The New Space Race

Currently Playing
And the Hero will Drown
By Story of the Year

This post is to explain my stance on both parties, and its political implications. Both parties have good points in any respect, but truthfully I don't see either fit to run this country. Both candidates are quite inconclusive, sometimes they don't make sense, and especially in the recent debates they are almost quirky with eachother.

During the second presidential debate, the President made a poignant case for not allowing Federal funding for new lines of stem cells:

Embryonic stem-cell research requires the destruction of life to create a stem cell. I'm the first president ever to allow funding -- federal funding -- for embryonic stem-cell research. I did to because I too hope that we'll discover cures from the stem cells and from the research derived.
But I think we've got to be very careful in balancing the ethics and the science.

And so I made the decision we wouldn't spend any more money beyond the 70 lines, 22 of which are now in action, because science is important, but so is ethics, so is balancing life. To destroy life to save life is -- its one of the real ethical dilemmas that we face.

Bush Makes good points but I am in disagreement. Morality in this issue can be greatly debated, but I believe that the death of one to save many is more logical. The question is does morality affect governmental decisions? Yes and no. After all the people have their opinions, and attempt to state them duly to the government, even if the U.S. doesnt listen. Opinion is the driving force of politics, and morality is an issue that is voiced, to create laws, or to break them.

As with George Bush as a whole, I do not like his demeanor, nor his way of running this country. A War for nothing? Doesnt sound like a smart decision in the least. His war was a political excuse, and as said its not the Soldiers who fight wars anymore, but the figures who control them. War now is a political game, and Bush is a prime example of creating world problems at no benefit to the country. Who is the beneficiary for staying over in Iraq? Is is best for U.S. Interests?

Going back to stem cells, the death of others is not morally just, as Bush states, but is saving others lives? Yes. The only problem is a definitive answer. Will stem cell research help at all within even the next year, let alone 10 or 20 years? This question is something of interest to me, someone should comment on how they think stem cell research will, or won't help, and if its morally just to destroy life for a greater cause.