A Cell, a Veto and a lot of Bloody Hate

[kaura117]

(http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/nation/story/46020F75454E68E4862571B100201D98?OpenDocument)

President George W. Bush framed the first veto of his presidency Wednesday as a matter of morality rather than politics, but it will surely have political impact, which could damage Republicans in November's congressional elections.

Bush's veto struck down legislation that would expand federal research on embryonic stem cells aimed at finding cures for many diseases. He said he vetoed the bill because it would lead to destroying embryos that could develop into human life, and thus "it crosses a moral boundary that our decent society needs to respect."

The president spoke at the White House, where he had gathered 18 families that included children born from implanted embryos, to illustrate his point. "These boys and girls are not spare parts," Bush said. "And they remind us that in our zeal for new treatments and cures, America must never abandon our fundamental morals."

Bipartisan majorities in Congress oppose his stand. So do a majority of the American people, polls show. They agree with scientists who argue that the spare embryos in question come from fertility clinics, where they would otherwise be destroyed. Scientists say research on stem cells could lead to cures for Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injuries and other illnesses that afflict millions of Americans.

The president's choice for such a signature event is thus fraught with potential political consequences. While it may curry favor with religious conservatives, who make up the cornerstone of his political base, his stand may alienate moderate Republicans, independent voters and others who see the research as key to helping save lives. Most Democrats champion the stem cell bill, as do many Republicans, including Nancy Reagan, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Congressional Democrats vowed at a Capitol Hill rally to fight on to pass the legislation. However, the House fell 50 votes short of the two-thirds majority needed when it voted 235-193 Wednesday night to override, cementing Bush's veto at least for this year.

"Whether it's this year, or with a new Senate and a new House and the next president, this will become the law of the United States," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.

Political analysts see Bush's veto as a plus for Democrats.

"On the Democratic side of things, it's an ace in the hole. It's a good wedge issue and a good base issue that appeals to crossover Republicans," said John Zogby, an independent pollster. "For the president, it's business as usual. This is a guy who's staked his entire career on shoring up the base, and this is a base kind of issue."

The stem cell issue is already central in Missouri, where the national Democratic Party is highlighting Republican Sen. Jim Talent's opposition to the bill in an effort to deny him re-election. His Democratic challenger, state Auditor Claire McCaskill, bashes him on the issue at virtually every stop and is leading him in polls.

My personal response to this?

http://www.xanga.com/dissentia

[Bittersweet Endings Only]

Are people surprised?

[Poophy]

Its gotten to the were he isn’t even pretending to appease the moderates, he is simply going all out extremist

If bush was president when Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin I honesty think he would have said, “putting mold in your body, god never intended for it so you cant do it!”

Please tell me if I’m wrong, because I may just be using a different translation, but were in the bible does it say anything against stem cell research

[Nega-Brent]

Embryos aren't people, they can be, but they are not.

[Galkar]

Embryos aren't people, they can be, but they are not.

The important part of that being that these never will be, as Bush seems to think.

[Satan]

Sadly, I'm not surprised at all.

[FaultyClockwork]

Sadly, I'm not surprised at all.

[Nega-Brent]

The important part of that being that these never will be, as Bush seems to think.

I don't think his dad ever gave him "the talk."

Laura: George, I'm pregnant.

Dubya: Pregnant? What's that?

Laura: Well... that means I'm going to give birth to our first child.

Dubya: Birth? To a child?

Laura: Yes, George, our child.

Dubya: How'd that happen?

Laura: We had intercourse.

Dubya: Inter... course? Was that the night class we took together?

Laura: No, George, it's another term for sex.

Dubya: Oh! You mean the horizontal tango! Heh heh! Wait... Momma said the Stork brings the babies, and I gave Dick Cheney 50 grand to find that bastard and make sure he brings me ah boy!

[darkon]

The sad part of this is that the Democrats are such a pathetic excuse for a political party that they can't get their shit together and actually defeat the Republicans in November. So this same crap will continue to happen because there aren't enough I'm certain to override the veto.

Unlike Maryland where Ehrlich more or less gets owned by the massive Democratic majority, and our Democrats are arguably the worst of the entire party.

[Samurai Drifter]

Screw Bush and his slowing of scientific progress.

This is one reason the world would be better off without religion.

[kaura117]

Man that's reactionary. You do realize that there is a strong bipartisan majority in favor of stem-cell usage, right, and that Bush's point of view only mirrors that of a very specific minority in the Christian faith.

He's made an enormous political blunder, the infantile fool. The majority of his professed faith is against him on this one, as are most others. Religion has nothing to do with this issue- merely uneducated, ignorant and blatant stupidity on part of our child-president, and all those who eagerly signed up for another four-year round of this farce of a government.

[Samurai Drifter]

So you deny that, in general, religion seeks to slow scientific and social progress?

[Arcane]

So you deny that, in general, religion seeks to slow scientific and social progress?

Modern religion more or less does. But ancient religion I would argue was a great boon to civilization.

[kaura117]

So you deny that, in general, religion seeks to slow scientific and social progress?

Religion recognizes the inherent flaw in a science-only mindset: it cannot factor in morality. Pure science can and will lead to destruction- it is, after all, completely at the mercy of pure economics, otherwise known as human incentive, and without a societal construct to act as a buffer against our whims and greeds... well, each time war flares up and some kid in some distant corner of the world gets his arms blown off by a finely crafted, aerodynamic streak of metal propelled not by crude black powder, but a highly complex synthesis of reactive chemicals, we see exactly what happens when human incentive is all that governs the world.

I consider myself a liberal-centrist- I've ranted and raved thousands upon thousands of words and sentences against the Bush administration and the whole Neoconservative folly. But that doesn't mean I agree with radical liberalism either- as social darwinism has proven, progress is sometimes attained at the cost of humanity. Better we let science run rampant than to not have it at all- but best yet if we can keep it from going as out of hand as a nuclear chain reaction.

[Samurai Drifter]

Oh, I'm by no means a radical liberal. And even those who don't believe in God (like me) have their ethics (I personally am against abortion).

However, just because I don't really believe god exists doesn't mean I claim to know for sure, hurrah for agnosticism!

[Ceraziefish]

That Xanga post of yours reminds me of the anti-democracy themes in Perdido Street Station. The basic idea there being that votes are a way to distract the populace and make them think that the government is under control, when actually the government is doing whatever it wants. But the people will never be organized to revolt because they have their votes.

I'd like to see a country that was a true democracy, not a representational democracy. I'm not certain it would work very well but I'd like to see it.

[kaura117]

That Xanga post of yours reminds me of the anti-democracy themes in Perdido Street Station. The basic idea there being that votes are a way to distract the populace and make them think that the government is under control, when actually the government is doing whatever it wants. But the people will never be organized to revolt because they have their votes.

I'd like to see a country that was a true democracy, not a representational democracy. I'm not certain it would work very well but I'd like to see it.

The Sixties- and the short end of the Bush I era- would serve as pretty good historical counterpoints to the themes of Perdido Street Station, I think. It is possible to stage a democratic coup in the voting booths- but it requires a certain mix of things we've long lost. Activism as a norm, for one.

I stand by the belief that it is possible to recreate the fundamental spirit of the sixties, though- not the drug-addled, brain-damaged hedonistic aspects of it, but merely the upswelling of energy behind the enormous surge of political activism that defined the era. And the closer I look, the more confident I am about my prediction- people are starting to Notice Things again, even if it's still only at a very superficial level, and the backlash against Fundamentalism is really starting to get its momentum.

And a Direct Democracy on more than a small-scale communal level is indistinguishable from utopian anarchy- which is, as anybody with common sense should know, absolutely impossible. No, you don't want a government with over three hundred million citizens to operate under a Direct Democracy- the tyranny of the majority is equally as unbearable as despotism.

[Ceraziefish]

Well, of course Perdido Street Station goes to some extremes to make its point and it's a fiction book, after all. I wasn't saying I agreed with it, just that I thought it was an interesting idea.

I don't think anarchy is impossible, but that's a subject for another discussion. Of course a utopia is impossible because... It's a utopia.

I agree with you about the activism bit. Democracy only works when people actually care about their government. I also liked how you capitalized "Notice Things." I thought that added an air of importance to it. If you were writing a story I'd call it excellent prose.

[kaura117]

I agree with you about the activism bit. Democracy only works when people actually care about their government. I also liked how you capitalized "Notice Things." I thought that added an air of importance to it. If you were writing a story I'd call it excellent prose.

I blame Hunter S. Thompson. His works have influenced my perspective and writing so much, some days I'm half-convinced his ghost's trying to possess me.

[Ceraziefish]

I should probably read some of his stuff one of these days. I've always been relatively turned off by it because so many of his fans are huge stoners who never do anything that matters.

Then again, I'm just an internet-type who never does anything that matters so I suppose the difference is none to great. This is totally the wrong thread but what would you recommend by him?

[kaura117]

His stoner fans tend to have only read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. To get a true taste of what he has to offer, though Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail '72 is what you're looking for, as well as Better than Sex and Hey Rube, the latter two consisting of what is probably his very last work on politics (and football) before he committed suicide last year.

Which is a damned shame, and has scarred me for life. >_< There are few things worse than knowing that you've just lost your chance to thank- and berate- your hero for influencing you.

[Ceraziefish]

What song is that?