Monday, March 26, 2007

John and Elizabeth Edwards

John and Elizabeth Edwards have made a hard decision to continue to pursue the Presidency of the United States after learning Elizabeth's cancer has returned.

"I think every single candidate for President, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in, to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we'd make," Edwards, the party's 2004 vice-presidential nominee, told CBS' "60 Minutes."

Elizabeth Edwards said she feels "terrific" now, "except for a cracked rib that is completely unrelated to any of the more serious issues I face."

"You know, you really have two choices here. I mean, either you push forward with the things that you were doing yesterday, or you start dying," she said. "If I had given up everything that my life was about, first of all, I'd let cancer win before it needed to. You know, maybe eventually it will win. But I'd let it win before I needed to."

I was concerned when I heard they would hold a press conference to make an announcement. Everyone seemed to know it was about Elizabeth's health, but what no one really knew was whether this would keep John from running or not.

I would have been GREATLY disappointed if he would have decided to back out. Maybe if she was bed-ridden with only a few weeks left to live, but she's fine to get around and to live her life. A diagnoses of cancer doesnt mean your life should just end and you should wait for it to eat you alive.

I also think it's important that we might have a person running for President that gives a shit about the plight of cancer in today's society. Based on the latest data, American Cancer Society epidemiologists predict that approximately 1.44 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and 560,000 will die from the disease in 2007.

And for the first time since 1970, the President has decided to cut Cancer Research funding to the NIH. He is proposing to cut funding for 18 of the 19 institutes in Fiscal Year 2007, including the institutes conducting research on two of America’s leading causes of death: cancer and heart disease. Funding for the National Cancer Institute at the National Institute of Health would be cut from $4.79 billion to $4.75 billion in Fiscal Year 2007.

Sure it might not sound like a BIG cut, but considering the projection for 2007 for the Iraq war is $110 billion dollars it's a whole lot. And we spent over $411 billion dollars so far on the Iraq war with no end in sight.

Between 9/11 and most major terrorist attacks prior to that and all since and all the casualties from the Iraq war (just Americans in this example) we have lost about 7 or 8 thousand people? And a death is a death and each one is awful, but we've spent about $51,375,000 per death in Iraq and the War on Terror - compared to the project $8553.75 we'll spend per cancer death this year. Which is the greater threat to the American way of life? If we measure terror in lives lost and lives lived in fear, then I think cancer has been the odds on favorite for sometime now and will continue to be far into the future.


  1. Would be interesting to know the drug / treatment cost per cancer death ? With trillions spent on research since the '72 WAR on cancer was declared, one wonders why 1500 men, women and children will die today of cancer. ..and tomorrow, and the next day and every day !!!!! Are cancer researchers activity with accomplishment ?

  2. Maybe the point is if we don't put some hard work, time, and money into the Iraq situation Cancer will be the least of our worries... I would rather die of a certain death because of Cancer than live the rest of my life wondering when I'm going to get blown up, or kidnapped and beheaded. What about you?

    Besides I don't agree that there's "no end in sight"... We're carrying out a mission with guidelines for a phased withdrawal after Iraq's forces are ready to start taking control. That's far from an open ended commitment.

  3. I take from your comment you havent seen the death cancer brings.

    A beheading would be compassionate compared to the suffering most endure at the hands of cancer.

    There are no strict guidelines for phased withdrawl other than "when they step-up we'll step-down". However the stepping up has never been defined by this administration and any time it's tried to be defined by someone outside of Bush's inner circle it's been met with critism or worse.

    Honestly, I think that the "they" in that phrase refers to our commercial-petrol interests in the region and not the Iraqi people.