Wednesday, June 01, 2005
I can only offer my apologies...
about the lack of posting. I have no excuses. Anyway, I just want to go over a quick recap of the many issues I have tried to post but failed to turn into workable material. So a bunch a blurbs will have to suffice.
So the Senate avoided using the nuclear option a week or so ago when a group of senators reached a compromise over the use of judicial filibuster. To quote Calvin and Hobbes, "a good compromise leaves everybody mad"- so this must have been a bad compromise, seeing as the democrats by and large got what they wanted, and most republicans crying foul. Sure, the democrat lose some power, because what good is filibuster if it can simply be banned by a majority vote? But, they still have the option to use it "in extreme circumstances" the next time around, and they got the republicans to remove some of the most offensive candidates (which is what they wanted in the first place)
Several prominent conservative groups were angry about this decision, saying that the republicans betrayed their party and that they should have used the option instead of caving in to the democrats. One such group, Focus on the Family, was particularly outspoken. My question is; shouldn't these groups be about issues, not party lines? Can they honestly look at each other with straight faces and say that banning judicial filibuster is really what helps core conservative values? No, this is simply about taking sides. If the democrats were in the majority, Focus on the Family would be decrying how important judicial filibuster is. And to bow down to simple party lines is to devalue your cause. Can you really envision the ACLU, PETA, or the NAACP (Not that I think any of these groups are right or wrong, just that they do stand for something) blindly taking sides and calling out for the scalps of some random senators?
And, of course, the Bolton nomination debate continues, where blind partisanship rules again. I have no idea about John Bolton's ability to be UN Ambassador- I won't pretend that I've met him and can judge him. But he is clearly a very unpopular choice, and several republicans have said that they are only voting for him because the President picked him. Some republicans have publicly questioned his abilities and don't understand the nomination, and most democrats are up in arms about what an awful choice he is. My point is- if there are so many public doubts, why on earth is this even a consideration? Well, I think it's simply splitting on party lines- and some supporting the choice simply because they think they are supporting the President. I also think that senators are stupid.
Stem cell researchers in South Korea said they were able to create embryonic clones of existing people by using embryos and transferring their nuclei into the egg. Yes, it's been done before, but the Korean team was able to achieve a very high success rate. Hot on the heels of this news was that an American researcher was able to do the same thing without ever creating an embryo (by using an existing stem cell instead of an embryo). The American researcher's claims haven't been verified, and many are skeptical about it, but either way it's good news for medical science.
Also, on the public opinion front, recent polls have shown that 7 out of 8 people support stem cell research on new lines from otherwise-discarded embryos. This is an interesting twist, because public opinion on abortion has always been a bit shaky. It shows that people really do understand that pragmatically 1) the embryos would be thrown away anyway, and 2) that stem cell research is important enough to overcome the ethical concerns that some people do have. Some have suggested that as the baby boomers get older, they're more worried about diseases that can be cured by stem cells within their lifetime, and less worried about philosophical concerns over when human life starts. I think that may certainly be the case. Unfortunately, our president is in the 1/8 minority, and is going to veto the stem cell bill that passed botht the house and senate. It may get enough votes for an override, but it's doubtful.
Fun fact of the day: If Bush does indeed veto the bill, it'll the first bill he vetoes. Out of the hundreds of bills that have come across his desk. Proving that once again, any idiot can do what he's been doing.
So the Senate avoided using the nuclear option a week or so ago when a group of senators reached a compromise over the use of judicial filibuster. To quote Calvin and Hobbes, "a good compromise leaves everybody mad"- so this must have been a bad compromise, seeing as the democrats by and large got what they wanted, and most republicans crying foul. Sure, the democrat lose some power, because what good is filibuster if it can simply be banned by a majority vote? But, they still have the option to use it "in extreme circumstances" the next time around, and they got the republicans to remove some of the most offensive candidates (which is what they wanted in the first place)
Several prominent conservative groups were angry about this decision, saying that the republicans betrayed their party and that they should have used the option instead of caving in to the democrats. One such group, Focus on the Family, was particularly outspoken. My question is; shouldn't these groups be about issues, not party lines? Can they honestly look at each other with straight faces and say that banning judicial filibuster is really what helps core conservative values? No, this is simply about taking sides. If the democrats were in the majority, Focus on the Family would be decrying how important judicial filibuster is. And to bow down to simple party lines is to devalue your cause. Can you really envision the ACLU, PETA, or the NAACP (Not that I think any of these groups are right or wrong, just that they do stand for something) blindly taking sides and calling out for the scalps of some random senators?
And, of course, the Bolton nomination debate continues, where blind partisanship rules again. I have no idea about John Bolton's ability to be UN Ambassador- I won't pretend that I've met him and can judge him. But he is clearly a very unpopular choice, and several republicans have said that they are only voting for him because the President picked him. Some republicans have publicly questioned his abilities and don't understand the nomination, and most democrats are up in arms about what an awful choice he is. My point is- if there are so many public doubts, why on earth is this even a consideration? Well, I think it's simply splitting on party lines- and some supporting the choice simply because they think they are supporting the President. I also think that senators are stupid.
Stem cell researchers in South Korea said they were able to create embryonic clones of existing people by using embryos and transferring their nuclei into the egg. Yes, it's been done before, but the Korean team was able to achieve a very high success rate. Hot on the heels of this news was that an American researcher was able to do the same thing without ever creating an embryo (by using an existing stem cell instead of an embryo). The American researcher's claims haven't been verified, and many are skeptical about it, but either way it's good news for medical science.
Also, on the public opinion front, recent polls have shown that 7 out of 8 people support stem cell research on new lines from otherwise-discarded embryos. This is an interesting twist, because public opinion on abortion has always been a bit shaky. It shows that people really do understand that pragmatically 1) the embryos would be thrown away anyway, and 2) that stem cell research is important enough to overcome the ethical concerns that some people do have. Some have suggested that as the baby boomers get older, they're more worried about diseases that can be cured by stem cells within their lifetime, and less worried about philosophical concerns over when human life starts. I think that may certainly be the case. Unfortunately, our president is in the 1/8 minority, and is going to veto the stem cell bill that passed botht the house and senate. It may get enough votes for an override, but it's doubtful.
Fun fact of the day: If Bush does indeed veto the bill, it'll the first bill he vetoes. Out of the hundreds of bills that have come across his desk. Proving that once again, any idiot can do what he's been doing.
# posted by Stuart @ 1:37 PM 
