Just like warm apple legislation
I really don't want to make politics a regular subject on this blog. But I have been thinking about it for the past week, and I feel compelled to comment just this once, upon the loss of our president's veto-ginity.
Now, I am not going to discuss the absurdity of the fact that it took him six years to break out the veto pen. I do not have the energy, time, or space to deal with that topic. I want to discuss the issue involved with this momentous occasion.
Stem cell research. Let me make a few disclaimers first. First, I don't understand the science. At all. And that doesn't really bother me. Second, because I don't really understand the science, I am not going to choose a side of the issue of stem cell research.
So what am I writing about? I don't necessarily disagree with the president's decision. Nor would I have disagreed had he approved the bill and been wholeheartedly in favor of stem cell research.
I was watching the video clip they have for the news shows, and it shows President Bush holding and kissing and playing with a bunch of kids that were originally frozen stem cells or something. They were called "snowflakes." And then during the press conference, his press secretary answered a question with a dissmisive comment something along the lines of "the president will not sign a bill that endorses murder."
I wonder what the tone of the video clip would have been if, instead of frozen stem cells, he had been kissing the foreheads of children with Parkinson's disease. I wonder if children born without kidneys would have made a good photo shoot. Maybe a heartwarming nickname for them would have looked just as good in the newspapers. And I'm sure the staff at Fox News could have found something to say about the president "unwilling to allow an opportunity to cure terminal diseases pass us by."
There are valid points on both sides of this argument. This is not a black and white issue. But then again, very few issues are. What bothers me about this whole situation is that the president isn't acknowledging the moral ambiguities that are inherent in any discusion of science's interaction with the span of a human life.
I think that the closer you get to an issue, the more gray you see. If you only want to look at the surface of an issue, it may appear black and white. But I promise if you look closer, little shades of gray will begin to appear. I just wish our government wasn't so monochromatic.
Now, I am not going to discuss the absurdity of the fact that it took him six years to break out the veto pen. I do not have the energy, time, or space to deal with that topic. I want to discuss the issue involved with this momentous occasion.
Stem cell research. Let me make a few disclaimers first. First, I don't understand the science. At all. And that doesn't really bother me. Second, because I don't really understand the science, I am not going to choose a side of the issue of stem cell research.
So what am I writing about? I don't necessarily disagree with the president's decision. Nor would I have disagreed had he approved the bill and been wholeheartedly in favor of stem cell research.
I was watching the video clip they have for the news shows, and it shows President Bush holding and kissing and playing with a bunch of kids that were originally frozen stem cells or something. They were called "snowflakes." And then during the press conference, his press secretary answered a question with a dissmisive comment something along the lines of "the president will not sign a bill that endorses murder."
I wonder what the tone of the video clip would have been if, instead of frozen stem cells, he had been kissing the foreheads of children with Parkinson's disease. I wonder if children born without kidneys would have made a good photo shoot. Maybe a heartwarming nickname for them would have looked just as good in the newspapers. And I'm sure the staff at Fox News could have found something to say about the president "unwilling to allow an opportunity to cure terminal diseases pass us by."
There are valid points on both sides of this argument. This is not a black and white issue. But then again, very few issues are. What bothers me about this whole situation is that the president isn't acknowledging the moral ambiguities that are inherent in any discusion of science's interaction with the span of a human life.
I think that the closer you get to an issue, the more gray you see. If you only want to look at the surface of an issue, it may appear black and white. But I promise if you look closer, little shades of gray will begin to appear. I just wish our government wasn't so monochromatic.
posted by oneweekend at 8:28 PM
3 Comments:
Ok. I couldn't resist this: the reason he didn't veto anything in 6 years is as Bill Maher said: "He missed that episode of School House Rock." Ok to easy. I could also go the route of "Dick Cheany just told him last month he didn't have to sign off on everything" but that was just WAY to easy.
Not sure how I feel about the Stem-cell research thing either. I really don't know anything about it, aside from that Bush just vetoed it, and it can be considered morally wrong (why, I actually, honestly, have no idea. No really, I don't know why).
And whats wrong with some good ol' political banter? I love this stuff, I just wish I knew more about stuff (that sentance made a lot more sense in my head).
I don't know what to say. Your last posts have been so uninspired, Dale. I'm not saying they were bad; just that I could have read the same thing on, like, a thousand blogs. Without even trying. If I wanted to seek peoples' opinions on the issues.
Your remarkable regularity in judicious social commentary has been the source of multiple good calls on my part. Unfortunately, this post deserves no such response. I agree with some of it, but I must, in good conscience, give the according good call to the first analyst I heard make this observation. I have no idea who that would be, but it was someone who said it long ago and far away.
The lack of opinion, while decidedly unenlightening, is honorable, however. Now why not give us your unique and insightful opinion of Fundamentalism?
Its an election year. Your party right, other party wrong. Your party good, other party evil.
Why did bush win in '04? Because the relgious right came out in droves to vote for gay marriage bans that were on the ballots of several states.
So now its 2006 and the GOP is busting out the golden oldies. Constiutional Ammendment to ban gay marriage, stem cell veto, and like a bonus track on a greatest hits album--internet gambling ban.
So instead of working on an immigration policy that works, reducing the national debt, and ending this costly (both in lives and money) war, the GOP is working on gay marriage, stem cells and internet poker.
Makes sense to me. Painting Dems as gay gambling killers (I smell an oscar winning movie) is of course a higher priority.
Basically to wrap up my rant here, I doubt Bush's veto had anything to do with morality. It had everything to do with winning the midterms.
Post a Comment
<< Home