In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Thomas Jefferson
Obama Administration Arrogance Continues:
Appeal of Decision Granting Injunction
Based on Dickey-Wicker Amendment:
Thumbs DOWN!
We've got the Justice Department determined to go after states, the traditional regulators of health care, on the recent health care bill, the first federal entitlement expansion without bipartisan support and against popular opinion and which, without precedent, penalizes people and/or businesses for making their own arrangements for health care services. We have ICE refusing to go after unauthorized immigrants if they fall within certain politically protected groups, but suing the State of Arizona for detaining criminal suspects unable to produce documentation of lawful residence. We have the Justice Department which wanted to put KSM, whom already wanted to plead guilty earlier, in a show trial under the virtual shadow of the Twin Tower collapse, which would have strained local law enforcement budgets. So should we be surprised, after Judge Royce Lamberth's ruling last Monday, granting an injunction against NIH funding of embryonic stem cell research, under Obama's executive order, that the Justice Department is appealing the decision and asking the Washington judge to temporarily lift his injunction under appeal?
Why should we be surprised that Barack Obama, an obviously overrated former lecturer on, of all things, Constitutional law at the University of Chicago law school, decided he had a unilateral right to contradict federal law in the form of the 1996 Dickey-Wicker amendment, ruling out the use of relevant taxpayer money?
The suit was initiated by researchers following up on promising results in the use of adult stem cells whom demonstrated, to Judge Lamberth's satisfaction, that they had standing as NIH refocused its position on politically correct embryonic stem cell research, which I myself have criticized for being promoted as snake oil. In essence, embryonic stem cells are thought to have remarkable potential for various human afflictions, e.g., spinal cord repair, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc.
The problem is that embryonic stem cells are reaped through a harvesting process that kills a human embryo. Where do most of these human embryos come from? A largely unregulated process at fertility clinics which often create a large number of embryos from partner sperm and eggs to facilitate successful pregnancy of the wife or a surrogate mother. For technical reasons, surplus embryos are destroyed; these constitute the primary supply for researchers: the argument is that since the embryos are going to be destroyed anyway, they should be available for scientific researchers, subject to consent of the parents whom "own" the embryos.
I have a nuanced position on the question of embryonic stem cell research; I do believe in the fundamental pursuit of independent scientific knowledge and research, although clearly there are certain professional standards. For example, there is a question of informed consent; even when I did research using questionnaires, I was compelled to specifically inform people that they were not required to complete it. In particular, I worry about scientists depending on inefficiencies of current fertilization technologies to provide a sufficient supply of embryos; it seems there would be a vested interest to promote fertilization services and against improving related technology. We are on a slippery slope towards the establishment and operation of embryo farms, a moral injustice of the highest order.
Ironically, the issue resulted in a family dispute during the 2008 campaign. (Over the past couple of weeks, one of my nieces pleaded with me not to mention a personal matter in my blog; I'm not sure where that came from. My readership views would be a lot higher if my relatives were regular readers...) Before I started this blog, I sometimes sent emails out expressing political views--but I've almost never discussed or emailed my political views to my nephews and nieces, ranging from middle school to a few college graduates still in their 20's. So I was dumbfound to find myself cc'ed on a scathing letter from one of my nieces to my mother, where she ripped McCain apart on personal grounds for his SUPPORT of embryonic stem cell research. [McCain supports embryonic stem cell research based on his personal friendship with a Democratic mentor, Mo Udall, whom was diagnosed with Parkinson's in the late 1970's and died in late 1998.] My niece claimed that she disproved the possibility that this scientific endeavor would ever bear fruit in a high school paper she wrote (and offered to give me a copy of her paper). If I had a dime for every scientist whom opined that something could never done... What struck me as particularly astonishing was the fact that she seemed utterly clueless that her favored candidate, Barack Obama, argued that John McCain's measured support didn't go far enough, and in fact the Democrats made their political support a signature issue, highlighting high-profile celebrities like actors Michael J. Fox and Dana Reeves, wife of Superman actor and disability advocate Christopher Reeves, whom suffered a spinal cord injury in the spring of 1995.
On a side note, I was more annoyed by my niece's dogmatic approach to science, which is essentially apolitical at its core, not her support of Obama. I always felt that if I was stupid enough in my salad days to have supported the election of Jimmy Carter, until now the most inept President, young people today have had their own right to make a mistake in helping to elect the least qualified Presidential nominee in my lifetime, the Pied Piper of Failed Liberalism. [I have to wonder, though; when I was younger, we were more likely to rebel against authority figures like professors; in today's colleges, there's maybe one conservative professor for every 7 liberal ones. We see intellectually lazy college students and graduates whom accept uncritically the groupthink progressive perspective of their aging hippie professors.]
Adapting Dr. Phil McGraw's signature line, young people, how is that (election of Barack Obama) working for you? Some political mojo, don't you think? The highest unemployment rate among teens and young adults in decades? Lots of job offers coming out of college? How long are you going to unconditionally accept his incessant excuses and whining about the poor hand he's been dealt?
The fact of the matter is that any executive order cannot arbitrarily push aside federal law the President disagrees with. Keep in mind that what the Congress ruled out was federal funding--they did not ban embryonic stem cell research. To a certain degree, it's hazy because private sector (not to mention some state and/or local government) funding is available, and money is fungible. What the President tried to do is a violation of the balance of powers. If he truly believes that the public is behind the federal funding of this type of science (and I've seen polls that dispute that), he should explicitly push for repeal of Dickey-Wicker.
News Corp, the Dems, and the 2008 Election
Any regular reader of this blog knows I've been a sharp critic of Fox News; I refuse to watch Fox Report in the aftermath of Shep Smith's unprofessional, judgmental presentation of the Gulf oil spill, I've called Bill O'Reilly out on his populist rants (e.g., so-called oil speculators), I've gotten annoyed by Sean Hannity's repetitive, whiny laundry lists of Obama complaints, his cloying interviews (e.g., with Sarah Palin) and Greta van Susteren's questionable ties with Sarah Palin (of course, all this became a moot point when FNC hired Sarah Palin, as I had predicted). News coverage is often heavily slanted, e.g., I have never seen anyone at Fox News really take on Sarah Palin in terms of her misleading presentation on the Bridge to Nowhere and Troopergate, her heavy pursuit of federal earmarks as mayor and governor, or her dubious explanations on the ethics complaints and resignation. In fact, you see knee-jerk, misguided chivalrous defenses of Sarah Palin by Bill O'Reilly and others, e.g., regarding complaints by McCain staffers and numerous other occasions since the campaign. More recently you had the groupthink presentation on the Ground Zero mosque issue where Bill O'Reilly, for instance, assumes that banning a mosque near Ground Zero based on anti-Islamic resentment by 9/11 survivors' families is morally acceptable. Then there's the fact that when you do see or hear a discussion, it's mostly on surface-level details and political spin.
If anyone thinks that I am validating the mainstream media (e.g., ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc.), he or she is sadly mistaken. I will simply refer the reader to Media Research Center and Accuracy in Media. I don't think I've watched a nightly newscast for any of the major networks in months. (However, I subscribe to a number of major outlet news alerts and have included as sources CNN, the New York Times and the Huffington Post.)
I would like to think that my views are compatible with a large percentage of center-right America looking for more than bumper-sticker politics. There's a difference of my approach versus Sean Hannity. When I listen to Sean Hannity, he sounds almost gleeful in using the latest troubling economic statistics on which to attack Barack Obama. Yes, I have strong opinions about Obama (just see the previous commentary). But my biggest frustration with Obama doesn't come from his ideology but his lack of leadership and political savvy. He and his progressive allies in Congress were absolutely sure that once people understood the health care bill rammed down their throats, the public would finally see the light and came to accept the medicine that the intelligentsia had designed and mandated for the public's own good. The public has not warmed up to the bill at all; I've written several posts on the health care debacle, but Bill Clinton made a historic error by spurning a deal with Bob Dole on catastrophic insurance. I felt that Obama, particularly given a bloated budget, could have offered a pragmatic middle ground instead of dealing with insurance mandates and a huge bureaucracy, not to mention intentionally misleading numbers; instead, the Democrats decided to force an odious Senate health care bill through the House versus trying to pass a progressive compromise bill and face Scott Brown's 41st vote blocking it. Obama did force his bill through, but now owns it. He will have to eat any bureaucratic delay, shortfall of benefits or funding, etc.
I love more of a give and take of policy ideas, problem solving, and the like, but I have to face the reality that I don't have the audience of a Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Bill O'Reilly. My own Mom thinks my opinions are boring. I think it would be great if News Corp. created an alternative news channel focusing on its newer acquisition, the Wall Street Journal and/or the National Review, more of a thinking man's conservative channel. Could you imagine George Will, Thomas Sowell, Robert Bork--or more of a broader cross-section of conservatives, like paleoconservatives like Pat Buchanan? Alas. I also tried to be the ultimate professor in the classroom; I don't think I had unrealistic expectations or impossible grading schemes, but I was very unpopular in some of my classes. Of course, I wasn't teaching at Stanford, and I had a wide cross-section of students. I am convinced if I had accepted Bowling Green State's offer back in 1986, I would have been tenured there. I liked BGSU better than UWM, but UWM had an MIS doctoral program and gave me an opportunity to teach graduate school classes. All BGSU offered on the graduate level was a core MIS class in its MBA program, and some textbook author owned those classes.
[BGSU never understood why I turned down their offer; they thought it was because they cut it unbelievably close getting me back on the flight out. The faculty member dropping me off actually gassed up on the way to the airport; I raced to the gate to find it closed, but they let me on the flight. The guy who eventually got the position initially offered to me I think won tenure in his fourth year there, while my academic career was crumbling under freakish academic politics I never saw another faculty member go through. But I'm responsible for the decision to go to Milwaukee. BGSU was the best college to ever make me an offer; I wanted to accept and thank them for giving me the opportunity. Obviously they made the right choice after me, and I wish them well. I once had interesting conversations with a Dartmouth recruiter (he was impressed because I was one of a couple of doctoral fellows whom attended two well-regarded consortia) and a University of Washington faculty member. The Washington thing never went anywhere because I wanted to teach at least some MIS courses.]
Anyway, the Washington Examiner, in the aftermath of a Democratic attack on News Corp's $1M contribution to the conference of Republican governors, contacted a campaign watchdog organization and discovered that Obama and his fellow Democrats got 88% of political donations from national media reporters, writers, and executives. Surprised?
Political Humor
More original jokes...
- When does Obama personally feel the effects of the bad economy? Every day, when his mother-in-law speaks her mind at the family dining room table
- .How does Obama remember his native state? Hawaiian luau now feature Kalua 100% government pork...
Gene Kelly, "Singin' in the Rain"
