By Dennis Byrne
PoliticalMavens.com
After a brilliant run, Sopranos creator David Chase dropped from exhaustion at the finish line.
The non-ending ending, in which nothing about the major characters is resolved, was quickly praised after the HBO’s acclaimed series ended Sunday night as brilliant and triumphant.
The praise is as deserving as cheers for the emperor who paraded around sans clothes. It’s as if Chase ran out of ideas, threw up his hands and told his viewers to “take it from here.” We could understand exhaustion as an explanation; the series was one of television’s most masterful.
But many reviewers indeed took it from there, hailing the ending’s ambiguity as a metaphor for, well, everything in life. As if there’s something creative about concluding that “life goes on.” Or not.
We already know that, from our own mundane, drab lives, and so we turn to the lamp keepers of the imagination—writers, artists, performers, producers—to fill in the blanks. Chase had done the job wonderfully and consistently over the years, so we expected much.
Just like other great epics and works of art, skillful endings often are what have made great works of art deserving the honorific, “classic.” Without the final movement, Ode to Joy, Beethoven’s Ninth would be merely great symphony instead of the masterpiece it is. I seem to recall that Shakespeare’s great plays had endings. Movies, books—most have endings too.
Read more at PoliticalMavens.com
Subscribe To The Barbershop.
Posts
All Comments
Monday, June 11, 2007
No place for politics in stem cell science
By Dennis Byrne
Chicago Tribune
Just as lawmakers around the nation, including Illinois, were rushing to spend millions of your tax dollars to kill human embryos for stem-cell research, they were undercut by some inconvenient and untimely news:
Scientists may have found a better way to create the immature, pluripotent stem cells that, by growing into healthy tissue to replace diseased cells, promise great advances in treating or curing some major human diseases.
As the Washington Post put it: "Three teams of scientists said ... they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem-cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade." Much work remains to be done before scientists can conclude that it will work with humans, but it bolsters the argument that there are more ethically pristine ways of creating stem cells without killing embryos.
Significant numbers of scientists believe that the less controversial route to creating stem cells is possible, but their voices have been drowned out by politicians who would have it that if you're opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you're a "right-wing nut" who opposes all stem cell research.
Sadly, the new stem cell discoveries are not likely to slow this runaway train. The House last week and the Senate earlier passed legislation that would expand federal embryonic stem cell funding, but President Bush has promised a veto and a congressional override is in doubt.
In Illinois, the legislature has approved funding, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich has promised to sign it. Democrats will see no reason to hold off on the propaganda blitz in favor of ESC, seeing as how its more extreme proponents have bamboozled the public into believing that the only way to create effective stem cells is through ESC research.
Successful uses of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells in various therapies are too numerous to recount here. It only needs to be said that ESC has not yet produced a single success, while non-ESC research has. Politics and ideological opportunism explain much (but certainly not all) of the insistence on federal funding of ESC research (even though there is no federal ban on private or state ESC funding.) Politics because too many people want to prove that Bush and persons concerned about the ethical implications of ESC would rather have people suffer and die. Ideology because they need to dump on the argument that human personhood begins at conception. (There's no argument that human life begins at conception; the argument is over when a human life becomes a person, endowed with human-rights protections.) In a word, the argument is about abortion.
ESC proponents will argue that whatever the successes of non-embryonic stem-cell research, such as that announced last week, it should not preclude embryonic research. The logic -- which is appealing -- is to proceed on all fronts and let the best technology win.
That, however, suggests that science has no room for ethical considerations. The consequence of accepting that premise is appalling; it would permanently end any discussion about the ethics of cloning, Josef Mengele's horrific experiments on Holocaust victims and all nuclear weapons research.
Understand what I'm saying before you reach for your keyboard: The science is unsettled about whether non-ESC research is as promising as or superior to the embryonic kind. But at this stage, the research tends to favor the non-ESC kind, in terms of proven advances and practicality. In these circumstances, it makes more sense to invest in the path that is less fraught with the kind of moral battles that tear at our fabric. Unless, you're more interested in scoring political points.
I'm also trying to say something more: The politicalization of science by the left to further its political goals ought to end. We've seen it with global warming (the science on whether we're causing it is not settled), the link between abortion and breast cancer (competent studies do show a possible relationship), and assertions that the over-the-counter Plan B contraceptive has no impact on the sexual behavior of young adolescents is without the support of a valid study.
Most of the public is illiterate enough when it comes to science. To compound it by twisting science for political purposes doesn't help.
Chicago Tribune
Just as lawmakers around the nation, including Illinois, were rushing to spend millions of your tax dollars to kill human embryos for stem-cell research, they were undercut by some inconvenient and untimely news:
Scientists may have found a better way to create the immature, pluripotent stem cells that, by growing into healthy tissue to replace diseased cells, promise great advances in treating or curing some major human diseases.
As the Washington Post put it: "Three teams of scientists said ... they had coaxed ordinary mouse skin cells to become what are effectively embryonic stem cells without creating or destroying embryos in the process -- an advance that, if it works with human cells, could revolutionize stem-cell research and quench one of the hottest bioethical controversies of the decade." Much work remains to be done before scientists can conclude that it will work with humans, but it bolsters the argument that there are more ethically pristine ways of creating stem cells without killing embryos.
Significant numbers of scientists believe that the less controversial route to creating stem cells is possible, but their voices have been drowned out by politicians who would have it that if you're opposed to embryonic stem cell research, you're a "right-wing nut" who opposes all stem cell research.
Sadly, the new stem cell discoveries are not likely to slow this runaway train. The House last week and the Senate earlier passed legislation that would expand federal embryonic stem cell funding, but President Bush has promised a veto and a congressional override is in doubt.
In Illinois, the legislature has approved funding, and Gov. Rod Blagojevich has promised to sign it. Democrats will see no reason to hold off on the propaganda blitz in favor of ESC, seeing as how its more extreme proponents have bamboozled the public into believing that the only way to create effective stem cells is through ESC research.
Successful uses of adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells in various therapies are too numerous to recount here. It only needs to be said that ESC has not yet produced a single success, while non-ESC research has. Politics and ideological opportunism explain much (but certainly not all) of the insistence on federal funding of ESC research (even though there is no federal ban on private or state ESC funding.) Politics because too many people want to prove that Bush and persons concerned about the ethical implications of ESC would rather have people suffer and die. Ideology because they need to dump on the argument that human personhood begins at conception. (There's no argument that human life begins at conception; the argument is over when a human life becomes a person, endowed with human-rights protections.) In a word, the argument is about abortion.
ESC proponents will argue that whatever the successes of non-embryonic stem-cell research, such as that announced last week, it should not preclude embryonic research. The logic -- which is appealing -- is to proceed on all fronts and let the best technology win.
That, however, suggests that science has no room for ethical considerations. The consequence of accepting that premise is appalling; it would permanently end any discussion about the ethics of cloning, Josef Mengele's horrific experiments on Holocaust victims and all nuclear weapons research.
Understand what I'm saying before you reach for your keyboard: The science is unsettled about whether non-ESC research is as promising as or superior to the embryonic kind. But at this stage, the research tends to favor the non-ESC kind, in terms of proven advances and practicality. In these circumstances, it makes more sense to invest in the path that is less fraught with the kind of moral battles that tear at our fabric. Unless, you're more interested in scoring political points.
I'm also trying to say something more: The politicalization of science by the left to further its political goals ought to end. We've seen it with global warming (the science on whether we're causing it is not settled), the link between abortion and breast cancer (competent studies do show a possible relationship), and assertions that the over-the-counter Plan B contraceptive has no impact on the sexual behavior of young adolescents is without the support of a valid study.
Most of the public is illiterate enough when it comes to science. To compound it by twisting science for political purposes doesn't help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)