October 29, 2006
Michael J Fox Ads
Instapundit linked to this ad where Michael Steele fights back.
He is using the victim of a terrible disease to frighten people, all for his own political gain.
I was pretty disappointed with the Michael J Fox ads supporting Ben Cardin and Claire McCaskill. C'est la guerre, I suppose, but like so many celebrity activists, Fox has fastened onto a single issue with partisan effects.
Where the hell are these people when a Democratic VP candidate swears "they will fight the drug companies" and where are they when price controls, additional regulation, drug importing, and a non-friendly-to-Pharma FDA are discussed?
As an MS patient, embryonic stem cells might offer some hope (not that the FDA would let me have a cure were it discovered tomorrow) and, like many on this blog, I would not have a huge problem allowing Federal funding of research.
As all the lefties of the world line up to support something just because President Bush has set boundaries for it, all promising research in the world is put at risk by rapacious tort lawyers and a sclerotic FDA bureaucracy. Yet I am not expecting to see Ed Asner and Rob Reiner sing "We are the Pharma" even though that's where the real hope lies.
Count two MS patients for Steele!.
UPDATE: Deja vu all over again. On October 6, 2004 I made Taranto's Best Of The Web with a post that included Michael J Fox, politics, pharmaceutical companies, Sen. Edwards's vow to "fight the drug companies," and even the word hell.
Pharmaceuticals Posted by jk at October 29, 2006 12:59 PM
Federal funding of research? What about dem dere "market forces?"
Posted by: johngalt at October 30, 2006 3:24 PMI might oppose it as Federal Funding qua Federal Funding. I was conceding that I am not morally opposed to ESC research.
Didn't we just do this with me on the other side? Who are you and what have you done with JohnGalt?
Posted by: jk at October 30, 2006 4:35 PMHas johngalt ever endorsed federal funding of anything other than national defense, or ever opposed any free scientific inquiry? Point me to the instance and I'll correct it!
Posted by: johngalt at October 31, 2006 2:51 PMNot exactly. But on July 19, we did seem to be in different corners: http://www.threesources.com/archives/003126.html
jk: Unclench your jaw my friend. This issue is complex. I am guessing that we are on the same side in a way. Using a pro-life argument to block scientific research rubs me the wrong way, and I'm guessing that is what disturbs you.
On the other hand, kimosabe, we are talking about Federal funding of research. Private companies can do what they want. Applying limits to Federal Funding seems very legitimate even if don't happen to agree with the reason. I'll allow you to make the case for Federal funding.
jg: Well done on the Federal funding angle, but even an Objectivist (notice the absence of the curious term "Randian") must be practical. Unlike the president, when I take it upon myself to dismantle the present practice of Federal funding of research I will not start with the branch of human biotechnology that holds the greatest promise for the future of humanity since penicillin.
jk: So's your old man...
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2006 4:28 PM“Randian” was used in Whittaker Chambers’s 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged in National Review (He didn’t like it). http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp
Jonah Goldberg has kept it in currency. I, for one, would call myself a Randian but not an Objectivist.
Posted by: jk at October 31, 2006 4:33 PM | What do you think? [5]