"No Matter What Happens During the Obama Administration, There's the Perfect Bush Screw Up for the Occasion"

Over the past 16 months, I have thoroughly enjoyed conservatives' attempts to pin every one of our country's problems on President Barack Obama. Of late, they've been calling the BP gulf oil spill "Obama's Katrina." This is such a non-sequitur that I can't help letting out a little laugh each time I hear it. Oh yeah, because providing timely emergency response to a natural disaster threatening thousands of human lives, which IS the government's duty (think FEMA and the numerous major hurricanes that our government has promptly responded to prior to Katrina), is so very much like plugging a deep sea oil well leak, which the government has no expertise in. Can anyone say 'Apples to Oranges'? However, this spill should certainly cause any reasonable person to ponder the wisdom of doing more off-shore drilling and the adequacy of the current deep-sea drilling regulations regime.

Then there is the "Obama's recession" refrain. This gets me laughing even harder because of the audacity of the revisionist history. Did not the real estate bubble both inflate and burst while Bush was still in office? The recession officially started in 2008. Obama did not take office until January 2009. (This isn't to say that it is entirely the Bush Administration's fault. It's much more complicated than that.) Given how deep economists have told us this recession is (the largest since the Depression), I think the turn around has been impressive. Within 2 months of Obama's inauguration, the economy was shrinking at about 6%. However, as of January 2010, the economy was GROWING at 6%. That is a 12% GDP turn-around in less than one year! Any macro-economist will tell you that the unemployment rate is the last economic indicator to recover after a recession. It always follows a stock market and GDP growth rate recovery. We've also seen a significant turn around in the stock market from its low in March 2009. It seems as though critics have expected an immediate and complete economic turn around within months; obviously they are using an entirely false standard. While there is ample evidence that things are getting much better, the economy still has a ways to go. An examination of the job loss rate over the past couple of years shows how things are improving. The graph below, from January 2010, shows a marked improvement from 2008. Between January and April of this year, the economy has created 573,000 jobs. While that pales in comparison to the over 8 million jobs lost during this recession, it is a very positive indicator given the trend in the graph below. The proof is in the numbers; we are in a cyclical recovery. What we all need is a little patience as we pull out of the Great Recession.

Jon Stewart captured the irony of conservatives' use of various events from the Bush Administration as comparisons to alleged failures of the Obama Administration:

"No matter what happens during the Obama Administration, there's the perfect Bush f*** up for the occasion.... The crazy part is, its conservatives and Republicans that are in the biggest rush to make the comparisons. 'Remember that terrible thing Bush did, that we fought for 8 years to convince you wasn't bad, but actually good? Well now we use those very incidents as the low watermark for your guy!' And they are not just interested in comparing Obama's new problems to Bush's old problems. They're also seeking to bequeath all that Bush oversaw, like some kind of cancerous heirloom... It's like these guys treat the country as a sleazy used car salesman. 'Ah, I gotta tell you this is a beautiful country, runs like a dream. We have kept it totally tuned for 8 years. Its cherry. You're not gonna have a problem with it at all. Oh, you'll take it? It's your piece of sh*t now!' ... The best part is that they can't even recognize their own tacit admission of the previous administration's failure."

(Skip ahead to 4:50 in the clip below for the relevant segment.)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Release the Kagan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Culture of Life Part 3- Stem Cell Research

Embryonic stem cell research is one of the hotly contested issues of the contemporary culture wars. Even within the Republican Party, a division exists over this issue. Prominent Republicans such as Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research while others, such as former President George W. Bush and former Governor Mitt Romney, oppose embryonic stem cell research on ethical grounds. Before exploring the ethics of embryonic stem cell research, it is important to define it and highlight some of its potential and remarkable benefits. A great deal of misinformation exists about stem cell research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a stem cell information Web page that provides extensive information on this type of research. The following are some excerpts from the NIH Web page:

(If you are already familiar with stem cell research, skip down past the italicized paragraphs to The Ethical Debate section.)

What Are Stem Cells?

Stem cells have the remarkable potential to develop into many different cell types in the body during early life and growth... When a stem cell divides, each new cell has the potential either to remain a stem cell or become another type of cell with a more specialized function, such as a muscle cell, a red blood cell, or a brain cell. Stem cells are important for living organisms for many reasons. In the 3- to 5-day-old embryo, called a blastocyst, the inner cells give rise to the entire body of the organism, including all of the many specialized cell types and organs such as the heart, lung, skin, sperm, eggs and other tissues.

The Healing Potential of Stem Cell Research

Given their unique regenerative abilities, stem cells offer new potentials for treating diseases such as diabetes, and heart disease. However, much work remains to be done in the laboratory and the clinic to understand how to use these cells for cell-based therapies to treat disease. Perhaps the most important potential application of human stem cells is the generation of cells and tissues that could be used for cell-based therapies. Today, donated organs and tissues are often used to replace ailing or destroyed tissue, but the need for transplantable tissues and organs far outweighs the available supply. Stem cells, directed to differentiate into specific cell types, offer the possibility of a renewable source of replacement cells and tissues to treat diseases including Alzheimer's diseases, spinal cord injury, stroke, burns, heart disease, diabetes, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis. A primary goal of this work is to identify how undifferentiated stem cells become the differentiated cells that form the tissues and organs. Scientists know that turning genes on and off is central to this process. Some of the most serious medical conditions, such as cancer and birth defects, are due to abnormal cell division and differentiation. A more complete understanding of the genetic and molecular controls of these processes may yield information about how such diseases arise and suggest new strategies for therapy. Scientists are already using stem cells in the laboratory to screen new drugs and to develop model systems to study normal growth and identify the causes of birth defects.

Why Are Embryonic Stem Cells Needed?

One major difference between adult and embryonic stem cells is their different abilities in the number and type of differentiated cell types they can become. Embryonic stem cells can become all cell types of the body because they are pluripotent. Adult stem cells are thought to be limited to differentiating into different cell types of their tissue of origin. Embryonic stem cells can be grown relatively easily in culture. Adult stem cells are rare in mature tissues, so isolating these cells from an adult tissue is challenging, and methods to expand their numbers in cell culture have not yet been worked out. This is an important distinction, as large numbers of cells are needed for stem cell replacement therapies.

Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are adult cells that have been genetically reprogrammed to an embryonic stem cell–like state by being forced to express genes and factors important for maintaining the defining properties of embryonic stem cells. Although these cells meet the defining criteria for pluripotent stem cells, it is not known if iPSCs and embryonic stem cells differ in clinically significant ways. This is a breakthrough discovery; however, further research is needed to determine whether iPSCs and embryonic stem cells differ in clinically significant ways... Viruses are currently used to introduce the reprogramming factors into adult cells, and this process must be carefully controlled and tested before the technique can lead to useful treatments for humans. In animal studies, the virus used to introduce the stem cell factors sometimes causes cancers.

The Ethical Debate

There is one final fact to point out before discussing the political debate over embryonic stem cell research. It is absolutely crucial to note that embryonic stem cells used in this research are derived from the vitro fertilization process. The NIH website explains:

The embryos used in these studies were created for reproductive purposes through in vitro fertilization procedures. When they were no longer needed for that purpose, they were donated for research with the informed consent of the donor... They are not derived from eggs fertilized in a woman's body.

In vitro fertilization has enabled tens of thousands of couples to have children each year in the United States. In the vitro fertilization process, doctors harvest multiple eggs from the woman, invariably more than will be implanted back into her uterus after laboratory fertilization. The reasons for the retrieval of extra eggs are that some eggs will not develop or fertilize after harvest and/or implantation, the high cost for the surgical procedure of harvesting eggs, and the trauma and relative risk the harvest process poses to the woman's body. In vitro fertilization almost always results in extra, unneeded embryos. These extra embryos, still in the undifferentiated stage, are the source for embryonic stem cell research. They are only donated for research with the consent of the donors. If the embryos are not donated for research, they are usually discarded.

Those who oppose stem cell research on ethical grounds should understand that the embryonic stem cells used for research would otherwise have been destroyed after the in vitro fertilization process. Thus, if one opposes this research on "pro-life" grounds, they should also oppose in vitro fertilization because it ends with the same result, the destruction of fertilized embryos. Of course, this would not be a popular political position because in vitro fertilization has helped so many Americans longing to be parents. However, it is the only logically consistent position for someone who opposes stem cell research. I can respect someone who holds the consistent position of opposing both embryonic stem cell research and in vitro fertilization. Both of these processes deal with the question of when and how life begins. For me, I do not believe that life begins at conception; I believe that life begins at some point after differentiation. Thus I fully and vehemently support all forms of stem cell research because of the incredible potential it has at treating and curing diseases and improving the quality of life for millions of people. And, if these left over laboratory embryos with stem cells are going to be discarded anyway, why not use them for a noble and important purpose? Supporting stem cell research ought to be considered a "pro-life" position because of its potential to improve and save millions of lives.

Like with most political issues, the Church has adopted a position of strict neutrality on embryonic stem cell research. The Church's website states, "The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes. The absence of a position should not be interpreted as support for or opposition to any other statement made by Church members, whether they are for or against embryonic stem cell research." Thus it is important for all individuals, and particularly Church members, to become fully informed before taking a strong stand on this or any political issue.

A Renewed Call for Civility from LDS Church Leadership

During the most recent LDS General Conference, we heard yet another call for civility in our public dialogue. Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stated, “many in this world are afraid and angry with one another. While we understand these feelings, we need to be civil in our discourse and respectful in our interactions. This is especially true when we disagree. The Savior taught us to love even our enemies. The vast majority of our members heed this counsel. Yet there are some who feel that venting their personal anger or deeply held opinions is more important than conducting themselves as Jesus Christ lived and taught. I invite each one of us individually to recognize that how we disagree is a real measure of who we are and whether we truly follow the Savior. It is appropriate to disagree, but it is not appropriate to be disagreeable. Violence and vandalism are not the answer to our disagreements.” (emphasis added)

This renewed call for civility is, in my view, very timely, given the current deluge of violence and angry rhetoric. In a previous post, I explored some of the recent violence and threatening language that came to a boiling point with the passage of the health care reform bill. In a response to a reader comment, I highlighted some of the specific incidents of inappropriate, violence-inciting rhetoric coming from prominent conservative leaders and conservative media:

When you have people like Glenn Beck and GOP Rep. Ron Paul going on national TV and starting rumors that Democrats are creating FEMA concentration camps for conservatives, you are inciting violence. When on FOX news, you regularly compare Obama to Stalin and Hitler, you are inciting hatred. When you have prominent conservative Christian preachers pray for Obama's death and then have one of their congregants show up at an Obama rally with an assault rifle, you are inciting violence. When the core leadership of your grass roots organization (the Tea Party) is comprised of "birthers" and individuals who believe that Obama is the Muslim anti-Christ, you are inciting fear and hatred. When you have the House Minority Leader warn that a Democratic Congressman "may be a dead man" if he voted for the health care bill, he is using violent rhetoric, even if he was only speaking metaphorically. When Michelle Bachman, GOP Rep from MN says she wants her constituents "armed and dangerous," in their opposition to the health care bill, she is encouraging violence, regardless of her true intent, which was likely metaphorical. When GOP Rep. George Peterson, in quoting a fellow activist, states that their movement is calling for a "complete and forceable overthrow" of Congress, during a anti-health care bill rally, he is inciting violence. The examples go on and on.

To me, it seemed like Elder Cook was speaking directly to those who have been using the type of violence-inciting, angry rhetoric we’ve seen and heard over the past year. We’ve see them at town hall meetings last summer where their shouts drowned out the ability of others to engage in a respectful dialogue with their elected representatives. We’ve heard them at Tea Party protests. We’ve heard them on the television and on the radio, where talk show hosts and pundits, as former Bush speechwriter David Frum noted, whipped their base into “a frenzy.” Though I think the recent widespread violence and threats of violence have been a much bigger phenomenon on the right than on the left, in part because conservatives are in the minority in our government, this call for civility applies to everyone regardless of political ideology or affiliation. Some day, as during the Bush Presidency, moderates and progressives will be in the minority again and they also must be a respectful, loyal opposition.

LDS Church Going Green

Lest one thinks being environmentally-conscious is only a "liberal" idea, the Church recently announced a pilot program where the roofs of new chapels are fitted with solar panels. In announcing the program, Bishop H. David Burton of the Presiding Bishopric stated, “for decades we have looked for innovative ways to use natural resources in our meetinghouses that reflect our commitment as wise stewards of God’s creations.” Furthermore, the Church has indicated their estimation that this program will save money in the long run, proving that being environmentally conscious is also in our economic interest. In addition to the solar panels, the new earth-friendly design includes, "high efficiency heating and cooling system that can interface with the solar power equipment, landscaping designs and plumbing fixtures that cut water use by more than 50 percent, and Low-E Solarban 70 windows that block 78 percent of the sun’s heat energy. "

I've always felt that being good stewards of the environment was a Christian duty, and particularly an LDS duty. I recall one particular conservative friend from BYU who would always point to Doctrine and Covenants Section 59, verses 18-20 as evidence that humans could do whatever they wanted to the earth and to support his belief that environmental protection laws were not appropriate. The funny thing is that verse 20 states that our use of the earth must be done "with judgment, not to excess, neither by extortion," a point my conservative friend conveniently glossed over.

In speaking about our stewardship over our planet, President Gordon B. Hinckley once stated, "This earth is [God's] creation. When we make it ugly, we offend Him."