Embryonic Stem Cell (ESC) research is becoming the new political football, with politicians on both sides of the aisle way off base as to their respective arguments for and against the matter. The controversy erupted again when President Bush vetoed a Senate bill that would loosen US Federal Government restrictions on ESC research.
The Arguments
Let’s start on the Left. The Democrats, fueled by anti-Bush sentiment around the world, are latching on to the ESC issue as another way to separate themselves from the “Republican Agenda” and as a way to prove that Bush does not have the best interest of the American public in mind. Here’s what some of the Democrats had to say:
Hillary Clinton (D – New York):
“This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families”
John Edwards (D – North Carolina):
The president "had a simple choice today: direct the full force of American scientific ingenuity towards responsible, life-saving medical research or pander to a narrow segment of his political base…With his veto, he made the wrong choice."
Barack Obama (D – Illinois):
The president is "deferring the hopes of millions of Americans who do not have the time to keep waiting for the cure that may save or extend lives."
And the typical Republican argument:
President Bush:
"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us."
“If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers for the first time in our history to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. I made it clear to Congress and to the American people that I will not allow our nation to cross this moral line."
Dave Weldon (R – Florida):
"I don't believe, given that millions of Americans believe in the sanctity of life, that we should be funding research that destroys human life.”
The Issue
Note: Embryonic Stem Cell Research is no the same thing as Adult Stem Cell and Cord Blood Stem Cell Research. All Embryonic Stem Cell research is denoted by ESC.
What many Democrats would have the public believe is that President Bush is restricting all ESC research or stem cell research in general. In fact, Diana DeGette (D – Colorado) doesn’t even see a need to distinguish between types of stem cell research, saying, “We intend to continue bringing this up until we have a pro-stem cell president and a pro-stem cell congress.” That, of course, is not true. What the restrictions do is limit federal money for ESC research to those lines that were created before August 9, 2001. This type of ESC research “officially” began in 1998 according to the National Institute of Health (that’s when Bill Clinton was in office). In fact, there was no federal funding for ESC research until August 9, 2001. The federal government does not restrict funds for use on Adult Stem Cells or Cord Blood Stem Cells and does provide funding for Adult Stem Cell research and President Bush has called on lawmakers to figure out a way to make more funding available for ASC research.
Unfortunately for researchers who receive money form the government, they have to be able to prove at all times that their equipment is not used for ESC research. This creates an administrative nightmare and increases costs, as the facilities must maintain separate labs, equipment, etc. for stem cell research. This is also inconvenient to some of the brightest minds, who, if they want to conduct ESC research funded and approved by a government, can jump across the pond to the UK. Limiting the amount of researchers working on ES research restricts the potential of finding useful cures using ESC lines. It is interesting to note that their have not been any breakthroughs regarding ESC research from the UK as of yet.
A majority of Republicans believe that the use of ESC lines is immoral because it involves the destruction of a human embryo. This is a common conservative viewpoint that is highlighted by right-wing Republican views on abortion and gay marriage. However, as we have seen in the past, the “immorality” argument does not play with our current culture and, in fact, casts a shadow of fanaticism on its believers. Meanwhile, Democrats are playing to the crowd by suggesting Bush is stuck in the past, by aligning him with right wing fanatics, and by openly stating that the President is “deferring the hope” of Americans.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research: A Harsh Reality and False Hope
Right now, ESC research has proven unfruitful. The problem is that our politicians don’t understand why it doesn’t work. For the Democrats it’s about freedom of choice and anti-conservatism and for the Republicans it’s about morality, nothing more.
The development of a human embryo is truly an amazing thing. An act of God, a random occurrence in nature, whatever you believe, it’s cool. The embryo starts from only two cells, commonly known to most people as the sperm and the egg, and, through a process of cell divisions eventually makes a person. Where the cells end and a person begins is a debate for another time and place!
Embryonic Stem Cells are found within the blastocyst, which is a name for the embryo at about 4-5 days old (about 70-100 cells) before it implants into the host’s uterus. These Embryonic Stem cells will eventually multiply and form the entire body and are known as “undifferentiated” cells because they don’t have a specific purpose.
To make a complex issue entirely too simple, these cells, through a combination of protein recognition, salt concentration, and neighboring cells, know what type of cell to form, which is why the cells are coveted by researchers. In theory, if a researcher can figure out how to manipulate the ESC, than they can direct that cell to form a certain type of cell, say a nerve cell for example.
Nerve cells form from a complex process of cell differentiation in the body and go through all types of transformations. The problem arises when we try to circumvent that system and create a nerve cell directly from an ESC. Think of it as building a house without proper reinforcement. Sure it might look good and stand for a while, but if support columns weren’t established, won’t it fall over in a brief amount of time? Researchers are unable to establish support columns and replicate an ESC’s pathway to its primary function.
To sum up the difference, I’ll quote from an article by Dr. Mae-Wan Ho writing for the Institute of Science in Society (http://www.i-sis.org.uk) and I have edited out some of the science jargon, which does not change the context of the piece:
“…ES cells need to be genetically modified and extensive manipulation in vitro before they can be transplanted safely. Direct transplant of ES cells are known to give rise to teratomas and uncontrollable cell proliferation (cancer). There is already evidence that ES cells are genetically unstable in long term culture, and are especially prone to chromosomal abnormalities…To avoid immune rejection, the ES cells have to be tissue-matched from a bank of stem cells created from ‘spare’ human embryos. Otherwise, a special human embryo has to be created for the purpose, by transferring the patient’s genetic material into an empty egg, a procedure prone to failure and morally objectionable to many, including scientists.
By contrast, adult stem cells could be transplanted directly without genetic modification or pre-treatments. They simply differentiate according to cues from the surrounding tissues and do not give uncontrollable growth or tumors. The adult stem cells also show high degrees of genomic stability during culture. There is no problem with immune rejection because the cells can readily be isolated from the patients requiring transplant. And there is no moral objection involved. Better yet, research can be directed towards encouraging adult stem cells to regenerate and repair damaged tissues in situ, without the need for cell isolation and in vitro expansion. By minimizing intervention, risks are reduced, as well as cost, making the treatment available to everyone and not just the rich.”
As seen above, there have been no significant advancements in the use of ESC lines to treat diseases or regenerate tissues. The use of ESCs does, however, provide a significant health risk to patients and, many times, involves human cloning (the transfer of genetic material into a viable egg). In contrast, adult stem cells have seen widespread success with limited detriment to patients.
Sicko:
Barack Obama should be ashamed of himself. His whole campaign, his words, and his life revolve around the word “hope.” He even wrote a book, “The Audacity of Hope.” He states that President Bush is “deferring the hopes of millions.” Puu-lease Barrack. Give me a break! The federal government is funding the most promising scientific discovery of the last century, the use of Adult Stem cells. Adult Stem cells have shown great results, as seen in the example above, yet Obama wants to fund ESC research, which has shown only complications? Obama gives Americans false hope by playing the role of savior.
Hillary Clinton, was right on. President Bush has put ideology ahead of science. Had he studied the issue scientifically, he would have been able to present a logical argument that ESC research is not promising instead of making the argument that using ESCs is morally wrong. Ironically, Clinton’s use of scientific evidence for her argument runs contrary to her conclusion! At this point, ESC benefits are a great theory and a great stump to stand on, but nothing more.
California - $3 Billion for Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Congratulations to California for approving over $3 billion of funding over a 10 year period for ESC line research. This is a great step and will give supporters and naysayers of ESC research the opportunity to determine how beneficial an infusion of public money is in this field. However, private companies should be footing the bill on this. Federal money should be used on things such as securing our borders and protecting our country’s international interests, not on advanced, theoretical medical research.
Never let a sound decision get in the way of politics:
Both sides have come at this from the wrong angle. Yes, there is a moral part of the equation that Americans need to be aware of. As we progress down the scientific path we develop a series of steps to a goal. Each step we get closer to our goal, but we also get closer to a goal we never thought possible. What happens when that goal is the cloning of a human being? However, that’s a side issue today. Unfortunately, all President Bush has done by addressing morality is give his opponents firepower.
We are merely looking at the use of federal funds for ESC research. ESC research is unproven, with no results. Even if a cure for a debilitating disease is found, the hurdles of immune rejection and unchecked cell proliferation must be addressed. What good is curing Parkinson’s if you develop cancer (there is a documented case from Japan of a man who was given tissue developed from ESCs to heal a brain injury. The result was growth of hair and finger/toenails on his brain!)?
Those senators and congressmen who want to cut off funding for the Iraq war because it’s wasteful, now turn around and want the federal government to fund unproven, theoretical medical research. ESCs may one day provide a brighter future, but using funds by the federal government now is not going to make that day come any quicker. Let’s take those funds and put them where we’ve seen proven results.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Sheffield and Guillen Weigh in on Immigration
Gary Sheffield's recent comments to GQ have lit a fire of controversey and have brought the age old racist card into America's favorite pastime. Sheffield stated, uniquivocaly, that the reason there are more latinos than african americans in the sport of baseball is because they are "easier to control." Ozzie Guillen retorted that the reason there are so many latinos is because they are cheaper for the MLB teams.
Unfortunately, they're both right but not in the way they intended to be.
Let's look at Sheffield's statement:
"I called it years ago. What I called is that you're going to see more black faces, but there ain't no English going to be coming out. … [It's about] being able to tell [Latin players] what to do -- being able to control them," he told the magazine.
"Where I'm from, you can't control us. You might get a guy to do it that way for a while because he wants to benefit, but in the end, he is going to go back to being who he is. And that's a person that you're going to talk to with respect, you're going to talk to like a man.
"These are the things my race demands. So, if you're equally good as this Latin player, guess who's going to get sent home? I know a lot of players that are home now can outplay a lot of these guys."
If the situations that have occurred recently in the NFL are any indication, Gary Sheffield is absolutely right, latinos are easier to control. Chris Henry, Tank Johnson, and Pacman Jones have all seen sustantial suspensions by the NFL because of their uncontrollable conduct. The Bengals lead the league in player arrests last year, and, all of those arrests were of african american individuals. The NFL has now put a greater emphasis on character, which means that teams, especially when drafting on equal talent, are going to take the more "controllable" player.
The problem is, Gary Sheffield is proud of this!!!
That situation is going to carry over not just in sports, but in the corporate and professional world as well. If you go to your job and refuse to do what management says, you're going to get fired. You're much more likely to get fired if there are qualified and capable applicants ready to fill your position.
This issue stems from entitlement. Players like Gary Sheffield feel they are "owed" something. You saw this with the way he handled the Yankees situation when they didn't resign him, he felt he was owed for his service to the Yankees.
I think, for the most part, latino players are more likely to be grateful for their chance to play in MLB and actually feel like they owe something to the organization that drafted them. I realize that there is no way to measure this, but it stems more from the type of culture that latinos have grown up in. And, yes, they are willing to play for less money because they don't have that same feeling of entitlement.
For the Major League teams, this translates into cheaper labor. Again, it's just like running a business. If I am choosing between two individuals for a position that both are equally qualified for, but one guy is going to work for 25% less than the other, I'm choosing the cheaper option. (I'm assuming, of course, that both are legal to work in the US!). Cheap latino labor has been a staple of America for hundreds of years and is the primary reason we have an immigration debate on our hands. Americans are afraid of this, because we feel that these latino immigrants are going to take jobs that we're entitled to have ourselves, even though we might not be willing to do them or work for them.
The comments by Gary Sheffield are typical of a larger problem that we're facing in America. It's not so much a racial issue, but a culture issue that surrounds each race. Don't call Gary Sheffield a racist for stating the obvious, but you can call him out on being proud of it.
Unfortunately, they're both right but not in the way they intended to be.
Let's look at Sheffield's statement:
"I called it years ago. What I called is that you're going to see more black faces, but there ain't no English going to be coming out. … [It's about] being able to tell [Latin players] what to do -- being able to control them," he told the magazine.
"Where I'm from, you can't control us. You might get a guy to do it that way for a while because he wants to benefit, but in the end, he is going to go back to being who he is. And that's a person that you're going to talk to with respect, you're going to talk to like a man.
"These are the things my race demands. So, if you're equally good as this Latin player, guess who's going to get sent home? I know a lot of players that are home now can outplay a lot of these guys."
If the situations that have occurred recently in the NFL are any indication, Gary Sheffield is absolutely right, latinos are easier to control. Chris Henry, Tank Johnson, and Pacman Jones have all seen sustantial suspensions by the NFL because of their uncontrollable conduct. The Bengals lead the league in player arrests last year, and, all of those arrests were of african american individuals. The NFL has now put a greater emphasis on character, which means that teams, especially when drafting on equal talent, are going to take the more "controllable" player.
The problem is, Gary Sheffield is proud of this!!!
That situation is going to carry over not just in sports, but in the corporate and professional world as well. If you go to your job and refuse to do what management says, you're going to get fired. You're much more likely to get fired if there are qualified and capable applicants ready to fill your position.
This issue stems from entitlement. Players like Gary Sheffield feel they are "owed" something. You saw this with the way he handled the Yankees situation when they didn't resign him, he felt he was owed for his service to the Yankees.
I think, for the most part, latino players are more likely to be grateful for their chance to play in MLB and actually feel like they owe something to the organization that drafted them. I realize that there is no way to measure this, but it stems more from the type of culture that latinos have grown up in. And, yes, they are willing to play for less money because they don't have that same feeling of entitlement.
For the Major League teams, this translates into cheaper labor. Again, it's just like running a business. If I am choosing between two individuals for a position that both are equally qualified for, but one guy is going to work for 25% less than the other, I'm choosing the cheaper option. (I'm assuming, of course, that both are legal to work in the US!). Cheap latino labor has been a staple of America for hundreds of years and is the primary reason we have an immigration debate on our hands. Americans are afraid of this, because we feel that these latino immigrants are going to take jobs that we're entitled to have ourselves, even though we might not be willing to do them or work for them.
The comments by Gary Sheffield are typical of a larger problem that we're facing in America. It's not so much a racial issue, but a culture issue that surrounds each race. Don't call Gary Sheffield a racist for stating the obvious, but you can call him out on being proud of it.
Monday, June 4, 2007
The Immigration Gauntlet
What does last night's Democratic debate and last night's Yankees-Boston game have in common? In the grand scheme of things, they both meant absolutely nothing, especially with the Yankees trailing by 13.5 games. However, they also both bring about some interesting points on immigration and our acceptance of illegal immigrants into the United States.
As far as the candidates go, I still have no idea what they believe. I hate the debates because it seems to be an opportunity for candidates to talk in circles as much as possible in an effort not to offend a single person in the United States (and from the way they conduct themselves, I think that they all believe that they can do that!). Obama goes from voting to construct a 750 mile fence on the US-Mexican border to, this year, being in favor of the proposed Senate immigration bill. So, basically, let's put up a fence to keep you out, but if you get in you can stay.
That got me thinking. Why stop with a fence? What we really need are a series of physical and mental challenges, kind of like American Gladiator, mixed with Jeapordy.
You see, baseball rewards and "smuggles" illegal immigrants into the country. These individuals, for better or worse, contribute tremendous talents in the field of baseball and Americans tend to turn the other way. It's amazing what a few million bucks can do for an illegal immigrant!
Back to the Gauntlet. The same principal applies here. By combining physical and mental challenges, we can be sure that only the best of the immigrants makes it through. Sure, you might be strong enough to battle through the alligator pit, but do you have what it takes to get 9 out of 10 questions right from the original game of Trivial Pursuit?
The Gauntlet has the most advantage to policians. It's a way that they can be seen as progressive without being seen as a "loose borders" individual.
How does the country benefit? Well, I think we all know how popular reality television has become! The US Government will be able to create the first continuous 24 hour video program and will be able to sell millions in advertising around it, thus ensuring that the Gauntlet is paid for not by taxpayers, but by advertisers.
How do individuals benefit? Vegas baby! Not only will the American public enjoy the non-stop excitement of the Gauntlet, but they'll be able to gamble on who will get through. Will Jose make it through the swinging axes? Will Manuel be able to recite the 50 state capitals in alphabetical order?
What can be better than a continuous stream of immigrants attempting to traverse physical challenges (yeah, kind of like Double Dare) and mental exercises (think Rubik's Cube) broadcast live to millions of people around the globe? As you can see, it's a win-win for all involved.
Solving the immigration problem is easy, we just need progressive politicians to embrace my radical idea.
As far as the candidates go, I still have no idea what they believe. I hate the debates because it seems to be an opportunity for candidates to talk in circles as much as possible in an effort not to offend a single person in the United States (and from the way they conduct themselves, I think that they all believe that they can do that!). Obama goes from voting to construct a 750 mile fence on the US-Mexican border to, this year, being in favor of the proposed Senate immigration bill. So, basically, let's put up a fence to keep you out, but if you get in you can stay.
That got me thinking. Why stop with a fence? What we really need are a series of physical and mental challenges, kind of like American Gladiator, mixed with Jeapordy.
You see, baseball rewards and "smuggles" illegal immigrants into the country. These individuals, for better or worse, contribute tremendous talents in the field of baseball and Americans tend to turn the other way. It's amazing what a few million bucks can do for an illegal immigrant!
Back to the Gauntlet. The same principal applies here. By combining physical and mental challenges, we can be sure that only the best of the immigrants makes it through. Sure, you might be strong enough to battle through the alligator pit, but do you have what it takes to get 9 out of 10 questions right from the original game of Trivial Pursuit?
The Gauntlet has the most advantage to policians. It's a way that they can be seen as progressive without being seen as a "loose borders" individual.
How does the country benefit? Well, I think we all know how popular reality television has become! The US Government will be able to create the first continuous 24 hour video program and will be able to sell millions in advertising around it, thus ensuring that the Gauntlet is paid for not by taxpayers, but by advertisers.
How do individuals benefit? Vegas baby! Not only will the American public enjoy the non-stop excitement of the Gauntlet, but they'll be able to gamble on who will get through. Will Jose make it through the swinging axes? Will Manuel be able to recite the 50 state capitals in alphabetical order?
What can be better than a continuous stream of immigrants attempting to traverse physical challenges (yeah, kind of like Double Dare) and mental exercises (think Rubik's Cube) broadcast live to millions of people around the globe? As you can see, it's a win-win for all involved.
Solving the immigration problem is easy, we just need progressive politicians to embrace my radical idea.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Al Gore Contemplating Run for President???
Let's face it, Al Gore is a one trick pony and has made his name recently through speaking up about Global Warming. The inconvenient truth is that Al Gore (or Professor Gore as he may affectionately called) is riding this global warming thing to the top and has amassed a group of followers who are almost religiously dedicated to him, while providing very little in the way of political substance to back up both his accusations of the current administration and his assertions that he has the answers.
For example, it's easy to say in retrospect that he was against going into Iraq and for going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. But his record indicates that's not what he would have done. Where was Al Gore, the Vice President of the United States when al Qaeda first bombed the WTC? Where was that big push to go after Bin Laden then?
Al Gore wants Universal Healthcare? Great! Please take over 50% of my earned income to pay for it. That's why I went to college, give 10% of my income to charities, and work my butt off everyday, so that I can pay for the healthcare of illegal immigrants, welfare homebodies, and people who are "less fortunate."
Nevermind that our hospitals and clinics are already short staffed with nurses and doctors and that universal healthcare doesn't mean that people will go to the doctor for preventative treatment. Where's the focus on prevention? Where in Mr. Gore's Universal Healthcare plan does it require all recipients of government funding to report to an exercise regimen for at least two hours per week? It doesn't. That's because Mr. Gore, in typical Democratic fashion, refuses to hold people accountable for their own actions.
And please, don't call me cynical or out of touch. I paid for my college education by working 3 jobs (pizza delivery, sports officiating, and resident advisor) and then moved to New York City, subletted an apartment with no furniture, and pulled a mattress off the street to sleep on. I then went out and got a job that paid a base salary of $25k per year (plus commission), worked my butt off, and within 2 years made enough to start my own company. (Sorry for the rant, but I just get all worked up when I hear the talk of the income discrepancy and the poor quality of life, etc etc, and I hate that my hard earned money is siphoned off by the government to pay for ridiculous welfare programs that actually encourage laziness).
Al Gore isn't the only way the Democrats can win, in fact, he's a proven loser for the Democratic party. If he runs, he'll be remembered and shown by Republicans as the individiual who polarized the nation with his relentless pursuit of a fruitless cause which turned out to be the catastrophic event foreshadowed by Y2K doomsdayers, went into to virtual hiding for over 2 years, and basically entered a mid-life crisis after being defeated in the public arena. Let's add into the mix that Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election and we're beginning to see a pattern of repeated failure on the public stage.
Now, that's not to say that Al Gore doesn't deserve a second chance and can't change, but what I am saying is that many in the Democratic party will see him as a ball and chain, not the leader and liberator they've been waiting for. He proposes Universal Healthcare but hasn't said how he'll pay for it. Obama proposes subsidized healthcare that will cost an extra $60-$90 billion but will require lower income individuals to still pay for their health insurance (Obama and his staff have evidently entered the dream world that is so out of touch with reality it's ridiculous). John Edwards proposes Universal Healthcare, but estimates the cost to taxpayers will be over $120 billion dollars. Hillary Clinton supports Universal Healthcare but hasn't said how she'll pay for it yet. And this is just one idea that the Democrats are going to be beating each other up on over the next year.
I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of Al Gore (shocker, I know) and I despised George Bush in the 2000 election (I was all for McCain). However, I'm pretty happy with my quality of life right now and the quality of life of most of my friends and family. I'll listen to what Al Gore has to say, but I'll take it with a grain of salt, because if past performance is an indicator of future results, what he says and what he does will be two different things.
I'll give him one thing though, Al Gore sure knows how to work a crowd, and what can be more important than that skill in politics?
For example, it's easy to say in retrospect that he was against going into Iraq and for going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan. But his record indicates that's not what he would have done. Where was Al Gore, the Vice President of the United States when al Qaeda first bombed the WTC? Where was that big push to go after Bin Laden then?
Al Gore wants Universal Healthcare? Great! Please take over 50% of my earned income to pay for it. That's why I went to college, give 10% of my income to charities, and work my butt off everyday, so that I can pay for the healthcare of illegal immigrants, welfare homebodies, and people who are "less fortunate."
Nevermind that our hospitals and clinics are already short staffed with nurses and doctors and that universal healthcare doesn't mean that people will go to the doctor for preventative treatment. Where's the focus on prevention? Where in Mr. Gore's Universal Healthcare plan does it require all recipients of government funding to report to an exercise regimen for at least two hours per week? It doesn't. That's because Mr. Gore, in typical Democratic fashion, refuses to hold people accountable for their own actions.
And please, don't call me cynical or out of touch. I paid for my college education by working 3 jobs (pizza delivery, sports officiating, and resident advisor) and then moved to New York City, subletted an apartment with no furniture, and pulled a mattress off the street to sleep on. I then went out and got a job that paid a base salary of $25k per year (plus commission), worked my butt off, and within 2 years made enough to start my own company. (Sorry for the rant, but I just get all worked up when I hear the talk of the income discrepancy and the poor quality of life, etc etc, and I hate that my hard earned money is siphoned off by the government to pay for ridiculous welfare programs that actually encourage laziness).
Al Gore isn't the only way the Democrats can win, in fact, he's a proven loser for the Democratic party. If he runs, he'll be remembered and shown by Republicans as the individiual who polarized the nation with his relentless pursuit of a fruitless cause which turned out to be the catastrophic event foreshadowed by Y2K doomsdayers, went into to virtual hiding for over 2 years, and basically entered a mid-life crisis after being defeated in the public arena. Let's add into the mix that Al Gore failed to carry his home state of Tennessee in the 2000 election and we're beginning to see a pattern of repeated failure on the public stage.
Now, that's not to say that Al Gore doesn't deserve a second chance and can't change, but what I am saying is that many in the Democratic party will see him as a ball and chain, not the leader and liberator they've been waiting for. He proposes Universal Healthcare but hasn't said how he'll pay for it. Obama proposes subsidized healthcare that will cost an extra $60-$90 billion but will require lower income individuals to still pay for their health insurance (Obama and his staff have evidently entered the dream world that is so out of touch with reality it's ridiculous). John Edwards proposes Universal Healthcare, but estimates the cost to taxpayers will be over $120 billion dollars. Hillary Clinton supports Universal Healthcare but hasn't said how she'll pay for it yet. And this is just one idea that the Democrats are going to be beating each other up on over the next year.
I'll be honest, I'm not a big fan of Al Gore (shocker, I know) and I despised George Bush in the 2000 election (I was all for McCain). However, I'm pretty happy with my quality of life right now and the quality of life of most of my friends and family. I'll listen to what Al Gore has to say, but I'll take it with a grain of salt, because if past performance is an indicator of future results, what he says and what he does will be two different things.
I'll give him one thing though, Al Gore sure knows how to work a crowd, and what can be more important than that skill in politics?
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Expert Intelligence on Iraq???
Well, we've figured it out folks. The intelligence and the basis for for Senator Biden's recommendation as the Chairman for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee comes from the most reliable and accurate sources available...err, is that the New York Times he's referencing???
Are you serious? Is this how they're making decisions on Capitol Hill??? I'm obviously not the first person to point this out, but the New York Times is notoriously liberal and here it is as the guiding light for Senate requests. As if it's not bad enough that their wasting their time with a resolution requesting that President Bush pull out of Iraq! Come on guys, you had that chance 5 years ago when the majority of you voted to give the President the power to invade Iraq!!! I remember the President telling us at that point how long and difficult the operation in Iraq would be and that we would have to stay the course, and you, the very people sitting around passing resolutions that aren't worth the paper their printed on, voted to approve the invasion.
The verdict is in, you're on the record, you want to pull out of Iraq. We know it. No need to pass a resolution. If you worked in my company and you pulled a stunt like having a meeting about something that was already decided, you'd be fired. Quit wasting your time on trivial matters and move on. Let's start mending fences around the world. Let's figure out what to do about North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. Let's devise a strategy around what is currently happening in Iraq. But, instead, in typical political fashion, we'll all sit around while you debate something that doesn't matter and isn't even your responsibility. Save it for History 101 to debate. Learn from it in the future, but let's move on to things that we can control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
