Thursday, August 21, 2003

Tank McNamara On Kobe Bryant (& Us)



Tank McNamara constantly refers to ESU (Enormous State University) where the administration tries to put spin on the arrests and bad publicity accompanying the win at any cost ethic. OJ Simpson as a commentator on Fox? On CourtTV? After Pete Rose was invited to Amarillo by the Amarillo Young Men's Christian Association, the apocalypse is upon us. Bring 'em on!

The faculty at Baylor University has scheduled a vote of confidence in President Robert Sloan, Jr. next week. I hope they run the sorry sumbitch out of McLennan County. HE hired the AD who hired Dave Bliss. Clean house! Bliss' administrative assistant tried to blow the whistle and was threated with her job by the AD. Then, the Board of Trustees needs to search its soul and ask itself if the largest Baptist university in the world has any business with the ESUs of the Big 12. Coach Bob Stoops (University of Oklahoma) reinstated his starting strong safety after charges were dismissed (possession of marijuana) because of faulty evidence. The player has to sit out one game. Perhaps Coach Jim Calvin was ahead of his time at Amarillo College: clearing the cells of the Kentucky penitentiary system of hoopsters.

I am reminded of the booster — Big Ed Bookman — in Dan Jenkins' Semi-Tough. In the recruiting campaign for a hotshot Texas high school running back, Big Ed instructed the coaching staff at ESU (whatever) to promise the recruit that he would have his own 7-11 convenience store. He can rob the sumbitch as often as he wants while he's playin' for us!

No confidence in President Robert Sloan, Jr.!

If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.

You Are What You Eat

I want to outlive W. Somehow, things have to get better. If I am to do that, I need to pay attention to my diet. Here is a healthful rave for 10 keys foods to include in your everyday diet.


  1. Peanut Butter/Avoid Diabetes & Heart Disease
  2. Avocado/Neutralize Heart Risk
  3. Chili Peppers/Burn Calories
  4. Watermelon/Avoid Prostate Problems
  5. Whole-Grain Cereal/Protect the Heart
  6. Blueberries/Boost Immune System
  7. Apples/Protect Lungs
  8. Salmon/Benefits Heart & Prostate
  9. Eggs/Fight Eye Disease & Cholesterol
  10. Tumeric/Fights Cancer & Pain & Swelling


(Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves is not just dedicated to treason. Holistic health is fair game, too. If this be good nutrition, make the most of it.




[x Modern Maturity]

10 Power Foods

Don’t be fooled by their mild-mannered appearance. These 10 tasty choices are secret sources of health and energy.

By Sid Kirchheimer

If Mom had her own food pyramid, chances are her homemade chicken soup would be at the very top. When we were kids, a steaming bowl of the stuff was the cure for just about anything, from a cold to a splinter. And, whether because we all simply believed that it possessed healing power or because somewhere deep down in the chemistry of Mom's soup lurked an actual curative agent, somehow it seemed to work.

Today, we know a good deal more than Mom did about the mysterious world of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, and all the other microscopic ingredients that make some foods better for you than others. Plus, scientists and nutritionists are continually revealing even more secret sources of health and energy. What have they discovered recently? Only that hidden beneath the otherwise ordinary surfaces of some everyday foods operate agents of robust health that render them even more potent than, well, Mom's chicken soup. Included among them are the following 10 supercharged foods that pay bigger benefits than you may have ever suspected. So, wipe that knowing smile off your face and prepare to be surprised.

Peanut Butter

Combats diabetes, heart disease

In addition to sticking to the roof of your mouth, this school lunchbox staple may help stick it to two of the biggest health threats to aging Americans—diabetes and heart disease. Last November, Harvard researchers reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association that women who ate peanut butter or other forms of nuts at least five times a week lowered their risk of diabetes by 21 percent compared to those who didn't. This, thanks to the hefty amounts of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats in nut products. These good-for-you fats improve glucose and insulin stability, as well as protect against heart disease, says researcher Rui Jiang, M.D.

Another good thing about peanuts (and all kinds of nuts, for that matter): They're good sources of fiber, says Christine Rosenbloom, Ph.D., a nutritionist at Georgia State University. The soluble fiber in peanuts helps control blood glucose and prevents dietary fat and cholesterol from entering the bloodstream, while insoluble fiber helps speed food through your digestive track, keeping you regular. Nuts are also loaded with the amino acid arginine, which may help relax blood vessels for better blood pressure control.

May we suggest "Aim for a daily tablespoon of peanut butter or one ounce of nuts—enough to fill a shot glass or a regular handful," advises Rosenbloom.

Avocado

Neutralizes heart risks

Like peanut butter, avocado packs plenty of fat per serving, but also like peanut butter, most of the fat is the good unsaturated kind. At only 160 calories, a half avocado—the typical serving—also has the same amount of fiber as one slice of whole wheat toast. It also provides vitamin C and vitamin B6, and about one-third of your daily requirement of folate, a nutrient that helps neutralize excess levels of heart attack-causing homocysteine.

May we suggest Use it in place of spreads like butter or mayonnaise. Tip: The green, smooth-skinned Florida avocados have less fat and fewer calories than the smaller, rough-skinned California kind.

Chili Peppers

Burn calories

The "hot" in chili peppers—an ingredient called capsaicin—is an effective weight-loss tool. Not only does eating peppers suppress appetite so you eat less—studies show that people eat fewer calories in a meal that typically includes chili, cayenne, or other types of "hot" peppers—but peppers also rev up metabolism, so you burn more calories even when you're not exercising. Capsaicin can also relieve sinus congestion by stimulating mucous membrane secretions.

At only four calories per tablespoon, chili peppers also provide one-third of the daily recommendation for vitamin C, 10 percent of vitamin A, and several other antioxidants. (Think of antioxidants as the Delta Force of nutritional soldiers, flushing out destructive oxygen molecules responsible for some of the ravages of aging.)

May we suggest Keep some red pepper powder handy, and get in the habit of adding a pinch to soups, omelets, and sauces.

Watermelon

Aids prostate health

Tomatoes get the headlines for their protective effect against prostate cancer, but this picnic classic actually does the job better. Ounce for ounce, watermelon contains 40 percent more of the active cancer-fighting compound lycopene than tomatoes, says David Kiefer, M.D., a fellow at The University of Arizona's Program in Integrative Medicine, headed by alternative medicine guru Andrew Weil, M.D. Not only is lycopene crucial in overall prostate health, but other studies suggest it may block the plaque buildup in your arteries that can lead to heart attack. And it may help to offset some of the cellular damage caused by environmental pollutants, bad diet, and even aging—which may lead to cancer, as well as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and arthritis.

May we suggest Serve it as a side dish with fish or chicken and rice, or try it for breakfast served with whole-grain muffins.

Whole-Grain Cereal

Protects the heart

Breakfast each morning is a smart idea: Daily breakfast eaters are nearly half as likely to get heart disease or diabetes, or to become obese, as those who skip the morning meal, according to research presented at an American Heart Association meeting in March. This 10-year study examined only the importance of breakfast, but previous trials by the same Harvard researchers suggest that you'll fare best when that breakfast includes a bowl of whole-grain cereal. Why? It fills you up so you eat less throughout the day, stabilizes blood sugar, and has a higher concentration of fiber than most other foods, says study author and nutritionist Linda Van Horn, Ph.D., of Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine.

The soluble fiber in whole-grain cereals forms a gel-like material in intestines that prevents cholesterol and saturated fats from entering the bloodstream and also plays a beneficial role in metabolizing blood sugars. Meanwhile, the insoluble fiber in whole grains keeps you regular, so excreted carcinogens pass more quickly through your intestines—which may prevent colorectal cancer. And because these cereals are typically fortified, they also contain hefty amounts of vitamins C and B6 and iron, as well as folic acid and various phytochemicals that protect against heart disease and possibly some other cancers.

May we suggest Read labels to ensure that whole grains are listed as the first ingredients and that the cereal contains at least two grams of fiber per serving. And watch the sugar content. (Less than three grams is recommended.) Bran cereals can contain the most fiber of all whole-grain choices, up to eight grams per serving.

Blueberries

Boost immunity

The best topping for your cereal—or any other meal? Blueberries, according to researchers at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University. They tested almost 40 different fruits and vegetables—and found that this tiny fruit packs in the most antioxidant power. In fact, in only one-half cup, you can get twice as many antioxidant nutrients as most Americans consume in an entire day, says lead researcher Ronald Prior, Ph.D. That serving also delivers a mere 40 calories, virtually no fat, a hefty amount of vitamin C, and nearly two grams of fiber.

May we suggest Don't just think of blueberries for cereal or pie. Blueberries are a sweet surprise in salads, as a solo snack, or served as a side dish with poultry and meat.

Apples

Protect lungs

No surprise that apples make this list. But chances are you never knew that eating an apple a day is particularly good for your lungs, all the more so if you smoke. In a study presented before the American Thoracic Society, British researchers said that apples were more effective than other fruits and vegetables in reducing the risk of developing serious disease, including lung cancer. In another study, Dutch scientists found that smokers who ate an apple a day were half as likely to develop chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), an umbrella term for emphysema and chronic bronchitis.

But apples aren't just for smokers. They're a genuine nutritional treasure: An apple contains only 81 calories, with almost no fat and three grams of fiber—including a type called pectin that helps lower cholesterol levels and moderate blood sugar—says Rosenbloom. It also contains hefty amounts of boron, a mineral believed to boost alertness and help curb calcium losses that lead to osteoporosis.

May we suggest An apple and cheese snack is smart as well as tasty. Cheeses, such as gouda, mozzarella, or cheddar in particular, may counteract the sugars in apples that could lead to tooth decay.

Salmon

Benefits the prostate and heart

The overall health-boosting, heart-smart benefits of this cold-water fish—along with mackerel, sardines, and herring—are well established. But bet you didn't know that salmon may help fight prostate cancer. In a 12-year study published in January in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, researchers from Harvard Medical School and the National Cancer Institute discovered that men who eat fish, including salmon, more than three times a week were less likely to develop prostate cancer.

Most of the health-boosting credit in salmon goes to its treasure chest of omega-3 fatty acids, which also regulate depression and other mood disorders and are believed to reduce arthritis pain. "The acids in salmon and other fish help fight inflammation, so they are good for aches and pains," says Kiefer. Other studies show frequent fish consumption may protect against Alzheimer's.

May we suggest Canned pink salmon has the highest amounts of omega-3s—but also the most salt. Sockeye salmon has the most vitamin B12, important for nerves and blood cells.

Eggs

Fight eye disease, lower (!) cholesterol

Eggs will surprise you. Did you know eating them can help prevent heart and eye disease? "Eggs have gotten a bad rap; they're actually one of the best overall food sources available," says Rosenbloom. "They're very low in saturated fats and provide a lot of important nutrients. And the yolk is among the very best sources of lutein, an antioxidant that may help prevent age-related macular degeneration."

But what about that cholesterol matter? Granted, a yolk has 213 milligrams of cholesterol—two-thirds of the recommended daily value—but newer research finds that it also contains phosphatidylcholine, which in lab animals decreased the absorption of dietary cholesterol contained in eggs into the bloodstream. In fact, a landmark study on 38,000 men in The Journal of the American Medical Association, part of the ongoing Health Professionals Follow-Up Study, concluded that eating one egg each day is "unlikely" to play any role in heart disease.

May we suggest Oh, the possibilities. But since spinach is another rich source of vision-protecting lutein, how about eggs Florentine?

Turmeric

Fights cancer, eases pain and swelling

Fabled as the spice that lends zing and yellow color to curries and mustard, turmeric also provides numerous health benefits. Besides helping to ease arthritis, and muscle and postoperative pain and swelling—without the side effects of pain medications—it may also act as a cancer-fighting agent.

The healing power of turmeric comes from its active ingredient—curcumin. In a study published last September in the medical journal Blood, researchers found that adding curcumin to cancer cells suppressed most of them and stopped others from spreading. More recent research on laboratory animals has shown that eating curcumin may protect skin during cancer radiation treatments.

May we suggest No, we're not going to ask you to gobble this spice by the spoonful or whip up a curry every evening. But you might get in the habit of keeping a container within easy reach and using it occasionally to replace some of the salt and pepper in your cooking.

Sid Kirchheimer has written 13 health books, including the bestselling The Doctors Book of Home Remedies II.

Copyright © 2003, AARP.

Strange Bedfellows on Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Wow! Nancy Reagan in this Blog!?! As John Dos Passos said (according to my old prof, Bob Richards — not the pole vaulter — in the course: "Individualism in America" at the University of Denver): It is all a matter of whose ox is being gored. Nancy Reagan is an Althzeimer's widow; her husband — still alive — is dead to her, for all purposes. Mrs. Reagan has taken on W. If you want bad science, listen to W. If you want bad anything, listen to W. Nancy Reagan has joined Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in this fight. W has sold his soul to the Protestant Right. I feel kinship with Mrs. Reagan. My 85-year-old mother has lost the sight in her left eye due to the worst type of Macular Degeneration. She has been transformed into a frail, frightened, old lady. She lives with the possibility that she will awaken (as she did with the left eye) with a black blob in her remaining sighted eye. Will unrestricted stem cell research help her? No. But, it might help me. Macular Degeneration likely is hereditary. My optometrist proclaimed that he saw signs of MD during my last eye exam. I wonder if W would change his position on stem cell research if Bush I (Poppy) or Barbara woke up blind with an incurable eye disease with present technology? Nah. W is nothing, if not stupid.

Speaking of stupidity, W has gathered all of the dumbass governors he knew as peers into his administration. Tommy Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services? Tom Ridge, Secretary of Homeland Security? My hope: Bush will name Governor Goodhair (Perry) as Secretary of Agriculture. Goodhair went to Texas A&M. Surprise, surprise. Goodhair is going to call another special session of the Legislature to take up redistricting. He has the intellect to join W. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.


[x Modern Maturity]

Nancy’s Stand

As Alzheimer’s ravages her husband’s mind, the former first lady wages a stealth campaign to open the gates of stem cell research

By Wil S. Hylton

Most people don't think of Nancy Reagan as a rabble-rouser. Few would put her in the category of fiery first ladies, with Hillary and Eleanor and Abigail. She was always more of the demure type, subdued in the shadow of her husband. We picture her at the '81 inauguration, poised beside her Ronnie in a little red Adolfo suit, with her shoulders pricked up, her face tilted deferentially downward, smiling with her mouth closed. That was the image Nancy projected: silent and mannered, proper and discreet. Even on the occasions when she did speak in public, it was never about an issue of much debate. Who among us doesn't support breast cancer research? Who objects when children "just say no" to drugs? Certainly nobody on either side of the Congressional aisle—and her public agenda seemed careful to avoid controversy.

So it came as some surprise when the former first lady threw her weight into the political battle over stem cell research two years ago, positioning herself in favor of experiments on human embryos and against the Bush Administration's severe regulation of them. Suddenly, Mrs. R had a voice of her own, and it wasn't reciting the party line. In fact, by rejecting the argument that embryos have a right to life, she even seemed to challenge her husband's opposition to abortion. Not that she was eager to say anything so brash in front of a television camera; on the contrary, as she conveyed to me recently through a spokesperson, she doesn't have the time or inclination for public grandstanding. Her life is consumed these days by the care of her husband, whose Alzheimer's has become so severe that he no longer seems to recognize her.

Still, somewhere between his shadow and the spotlight, Mrs. Reagan planted her feet and took a stand, and in a series of carefully placed phone calls and high-level meetings, she has promoted her case relentlessly, pressuring lawmakers to enact legislation that would encourage embryonic stem cell research. By doing so, activists say, she has quickly become one of the most important sub rosa advocates of the science.

"Mrs. Reagan's support demonstrates that this issue is not about ideology, but about helping find cures and treatments," says Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who has been a vocal proponent of the research.

Those who oppose the research are somewhat disheartened by the former first lady's commitment. "It's unfortunate that Mrs. Reagan feels this way," says Tara Seyfer of the Culture of Life Foundation. "It's inconsistent with the things that she and her husband have stood for."

But a closer look at Mrs. Reagan's life reveals a pattern of backstage maneuvering, sometimes for causes that were more liberal than you might expect. During her husband's administration, in particular, she wielded an unseen power that rivaled the influence of even the most active first ladies. From her position at the president's side, she encouraged major cabinet and staff changes, including the departures of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and CIA Director William Casey. She encouraged him to install more moderate thinkers in the brain trust and controlled critical decisions about the administration's schedule and public relations, reportedly placing a three-month moratorium on her husband's public appearances during the Iran-Contra scandal. In many ways, she also functioned as the president's most intimate counsel, providing, as he once wrote, "the light of understanding to [my] darkened, obtuse mind." And if her quiet wisdom gave Mr. Reagan a safe haven from the political arena, he gave her access to it, providing her with a back door for her opinions to enter the public sphere. As she revealed in her 1989 autobiography, My Turn: The Memoirs of Nancy Reagan (Random House), "For eight years I was sleeping with the president, and if that doesn't give you special access, I don't know what does! I gave Ronnie my best advice whenever he asked for it, and sometimes when he didn't." Now that access is gone, however. With Mr. Reagan's departure from the national stage, Mrs. Reagan can no longer rely on his natural eloquence to convey her point of view to the public. So it may have been inevitable that, one day, fired up by an opinion and eager to express it, she would reach out to elected officials, reentering the national conversation and securing a place once again to influence public policy. Especially if she believed that her influence might save others from her husband's plight.

So what is it about stem cells that got Mrs. Reagan so excited? Their nearly boundless potential to heal.

In broad strokes, it works like this: Your whole body is made up of cells. Think of them as building materials. You have many types of them, like bricks, and lumber, and drywall. That is, the cells that make up your skin are different from the cells that make up your bones, which are different from the cells in your lungs, and so on. Now imagine that the cells in one part of your body are damaged. Doesn't matter how they got that way. Doesn't matter if it's cancer or a car accident. Let's just say they need to be replaced. Unfortunately, there's no obvious place to get new cells. You can't just go to the hardware store and stock up. What you have to do, instead, is make some new cells. That's where your stem cells come in. Think of your stem cells as a source of raw materials—the timber that becomes lumber or the clay that becomes a brick. They can be found right next to your other cells, buried in your tissues, but they are not like your other cells because they can replicate and make new cells. Scientists are researching ways to extract a stem cell, put it into a culture, replicate it several times until there's a larger mass of new cells, and then transplant those new cells back into your body to replace the damaged ones. Because the cells are duplicates of your own, they will be a perfect genetic match and will transplant without risk of rejection.

Simple, right? A big catch: There's a limit to the number of cells you can generate that way. You see, most adult stem cells can double only a few times in culture. So if you don't need a lot of new cells, you're in good shape. You just start with a few stem cells and get going. But if you need, say, a few thousand new cells, or a million, or a billion (the number required for, say, a major organ repair), well, you're out of luck. That's when you just might need embryonic stem cells.

What differentiates an embryonic stem cell from an adult stem cell is pretty straightforward: The embryonic stem cell is extracted from an embryo, usually about five days old. This is done for two reasons: Number one, embryonic stem cells can reproduce indefinitely, so you can make as many spare bricks or two-by-fours as you want. You just put the embryonic cells into a culture and wait until you have enough new cells. You've got an unlimited supply, so you never have to worry about running out. Needless to say, scientists like the sound of that. Just like everybody else in the universe, they'd rather have an unlimited resource than a limited one. But the second reason embryonic stem cells are harvested is even more compelling: An embryonic stem cell is capable of turning into any other type of cell. So, whereas a stem cell taken from your skin could be used to make new skin cells, you couldn't use those same stem cells to produce, say, new brain cells. You'd have to get brain tissue to do that, but the adult brain stem cells are too rare to make that practical. Or you could just make new brain cells from an embryonic stem cell. Or new spinal cord cells. Or virtually any other type of cells. They wouldn't be your own cells because you're not an embryo anymore, so there'd be a higher chance of transplant rejection—but as with other transplants, the benefits might outweigh the risks. Scientists don't yet know how to instruct embryonic stem cells to turn into one cell type or another, but they're getting closer.

The reason embryonic stem cells are so much more flexible than adult cells is that they haven't yet become any particular cell type. In other words, they are young and easy to manipulate, while adult stem cells are older and more set in their ways. So you could, at least hypothetically, use an embryonic stem cell to repair a damaged cornea, a spinal-cord injury like Christopher Reeve's, or even a brain disease like Parkinson's or Huntington's or Ronald Reagan's Alzheimer's. Anytime cells have been damaged or destroyed, embryonic stem cells offer the hope of generating new, flawless replacements.

In the summer of 2002, this distinction between embryonic and adult stem cells was so clear, and the advantage of using embryonic cells so obvious, that the debate over stem cell research was rarely a matter of scientific disagreement. For the most part, scientists from all political perspectives could agree that embryonic stem cells were a vastly superior research tool. The debate was focused instead on whether it was morally acceptable to use them. After all, although it's possible to remove some types of adult stem cell without causing any significant damage to the donor, embryos are so small and so vulnerable that taking a mere 30 stem cells from them is taking nearly half of their total mass. As such, it's guaranteed to kill them. Needless to say, this raises the stakes of the debate. Anybody who believes that an embryo is a human being isn't likely to approve of killing one. On the other hand, people who support the research point out that embryonic stem cells are taken from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization, so they would have been killed anyway. As Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a prominent Republican supporter of the research, puts it, a discarded embryo is "not on its way to life."

It was in this climate of awkward ethical nuance that a rift of passions began to develop in the Republican Party, beginning a few years ago and finding expression in a Senate hearing during April of 2000, when Specter squared off against the more conservative Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas.

"You are taking live human embryos," Brownback protested. "You had the Nazis in World War II saying of these people, 'They are going to be killed. Why do we not experiment on them and find out what happens with these experiments? They are going to die anyway.' "

"But they were living people," Specter insisted.

"These are living embryos!" said Brownback.

Struggling to find some middle ground between the two camps, George W. Bush quickly found himself in a personal and political gantlet. One thing was clear to him: In his heart (as well as his core constituency), there was moral certainty that killing embryos was wrong. On the other hand, he also knew that scientists had already begun to culture cells from embryos. In the cases of those cell colonies, or "cell lines," the damage was already done—the embryos were no longer alive to defend. To Bush, that made the issue more difficult to decide. Was it more important for him to approve the use of those cell lines, so the public could benefit from them? Or should he, as President, set a moral standard and prevent government scientists from using such methods? The decision tore at Bush's conscience, perhaps more than any other issue in his presidency, including war. In the end, he decided that the research was too promising to bypass, and in August of 2001 he granted government-funded scientists the right to work with all existing embryonic cell lines. But he stipulated that they could not develop any new embryonic lines. (At the time, Bush believed there were more than 60 cell lines available for government research—the number has since been revised down to a dozen.)

If it seemed like a fair compromise to many folks, it felt like defeat to many people in Nancy Reagan's camp. Most scientists in favor of embryonic research insist that the existing cell lines aren't nearly adequate to explore the full range of research possibilities. For that, scientists would need hundreds, maybe thousands, of different stem cell lines. Among other things, a larger variety of cell lines would give transplant recipients a better chance of finding a donor with their genetic type.

But even as Mrs. Reagan launched a campaign to change the President's mind, even as she visited the White House last summer, lodging in the Queen's Bedroom and, according to The New York Times, lobbying Chief of Staff Andrew Card for his help on the issue, a group of stem cell scientists in Minnesota was unwittingly working against her. At the Stem Cell Institute at the University of Minnesota, a team of researchers led by Catherine Verfaillie, M.D., announced a critical discovery in June: Working with adult bone-marrow stem cells in mice, they were able to achieve nearly the flexibility of embryonic stem cells. That is, the bone-marrow stem cells divided more than a hundred times, and they could morph into a tremendous variety of cell types, including muscle cells, liver cells, bone cells, cartilage cells, and neurons, or brain cells. Suddenly, Mrs. Reagan's campaign looked a little less necessary. While she remained convinced that all stem cell research should go forward, the discovery was so promising, and made the new bone-marrow cells appear so fruitful, that even some of Mrs. Reagan's supporters were beginning to wonder: If adult stem cells are just as good, then why use embryos at all?


Fortunately for Mrs. Reagan, pressure never got her down. On the contrary, her persistence is legendary, and in earlier years it may even have won her husband's heart. As Ronald Reagan remembered in a letter to her on their 29th wedding anniversary, "Beginning in 1951, Nancy Davis, seeing the plight of a lonely man who didn't know how lonely he really was, determined to rescue him from a completely empty life. Refusing to be rebuffed by a certain amount of stupidity on his part, she ignored his somewhat slow response." Perseverance, then, was the mother of romance.

Perhaps her iron will stemmed from childhood. The only daughter of a soon-to-be-divorced actress, she was born in the early 1920s in New York City (she claims not to know her age) and spent the first two years of her life traveling with her mother to small stages around the country. When the traveling became burdensome, her mother dropped her off at an aunt's house in Maryland, where young Nancy lived for six years, surviving a nearly fatal case of double pneumonia along the way. When her mother finally reclaimed the child, she was engaged to Loyal Davis, a man whom Nancy had never met. The three of them promptly set off for Chicago, where Nancy had no friends and quickly discovered that she didn't like her stepfather very much. (It would be another 20 years before she felt comfortable enough to stop calling him "Dr. Loyal.") After college, Nancy moved to New York, fooled around with stage acting a while, and wound up on a TV show called Broken Dishes. There, she was spotted by a big shot at MGM, who arranged for her to visit California for a screen test.

That was her big break. Before she knew it, she had found her way onto the payroll at MGM, alongside such stars as Fred Astaire, Judy Garland, and Elizabeth Taylor, ritzing through the finest parties with Loretta Young and Vivien Leigh. She had her own dressing room on the studio lot, and when she visited Radio City Music Hall for the premiere of her first starring role, The Next Voice You Hear, her name appeared in giant letters on the marquee over Sixth Avenue. But when her name appeared in a local newspaper in 1949, on a list of Communist sympathizers (thanks to another, more left-leaning actress who happened to share her name), Nancy reached out to the president of the Screen Actors Guild, Ronald Reagan. He quickly invited her out on a date so they could discuss the matter. In the following two years, he cleared her name, got her pregnant, and then married her. She gave up acting in the early 1950s to become a full-time mother, but let Ronnie know, in no uncertain terms, that she wasn't about to start cooking or cleaning, which, by her own account, she never did.

Even in the 1960s, when Ronnie's taste for politics took him beyond the Screen Actors Guild into the California governor's mansion, Nancy insisted on being far more than a tagalong wife. As an unnamed source revealed to the author Anne Edwards in the book The Reagans: Portrait of a Marriage (St. Martin's Press, 2003), "Nancy had her own little 'secret service' going. We called it NBI—Nancy's Bureau of Investigation. She was always on the lookout for people who she thought were not giving their all to Reagan, or who she thought were duplicitous, and who she simply did not like or trust."

Later, when she arrived at the White House in 1981, she made an unmistakable mark on those around her. It was an open secret, for example, that she helped orchestrate the resignation of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1987, mostly because of his hard-line approach to the Soviet Union. As Colin Powell explained it in his autobiography, My American Journey (Ballantine, 1996), "He still had the President's personal loyalty, but Weinberger's standing with Nancy Reagan, never strong, had continued to slip, no small setback in this Administration. The pragmatic first lady viewed Weinberger, with his unrelenting hostility toward the Soviet Union, as swimming against the tide. In the chronic Weinberger-[Secretary of State George] Shultz feud, she increasingly took Shultz's side—which pained Weinberger. He was enough of a performer to recognize an exit line. He asked the President to relieve him as Secretary of Defense." Similarly, according to Bob Woodward in the book Shadow: Five Presidents and the Legacy of Watergate (Touchstone, 2000), Mrs. Reagan almost single-handedly (and for unclear reasons) forced the resignation of CIA Director William Casey during the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987. And in her own memoirs, she describes her struggle, and ultimate victory, in removing Donald Regan from the position of chief of staff a few weeks later.

So perhaps it was predictable that, when the Minnesota laboratory announced its success with bone-marrow stem cells, Nancy Reagan would take this latest pressure in stride. Rather than reduce her commitment to the cause of embryonic research, she increased her public visibility and revitalized her campaign, having friends speak to The New York Times for an article last fall, and crafting, this January, a heart-rending letter to Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, describing her loneliness in the face of Mr. Reagan's memory loss and insisting that stem cell research could lead to a cure. "Orrin, there are so many diseases that can be cured, or at least helped, that we can't turn our back on this," she wrote. "We've lost so much time already. I can't bear to lose any more."

Not that Mrs. Reagan's allies are blind to the breakthrough in bone-marrow research. On the contrary, they're enthusiastic about it, and hopeful. But, like many scientists in the field, they would like to see all research avenues fully explored before any are limited. Scientists should be conducting research on all types of stem cells, they say, and on as many varieties and cell lines as possible, so that they can develop therapies and treatments as quickly as possible. It may turn out that adult stem cells are just as good as embryonic stem cells—or even better—but until research proves that, Mrs. Reagan and her supporters don't want to limit the resources available for embryonic research. "This is the bottom line," says Jim Battey, M.D., Ph.D., head of the stem cell taskforce of the National Institutes of Health. "We just don't know the full range of possibility for either type of stem cell. So why limit the options? The safe bet would be to use both types of stem cells until we know exactly what we can do with each of them."

Even pro-life activists admit that the highly flexible, highly predictable embryonic stem cells would still be valuable as a scientific tool, if not for the moral concerns. "Embryonic research is tempting," says the Culture of Life's Seyfer. "It can look like a miracle cure. But we cannot favor the use of human embryonic stem cells, because in order to get them you have to kill an embryo—which is wrong, period."

So as Mrs. Reagan gears up for the next battle in the stem cell war in the face of strong opposition from some in the Senate's Republican leadership, it is worth noting that the former first lady has helped rally a broad coalition of those willing to help the cause, combining liberals like Tom Harkin of Iowa and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts with staunch conservatives like Specter and Hatch. Senators Hatch, Specter, and Harkin are pushing for legislation that would bypass the President's ruling and expand the number of embryonic cell lines available for federally funded research. "With the help of Nancy Reagan, we can pass bipartisan legislation," says Kennedy. "We must not allow misguided fears to deny patients the cures of tomorrow." And if President Bush isn't convinced just yet, if he isn't quite ready to shelve his moral objections and let the science go forward, well, just you wait. It wouldn't be the first time Nancy Reagan has changed a president's mind.

Wil S. Hylton lives in Austin, Texas. He is a contributing editor for GQ.

Copyright © 2003, AARP

A Fool's Errand

Bob Herbert tells the truth. Bob Herbert has courage and integrity. He blew the whistle on the shameful miscarriage of justice in Tulia, TX (45 miles south of Amarillo) when a sleazeball undercover narc fingered 46 people (mostly African-American in nearly all-white Tulia) and most of them went to the slammer under plea-bargains to get out earlier. Herbert's series — deserving the Pulitzer Prize — forced the Department of Justice to intervene. Only then did an inquiry occur. The result was conviction of the narc for perjury and the release of the Tulia victims. Texas officialdom from Swisher County all of the way to Austin is covered in shame. No other officials have been held accountable for this crime against humanity. It took Bob Herbert in New York City (a Texas sneer) to do what the newspapers in Amarillo and Tulia would not do: turn over the rock and expose the maggots.

Now, Bob Herbert has turned his white-hot gaze on Iraq. W and his gang are begging the UN to intervene in Iraq. W and his gang gave the UN the finger as they marched on Baghdad. Now, they don't want to go it alone. Bring 'em on! Those words alone ought to be an impeachable offense. W has brought 'em on. Unfortunately, he's not in harm's way. He's in Crawford, TX — workin' hard for you and me — on a golf course during a war. W and Rummy are begging Old Europe to pitch in and clean up our mess. I remember President Gerald R. Ford's response to NYC's request for a federal bailout during its fiscal crisis in the mid-70s: Go to hell! That is what W is going to hear from all of this Old Europe friends in the UN: Go to hell! Unfortunately for us, he will take all of us with him. If this be (fair & balanced) treason, make the most of it.



[x NYTimes]

August 21, 2003

A Price Too High

By BOB HERBERT

How long is it going to take for us to recognize that the war we so foolishly started in Iraq is a fiasco — tragic, deeply dehumanizing and ultimately unwinnable? How much time and how much money and how many wasted lives is it going to take?

At the United Nations yesterday, grieving diplomats spoke bitterly, but not for attribution, about the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. They said it has not only resulted in the violent deaths of close and highly respected colleagues, but has also galvanized the most radical elements of Islam.

"This is a dream for the jihad," said one high-ranking U.N. official. "The resistance will only grow. The American occupation is now the focal point, drawing people from all over Islam into an eye-to-eye confrontation with the hated Americans.

"It is very propitious for the terrorists," he said. "The U.S. is now on the soil of an Arab country, a Muslim country, where the terrorists have all the advantages. They are fighting in a terrain which they know and the U.S. does not know, with cultural images the U.S. does not understand, and with a language the American soldiers do not speak. The troops can't even read the street signs."

The American people still do not have a clear understanding of why we are in Iraq. And the troops don't have a clear understanding of their mission. We're fighting a guerrilla war, which the bright lights at the Pentagon never saw coming, with conventional forces.

Under these circumstances, in which the enemy might be anybody, anywhere, tragedies like the killing of Mazen Dana are all but inevitable. Mr. Dana was the veteran Reuters cameraman who was blown away by jittery U.S. troops on Sunday. The troops apparently thought his video camera was a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

The mind plays tricks on you when you're in great danger. A couple of weeks ago, in an apparent case of mistaken identity, U.S. soldiers killed two members of the Iraqi police. And a number of innocent Iraqi civilians, including children, have been killed by American troops.

The carnage from riots, ambushes, firefights, suicide bombings, acts of sabotage, friendly fire incidents and other deadly encounters is growing. And so is the hostility toward U.S. troops and Americans in general.

We are paying a terribly high price — for what?

One of the many reasons Vietnam spiraled out of control was the fact that America's top political leaders never clearly defined the mission there, and were never straight with the public about what they were doing. Domestic political considerations led Kennedy, then Johnson, then Nixon to conceal the truth about a policy that was bankrupt from the beginning. They even concealed how much the war was costing.

Sound familiar?

Now we're lodged in Iraq, in the midst of the most volatile region of the world, and the illusion of a quick victory followed by grateful Iraqis' welcoming us with open arms has vanished. Instead of democracy blossoming in the desert, we have the reality of continuing bloodshed and heightened terror — the payoff of a policy spun from fantasies and lies.

Senator John McCain and others are saying the answer is more troops, an escalation. If you want more American blood shed, that's the way to go. We sent troops to Vietnam by the hundreds of thousands. There were never enough.

Beefing up the American occupation is not the answer to the problem. The American occupation is the problem. The occupation is perceived by ordinary Iraqis as a confrontation and a humiliation, and by terrorists and other bad actors as an opportunity to be gleefully exploited.

The U.S. cannot bully its way to victory in Iraq. It needs allies, and it needs a plan. As quickly as possible, we should turn the country over to a genuine international coalition, headed by the U.N. and supported in good faith by the U.S.

The idea would be to mount a massive international effort to secure Iraq, develop a legitimate sovereign government and work cooperatively with the Iraqi people to rebuild the nation.

If this does not happen, disaster will loom because the United States cannot secure and rebuild Iraq on its own.

A U.N. aide told me: "The United States is the No. 1 enemy of the Muslim world, and right now it's sitting on the terrorists' doorstep. It needs help. It needs friends."

Copyright © 2003 The New York Times Company