'il a combl? son ambition. Or, cette satisfaction explique pourquoi Martin est incapable d'articuler sa vision du pays dans quelle direction il aimera le conduire. Qu'envisage-t-il pour les pays.

Il se content ? recourrir ? de clich?s dont il r?gurgite sans passion et confond la platforme ?l?ctorale avec les valeurs du pays, fustige Harper et les Conservateurs ? travers de caricatures si grotesques et si d?provu de la moindre r?alit? que m?me les m?dias- carr?ment la m?gaphone du parti Lib?ral- refuse de parfaire leur r?le de complices.

Pour le bien des Lib?raux et les bien du pays, le parti doit perdre ces ?l?ction et subir le m?me sort que le Conservateur en '93. Une telle perte des Lib?raux permettera un renouvellement du parti, un r?evaluation du legat trudeaudien et l'infusion de nouvelles personnes et id?es. Les Lib?raux pourront se reb?tir et articuler une vision de laquelle les citoyens s'inter?sserait de nouveau.

Gay marriage in France: how civilization can still fall

But not for the reasons Richard and his commentators provide. What they disingeniously leave unstated is that in France, it's illegal for 2 people of the same sex to marry.

Further, the mayor violated his oath of office to uphold the French consitition and its law. He presumes that he's smarter than all of his compatriots. I deeply resent this attitude, it won't miracoulously speed up public opinion nor the legislative timetables to embrace homosexual couplings with enthusiasm. In the meantime, in France, there exist civil unions that are open to both homosexual and heterosexual couples.

More omniously, the mayor's act undermines one of the most important legacies of Western civ: the rule of law. We're slowly regressing to the hoary adage of quid placit princep legem fecit: what pleases the prince makes the law. Arbitrariness, the inequality before the law and absolutism result when applying the adage to the polity. Eventually the polity becomes so agitated that a man in a jeep appears, ends the dispute rather violently and then descends the peace of the cementary.

The proponents also disrespect another legacy of Western political practice: that if advocates for a particular cause can't persuade the public or fail to pass laws in their favour, that they accept the decision and try again at a later time when people might become more supportive. But no, no obstacle nor failure must stop the proponents of homosexual couplings from forcing their platform on an unready public with diktats rather than debates. These advocates deserve the unease which the public treats their cause due to the formers' imprudence, impatience, contempt for persuasion and disrespect for deeply ingrained political practices.