|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 10:40:32 GMT -5
<burner>
|
|
|
Post by billhammond on Mar 25, 2009 10:42:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 10:45:09 GMT -5
<Partridge>
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 10:45:29 GMT -5
<Keith>
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Mar 25, 2009 10:46:43 GMT -5
The one thing I can say about Obama is that he seems to have a real grasp of all the facts, he can express himself well on all these topics and it's just such a relief to listen to him vs Dubbya. He is obviously far more articulate than Bush, but I don't see that being the same thing as having a better grasp of the facts. He may in fact have a better grasp, but simply being articulate isn't an expression of that fact one way or another. I will say this: Back when Bush first announced his embryonic stem cell policy, he gave a national address that was very heavy on the nuances of the ethical considerations involved. Obama has never spoken on the subject with similar depth. You may like Obama's policy better, but that's a separate question. For me actually, the jury is still out on the Obama policies. I am deeply concerned about the deficit and when this economy turns around if he doesn't reverse course on the spending side or bite the bullet and raise taxes to pay for it all, I will not be on his side any longer. But I can say that I am relishing the vitriol and anger I'm seeing from Limbaugh and his supporters. They are now getting a taste of the anger I felt for 8 years under Dubbya. So life if good for me in that regard. Bottom line is that if the FOX news talking heads are all unhappy...I'm happy; Obama must be doing something right.
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 10:56:14 GMT -5
Mark Steyn had an interesting observation the other day. As he put it, on the day after the election, Obama was destined to prove out to be one of three things:
1) The post-partisan, pragmatic, intellectually serious centrist that so many (eg, David Brooks and the "Obamacons") hoped he would be.
2) A doctrinaire leftist, consistent with his Senate voting record and pre-Senate background, with ambitions for massive government expansion ala European socialism.
3) A hopelessly weak leader, in completely over his head, totally unqualified to be president, as evidenced by his stunningly thin resume.
Early in the transition, there was some reason to think #1 was happening. But since taking office, door #1 has been completely taken off the table. The only question left is if its door #2 or door #3.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Mar 25, 2009 11:02:29 GMT -5
Well if you aren't a committed socialist then it's "My whole world lies waiting behind Door #3"
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 11:02:53 GMT -5
For me actually, the jury is still out on the Obama policies. I am deeply concerned about the deficit and when this economy turns around if he doesn't reverse course on the spending side or bite the bullet and raise taxes to pay for it all, I will not be on his side any longer. Actually, (to me) the most hopeful thing he said in the speech was the acknowledgement that growth had to be something more than a bookkeeping trick (I don't remember his words, but I remember thinking to myself, "yeah! that's what I've been trying to put into words for days now!" Sadly, his policies still seem bent on the notion that government (not the market) is the creator of wealth (and thereby, growth). But hopefully as he is trying to rebuild us into a European style nation, he will face the market realities and realize that government is a net consumer -- NOT producer. I also hope he's right -- that us, banded together with Europe, and determined to not be attacked by international bad guys based soley on our likeability will be right. The fact that we have spent an inordinate amount of our indebtedness so that Europe doesn't need to defend itself -- whether necessary or not -- will be put to the test. I'm inclined to think that he's either right, OR...if terrorism or other bad-guy-ism persists and we chose to come to NOBODY'S rescue, the rest of the world will still be able to hold the line.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 25, 2009 11:26:49 GMT -5
But he didn't say that the Executive Order itself was the entire guidance that the Oval Office gave, he said they had provided some guidelines. Where in the executive order are the guidelines? I've read it. All I saw was the part where he directed the NIH to come up with guidelines. I didn't find any in the order itself, contrary to what Obama claimed last night. Pay attention here. He never said the guidance was in the Executive Order, he never mentioned the Executive Order at all. This is an invented issue, Jeff. There's no there there. From the transcript:QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In your remarks on stem-cell research earlier this month, you talked about a majority consensus in determining whether or not this is the right thing to do, to federally fund embryonic stem-cell research. I'm just wondering, though, how much you personally wrestled with the morality or ethics of federally funding this kind of research, especially given the fact that science so far has shown a lot of progress with adult stem cells but not a lot with embryonic?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Okay. No, I -- I think it's a -- I think it's a legitimate question.
I -- I wrestle with these issues every day. As I mentioned to -- I think in an interview a couple of days ago, by the time an issue reaches my desk, it's a hard issue. If it was an easy issue, somebody else would have solved it and it wouldn't have reached me.
Look, I believe that it is very important for us to have strong moral guidelines, ethical guidelines, when it comes to stem-cell research or anything that touches on, you know, the issues of possible cloning or issues related to, you know, the human life sciences.
I think those issues are all critical, and I've said so before. I wrestle with it on stem cell; I wrestle with it on issues like abortion.
I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test. What we have said is that for embryos that are typically about to be discarded, for us to be able to use those in order to find cures for Parkinson's or for Alzheimer's or for, you know, all sorts of other debilitating diseases, juvenile diabetes, that -- that it is the right thing to do. And that's not just my opinion. That is the opinion of a number of people who are also against abortion.
Now, I am glad to see progress is being made in adult stem cells. And if the science determines that we can completely avoid a set of ethical questions or political disputes, then that's great. I have -- I have no investment in causing controversy. I'm happy to avoid it if that's where the science leads us.
But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach. And that's what I think is reflected in the executive order that I signed.
QUESTION: I meant to ask as a follow-up, though, do you think that scientific consensus is enough to tell us what we can and cannot do?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No. I think there's always an ethical and a moral element that has to be -- be a part of this. And so, as I said, I don't take decisions like this lightly. They're ones that I take seriously. And -- and I respect people who have different opinions on this issue.
But I think that this was the right thing to do and the ethical thing to do. And as I said before, my hope is, is that we can find a mechanism ultimately to cure these diseases in a way that gains a hundred percent consensus. And we certainty haven't achieved that yet. But I think on balance this was the right step to take. Oh, and he never suggested that we should do something just because its scientifically possible to do it. Note those last two paragraphs.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 11:36:01 GMT -5
Right. But those last two paragraphs contradict the previous statement...
"But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach."
...which is saying that, compared to any other means of making ethical/moral decisions (code: religion), I have chosen science as the trump card -- a trump card that supercedes any other means of determining moral/ethical decisions. And because we Americans want nothing more that pragmatically offered ease, we like to hear his equivocation/rationalization on the matter. We like the idea that moral/ethical things be as fluid as we wish.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Mar 25, 2009 11:38:13 GMT -5
Mark Steyn had an interesting observation the other day. As he put it, on the day after the election, Obama was destined to prove out to be one of three things: 1) The post-partisan, pragmatic, intellectually serious centrist that so many (eg, David Brooks and the "Obamacons") hoped he would be. 2) A doctrinaire leftist, consistent with his Senate voting record and pre-Senate background, with ambitions for massive government expansion ala European socialism. 3) A hopelessly weak leader, in completely over his head, totally unqualified to be president, as evidenced by his stunningly thin resume. If we could insert left and right, and democrat and republican depending on the circumstances, wouldn't this fit any newly elected president?
|
|
|
Post by omaha on Mar 25, 2009 11:42:51 GMT -5
Ok, now its your turn to pay attention. Obama said "I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test." In the context of his answer last night, is there a reasonable interpretation of "we provided" other than a reference to the executive order in question? If there is such an interpretation, who are "we" and precisely where were the guidelines "provided"? Obama keeps saying that there are moral considerations, and that he wrestles with them. What does that mean? Show me, in concrete terms, how Obama's deliberations of these ethical issues have impacted his policy. Show me where he has promulgated guidance to the government (who's bureaucrats will ultimately make the front line decisions of who gets the funding) regarding these ethical issues. Its not enough to talk about those concerns at a press conference. Those words have no legal impact. He is the president. If he wants to claim the benefit of his ethical deliberations, then he has to codify his conclusions in a legally concrete way...through an executive order, administrative actions...something. He has done nothing of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 25, 2009 11:43:05 GMT -5
Mark Steyn had an interesting observation the other day. As he put it, on the day after the election, Obama was destined to prove out to be one of three things: 1) The post-partisan, pragmatic, intellectually serious centrist that so many (eg, David Brooks and the "Obamacons") hoped he would be. 2) A doctrinaire leftist, consistent with his Senate voting record and pre-Senate background, with ambitions for massive government expansion ala European socialism. 3) A hopelessly weak leader, in completely over his head, totally unqualified to be president, as evidenced by his stunningly thin resume. Early in the transition, there was some reason to think #1 was happening. But since taking office, door #1 has been completely taken off the table. The only question left is if its door #2 or door #3. Before making that remark, Steyn was destined to prove out one of three things: 1) He's capable of occasionally rising above his usual empty snarkiness and give some intelligent commentary. 2) He's a shill for the extreme right-wing. 3) He has his head seriously stuck in his ass. #1 is clearly off the table, now the competition is between #'s 2 and 3.
|
|
|
Post by Supertramp78 on Mar 25, 2009 11:51:27 GMT -5
If Obama thought about the ethical issues around stem cells and decided that they didn't rise to the level of concern that some have so he discarded them in favore of funding, would that be an answer you would like instead? Do you need to know what his opinion of the ethical objections are too? they seem to not be a roadblock to him. The fact that most people in the country agree with him rather strongly on this issue means it isn't an issue to them either.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 12:07:58 GMT -5
If Obama thought about the ethical issues around stem cells and decided that they didn't rise to the level of concern that some have so he discarded them in favore of funding, would that be an answer you would like instead? Do you need to know what his opinion of the ethical objections are too? they seem to not be a roadblock to him. The fact that most people in the country agree with him rather strongly on this issue means it isn't an issue to them either. Yeah, I think he just didn't need to contradict himself. I don't think it was a tough decision for him, despite what he said. I think he's like most of those on the left here -- if we can make use out of embryos, let's do it. No sweat. Instead, he turned it into the equivalent of Bill Clinton's "Legal, Safe, and RARE" comment regarding abortion. It seemed (if you didn't think too hard) to be a nice, moderate position. But after a minute....and you start to think about it....and it suddenly dawns on you.... ...that comment was EXACTLY as judgemental as the right-to-lifer's position. That is, it makes a judgement on abortion -- that it should be "rare". Really, Mr Clinton? On what basis "rare"? If it is because it is wrong, then why "Legal and safe"? If it should be a woman's right to choose, then what gives you the right, Mr Clinton, to say it should be "rare"? If legal, then why not as many as it takes to control population, make sure that only the right children are born, make sure that nobody is ever put out with an inconvenient pregnancy....whatever criterion a woman might choose for whether or not to abort? And Obama doesn't need to sound like he struggles with the pro-life questions. He won. His pov is the majority. We want to experiment with embryos. And he doesn't really even need to worry about who might disagree -- the pro-life religious coalition is falling apart now, with the evangelical church choosing the more hip and with-it piety of environmentalism ( so they can stuff their megachurches and those church's coffers) over the pro-life pietism they embraced for the past three decades. The will probably never build that coalition back.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 25, 2009 12:28:38 GMT -5
Ok, now its your turn to pay attention. Obama said "I think that the guidelines that we provided meet that ethical test." In the context of his answer last night, is there a reasonable interpretation of "we provided" other than a reference to the executive order in question? If there is such an interpretation, who are "we" and precisely where were the guidelines "provided"? Yes, there is a reasonable interpretation other than the Executive Order, because the President doesn't communicate with the heads of agencies exclusively by Executive Order. "We" is his immediate staff talking to people at DHHS, and "provided" is to them. Sorry you weren't included in the memo, but policy is usually drafted behind closed doors before being introduced for public debate. And he laid out at least one principle at the press conference where he signed the EO, that Federal funding would not support human cloning. Obama keeps saying that there are moral considerations, and that he wrestles with them. What does that mean? Show me, in concrete terms, how Obama's deliberations of these ethical issues have impacted his policy. Show me where he has promulgated guidance to the government (who's bureaucrats will ultimately make the front line decisions of who gets the funding) regarding these ethical issues. Get this straight, Jeff. When the President wants to communicate with the Secretary of DHHS or the Director of the NIH, he gets to use a telephone if he wants. Or send his staff. He doesn't have to do it in the media. See my answer above. He signed the EO on March 9. The policy is due 4 months from then. You'll just have to wait. And he discussed ethical considerations in both press conferences, March 9 and 24, when he talked about balancing the moral obligations we have to pursue cures with the ethics of using embryos left over from IVF or cells derived from those embryos. Its not enough to talk about those concerns at a press conference. Those words have no legal impact. He is the president. If he wants to claim the benefit of his ethical deliberations, then he has to codify his conclusions in a legally concrete way...through an executive order, administrative actions...something. He has done nothing of the sort. He's codified his conclusions in the EO overturning the Bush restrictions and will be further codified in the final regulations and enacting legislation.
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Mar 25, 2009 12:35:52 GMT -5
Right. But those last two paragraphs contradict the previous statement... "But what I don't want to do is predetermine this based on a very rigid ideological approach." ...which is saying that, compared to any other means of making ethical/moral decisions (code: religion), I have chosen science as the trump card -- a trump card that supercedes any other means of determining moral/ethical decisions. And because we Americans want nothing more that pragmatically offered ease, we like to hear his equivocation/rationalization on the matter. We like the idea that moral/ethical things be as fluid as we wish. No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that other ideologies, including other religious ideologies, can be considered as well. A number of religions in the US do NOT consider abortion to be wrong, why have their views been locked out by Bush's rigid view? Or, for that matter, non-religious ethical systems (not necessarily science).
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Mar 25, 2009 13:23:53 GMT -5
Sadly, his policies still seem bent on the notion that government (not the market) is the creator of wealth (and thereby, growth). He made a very good point last night sighting statistics that the vast majority of growth over the last 10 years came in the financial sector (you know, the one that almost brought down the economy). He is absolutely spot on that the "kind" of growth we have is more important than just growth of any kind. By leaving the markets to themselves as Bush had for the last 8 years, we saw what bad growth can do. Manufacturing was shipped overseas and replaced by growth in financial services. That said however, I'm not at all convinced that what he plans to spend money on is going to give us the "right" growth either. I actually don't think the government can spend money to create high-paying" manufacturing jobs in the U.S. again. This economy won't get the kind of growth it needs by building solar panels and windmills. The bottom line is that he can't wave a money wand and get companies to move their China plants back to U.S. soil because the pot holes were fixed in Ohio, or get people to accept those jobs at China wage rates. So while he does say that the spending is "suppose" to give the growth we need, I'm not convinced it will work. And that is why I am very worried about the deficit. He's making a huge bet and if it doesn't pay off, the debt will still be there. But as he also said, all those who are quick to criticize aren't offering any alternative solutions.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 13:25:55 GMT -5
Sadly, his policies still seem bent on the notion that government (not the market) is the creator of wealth (and thereby, growth). He made a very good point last night sighting statistics that the vast majority of growth over the last 10 years came in the financial sector (you know, the one that almost brought down the economy). He is absolutely spot on that the "kind" of growth we have is more important than just growth of any kind. By leaving the markets to themselves as Bush had for the last 8 years, we saw what bad growth can do. Manufacturing was shipped overseas and replaced by growth in financial services. That said however, I'm not at all convinced that what he plans to spend money on is going to give us the "right" growth either. I actually don't think the government can spend money to create high-paying" manufacturing jobs in the U.S. again. This economy won't get the kind of growth it needs by building solar panels and windmills. The bottom line is that he can't wave a money wand and get companies to move their China plants back to U.S. soil or get people to accept those jobs at China wage rates. So while he does say that the spending is "suppose" to give the growth we need, I'm not convinced it will work. And that is why I am very worried about the deficit. He's making a huge bet and if it doesn't pay off, the debt will still be there. But as he also said, all those who are quick to criticize aren't offering any alternative solutions. Yeah, that was my take on it pretty much too. That "growth in the financial sector" is the part I was trying to recall.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Mar 25, 2009 13:26:39 GMT -5
No, it says nothing of the sort. It says that other ideologies, including other religious ideologies, can be considered as well. . Ricght .. Considered and dismissed.
|
|