Michael Fox and Madonna - 10.15.2006.1
Sorry for the delay dear readers. The crazy weather gave me a cold I couldn’t get rid of. I haven’t been keeping up with the major news stories, but I have seen a few things that caught my attention. One of those items is about Mr. Michael J. Fox and his fundraising efforts. Mr. Fox is quite a man, I really respect his. He has been a spearhead for research for Parkinson’s disease, which he is afflicted with. Since his diagnosis Mr. Fox has investigated and funded development of treatment for the disease that affects tens of millions of Americans alone. I respect his conviction and his dedication. But I do disagree with one of his areas of interest. Stem cell research.
The advances of cloning, genetic manipulation and the potential of stem cells is a dangerous combination. While I am sure there can be many benefits to mankind the fact is anything so broad ranged would be used as a weapon. I’m not guessing, this is fact. The initial use of a stick was for hunting, not long afterwards it was a tool of wars. Fire was used to cook, and then used as a siege weapon. Computers were designed to do advanced calculations, now they predict life-spans of nuclear weapons and potential casualties. For every disease cured there are storehouses of biological and chemical weapons in every nation that were found while the cure was sought.
I cannot imagine the potential ramifications of a weaponized genetic, cloned, stem cell. Is it a reality of the future, one that only sci-fi has ever considered? Could the Khan of Star Trek be a reality? Or a disease worse than AIDS? Or things we can’t imagine. Already there have been attempts at human cloning, which has been denounced world wide. Once the genie is out the bottle there is no turning back, just like nuclear weapons. On that basis I disagree with the research. Still Mr. Fox should be commended on his convictions.
On a completely separate thought is Madonna. Actually I should say the current trend in celebrities going to third-world and African nations. Several celebrities have gone to these countries and adopted children. Why? In a way I feel like this is becoming the latest designer clothing line. That may be unfair I realize. Yet why is there such a need to adopt children from these countries. If Madonna is adopting a boy from Africa I have to wonder why.
Yes it will improve that boy’s life I think, but so what. Madonna has enough money that a donation could be made to improve thousands of lives. The donation could be money or goods that hundreds of children can use, improving their lives. And why a black child? What is her motivation. She already has children. If it’s an effort to make a statement then why not a child from Croatia or a similar area? It just feels disingenuous. Like there is an ulterior motive and the child is just a showcase.
I won’t say every celebrity has ulterior motives for adoption, but considering the number of children up for adoption in America alone (estimated at 114,000 in 2005) why do some seek kids outside of the U.S. There are plenty of poor children, African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian and others that need a good home. Don’t they deserve a chance too? Shouldn’t awareness be raised about the American kids in foster care, or homeless on our streets?
I just don’t get it, and it doesn’t feel right. It’s not like I don’t know celebrities that have adopted children. I recall a couple from my days working for Music Plus in Canoga Park, California. There was neither big fanfare nor paparazzi. While these entertainers were not the A-list of Hollywood, they were known for sitcoms and movies that were popular. Of course those kids were American, and the families were not racially mixed. Even if they were I still don’t think it would have caught any attention. And it’s the attention that is being drawn that makes me have reservations.
So I am just left with this odd feeling. How about you?
This is what I think, what do you think?
The advances of cloning, genetic manipulation and the potential of stem cells is a dangerous combination. While I am sure there can be many benefits to mankind the fact is anything so broad ranged would be used as a weapon. I’m not guessing, this is fact. The initial use of a stick was for hunting, not long afterwards it was a tool of wars. Fire was used to cook, and then used as a siege weapon. Computers were designed to do advanced calculations, now they predict life-spans of nuclear weapons and potential casualties. For every disease cured there are storehouses of biological and chemical weapons in every nation that were found while the cure was sought.
I cannot imagine the potential ramifications of a weaponized genetic, cloned, stem cell. Is it a reality of the future, one that only sci-fi has ever considered? Could the Khan of Star Trek be a reality? Or a disease worse than AIDS? Or things we can’t imagine. Already there have been attempts at human cloning, which has been denounced world wide. Once the genie is out the bottle there is no turning back, just like nuclear weapons. On that basis I disagree with the research. Still Mr. Fox should be commended on his convictions.
On a completely separate thought is Madonna. Actually I should say the current trend in celebrities going to third-world and African nations. Several celebrities have gone to these countries and adopted children. Why? In a way I feel like this is becoming the latest designer clothing line. That may be unfair I realize. Yet why is there such a need to adopt children from these countries. If Madonna is adopting a boy from Africa I have to wonder why.
Yes it will improve that boy’s life I think, but so what. Madonna has enough money that a donation could be made to improve thousands of lives. The donation could be money or goods that hundreds of children can use, improving their lives. And why a black child? What is her motivation. She already has children. If it’s an effort to make a statement then why not a child from Croatia or a similar area? It just feels disingenuous. Like there is an ulterior motive and the child is just a showcase.
I won’t say every celebrity has ulterior motives for adoption, but considering the number of children up for adoption in America alone (estimated at 114,000 in 2005) why do some seek kids outside of the U.S. There are plenty of poor children, African American, Latino/Hispanic, Asian and others that need a good home. Don’t they deserve a chance too? Shouldn’t awareness be raised about the American kids in foster care, or homeless on our streets?
I just don’t get it, and it doesn’t feel right. It’s not like I don’t know celebrities that have adopted children. I recall a couple from my days working for Music Plus in Canoga Park, California. There was neither big fanfare nor paparazzi. While these entertainers were not the A-list of Hollywood, they were known for sitcoms and movies that were popular. Of course those kids were American, and the families were not racially mixed. Even if they were I still don’t think it would have caught any attention. And it’s the attention that is being drawn that makes me have reservations.
So I am just left with this odd feeling. How about you?
This is what I think, what do you think?
posted by M. Vass | 6:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home