These last few weeks have been big victories for Republicans and their base (that small group of neo-conservative crazies who are given credit every time a Republican wins an election). Bush, in a move I'll admit I didn't think he had the balls to do, used his first veto. Yes, folks, after more than six years in office, President Bush vetoed something. It wasn't something that needed to be vetoed, like ridiculous spending bills, but a bill that would allow federal funding for stem cell research. People with alzhiemers, parkinsons, diabetes, etc., don't deserve to have a cure if it angers Georgie's "base" I guess...
When Bush vetoed this bill, his explanation was that it was taking America in a moral direction that he didn't want it to go. This bill was, of course, perfectly legal and constitutional (not to mention a good thing). I have a message for Mr. Bush: This is not a theocracy. The beauty of America is that I can have one set of morals, and you can have what you think is right, and our opinions can be completely different, but as long as we don't impose our beliefs on each other, we're both right because it's a free country. Ayotollahs and the Pope single handedly make moral decisions for large groups of people. The (barely) elected leader of a secular country, I repeat, does not have a good reason to impede science on "moral" grounds. Even a lot of people who voted for Bush, I'm sure, supported this bill.
We all know about how the Church had astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus locked up because they claimed that the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Now we all look back on that consolidation of power and say "What the hell were those idiots thinking?" And that's exactly what's happening now: Consolidating power and in the process impeding science, while also energizing the base. It's the story of the Bush regime.
In related news, congress approved a bill that would make it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to get an abortion without notifying her parents. This is a bill you can count on Bush signing. While I'm not opposed to the idea of the bill, I am opposed to the reason it was passed. Republicans refused an add on to the bill that would exempt people who didn't tell the girl's parents where they were taking their daughter and why if the girls parents were abusive. So now well meaning grandparents can be punished under this bill even if the girls parents would've beaten her within an inch of her life if they were notified of the situation. Take into account that Republicans also blocked an increase in funds for sex education in this session, and the abstinence only education they do approve of (since when was telling teenagers not to do something "because we say so" effective?), and it starts to seem like maybe Republicans really don't care about the problem of teen pregnancy.
I don't know about you, but when a problem in our society comes up on the floor of congress, I expect to see a solution achieved, or at least attempted. What I see is a bunch of monkeys pandering to the few with the loudest voices.
Ah, Republican morals for everyone, science swinging from a tree by it's neck, and teenage mothers. That's the American spirit.
6 comments:
This post is so ridiculously short-sighted and slanted that it saddens me to see that there are people who allow themselves to be deceived like this by the liberal media and powerful humanist leaders.
Science says evole
It should hang
God says Creation
I am an American teenager and I have committed to practicing abstinence before marriage because it is the smartest, safest, and most fulfilling way. I am in favor of abstinence education. Safe sex is a liberal and Godless' generations tactic to cripple the next generation, my generation.
In reply to anon. #1: Since I try to keep short sightedness out of my writing, I'd like to know exactly where you think I've committed that offense.
In reply to abstinence rules: I never said there was anything wrong with abstinence, but I do take issue with your accusation that liberals are trying to ruin the next generation. When I implied that abstinence only ed. doesn't work well, I meant only that it doesn't work well and that improvements can be made to the system.
Yeah, the abstinence is the only way doesn't work. And abstinence rules, you seem like you would believe in abstinence whether or not you were taught it in school. That is why it doesn't work. It really doesn't change anybody's mind.
I agree with everything you have said on this issue. The stem cell research sounds like a route that should be pursued in some form. There are so many terrible diseases and this may be the blessing we have been looking for. Abstinence is a good way to go but it is very difficult to convince a young teenager with raging hormones that this what he/she should be following and doing. I encourage it but I also know it is a difficult concept. GMA
Post a Comment