On March 25th, Glenn Beck did a segment where he described why he thinks American’s are frustrated with government. I found his comments to be quite illuminating. Scroll to about 2:06 remaining in the clip:
As I’m sure anyone is aware, President Obama signed an executive order today that rescinds former President George W. Bush’s executive order banning the usage of federal funds on embryonic stem cell research on embryo lines created after August 9th, 2001.
Not surprisingly the Vatican and the National Right to Life Committe have condemned the order [link] as a violation of sanctity of life. And naturally many people with ailments that embryonic stem cell research could help treat are ecstatic.
President Obama said the following:
At this moment the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown and it should not be overstated, but scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand and possibly cure some of our most devastating diseases and conditions.
Translation:
We shouldn’t overstate how cool this stuff is, but come on, guys, it’s the GREATEST STUFF EVER!!
The Associated Press is also reporting that President Obama said that the nation owes a debt of gratitude to people like Christopher Reeve, who with his wife, Dana, created a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for spinal cord injuries. [link]
Spare me the hero worship.
I don’t mean to urinate on the memory of the late Superman, but caring about Stem Cell Research only after you become afflicted with something that it could possibly cure doesn’t exactly qualify a person for “debt of gratitude” status. It’s pure, unenlightened, self-interest — not all that impressive. And frankly, the only reason he got as much attention as he did, was the irony of Superman being paralyzed.
Seriously, that would be like me only caring about testicular cancer if I have it. Or welfare recipients lobbying for increased welfare benefits. Don’t get in front of cameras and say “Hey, guess what? I’m in favor of something that would directly benefit me!” because a) it’s not surprising, and b) you’re not some wonderful philanthropist for it.
If you want to be impressive, support a cause because it’s the right thing to do.
Finally, President Obama vowed that only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed. I suppose that depends on your definition of “ethical,” doesn’t it? I don’t know about you, but as far as I’m concerned, the last thing this country needs is our politicians telling us what is and is not ethical.
Author Justin Webb said “The repudiation is of a policy but also of a way of life, that puts faith above science.” [link] That’s right, we’ve decided that science is ultimate pursuit, over all else. We’ve now put the overwhelming desire to fiddle around with the building blocks of human life ahead of our conscience.
Not exactly what I call “progress.”
^Z
I’ll make this one quick.
I want to point out why there are so many earmarks in these spending packages the legislature is passing. Democrats are going to pass the spending packages, because they’re all competing for the honor to tow the party line, and support Obama’s agenda.
So the legislation is going to pass, pretty much no matter what.
So if you’re a congressman, and your distinguished colleague from the state of whatever adds earmarks to the bill, which is going to pass either way, are you about to stand by while every constituency EXCEPT yours gets something specific out of the bill?
Of course not.
If I were in congress, I’d add my earmark, so that my constituents are covered when the bill passes, but then I’d vote against the package. Why? Because I think the bill sucks, but if it’s going to pass anyway, and everyone else is getting money for their districts, I’m not going to get left out.
It’s really not any more complicated than “well if you’re gonna go have ice cream, then I want some too!”
^Z
I’m going to ask one simple question — what incentive do the Detroit Three have to become more efficient, if we show them that we’ll pay for their losses?
The Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act, if it hadn’t been shot down by the Senate, would have put in place a presidential designee, who would have the power to tell the car companies they must produce “a product mix and cost structure that is competitive in the United States market”. The remove the doublespeak, there would be a government entity that could tell the car companies what cars to make, and how much they can be sold for. We’ve socialized banks, and now the government wants to socialize the bloated auto industry. Fantastic.
On the radio this morning, the host posed the question of who should be held responsible for the trampling death of Jdimytai Damour. Damour stood at 6 feet, 5 inches tall, and weighed in at 270 pounds. He was hired through a temp agency, and had been working for Wal-Mart for about a week.
So, should Wal-Mart be held responsible for the death, or should the stampeding shoppers be held responsible?
Tomorrow, voters in my home state of Washington will decide whether to enact Initiative 985 into law. From the Washington Secretary of State’s office, “This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.”[wei.secstate.wa.gov]
The full text of the initiative can be found in PDF format here.
To put it bluntly, the initiative is a bad idea. More after the jump.
Doug Wead has a blog up comparing George W. Bush to Theodore Roosevelt. It’s quite a good read.
I encourage you all to add CNSNews.com to your normal circuit of news sites. They have a bit of a Conservative slant, but they’re not nearly as biased as a large portion of the mostly Liberal mainstream media. They posted a story today discussing how the Community Reinvestment Act played a pivotal role in creating our housing bubble. [link]
According to Wikipedia [link] (which I acknowledge is not a terribly reliable primary source, however, information that it cites from elsewhere is used here), “the CRA seeks to ensure the provision of credit to all parts of a community, regardless of the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood.” Did you catch that? Let’s remove the doublespeak. “parts of a community” = “people”. “the relative wealth or poverty of a neighborhood” = “their ability to pay back loans”.
A couple of months ago, I was flipping channels on the TV, and I came across as recorded lecture at the University of Washington. The punch line of the lecture was “…leads to greater redistribution of wealth.” And she (the lecturer) said it as if it’s a foregone conclusion that redistribution of wealth is a good thing. But is it really? I agree that if we want to claim to be a moral society, we must collectively possess a conscience. But does it follow that we must provide for the needs of others in order to be moral? And what are the long term implications of redistribution of wealth?
It’s said that if you’re still a Conservative at 25, you’re heartless, and if you’re still a Liberal at 35, you’re brainless.
I guess I’m heartless, then.
I think it’s about time I delve into politics. Everyone else seems to be talking about it, and what’s more, people actually appear to be listening. I’m torn about it though — too many people use blogs as their only source of news. That’s not healthy, in my opinion. On the other hand, too many people get all their news from mainstream media. That’s worse. At least with blogs, we don’t all sing the same tune, and that unfortunately is where the mainstream media is heading at an alarming rate.
Twitter