« The Money Quote | Main | Thai Dry cleaners »

What's Controversial?

The Washington Post will tell you.

Still, the preelection transition team, comprising mainly lawyers, has positioned the incoming president to move fast on high-priority items without waiting for Congress.

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.

Obama's reversal wouldn't be controversial, would it?

Just sayin'.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/32899.

Comments (22)

To the victor go the change... (Below threshold)
JFO:

To the victor go the changes. Just sayin'.

Why is someone labeled "aga... (Below threshold)
Ken:

Why is someone labeled "against stem cell research" when they are really just against federal funding of this research? Why does the federal gov't have to spend all this money on not this but every other thing?

It's all about "government ... (Below threshold)

It's all about "government funding". "Oh, I see, you can't get the funding you want from private sources? Well here, we'll just take taxpayer's money and fund it for you."

JFOI dont seem to ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

JFO

I dont seem to recall you saying this in ref to Bush at any time. Also it is kind of misleading since the democrats almost always get the beneficial press.

To the v... (Below threshold)


To the victor go the changes. Just sayin'.


JFO if that were true why does the article bemoan changes that were made under Bush did he not win?

I never understand where the great potential for ESCR is.
Adult stem cells 73 successful medical cases (Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, and stroke damages,type J juvenile diabetes)

Embryonic stem cells zero success in human and mice (since 1981)

The only ones who would ben... (Below threshold)
hermie:

The only ones who would benefit from this reversal would be the university research profs who committed themselves to this kind of research, and have watched as their collegues involved with non-embyronic research have more and more success.

Well, you could also say that reversing the ban would maintain the myth that embryos are not human life, since no branch of the government would offer them any implied protection.

Behind every election win l... (Below threshold)
Captain America:

Behind every election win lies the seeds of next election defeat. There should be plenty of seeds germinating for 2012, I'm afraid.

I'm confused. Since Bush wa... (Below threshold)
Burt:

I'm confused. Since Bush was the first president to call for the funding of stem cell research and agreed to fund the continuing work on the existing strains of embryonic cells, does a reversal mean that there will be no funding now? Bush just said: "You can use Burt's money to do your silly games, but you can't use Burt's money to kill any more babies". Of course the white coated scientists replied: "But all the existing strains of embryonic stem cells are corrupted, and we're gonna have to kill a lot more babies before we can figure out how to get the lab rats to stop crapping in the petri dishes".

HermieThe... (Below threshold)

Hermie

The only ones who would benefit from this reversal would be the university research profs who committed themselves to this kind of research, and have watched as their collegues involved with non-embyronic research have more and more success.

it all down to money. I use my own stem cells then only the treatment has a cost. If they ever manage to use ESC then they can patent it. Which means residual income to the labs. It also means that fertility clinics and hospitals can now make revenue on biological products that was either stored or eliminated.

Unfortunately, McCain also ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Unfortunately, McCain also supports federal funding of stem cell research. Good thing he stole all those moderate democrat votes...

I know you righties haven't... (Below threshold)
JFO:

I know you righties haven't accepted that Obama will be the president on Jan 20 and that Mr Bush will have retired. The current president gets to make new executive orders changes in executive orders at his own discretion. Ergo, to the victor go the changes. Just sayin'. Get over it. Some day in the far distant future a Republican president will get to do the same thing and I'll have to get over it.

Retired military you don't recall me saying anything about Bush and executive orders because the issue never came up with me. However, to be clear I would have said I disagreed with lots of them and then said he has the authority to make them and then said when a democrat is in office he will have the right to change them. Clear enough?

JFO,The post is not ... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

JFO,
The post is not whether Obama has the right to make changes, but about the biased placement of the label "controversial." Pay attention.

It's the "Inflate Your Tire... (Below threshold)

It's the "Inflate Your Tires to Save Gas Syndrome." Everything Obama decides to do is going be touted like no other President ever thought of it before.

Reagan reversed Carters Executive orders.
Clinton reversed Reagan and Bush-41's executive orders.
Bush-43 reversed Clinton's executive orders.
Obama will reverse some of Bush-43's executive orders.

Each President sometimes adds their own. Some which are genuinely good ideas or are political 'traps' won't get reversed at all.

its all just SSDD. Nothing new here, move along folks.

I tend to think this line, ... (Below threshold)
Gmac:

I tend to think this line, "comprising mainly lawyers", is the most controversial. Stem cell research? not so much as its already being done, now it will be federally funded.

Look for other decisions made with the presidents pen, some a lot more controversial than research that will have a direct effect on your life.

"Stroke of the pen, law of the land."

Right. Now we can govern li... (Below threshold)
Jeff Blogworthy:

Right. Now we can govern like Elizabeth Bathory who "In order to improve her complexion and also to maintain her failing grasp on her youth and vitality, ...slaughtered six hundred innocent young women" and bathed in their blood. It's all so scientific now.

I support federal funding o... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

I support federal funding of imbecilic stem cell research as it holds the promise of curing many progressive diseases such as adult onset liberalism. Unfortunately there's little hope of curing the more extreme type 1 form of the disease that some of the lefty commenters on these pages exhibit.

Seems to me our country has... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Seems to me our country has more problems than cell research, or am I mistaken. You know, 1.2 million lazy people without jobs, country going deeper in recession, etc.

1.2 million lazy p... (Below threshold)
1.2 million lazy people without jobs
Maybe they can be harvested for stem cells.
Obama's reversal wouldn'... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Obama's reversal wouldn't be controversial, would it?

No, it wouldn't.

Just sayin'.

Obama's reversal w... (Below threshold)
Obama's reversal wouldn't be controversial, would it?

No, it wouldn't.


Um, those percentages aren't exactly overwhelming and don't speak at all to how set against stem cell research its detractors are. Just because a majority favor it, doesn't make it not controversial. The article, however, seems to indicate Bush's denial of federal funds as to what is controversial.
If a minority of people opp... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

If a minority of people oppose something, but they're really really loud about it, that should count for something, rodney? Why? That's not how public opinion works. One guy screaming "STEM CELLS = MURDER!" does not bear any more weight than one guy saying, "Well... yeah, I'm fine with using stem cells for research." Why would it?

Not that moral issues ought to be decided in the court of public opinion, mind you. Anti-miscegenation laws were supported by a majority when they were struck down; slavery was still quite popular in the South, from what I understand; racial integration in schools was met with fierce opposition; and yet the courts had the good sense to tell the majority, "Oh hai a-holes, u r wrongz, KTHXBAI."

that should count ... (Below threshold)
that should count for something, rodney? Why?
It counts for whether is controversial or not. It may not count for changing the outcome of what gets done. It says nothing about weighting the statement of one side versus the other, you will note that you added that little moronic tidbit yourself.

If 55% percent of people are against jaywalking, and 45% are for it, it would remain non-controversial, unless the 45% for it are much like you and get irrate over things of little import.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy