McCain's Finance Chair Tells Elizabeth Edwards To Not Talk About Cancer

First of all, anyone that has or has gone through the ordeal of cancer has the right to talk about cancer. Secondly, if you are in any way political (like Elizabeth Edwards) then you have more than ample justification to have your views heard by whomever wants to listen. For someone on McCain's campaign to tell her to leave it out of the national conversation because they do not like the facts is absurd. That someone is Fred Malek.

From Malek's blog:

Finding a cure for cancer is a vitally important mission for this country. Supporting that mission should unite everyone – and should be off-limits from the political and partisan battlefield.

That’s why I was more than a bit concerned to see Elizabeth Edwards – herself a heroic cancer survivor and inspiration for us all – bring cancer into the presidential race.[...]

I give Mrs. Edwards all the benefit of the doubt in the world on this one, that she really has our best interests at heart by introducing John McCain – who is Honorary Co-chairman, Advisory Board of Directors of the Arizona Cancer Research Foundation — into the political conversation.

I just hope that it doesn’t become a common occurrence on the campaign trail. The cancer conversation is best left to the experts, researchers, and doctors.

Congratulations on completely changing the subject Mr. Malek. Everyone wants to find cures for cancer. One must be pretty sick to try and start a debate about finding cures for cancer. What Elizabeth was saying that when it comes to candidates' positions on health care, both her and McCain wouldn't have been covered under his own plan. It is as simple as that sir. And the man you quoted from Jake Tapper's piece, Douglas Holtz-Eakin is another surrogate for McCain. He says that competition in the marketplace will solve the nation's health care crisis.

Um Fred, we've been doing that competitive thing now for almost forty years now and it has only made the problem of coverage worse.

Gibson And "Angry Rich" Are Two Sick Bastards

The rightwing radio duo don't have a cold or even the flu, their sickness is strictly inside those small, narrow-minded heads of theirs. Combined with their icy-cold hearts, the combination produces vile comments out of their ugly mouths that can easily offend the light-hearted. Unfortunately I've seen so much of what right-wing radio can produce, so this disgusting attack on the Edwards family and Elizabeth's battle with cancer does not surprise me.

From Media Matters:

On the August 3 edition of Fox News host John Gibson's nationally syndicated radio program, the show's executive producer, who goes by the name "Angry Rich" on the program, claimed Democratic presidential candidate former Sen. John Edwards (NC) "whored his wife's cancer as a fundraising gimmick." He also went on to call him "a fraud" and "a pansy." Gibson referred to Edwards as "the Breck Girl," "Silky," and "the biggest fraud running for president." Gibson and "Angry Rich" were attacking Edwards for saying that Democratic candidates should give back campaign contributions from News Corp., the parent company of Fox News Channel, while accepting advance and expense money from HarperCollins, another News Corp. division that had published a book written by Edwards; Gibson played an audio clip of Edwards stating that money was donated to charity. They also attacked Edwards for his refusal earlier this year to participate in a debate co-sponsored by Fox News.

How low can one go? When it comes to Fox News-employed wingers like Angry Rich and John Gibson, there is no bottom to the abyss in their hearts.

Killing Them Softly

You would think the civil war with U.S. troops mixed in the middle was enough killing for the war-torn country of Iraq. American soldiers have died by the thousands and Iraqi civilians are perishing by the tens of thousands. But there is another killer that is indirectly related to the conflict, cancer.

From Common Dreams:

CAIRO — Iraq’s environment minister blamed Monday the use of depleted uranium weapons by U.S. forces during the 2003 Operation Shock and Awe for the current surge in cancer cases across the country.

As a result of “at least 350 sites in Iraq being contaminated during bombing” with depleted uranium (DU) weapons, Nermin Othman said, the nation is facing about 140,000 cases of cancer, with 7,000 to 8,000 new ones registered each year.

Speaking at a ministerial meeting of the Arab League, she also complained that many chemical plants and oil facilities had been destroyed during the two military campaigns since the 1990s, but the ecological consequences remain unclear.

In a nation of less than 25 million and dropping (due to death and refugees escaping the country) that is a lot of new cases. Not much is reported on what is done with depleted uranium shells, it is a problem that needs to be rectified. Of course, this is Iraq we are talking about, and there are a lot of problems that need remedies. Who knows when this one will be addressed, if ever.

The F.D.A. And Aspartame

Aspartame and the companies that produce it were dealt a major blow by a recently published study that confirmed previous tests showing it is a cancer-causing agent. The fake sugar is found in many diet drinks as well as baked goods that substitute the real stuff that comes from sugarcane. With this additional evidence, you would think our own regulatory agency would do something about it, but when it comes to the Food and Drug Administration these days the people's health just isn't a major factor anymore.

From The Sydney Morning Herald:

The US Food and Drug Administration says there is no need for an urgent review of the safety of aspartame, despite a new study showing the sweetener may cause cancer.

A US consumer group has called for the review after Italian researchers published a new study that showed aspartame - widely used in soft drinks - might cause leukaemia, lymphoma and breast cancer in rats.

"This is the second study by the same lab showing that aspartame causes cancer in rats," Centre for Science in the Public Interest executive director Michael Jacobson said.

Of course the soft drink industry will deny the findings, that is a given. The F.D.A. however is supposed to be non-biased and if there is a study showing that the chemical may cause cancer, it should be thoroughly investigated. As the article notes, the rats in the F.D.A.'s previous studies were all killed at two years, which does not allow researchers to see the long-term effects.

The industry relies on the F.D.A. as proof that the independent findings are wrong because the F.D.A.'s reputation is still largely intact. Unfortunately for people that do not know, the Bush Administration has wrecked the independence of that agency just like so many other parts of our government.