X-Message-Number: 23505 Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2004 18:49:27 -0800 (PST) From: Jeff Davis <> Subject: Re: Arizona Politicians Excellent post, rw, and right on target. > Message #23492 > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:37:06 -0500 > From: randolfe wicker <> > Subject: Arizona Politicians <snip> > > ... some are naive insofar as they > actually believe what politicians tell them. > > Politicians are two-faced liars. They tell everyone > what they think that person wants to hear and then > vote the way they choose. > > The bottom line in this debate is that these > "legislators" and the public in general think "those > folks freezing people out there in the desert are a > bunch of kooks". This is indeed central to the problem WE face. Once you are branded a "kook", social disfavor makes you an inviting target for political attack. Once "the mob" has been incited, they contact their legislators and say, "Something should be done about these people." The actions then taken against CI, Alcor, and SA have been hostile in nature. Do not be misled by the seeming civility of the statements made by politicians and bureaucrats. The actions taken do not reflect the dispassionate neutrality and professionalism of good governance. They have been attacks, thinly veiled, as demonstrated by the fact that--or so it is my impression--the investigations and legislative initiatives have been implemented without consulting the subject organizations, in the cases of CI and Alcor (and, to a lesser extent, SA). This is the kind of thing you see in a criminal investigation, where the investigators don't want to "tip off" the "suspected criminal subjects" of the investigation. From Mike LaTorra's post: Message #23488 Ariz. Rep Stump replies to my msg about the cryonics bill (HB 2637), Rep. Robert Stump writes: Please note that in the Arizona Capitol Times (October 10, 2003), I said the following: "I look forward to spending time with representatives of Alcor." Yea, but did he mean it, or was it just more disingenuous--but politic--mouth-flapping from a politician? Did Rep. Stump or staff or anyone ever bother to notify, inquire of, or otherwise initiate contact with Alcor? After months of news coverage in the Arizona Capitol Times, the Tribune, and the Republic, Alcor contacted me at the 11th hour. Perhaps, but again, did Rep. Stump or staff or anyone ever notify, inquire of, or otherwise initiate contact with Alcor? [I would appreciate someone from Alcor clearing up this point. Did Stump or anyone contact Alcor early on to promote cooperative consultation re HB 2637?] It is indeed a very short trip from "kooks" to "evildoers", particularly in the current political environment. > They are not interested in rational discussion. > They don't hear reasonable arguments. They > essentially feel "we don't want those folks doing > that kind of stuff around here" and that is the way > they are going to vote. Which is politics by prejudice and demonizing. > Maybe if they saw an economic benefit, they might > modify their view but last time I checked, Alcor was > not a major employer in the area. Or a major campaign contributor. Do the funeral and mortuary folks make campaign contributions? > The reality is that they have moral objections, > probably based on their religious backgrounds, to > the idea of people trying to "play God" by > suspending themselves in hopes of future > resurrection. I would modify this. It is the legislator's constituents who have the moral objections, based on their religious prejudices. I use the word prejudice because faith-based conclusions inform prejudice, whereas fact-based conclusions inform justice. Issues of prejudice vs justice are less relevant to politicians than career advancement. > I can hear the preachers thundering now about how it > is "desecration of the body" and "an insult to the > dignity of human beings" to freeze "those corpses" > instead of letting them "find eternal rest". > (Amen!) > > The only way those who believe in cryonics will > prevail is to establish themselves as a religious > organization and win their right to practice their > beliefs in the courts. I agree that this may be a viable approach, but I don't agree that it is the only approach. I would recommend THE ENERGETIC PURSUIT OF MEDICAL REGULATORY OVERSIGHT FOR CRYONICS as an emergency medical procedure. Rather than offering the legislature a choice between no oversight and funeral board oversight, redefine the choice as between medical board oversight and funeral board oversight. And when you're writing the legislation, be sure to consult with the insurance industry as to how best to embed/codify medical insurance coverage for cryonics within the default standard end-stage treatment protocol. I mention this because in the legislative sphere there is hardly a more powerful potential ally than the insurance industry. And from a profit perspective--the preeminent perspective of insurance folk--cryonics is just another service to be offered and billed for. <snip> Finally, consider the viability of a political counterattack. The media could become an ally, they would dearly love a tasty mudslinging contest between techno-oddballs and fundamentalist right-wing Talibandits. Are Rep. Stump and those who support him vulnerable? Could they be attacked for prejudice? Could they be attacked for wasting taxpayers' money on non-threatening phantom issues at a time of severely burdened budgets and genuinely real and lethal threats? Could Rep. Stump's actions be challenged as a conflict of interests based on his family's mortuary business connections? Something to consider. Anyway, that's my two cents. Best, Jeff Davis "The real malady is fear of life, not of death." -- Naguib Mahfouz __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23505