Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You probably don't know who Jeffrey Hart is, but political junkies like me know. He is one of the key founders of modern American conservatism. Not only was he there virtually at the start of the National Review, he also founded the Dartmouth Review, a conservative student paper that launched the careers of, among others, Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham. He was also a speechwriter for both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.
Over the last few years, disenchanted with what he considers the Bush administration's failure to uphold conservative principles, he has become a rather scathing critic of the Republican party, endorsing both John Kerry and Barack Obama. He is a true intellectual conservative in the Burkean mold and he is appalled by what the Republican party has done under the guise of the philosophy he advocates (which, once again, helps demonstrate the difference between intellectual conservatism and political or pedestrian conservatism).
At the Daily Beast, Hart declares that the GOP is now "the stupid party." As usual, he minces few words:
In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished.
He comes out in favor of Roe v Wade and blasts the Republicans for opposing it. He also hits them on their anti-gay fervor:
Does any reasonable person not believe that gays and lesbians deserve respect and equality? Not today's Republican Party. Expert translators from Arabic have been dismissed for being gay. And applicants for the post of certified public accountants in the Iraq Green Zone have been asked about their view of Roe v. Wade.Both Obama and McCain supported federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. An embryo is a cluster of cells the size of the period at the end of this sentence. It takes a strange mentality to equate that with a seriously ill human being. (Bush, August 2001: "It's wrong to destroy life in order to save life.")
But science never sleeps, and embryonic stem cell work has been going on around the world in advanced nations, as well as in state or privately funded laboratories here. Harvard is planning a new billion-dollar science campus, with a major cell-research laboratory. Promising advances of various kinds are being explored world-wide.
So here we are in 2008. With its indispensable Southern and, more widely, evangelical base, the Republican Party has become the stupid party.
In the election, the McCain-Palin ticket received the highest percentage of votes in South Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia. The Southern Strategy succeeded. It succeeded in facilitating a Democratic landslide. This can not be good for the nation. We need two viable parties.
And goes after Palin as well:
Sarah Palin is now the heroine of the Republican base. Scary. During the campaign it became obvious that she is completely ignorant on the principal issues. It never became widely known that she is a religious nut: she believes in the imminent End of Days and the "Rapture," in which the saved will be suddenly wooshed up to heaven--a notion that has no basis in scripture or anything else. She believes she was elected governor because of a laying-on-of-hands by an African clergyman who had run a witch out of town for causing automobile accidents.This stuff makes William Jennings Bryan look like Martin Heidegger.
The pedestrian right -- the partisan right that has built its entire platform on appealing to the most ignorant and bigoted among us -- will not listen to Hart (or to George Will and many others who have said similar things). Already you can hear the battle cries coming from the Rush Limbaughs of the world, echoed loudly in the right wing blogosphere, that the only reason they lost this year was because McCain wasn't really one of them, that the party needs to go back to that base even stronger than before. They are trapped inside their own delusions.
Politics
Comments
Any chance of the wingnut wing imploding into a black hole of stupidity and never bother the rest of us again? We can hope....
Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 11, 2008 10:28 AM
OT sorry,
The Lee Atwater story on Frontline tonight.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | November 11, 2008 10:36 AM
Wow. Hate speech!
In its embrace of the blacks under Barack Obama, the Democratic party became the stupid party ... the partisan left that has built its entire platform on appealing to the most ignorant and bigoted among us will not listen.
That would ruffle a few feathers - but the tripe in this piece against another group federally protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is supposed to be applauded by this piece.
It's terribly ignorant to assume all evangelicals are stupid - it's classless and wrong to present your opinion in such an ugly manner.
And, Mr. Hart isn't all that conservative. (BFD, he's wrote speeches and articles for Nat. Review)
Let's look at the reasons behind the criticisms.
1) Muslim gays are beheaded in the groups they're translating.
2) Bush spent over 1/2billion just on human embryonic stem and made nothing illegal. We spend more than most countries combined on all stem cell research. You can clone here (if it actually worked in humans, that is). Embryonic isn't producing results because of Bush but because tumor formation is a sine qua non factor. hES supporters are the blind followers.
3) Roe vs. Wade is bad law. It should be left to the states.
BTW: I was considering starting with the much more funny "In its embrace of the women under Bill Clinton, the Democratic party became the stupid party."
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 10:47 AM
WOW! The Religious Right is now a Federally protected group?
The stupid, it melts titanium.
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | November 11, 2008 10:59 AM
Minerva: 3) Roe vs. Wade is bad law. It should be left to the states.
Aside from your confusing "bad law" with "law you disagree with", what does this have to do with the qualifications of CPAs in Iraq? I mean, that was the point of the article, excluding people from a job or position based on opinions that have no relevance to the job.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 11, 2008 11:06 AM
Minerva (ha ha, ironic screen name) -
Please back up your rather idiotic claims. Which 'ignorant' and 'bigoted' people are you talking about? Black people? Because their race doesn't make them ignorant - there are ignorant black people and non-ignorant black people. There are idiots in every race. You're probably one of the white ones.
Apparently, you're not aware of the difference between criticism and discrimination. Unlike race, one's beliefs are not a matter of one's genetics and are changeable. They are as subject to criticism as anything else.
And Ed backs up his assertion that evangelicals are stupid, which, frankly, if you read the news and have any idea what those idiots think, you would probably see too.
I'm not sure about tumor formation and stem cells, but that's been tightly controlled.
And Roe vs. Wade is not bad law. It protects my right to not reproduce.
You're really fucking funny, making some claims about liberals when several of those criticisms apply to you.
Shove off, you concern-trolling fundie asslicker.
Posted by: Katharine | November 11, 2008 11:08 AM
Minerva,
1) Yes, evangelicals really are all stupid. Sorry, but it takes a special kind of ignorance to be so committed to your particular idea of the invisible sky daddy that you feel the need to ram it down other people's throats (which is pretty much the entire point of evangelizing, y'see). Don't feel bad, them, because I'm sure I'll be LEFT BEHIND when God sweeps you and his flock up to heaven.
2) The existing stem cell lines available for federally funded research in this country have long been known to have been contaminated with foreign genetic material as a result of the process originally used to create them, thus greatly limiting their utility. But I'm sure you know more about stem cell research than the 'blind followers,' i.e., the legions of scientists working in this field who stress the need for the creation of new, uncontaminated cell lines.
3) Yeah, let's allow states to make the decision about what sort of rights they deprive people of. Heck, if they still want slavery (or at least Jim Crow) down in the South, let them have it. We wouldn't want the federal government preventing the tyranny of the fruitcake majority, now, would we?
Posted by: Nick | November 11, 2008 11:13 AM
Minerva: 1) Muslim gays are beheaded in the groups they're translating.
Oops. Forgot this one.
No one is sending translators into groups that would behead them Translators are translating books, pamphlets, broadcasts, and intercepted communications in a nice, safe office. At most, they will translating as part of a meeting between different parties in a nice safe embassy.
Do you understand the points being made in the article?
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 11, 2008 11:15 AM
Minerva said:
"It's terribly ignorant to assume all evangelicals are stupid - it's classless and wrong to present your opinion in such an ugly manner."
The problem is that neither of the smart ones open their mouths at parties.
But seriously, Minerva, you are correct. Not all Evangelicals are stupid. Some are moronically stupid, others almost decerebrately stupid, and some are only marginally cognitively afflicted.
I am also a little perplexed why you think anyone actually "assumes" that Evangelicals are stupid. It seems to me that Evangelicals clearly and publicly display their stupidity with pride.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 11, 2008 11:25 AM
A woman's right to choose should be a given, Minerva. Why would it be fair for a woman in, say, Georgia, not to be able to get an abortion while a woman in California can? That makes no sense at all.
A woman's right to choose should not be up to the states. In fact, it shouldn't be up for debate at all.
Posted by: marilove | November 11, 2008 11:57 AM
I might note that Minvera isn't even savvy enough to realize that Roe v. Wade isn't even a law, it's a SCOTUS decision. Therefore it's a legal precedent, which is not the same as an actual law.
But Minvera's comment has a sliver of truth in it--indeed, if the right to reproductive control is to be preserved, Roe v. Wade's freedom of choice needs to become a law.
Posted by: N.B. | November 11, 2008 12:06 PM
Religion is voluntary. Race is not. Most comparisons between the rights of people belonging to each group fail because of this.
If you choose to be stupid and it affects your actions, we can discriminate against that. If you happen to be a certain color by something completely out of your control, we should not discriminate against that. Why is this hard to understand?
Posted by: Eric | November 11, 2008 12:11 PM
I don't think I'd agree with that sentence.
Posted by: GH | November 11, 2008 12:11 PM
Latest David Brooks column says similar things. The GOP is going to get even more dumbass, and they're going to lose.
Posted by: steve s | November 11, 2008 12:14 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | November 11, 2008 12:15 PM
Re Minerva
And, Mr. Hart isn't all that conservative. (BFD, he's wrote speeches and articles for Nat. Review)
Boy, that National Review, a haven for left wing pinko commies. Not.
Posted by: SLC | November 11, 2008 12:44 PM
Back to the "stupid party" issue, I heard these apt terms, used in a Fresh Air interview with David Kirkpatrick, NY Times Washington correspondent: "The High Right" vs. the "Low Right" [he explains the distinction starting around 11:00 minutes in].
Basically he talks about the distinction between an intellectualism in service to defining new ideas and a populism that flirts with demagoguery.
.....
Another thing that protects our right not to reproduce is . . . protection. That's also a good choice to make (sorry, I'm not a supporter of abstinence - sex's too fun - so can't recommend that "option"!). Just sayin', is all.
.....
Chiroptera, you do realise these are offices on military installations? I don't equate gay=military=safe, forgive my prejudice [disclaimer: most military personnel are not bigots].Posted by: marnk | November 11, 2008 12:47 PM
Minerva's comments demonstrate perfectly what is meant by the "Stupid Party". Their position on Roe v Wade has become dogmatic. They never think about what they're actually trying to accomplish by overturning that ruling. The main goal, aside from the issue of States Rights, is to reduce the number of abortions performed. But has anyone from the Christian Right ever stopped to think that there are better ways to reduce the abortion rate aside from an outright ban? The number one motive for abortion is to end an unwanted pregnancy. So reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies would reduce the number of abortions performed. But, of course, another kind of dogma prevents a lot of these idiots from supporting birth control. Simply making abortions illegal would only drive them underground where the mother's life is put at great risk.
The real problem with the far right--and the far left, for that matter--isn't that it holds positions that we people to the left of them disagree with, it's that they refuse to listen to reason as they defiantly cling to outdated idealistic dogma.
If the Republican Party doesn't modernize itself and adopt more well reasoned positions in regard to things like abortion and sexual orientation and only devolves further into that vile pit of Christian ignorance and bigotry there will be a schism. And if there isn't we'll know that a lot of moderate conservatives sold out their convictions for the Grand Ol' Party. No matter what happens, it's going to be a fun ride. Especially for the liberal blogosphere.
Posted by: Nick | November 11, 2008 1:09 PM
Nick: That the federally funded lines have been contaminated is exactly why Bush made the right decision.
If he opened up all the embryos for federal funding researchers would have quickly used the cryopreserved embryos to make stem cells and grow them on the 2001 technology of mouse feeder cells.
I know you have been led to believe (and many here certainly do believe only when they are led to the conclusion someone else want them to have) anyway ...
many here think there are 400,000 of extra embryos, frozen for decades - because those that told them omitted that the study from which that comes concluded (on the front page, no less) that almost all were designated for future family building "few are available for research (2.8%), limiting possible conversion into embryonic stem cell lines"
they later quantified that as less than 5/state.
You see, only 65% survive thawing, 25% then grow to blastocyst and 15% convert to stem cells.
Under today's technology, only 2% of those available for research make stem cell lines, and that's why there are scant few stem cell lines in the world.
Furthermore, you must be unaware of Bush's EO13435, which authorized federal funding for the vast majority of the embryos that are 'thrown away' (e.g. 'arrested' or 'naturally dead' as worded in S.30 - which the DEMOCRATS WOULDN'T BRING TO BUSH'S DESK FOR SIGNATURE despite having a veto-proof margin) Arrested embryos yield normal stem cell lines at the same rate as frozen ones. S.30 and the executive order also authorizes federal funding for stem cells derived through parthenogenesis (that's what they did instead of clone - and Germany has great success using neural cells used from them - and they only require 2 eggs avg.) and even a form of nuclear transfer.
The NIH acted on this Sept. '07 - but you guys probably don't know about that because you've been kept uninformed and ignorant by the likes of Ed.
One only needs to read your comments to confirm.
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 1:12 PM
Obama voted against expanding stem cell research, btw.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00128
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 1:17 PM
Minerva:
Statistics without citation (credible citation, mind you) = Bullshit.
Isn't there someplace you might be doing some actual good, helping some poor young mother who was forced to carry her pregnancy to ter...hey, Bristol Palin! Yes, win-win. You get to visit the Arctic Fox and (hopefully) not clog up this blog with your ignorance and blindingly stupid intransigence.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 1:22 PM
Embryronic is sooooooo yesterday. It's Obama, Pelosi, Clinton & the like who are unaware of the science (proven by voting against S.30, see above)
Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells are 'the future of stem cell research' according to all the pioneers of embryonic stem cell research. They are better for research and therapy because they come from people with the conditions, and can be made safer and more efficient than embryonic.
The simple fact is, iPS makes (hES) obsolete.
Sir Martin Evans : "This will be the long-term solution."
(Dr. Evans is the man who 1st isloated embryonic stem cells in 1981 and winner of this 2007's Nobel Prize in Medicine)
Dr. Ian Wilmut: ""this is the future of stem cell research: and it's "100 times more interesting."
(Dr. Wilmut cloned Dolly, now has given up on SCNT because he "believes a rival method pioneered in Japan has better potential for making human embryonic cells which can be used to grow a patient's own cells and
tissues for a vast range of treatments.)
Dr. John Gearhart "I think this is the future of stem cell research,"
(the biologist who first discovered human fetal embryonic stem cells).
Dr. James Thomson: ""I personally believe that the future is in the (adult skin) cells,"
"A decade from now, this [hES controversy] will be just a funny historical footnote,"
"Isn't it great to start a field and then to end it?"
(1st to grow human embryonic stem cell lines in 1998 AND who reprogrammed skin to 'embryonic' in the US)
DemoCommie: Do you extend that same standard to everyone else here (ex. who couldn't translate because they were gay? any names ... or just a rumor?)
I already referenced the study. Look it up.
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 1:51 PM
He's also stated that he's going to expand funding and drop restrictions.
Posted by: gwangung | November 11, 2008 1:58 PM
I won't bother to debunk most of Minerva's ridiculous blather, but let me make this very clear: I have never claimed, nor do I believe, that all evangelicals are stupid. But Hart is absolutely right that the GOP has built much of its electoral success on appealing to the bigotry and ignorance of a large subset of evangelicals.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 11, 2008 2:00 PM
Minerva,
The stem cell link you posted is to S30 from 2007. That bill purported to expand stem-cell research, but it was actually a trojan horse designed for Senators who wanted to pretend to support stem-cell research without doing anything production. Senators who really wanted to improve the quality of stem-cell research were supporting SB5 from 2007. (Sen. Obama was a co-sponsor of SB5.)
The process is making laws is pretty tricky. You can't understand laws just by looking at the bill name; you need to read the bill in detail with a close eye for trickery. This is almost impossible for a layman; you really need to have a professional look over the bill and figure out what it means. (There's no shame in that. Even Congressmen have gotten fooled.)
Here are some links to some professional analyses:
Wired magazine analyzes the issue from the pro-science side.
E-catholic hub analyzes it from the anti-science side. This one's conventiently color-coded; Sen. Obama's pro-science votes and statements are highlighted in red.
Posted by: chaos_engineer | November 11, 2008 2:00 PM
Sigh, my links got corrupted again. The URLs are:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/04/stemcell_showdo.html
http://www.ecatholichub.net/si/vote-2008/obama-issues/stem-cell
Posted by: chaos_engineer | November 11, 2008 2:02 PM
Katherine: "human embryonic stem cells (hESC) give rise to teratoma, tumour-like formations containing tissues belonging to all three germ layers. The ability to form teratoma is a sine qua non characteristic"
then there's: "ES cells, unlike adult stem cells, cannot be used directly in therapy because they cause cancer. Indeed, one laboratory test for ES cells is to inject them into mice and analyse the teratoma (a tumour formed of foetal tissue) that arises. " - Scientific American
I don't know what you mean by "that's been tightly controlled" exept that no where is anyone using embryonic stem cells therapeutically - because they are too dangerous.
Here's a great comparison using Parkinson's:
-Adult stem cells result in functional recovery. No Tumors.
-Induced Pluripotent stem cells result in functional recovery. No Tumors.
-Embryonic stem cells result in functional recovery and 100% of the subjects developed brain tumors within 10 wks.
You only have to check http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov to see other stem cells are already treating type 1 diabetes (successfully according to JAMA) and other conditions. In fact, there are 1000+ studies using other stem cells - and zero using embryonic therapeutically because they aren't safe.
Yeah, but the genii on the far left support this, to the detriment of what works.
Do you kiss your mother with that mouth, btw?
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 2:17 PM
I'm not the only one to say this, but I fully expect the Republicans to nominate a True Believer(tm) (like, say, Sarah Palin) in 2012 and lose to Obama in a 1984-esque landslide before coming to their senses.
Posted by: Kevin W. Parker | November 11, 2008 2:25 PM
Chaos_engineer: 70%+ of the Senate supported S.30 - including Ted Kennedy ... only the likes of Obama, Clinton, Schumer and the other extreme lefties opposed it.
S.30 included many methods of funding pluripotent stem cell research that was not covered in S.5 There was no reason to vote against outside of ...
As a science blog, this IS about science - and the science is no longer on the side of embryonic stem cells. I'm a zoologist who's reviewed over 5000 studies. The website linked to my name has videos of how organs are made (8 wks for new bladder), diseases are 'cured' and more. Really, embryonic are so yesterday, and a brain-drain is happening in places like the UK where "You would barely know that adult stem cells exist ... A vast amount of money in the UK from the Government has gone into embryonic stem-cell research with not one patient having being treated, to the detriment of (research into) adult stem cells, which has been severely underfunded."
Furthermore, you're wired link proves what I've already said - the vast majority of those 'thrown away' would be funded w/S.30. 50% of IVF embryos arrest, almost all the others are implanted (6-8 eggs harvested, 60% successfully fertilized, 50% arrest, leaving 2-3 which are implanted).
You are arguing about a scant few new ones. IVF works only 1/3 of the time. Embryos don't sit on shelves for decades, they are used and replaced regularly - like other commodities. (All this verifiable from IVF studies and CDC ART Reports.)
It's not your links that's corrupted, it's the reporters and politicians.
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 2:38 PM
"States' rights" arguments make a useful litmus test for spotting authoritarian asshats. It's very telling to me that when I see "states' rights" invoked, it's almost invariably in conjunction with issues like abortion, gay marriage, sodomy laws, school prayer, and creationism in public schools - issues where the goal is to curtail individual rights.
The one exception I've seen to that pattern are the attempts to get around the stupidity of our federal drug laws by allowing medical marijuana at the state level.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 11, 2008 2:48 PM
My greatest fear is that they'll nominate a True Believer, and not lose. Hence my support for anything that could moderate the Republican party, even as I hope they'll never win. People on the left who are cheering on the Republicans' radicalization, assuming that it will marginalize them, are playing with fire.
Posted by: Nemo | November 11, 2008 2:53 PM
As it happens, I know a devout evangelical - and former Republican - who came to a conclusion quite similar to Jerry Hart's some time ago. How long ago? Well, she voted Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004.
Posted by: llewelly | November 11, 2008 3:01 PM
I will admit, I have not read the article yet. But what is with these conservatives saying the Republican Party in the USA has gone off the rails? All they did this year is push the same buttons they have been pushing since Nixon (Hart's old boss), plus a few new ones (gays, Mexicans, Arabs, atheists, the 80% of the population NOT in rural areas). I am sure there are people like llewelly's friend who saw this coming a while back. But a lot of them (like Fukuyama in an article Ed linked to earlier) had no problem riding the W Train. Are they really appalled, or do they just want to be in the side that's winning?
Posted by: Blue Nine | November 11, 2008 3:12 PM
Blue Nine: But a lot of them (like Fukuyama in an article Ed linked to earlier) had no problem riding the W Train. Are they really appalled, or do they just want to be in the side that's winning?
This point was made some time ago on another post. But I think its a pretty good point, worth repeating.
Maybe some of these people have been expressing great unhappiness with the Bush Administration all this time, but I do wonder (I'm not familiar with some of these people myself) how many of them were willing to tolerate the stupidity as long as it was winning.
Posted by: Chiroptera | November 11, 2008 3:38 PM
I doubt that very much.
You need to support that statement, particularly what you posted does not match up anywhere NEAR what I know about the area.
Posted by: gwangung | November 11, 2008 4:23 PM
Martin: You mean like Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founding fathers. Read the Constitution. That is how the U.S. runs. Roe vs. Wade was bad law because there is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution. (There is a 'right to life' in the preamble - and every embryology textbook affirms it begins at conception). The 13th Amendment is on what it should have been based - but it wasn't; it was based on beliefs.
Which brings me to the key difference between liberals and conservatives - they think with different sides of their brains.
Conservatives base their views on fact and liberals on theory. Between the two is a perfect medium.
This applies directly to the stem cell question.
Read an article on embryonic stem cells and it's peppered with 'potential' 'possible' and 'hope'. Read an article on adult and it's filled with results.
People have argued with me because they have been led to believe things that aren't true. In July 2005, Scientific American reported there were 150 human embryonic stem cell lines world wide (as they explained how difficult they were to make). Stem cells from arrested embryos was first published in Sept. 2006 - and chaos_engineer's April '07 wired link says 25% of the 400 lines came from arrested embryos ... that's 100 in 7 months vs. only 50 were made from embryos in almost 2 yrs!
But we argue.
We argue because it's what 'they want us to do'.
Politicians get us all mad at each other, then go out drinking together laughing at us.
That's why our founding father's based this country on state rights. The further the power is from you, the less you have.
It's funny how those running down 'state rights' pretend to be for diversity - when the whole point of states rights is diversity.
And if the people don't get wise - we'll all be the stupid party living in fascist tyrrany. (No, it's not a dig against Obama - it's a general statement. Who's in power next?)
Stop thinking you're better/smarter than the next guy. A country divided against itself cannot stand.
Posted by: Minerva | November 11, 2008 4:47 PM
Minerva -
Are you thinking of the Declaration of Independence?Preamble to the Constitution:
Posted by: Taz | November 11, 2008 4:54 PM
Conservatives base their views on fact and liberals on theory.
Are you serious? I don't base my views on fact because I'm liberal? Are you serious?
And what does "on theory" mean? Do you mean on scientific theory? Or on hunch?
Posted by: Josh | November 11, 2008 5:04 PM
Ok, I have to call bullshit on Minerva:
can't be true and then have some statement like:.I'm an actual zoologist (see website linked by my name), though I'm sure I haven't read (and know no one who has) 5,000 peer-reviewed articles, and I can tell you unequivocally that life began before conception. The egg and the sperm are both alive and during fusion they continue to be alive. In fact, they never ceased to be alive. The abortion debate revolves around the inception of personhood, not the inception of life.
I, like Ed, do not feel strongly enough to fisk the ridiculous tripe you've been spewing about stem-cell research. I just don't think its worth pointing to actual research with you. But, I couldn't let you try the whole 'I'm an authority' crap with that level of ignorance; it would give us zoologists a bad name.
Posted by: Scott Reese | November 11, 2008 5:07 PM
Posted by: Taz | November 11, 2008 5:10 PM
A big part of state's rights was about protecting the institution of slavery.
No it wasn't, it was about preventing the creation of tyrannical central government like that in England. Both free AND slave states ratified the Constitution with the understanding that states would have a high level of sovereignty.
Posted by: mroberts | November 11, 2008 5:28 PM
Is this "minerva" a frequent visitor, changing their name to protect the guilty?
Posted by: SharonB | November 11, 2008 5:34 PM
OK, let's get serious about "states' rights" here. The U.S. is still a federal system, so there is still a lot of autonomous authority residing in the states.
But states cannot have "rights," because rights belong to individuals, not governments.
The original states' rights argument was, as mroberts says, in part about preventing tyrannical central government. But contra mroberts, it absolutely was about protecting slavery. The number one most overwhelming concern of the mid 19th century states' righters was preserving the institution of slavery.
But, that in itself does not mean federalism, which is the term thinking adults use, rather than the peurile "states' rights", is a bad idea. Many issues do not need to be nationalized, many problems are local, and even many problems that occur nationally are better dealth with by using policy solutions adapted to local conditions.
So a pox on anyone who plumps for "states' rights," a double-pox on anyone who uses critiques of states' rights to bash federalism in general, and a quintuple pox on anyone who denies states' rights arguments were, back in the day, about preserving slavery, or that some states' righters today are still sympathetic to that system.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 11, 2008 5:40 PM
As marilove already pointed out, the whole point of "states' rights" in the abortion debate is to shift the issue to the states, where bans are easier to get passed. It is merely a more palatable way of saying "I believe that the state should be able to compel a woman to carry a fetus to term, regardless of the risk to her."
It's funny to me how conservative trolls are so quick to appeal to "diversity" in the name of state-enforced conformity.
Posted by: Martian Buddy | November 11, 2008 6:09 PM
> Stop thinking you're better/smarter than the next guy.
Gaaah!
I'm hoping that the fact that America has put an obvious intellectual into the White House this time around might help lay this to waste. The truth is _sometimes the 'next guy' is just smarter_!
In a lot of things (ethics for example) my PoV might have equal weight to, say, Ed's. However, when it comes to politics or science I'm happy to admit it's inferior (just as I'm sure Ed would admit that a lot of people are smarter than him in, say, technology).
This whole idea that "we're all equal" when approaching a debate needs to be laid to rest.
Posted by: David Durant | November 11, 2008 6:29 PM
Minerva:
The answer to your question is:
"No, only the ones who are sanctimonious and full of shit--that would be you, 24/7 I'd guess.
The difference between us, goddess (isn't that some sort of, like, huge sin in your "Good Book"--oh, my bad I'm assuming you're a KKKristian) is that I readily admit that I don't know a lot about any scientific discipline; of course, I don't lie about what I DO know.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 6:46 PM
"Read an article on embryonic stem cells and it's peppered with 'potential' 'possible' and 'hope'. Read an article on adult and it's filled with results."
Check out the ScienceBlogs frontpage highlights.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | November 11, 2008 7:21 PM
There are indeed intelligent, and even liberal, evangelicals. Here is one. His assessment of his fellow religionists, alas for Minerva, would not be out of place at this blog.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | November 11, 2008 7:45 PM
Swerving back into the travel lane after going around a threadtroll...
Ed:
"Not only was he there virtually at the start of the National Review, he also founded the Dartmouth Review, a conservative student paper that launched the careers of, among others, Dinesh D'Souza and Laura Ingraham."
REALLY, both Dipshit D'Souzzle and Laura Insane? Having helped either of them to achieve prominence would have netted a death sentence for him in less civilized countries.
Posted by: democommie | November 11, 2008 9:04 PM
This is emphatically not true.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 12, 2008 1:41 AM
We seem to have experience topic drift.
Lets imagine for a moment that we all agreed that abortion is the most evil thing ever to have been invented ever. Let's further imagine that we are all agreed that it should be illegal.
Hiring a hockey umpire or a bank manager or an accountant based on their opinion of abortion would still be utterly retarded. It would be staggering stupid. It would be so stupid it would make my brain want to die.
Now, lets all imagine that being gay is evil. It is the most heinous act you can do with anyone who isnt a foetus.
Still, firing a badly needed translator because he is gay, is stupid! You are now down by one translator and you havent decreased teh ghey!
Posted by: Donalbain | November 12, 2008 5:46 AM
James: You're right. States have no rights - only people.
Government/regulations should be limited and local.
If it's not, you lose control.
Ratification (not judges) is the way supercede your freedom.
(That's why slavery is illegal.)
Taz: Oops. Thanks : )
Reese: Not all were peer reviewed - some 2nd/3rd generation. But, yes, since 1998, I've gone over about 50/month ... that makes over 5,000. I've been in discussions with some of the major players in the field (like Ian Wilmut). It's my passion. I started all in favor of embryonic and by 2001 realized it was mostly a waste of resources, a belief reaffirmed year after year.
Even the man who first extracted and grew human embryonic stem cell research has stated, ""If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough" why - because as most embryology texts state, "The zygote is the beginning of a new human being ... This highly specialized totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual." (from: The Developing Human: clinical oriented embryology) The activated egg is different from the living tissue, even a sperm because "Fertilization is an important landmark, because under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is formed." (from Human Embryology and Teratology)
I can fill a page with them. Show me the embryology textbook that says otherwise.
--
Tyler: The press release reads "could raise hopes" and the conditions mentioned in the longer scienceblogs version are ridiculous to present as being useful in this instance. Alzheimer's is a wholebrain disease. You can't cut/replace that much brain and expect granny to survive the surgery, let alone remember you. ALS similar. Too much to replace.
Just because you can do it in a dish doesn't translate to therapies (esp. w/ embryonic's tumerogenesis issues) - and they are also lagging other stem cells.
Parkinsons: already showed functional recovery using adult and iPS and embryonic, but embryonic formed tumors, too.
Alzheimer's: Blowing out the placques using nasal spray & vaccine preparing for clinical trials (no surgery!) Any minor damage repaired using techniques developed at U-C-FL by Dr. Sugaya to use the brains own stem cells to repair broken connections and restore memory. (have video at website)
The advantage of other stem cells is their function is to find/repair body mishaps. In stroke, for example, cord blood has been shown not only to repair the neural tissue, but the circulatory tissues that feed it (and failed, causing the stroke).
---
I commented to draw attention to the hypocracy of this piece, hoping to find open minds and warn them about being too smug and comfortable with their own side because they really are no 'better' than those they try to dehumanize.
Instead, most (not all) proved they are the mirror to what they mock. (And, Katherine, you make a good argument ... you probably shouldn't reproduce).
Posted by: Minerva | November 12, 2008 7:28 AM
This is an old Republican riff, based on the classic joke that every four years Americans have to make a choice between the Evil party and the Stupid party.
The Republicans say, "Yeah, we sure are stupid, aren't we?" followed by stinging self-criticism.
And several minutes later, the Democrats reply, "Uh, what?"
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | November 12, 2008 9:41 AM
The Republicans aren't just the "stupid party;" they're the party of deliberate perpetual childhood; the party of reactionary interest groups who seek to reduce every policy debate to the level of grade-school name-calling and total refusal to recognize or take on any adult responsibilities. We can see it in their taxophobia ("Give us everything but the bill! Paying for what we want and sacrificing for the common good are evil socialist foreign ideas!"); their proud and deliberate ignorance of other people and ideas; their consistent tendency to hide behind children and pretend that every criticism of their ideas is an attack on children; and their contrived hatred and disgust of all things grownup (not just "ess-ee-ex," but complex ideas, mutual rules of conduct, tolerance, fairness, self-sacrifice, and open-mindedness).
Bush Jr. NEVER menaged to sound like an adult; he remained in the place of a ten-year-old talking down to eight-year-olds. His party did everything they could to infantilize our entire country. And when his term expired, the radical right dumped every single one of the mature, experienced Republican politicians who have been involved in national policy for the last few decades (even fundagelical Mike Huckabee!), and went for Sarah Palin, the least intelligent, least open-minded, least mature, and least grownup right-wing politician they could find.
This is far more than mere stupidity.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 12, 2008 9:46 AM
Minerva,
I actually did not dispute your textbook claim or even your article claim (though I was certainly dubious of the later). I said that you were not a zoologist if you could make these two claims in the same thread:
followed bythe later statement indicates that you do not understand biology well enough to be a zoologist. I am especially dubious of that claim when you keep linking to a website that makes blatant unsupported assertions without citations (a trait that you appear to follow here during commenting). This type of reference is known by my students (who aren't zoologists, but clearly are farther up the chain of education)to be a bad supporting system.
Real zoologists know that knowledge about the field (including the field of stem cell research) resides in the primary literature, peer-reviewed articles, not in 2nd-hand or beyond accounts of the primary literature. Textbooks are good lens, through which, we access that primary literature, but general articles are not. Another claim that makes me dubious of your 'I'm a zoologist' statement.
Finally, let me just address your textbook quotes. No biologist, including one that writes a textbook (developmental or otherwise), is going to claim that developing embryos are anything other than alive. The individual gametes were alive before fusion, life remained during fusion, and the zygote continues to be alive after fusion; at no point in that process did life begin. Life began about 3.5 billion years ago and has been doing quite well since. The embryo that is formed during human conception is a new individual organism and your textbooks had better say that as well. That said, the biology is irrelevant to the question of when do we convey personhood to the embryo such that its rights are equal to or greater than the rights of the person that embryo is inhabiting. That determination is much beyond the realm of biology (or even zoology) and there are many a biologist/zoologist that have difficulties destroying embryos; doesn't make them any more authoritative than anyone else on the topic.
Posted by: Scott Reese | November 12, 2008 10:40 AM
Scott: I agree - the issue isn't whether an embryo is a unique human, but what is that human worth.
And, I DO read the journals, but all 5,000+ were not the 1st source as it is not always necessary for my purposes.
Also, I don't know what isn't sourced on my website in which you have interest. Let me know and I'll provide them. I don't even mind that the standards held to me are higher than by others on this thread - because I can meet them. You can contact me at the website or post here.
I think it's important the public gets the information the media isn't providing, because in reality both parties are 'the stupid party', and we the people are exploited when we become self-righteous thinking our side isn't as corrupt as the other.
That said, I want everyone to know there are over 1000+ clinical trials using stem cells (searches available at http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov and my site). I am regularly contacted by those seeking help, and am sickened by those who seek financial/political/professional gain by pretending their only hope is in embryonic when they form tumors by nature and later phases of successful trials are currently recruiting. Ex. 'Juvenile Diabetes'. We're always told there is no cure and only embryonic could provide it, despite T1 being an autoimmune disease, not a cut/replace one and JAMA reported April '07 that almost all the patients treated with their own stem cells were off insulin. (I knew this years ago btw) Trials are recuriting for this and other autoimmune diseases.
I hold Bush was correct in his '01 decision. If funding were available for all cryopreserved embryos at that time then new lines would be made with that technology and most would be contamined w/mouse feeder cells.
He issued EO13435 so that 1/2 of all IVF embryos could be available for federal funding, not just the scant few remaining after family building is complete.
EO13425 went beyond IVF embryos and included iPS and parthenotes. I've already discussed how iPS is exceeding expectations, but parthenotes have done a lot as well. They have low HLA requirements and could meet the stem cell needs of 1/2 the population. The University of Wuerzburg (Germany) has had great success creating neurons and working specifically on Parkinson's. Corneal epithelial cells are preparing for FDA clinical trials to improve photorefractive keratectomy. Their development of liver cells is highly regarded as well. Parthenote derived heart cells are visible on 'beating' on my website.
Bush's Administration released it's "White Paper" on these methods in 2005 - the Dem. rhetoric implies they were ignorant of them ... or just wanted their people to be.
Don't be stoopid. Keep government local and your mind open. Fact check and remember, Washington likes us enraged at one another as a misdirection so we don't notice what they're really doing (together).
Posted by: minerva | November 12, 2008 12:36 PM
Roe vs. Wade was bad law because there is no 'right to privacy' in the Constitution.
AMENDMENT IX. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
How many more times must this sentence be repeated before goose-steppers like Minerva get it through their thick skulls?
Posted by: Ray C. | November 12, 2008 12:50 PM
Raging Bee: ROFL I was thinking the same about the obviously Non-Republicans are who are posting here.
Conservatives aren't the ones crying, "Give us everything but the bill!"
They are the ones who never got why Robin Hood was a hero and doesn't believe the government should pillage. They recognize that the formula of philanthropy is A & B get together to force C to do something to benefit D (the gvt. is A&B and you, my friend, are C). The government should be nothing more than a loose configuration of people who agree to get along to protect themselves and their stuff; it should never take the power to do to your neighbor what you can't (you can't take $$$ from one and buy health care for another, for example).
Obama speeches are filled with what he wants to do for others - yet despite being a community organizer he averaged less than 1% in charitable contributions. In fact, from 2000 - 2004 he earned $1.2 million, and gave less than I do (total) than I do in just one year (and I earn abt. 30% what he does).
The Dems. sponsored bills to reinstate the draft HR 4752 (remember how in '04 they said Bush was going to do that if re-elected?). Then there's HR 393 which would " require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service"
Even their health plans lack freedom. Take H.R. 3163 - your 'opportunity' to have Healthy Americans Private Insurance (HAPI) quickly becomes your 'responsibility' to 'invest' and if you don't you face 'penalties'. This gem is called the Healthy American's Act. Coupled w/the 5% VAT on everything but housing and medical care (but yes on all services) to pay for the oversight. I am not HAPI.
Never forget who incarcerated 1500 in a few months just for disagreing with WW1 (Dem. Wilson) and Japanese-Americans in WWII (FDR, he commissioned the A-Bomb, and it was dropped by another).
And, hold onto your 401K's. Dem's now plan to take them over. Don't worry, though, "all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5% of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3% a year, adjusted for inflation ... The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated" Yep. 3% annually AND you're taxed on it! WOW!!! Thank you!!! I'd hate making 7% (closer to 15% averaged) tax free. I hear if you die, they get to keep 1/2! (vs. your heirs get to keep it all)
As always you would be given the 'opportunity' to be forced to give up choice (both into to what to invest and whether to invest) so the federal government can be in charge of your stuff. They do so good w/SS, too! Let's see, that's 6.2% from my payroll, and 6.2% from my employer + another 5% ... that's 17.4% of what I earn keeping pace w/inflation in the government's grip ... I means embrace.
Yeah, those stupid Republicans. They read stuff like http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the mottos, -- "That government is best which governs least" ... The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it ... the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool" Thoreau, "Civil Disobedience", 1849
"the less government we have, the better" - Ralph Waldo Emerson's "Politics", 1844
Posted by: Minerva | November 12, 2008 1:10 PM
Ray C: Explain how abortion is linked to a 'right to privacy' in a way owning any gun you want isn't.
Posted by: Minerva | November 12, 2008 1:20 PM
Yes! The less gov't we have the better! So get the hell outta my bedroom and family room!
Posted by: jws | November 12, 2008 1:40 PM
Minerva -
You have any citation for that? Because an LA Times article Ed quotes a couple of posts up says:But that's alright. Don't worry about facts, just keep parroting Rush's talking points.Posted by: Taz | November 12, 2008 2:57 PM
Minerva chanted: "Conservatives base their views on fact and liberals on theory. Between the two is a perfect medium."
Unadulterated bullshit mythology. Conservatives like to pretend they base their views on fact, but what they really do is base their views on the blind acceptance of assertions by their chosen authorities (Rush, Drudge), outright made up shit (Coulter), or speculate as to what the facts might be (as in, "If my guy did that you'd crucify him"), and pretend those are facts. I've dedicated quite a few articles on my blog to this very issue. Just search for "GOP", "Republican", "MSU" and "speculation", and watch what bullshit they consider facts. Nothing shuts a partisan Republican up like the simple question "Where did you hear that?"
Sorry Minerva, but as an escapee from the Republican cult, I know all the tricks, all the lines. It's all about as factual as the claim that Obama did nothing in his life but write two books, or that no transitional fossils exist. The GOP depends on its followers trusting their gut", and being too lazy to get the facts themselves. Sadly, they are often correct.
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 12, 2008 6:42 PM
For a great expose of Republican speculation masquerading as facts, look at Ed's article on Rush Limbaugh's mindless prattle about the "Obama recession". Nary a fact to be found. It's partisan ideological speculation, and nothing more.
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 12, 2008 7:47 PM
Obama speeches are filled with what he wants to do for others - yet despite being a community organizer he averaged less than 1% in charitable contributions.
Um...did it ever occur to you that his community organizing was a non-monetary charitable contribution? He wasn't exactly paid like a CEO for that work, y'know.
(Oh, and you haven't proven you gave more to charity than Obama; so you really can't pretend Obama's contributions give him less right to advocate his positions than you have to oppose them.)
And, hold onto your 401K's. Dem's now plan to take them over.
By repeating this lie, without even pretending to have a source to back it up, you just flushed the last of your credibility down the toilet, right after Sarah Palin's clothing allowance and her pretend understanding of foreign policy.
I HEARTILY ACCEPT the mottos, -- "That government is best which governs least" ...
So what do you have to say about a Republican regime that invaded a country that wasn't a threat to us, turned a budget surplus into yet another record-breaking deficit, and has since been doing nearly everything it can to undermine the Constitution and remove all limitations to executive power?
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 12, 2008 11:21 PM
Taz & Raging Bee: The 401K thing's in US News & World Report (online). Not a 'for sure' but on the table.
Also, it was a bad choice of words to say 'conservatives base on facts ...', when I meant concrete. If you read the whole quote you'll see left/right brain reference. The point was libs/conservatives think with different parts of their brains and should work together for solutions instead of just thinking the other side is stoopid.
A house divided against itself cannot stand - but can be well taken advantage of by people we put in power.
Drop the rage and read what I wrote. I'm not calling anyone stupid.
But I am calling us sheep.
Posted by: Minerva | November 14, 2008 6:17 AM
Raging Bee: Do you misquote by intention?
Obama gave under 1% in the 5 yrs. he made over $1,000,000. (Biden's a cheapo, too.)
He's a hypocrite to constantly say 'I'm going to give you ...' pretending he's all concerned about people's pocketbook and not reach into his own.
He is a pillager and we will face penalties if we don't do what he demands.
That is not freedom. That is not America.
Posted by: Raging Bee | November 14, 2008 6:34 AM
""States' rights" arguments make a useful litmus test for spotting authoritarian asshats. It's very telling to me that when I see "states' rights" invoked, it's almost invariably in conjunction with issues like abortion, gay marriage, sodomy laws, school prayer, and creationism in public schools - issues where the goal is to curtail individual rights."
To be fair, both left and right in the US believe passionately in the right of each US state to do things of which they approve and believe equally in the absolute right of the US federal government to intervene to stop the states doing thigns of which they disapprove.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 14, 2008 8:03 AM
Minerva - The "401K thing" has never been on the table. A guest speaking at a Committee hearing voiced his opinion, to date there no party or elected official has even floated a trial balloon for committee consideration, let alone a committee vote. You are gulliblily buying in to conservative rhetoric attempting to strike fear of liberals into the sheeple.
You also make a fallacy of balance argument with your liberal/conservative thinking with different parts of their brains claim. I am not disputing they don't, I'm disputing both positions deserve equal merit.
While I am neither a liberal or conservative, I have yet to find one conservative who can make coherent arguments using empirical data. It's all rhetoric and ideology with no record of success to back up the rhetoric. I write this as someone who proudly voted for Reagan and recognizes his successes and why they occurred - certainly not with conservative policies in play, and his failures - when he naively believed conservative policies would work at the start of his presidency, like supply side economics.
So while I disagree with liberals on many of their policy arguments, it's a respectful disagreement given their "best and brightest" make arguments that are for the most part made on solid premises. I can not respectfully disagree with uniquely conservative policy (unless it's merely borrowed from libertines (rare), libertarian, or liberal ideology). Even conservatives "best and brightest" fail, because I have yet to even see a solid uniquely conservative argument buttressed with empirical evidence such a policy has worked in an environment where conservatives were the power base employing such a policy, where the person making the argument also consistently makes honest arguments.
I am not saying conservatives are always wrong. I am saying I know of no conservatives who can make uniquely conservative arguments where those arguments were employed successfully in the past. Conservatives are prone to non-conservative policy just like liberals are prone to non-liberal policies, the best example of success by a conservative would be Reagan negotiating arms control with the USSR, a distinctly liberal policy position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | November 14, 2008 8:16 AM
Do you have any evidence at all for your left brain/right brain theory? Because there is certainly correlation between voting patterns and factors like economic level, education level, race, gender, geographic area, and the political ideology of parents. All those things would tend to indicate that environment is a much bigger factor.
The only thing I saw at the US N&WR was a columnist making a vague claim that the idea of taxing 401Ks was being floated in some liberal think tanks. It's a long way from there to your claim that "Dem's now plan to take them over". Fortunately, you had Rush to help you get there.
You keep arguing for some sort of bipartisan cooperation. The problem is, I haven't agreed with any point you've made.
Posted by: Taz | November 14, 2008 9:49 AM
The whole "those evul Democrats are going to take way your gun/401K/liberty/virginal white wimmenfolk" talking point sounds a little like the "Sarah said that Africa is a country" talking point. It turns out the latter was from a SATIRICAL youtube clip posted by some guy claiming to be/have an inside source in the Republican Party. No surprise that the media ran with it without fact checking first. Ah yes, The media keeping us 'informed'* as usual. ;) DJ
*Did I type that? I meant 'entertained', of course, silly Dingo, expecting actual journalism.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 14, 2008 10:12 AM
Posted by: Taz | November 14, 2008 11:27 AM
Taz: I don't listen to Rush.
New theory, please.
Posted by: Minerva | November 14, 2008 12:55 PM
Happy 100th Senator Joe McCarthy!
Posted by: Minerva | November 14, 2008 4:50 PM