Bush Prepares to Deliver First Veto After 17 Trimesters in Office
As I’m sure everyone is aware by now, the U.S. House of Representatives made a futile gesture on Tuesday, passing a bill that would allow federal funding for stem cell research and sending that bill to the Senate. The Senate is expected to… well, it actually doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what the Senate does. Our Zealot-in-Chief swore to veto the measure after finally finding that pesky veto under the cushions of the settee in the Oval Office, where it had lain undisturbed since falling out of Bill Clinton’s pants during a compromising moment. The one glimmer of hope is that 50 Republican congressmen broke with the White House and voted for the bill. This shows us that, for the time being, the dark tide rising in the GOP hasn’t totally engulfed it.
The “Pro-Life” movement will be ecstatic when Bush vetos the bill. Sure, it means people will die because treatments that could have been developed won’t be, but at least they’re not embryos. They’ll only be doctors, lawyers, sanitation workers and insurance salesmen dying of horrific and debilitating diseases. Those cute little balls of cells that are more precious to the lord will be safe, though… at least until they’re thrown away. That’s right, this bill only provides for research done on donated embryos from fertility clinics. These are embryos that are no longer needed.
So you’ve got a ball of cells. Maybe, if it were implanted, it would be a nobel prize winner or a celebrated concert cellist. However, the mother has finished her treatment, so there are two choices. You can 1) chuck it out with the uneaten portion of your turkey on whole wheat or 2) SAVE LIVES WITH IT. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent christian god says to take out the trash. It may take a while to pick it up, though. We killed the sanitation worker in the last paragraph.
“Where you stand, dig deep and pry!
Down there is the well.
Let the obscurantists cry:
‘Down there’s only–hell!’”
-Friedrich Nietzsche
~I AM~
May 26th, 2005 at at 10:17 am
I support adult and embryonic stem-cell research – I don’t share the religious concerns of President Bush – but not GOVERNMENT-FUNDED research. Bush is right on this point re: government funds for such activity. If stem cell research is the next big thing, then why isn’t private industry all over it to generate new cell lines? It is because it is (1) too iffy an enterprise; with (2) highly dubious benefits; and thus (3) scientists want a government guarantee, which will reward inefficiency. If people are so gung-ho about the claimed massive benefits of such research, then private industry AND individuals will come out of their pockets to fund such research.
May 26th, 2005 at at 11:18 am
” If people are so gung-ho about the claimed massive benefits of such research, then private industry AND individuals will come out of their pockets to fund such research.”
—That isn’t true molotov. Early research is at a stage where basic knowledge about the field is obtained as well as simple techniques that can’t be patented by a particular company. So companies will not spend money on research for stem cells until they can, at the end of their research, directly turn it into a marketable, patented product.
Take the following example. Wouldn’t you agree that space travel and other things associated with space will prove to be a huge deal in the future. Why aren’t companies pouring their money into space travel? Why didn’t cell phone companies and DirectTV fund the space program in the 1950s? It’s because their potential benefits are too far off, and (at least in DirectTV’s sake) the companies that might utilitize stem cell technology might not develop until the technology is readily accessible.
If you followed your logic, almost all research in physics and math would be cut from federal funding as well. Most of those applications are far, far away, and companies would DEFINITELY not pay for that. Engineering can be paid for by companies, since their results are more quickly turned into products. But science, which is the pursuit of knowledge NOT the pursuit of marketable products, should always and necessarily has to be supported by federal funds.
May 26th, 2005 at at 11:21 am
I’m sure Bush’s stance on this has to do with his deep commitment to religious values and not the sudden shock to his friends in the pharmaceutical companies once diseases that once required years of medicine are figured out and cured.
You cynical people.
May 26th, 2005 at at 2:48 pm
Forgive the long quote, but it applies. This is from George Carlin.
—
Anytime a bunch of holy people want to kill each other I’m a happy guy. But don’t be giving me all this shit about the sanctity of life. I mean, even if there were such a thing, I don’t think it’s something you can blame on God. No, you know where the sanctity of life came from? We made it up! You know why? Cause we’re alive! Self-interest. Living people have a strong interest in promoting the idea that somehow life is sacred. You don’t see Abbott and Costello running around, talking about this shit, do you? We’re not hearing a whole lot from Mussolini on the subject. What’s the latest from JFK? Not a god damned thing, cause JFK, Mussolini, and Abbott and Costello are fucking dead. They’re fucking dead, and dead people give less than a shit about the sanctity of life. Only living people care about it, so the whole thing grows out of a completely biased point of view. It’s a self-serving, man-made bullshit story. It’s one of these things we tell ourselves so we’ll feel noble. Life is sacred, makes you feel noble. Well let me ask you this, if everything that ever lived is dead, and everything alive is going to die, where does the sacred part come in? I’m having trouble with that. Because even with the stuff we preach about the sanctity of life, we don’t practice it. Look at what we kill. Mosquitos and flies, because they’re pests! Lions and tigers, because it’s fun! Chickens and pigs, because we’re hungry. Pheasants and quayle, because it’s fun, and we’re hungry. And people! We kill people, because they’re pests . . . and it’s fun! And you might have noticed something else, the sanctity of life doesn’t seem to apply to cancer cells, does it? You never see a bumpersticker that says ’save the tumors’ or ‘I brake for advanced melanoma.’ No, viruses, mold, mildew, maggots, fungus, weeds, e. coli bacteria, the crabs, nothing sacred about those things. So at best, the sanctity of life is kind of a selective thing. We get to choose which forms of life we feel are sacred, and we get to kill the rest. Pretty neat deal, huh? You know how we got it? We made the whole fucking thing up! Made it up, the same way we made up the death penalty. We made them both up, the sanctity of life and the death penalty. Aren’t we versatile?
May 26th, 2005 at at 3:02 pm
Does Bush not understand the whole in-vitro process? They purposely create excess embryos and implant several at a time because most of them are not going to survive in the first place. In Bush’s warped view of the world, this is tantamount to pre-meditated murder. Why is it OK for embryos to sacrifice their “lives” so that a woman can get pregnant but not OK to make that same sacrifice to help prevent/cure disease? Or can I expect Bush to speak out against in-vitro in his next press conference?
I know that there are Christian sects that do not approve of in-vitro. And I also have the feeling that the majority of Christians don’t have a problem with in-vitro and birth control, only the wackos. My guess is that Bush would never publicly speak out against in-vitro because it would be politically damaging, which of course we all know that political power trumps religious convictions.
May 27th, 2005 at at 8:14 am
Bush Prepares to Veto Stem Cell Research
The Evangelical Atheist has a great post about W getting ready to veto a stem cell research bill that actually passed through Congress. In this one simple act, he can pay off a huge debt to the Christian extremists who made his election possible…
May 27th, 2005 at at 3:56 pm
Bruce, I’ve been making the same argument that you have posted for months. I don’t think Bush would think of invitro that way, though. Of course, sometimes I wonder if he thinks for himself at all. And no, I’m not a “liberal”. More of a Libertarian, really.
Great entry, I Am. I think the title of this post is rockin’.
May 29th, 2005 at at 5:42 pm
I’m sorry, but the only way I can convey my feelings for anything our presnit does is summed up quite nicely in my bumper-sticker: Fuck Bush!
November 30th, 2006 at at 3:14 am
paid research…
Need a good part time online career? This works when all else fails…….
October 30th, 2007 at at 9:20 am
odds that jesus is the messiah…
prospected Teledyne treasures popularly stabilize oldness …