Sunday, May 29, 2005

So, while in the waiting room for the neurologist on Friday, I picked up a Time and read it. Then I picked up a Newsweek and read it. As I was progressing to my second Time, the doctor finally came in to examine me. But during that seemingly endless period of waiting, I found a link to Ariana Huffington's brand new blog.

Now, I know that political blogging is the biggest thing since sliced bread. I've read a couple, but I'm not a politically minded person -- I spend more time reading about camera lenses, cars, and Hollywood gossip. I like getting my news from official news sources (like the Guardian, the Economist, BBC News, etc.) without the extreme bias of an internet op-ed. However, I decided to visit Ms. Huffington's site on a whim. And one of the contributing articles had the following quote:

The religious right’s position on embryonic stem cell research is clear: consign Alzheimer's and Parkinson's sufferers to death on the off chance that a blastocyst will crawl out of the garbage pail to work the breakfast shift at Burger King.

I literally laughed out loud when I read this. This quote captures the idiocy of a vocal contingent (Christian Coalition) of the modern American political arena... but the manner in which it's delivered? Wow, that's harsh. I don't feel like elaborating on the subject; to be honest, my emotional involvement tampers with my ability to logically debate this subject. (I learned this in a French conversation class, of all places.) Stem cell research is a cause near to my heart. I watched both of my grandmothers suffer from Alzheimer's. I saw my beloved grandfather shake relentlessly from Parkinson's. And there's a high probability that my parents will have similar health issues in the future. I highly support any kind of research that might prevent my parents from going through the same type of torture.

I read through many of the entries on the website. And for some reason, I was reminded of a Daily Trojan article that my friend Brian wrote about the demise of the "Ann Coulter Can Eat a Fat Dick and Choke On It" facebook group. I started feeling curious about Ann Coulter's specific views. Why does she inspire so much hatred? I knew she was a conservative commentator, but not much more than that... so I did a bit of a search. My opinions of Ann Coulter are about the same as any left-leaning moderate Democrat. She's rather vile, in the same vein as Rush Limbaugh and Michael Moore. I enjoyed reading about Barack Obama a lot more than the blond media darling.

And in the midst of this Wikipedia link clicking fest, I found a fabulous blog of a conservative that I can respect. Andrew Sullivan is a gay, Catholic conservative. Who can write. Extremely well. And I'm now addicted to reading through his archives. While I may not agree with his entire agenda (especially in regards to federal funding of embryonic stem cell research), I'm impressed by the eloquence and clarity of his articles. For example, this was posted on Thursday, May 26th.

BUSH'S VETO: In my view, he's right to veto federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. There is a very clear principle here: do you take life to save lives? My conviction is that you don't, and that the human life in embryonic form is still human life. The idea of cloning embryos to experiment on them is morally repugnant; equally, using left-over, frozen embryos for the same purpose is using human beings as means, not ends. If that isn't a clear, moral line, then I don't know what is. My own religious faith in the dignity of human life is not necessary to support this argument, whatever the NYT says. We're all humans; whatever we believe about our origins or destiny, we can all agree that each of us deserves to be treated as ends in ourselves, not material for others' benefit. If we cede that principle, then we will slide (and have already slid) toward hideous forms of eugenics. Now I know many people disagree. But the pragmatic arguments they deploy - these embryos will be destroyed or kept in limbo anyway, they're teensy-weensy - don't circumvent the deeper moral issue. The only logical justification is an entirely utilitarian one, in which the use of "lesser" humans for the benefit of more developed ones is justified. But this begs an important question: in our society, there is no fundamental moral consensus any more, especially on contentious issues like these. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the government should remain as neutral as possible between moral claims. The NYT interprets neutrality as funding embryonic stem cell research. That's a funny form of neutrality. In this case, the president has carved out a policy that is, indeed, about as neutral as it could be. If the private sector wants to pursue this course, it can; if individual states want to, ditto. But no American taxpayer should be required to fund from her own dollars what she regards as a moral outrage. Keep the feds out of it. Let the states and private sector do as they will. [Bold is my addition.]

Succinct, fair, and informed. I can respect his views. And I've bookmarked Andrew Sullivan. That's quite an accomplishment for someone who doesn't care about politics.

By the way, I just upgraded to Photoshop CS2. Wee! It's so shiny and pretty! I'm still reading through the manual, but look forward to seeing some more photo manipulations from me.