by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 8, 2009
In his press conference, detailing the reasons behind his decision to release classified memos regarding the interrogation procedures approved for use upon captured terrorists, Obama made the following statement. “Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.”
At first glance, I found no problem with that statement. I understood the inference intended and, while catching the not-so-subtle slam against the previous administration, I understood he was intending to follow through on at least one of his campaign issues. But then I took a closer glance, and in so doing I was reminded of an experience in my past that can relate to this issue. The issue, of course, is that of the use of force in interrogation of captured enemy combatants.
I was in the sixth grade, and a discussion with a classmate became a heated argument which he ended with a solid left jab to my nose and a quick exit from the school playground. Then he stood there just beyond the gate of the fence and laughed at my bleeding nose, while I was left with no defense but to utter empty threats. I was bound by the rules of the school – namely that I was prohibited from crossing the fence during school hours. That particular bully used the rules and conventions of the school against me – rules that he had no fear of and conventions that had no hold over him.
Now, let’s fast forward to my sophomore year, and a day on the bus when a senior bully decided to teach my younger brother a lesson by grabbing him by the neck and suspending him over the back of the seat. I knew there were rules against leaving my seat while the bus was in motion, but I also knew that my failure to act in a quick and forceful way would place my brother in danger of permanent injury. I decided the moral thing to do was to act in a way that would prevent further damage. The bully came away with a blackened eye and a renewed respect for the power of fraternal duty.
Now, back to the issue of forceful interrogation used against the terrorists. As in the case of bullies above, they and the terrorists each make deliberate choices that are composed of cost versus reward analyses. In the case of the terrorist, they decided to couch their actions outside the bounds of the Geneva Convention and to hide within the civilian population while attacking unarmed civilians upon our soil. Our corporate signature upon the articles of the Geneva Convention binds us to certain procedures and policies that apply to other signees, but not to those who choose to battle against us without the prescribed use of uniforms and rules of military combat.
That being said, we must go back to the aforementioned quote of our president. He seems to be implying that we have sacrificed our collective morality by taking the “shortcut” of enhanced interrogation – even if it was used upon unconventional combatants. That brings us to the following questions:
Is it morally correct to not use whatever means are available to us – through Constitutional authority granted via congressional approval and through international standards of warfare – to gather information from someone who knows of an impending attack upon our citizenry? Is it morally correct to ever use force in the prevention of a crime?
If we are to believe the current critics of Bush and the CIA during his tenure, the actions used in Gitmo and other places were arbitrarily ordered by Bush, Cheney, et al, and they were also immoral and ineffective. The argument has been offered up that all these practices did was to serve as a “recruiting tool” for more terrorists to join the ranks, and that the information gathered was useless and tainted. Critics also say that these techniques have served to place us on the same moral level as the terrorists we fight.
I beg to differ.
First of all, the techniques used were brought before the Senate and House committees as well as the lawyers in the Justice Department, so an investigation into these memos will most likely not go any further than the national media’s subjective coverage. Secondly, regarding the morality issue, I refer to the above anecdote. I believe I was morally compelled to act in defense of my younger brother – just as I would be compelled to act in defense of my family today should an attacker threaten their safety. I believe the CIA operatives were morally and legally bound to use non-lethal force to gather information that protected our citizens from harm.
Finally, regarding the efficacy of the methods used, I think there is a valid reason why Obama has been selective in the memos released. It has been reported that more than a few planned attacks upon our nation have been thwarted by the use of these techniques and a full and open disclosure would not serve Obama’s political purposes. Personally, I feel no corrosion in our nation’s character unless, of course, I look at the practices approved by Obama to be used upon the millions of unborn children who are deprived of life without due process.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
What Are We Fighting For?
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, May 8, 2009
My fellow columnist has gone to great lengths to trivialize the offenses of the Bush Administration where torture is concerned. First, he chooses to omit the word “torture” completely from his essay. This tactic is not surprising since most officials involved in the memo controversy (including Obama and those in his administration) have avoided using the term themselves. Torture is often referred to as interrogation techniques or some other innocuous representation.
My brother also presents his case using anecdotes to color the audience’s perception. Unfortunately, the analogies he offers are quaint but irrelevant to the discussion. The use of torture as a method to attempt to extract useful information is nothing like overstepping rules to come to a brother’s aid or being prevented by schoolyard rules from meting out revenge on an attacker.
The problems with Gordon’s argument are issues of principle and of fact.
For years the United States has successfully engaged various types of enemies in military and aggressive operations. During our dealings with these adversaries, our agents and service men and women were often subjected to techniques that were illegal by international standards, were immoral and unethical, and were classified as torture. Yet, out of principle, our official code of conduct prohibited the use of torture in our name. Yes, some frustrated or rogue soldiers exhibited behavior outside these guidelines, but official policy refused to stoop to the unacceptable methods of the enemy. These were guidelines that attempted to live up to the “city on a hill” image of moral superiority, which has been a model of American conduct throughout history. They also acted as a buffer to protect our own soldiers from more abusive treatment at the hands of captors.
In the early days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration urged Americans to hit the malls, travel and resume life with as much normalcy as possible. The idea behind this encouragement was simple: if we changed our principles the terrorists would have won. By this measure, we lost to terror when we allowed our government to craft definitions of torture in acceptable terms, to vet those definitions through whatever filters the Justice Department or Congress applied, and to put those definitions to practice.
We lost again when, as evidence emerged about abuses in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, we accepted administration officials’ denial of involvement and their willingness to prosecute those who carried out these orders as “bad apples.” Yes, some of these abuses even violated the abhorrent standards manufactured by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and those who perpetrated those offenses should accept responsibility for their own actions. However, it was clear that a culture existed that blurred the lines of ethics, morality and the rule of law. This culture permitted and encouraged the abuse.
Throughout history we have engaged enemies for reasons noble and dubious. Regardless of motivation, the official line was always that we were sending our young men and women to fight for American principles. By forfeiting the moral high ground we are selling out our principles and transforming America into something less than its image. Once that nation and those principles are sullied, what are we fighting for?
The fact is, as much as my brother hopes to avoid the term, the techniques approved by Bush’s counsel and employed by the CIA and our military constitute torture. Waterboarding and the practice called “walling” (where a subject is hurled against a false wall) are characterized by most experts (those without political interest at stake) as torture. Yet, both of those practices are approved in the memos of the OLC’s John Yoo and the Justice Department’s Jay Bybee.
However, even though those practices were being directed from the highest offices down through the chain of command, Bush and administration sources were emphatically proclaiming that the United States Does Not Torture. As much as some in Washington are now saying that these methods were necessary to glean actionable intelligence, the attitude of denial suggests the acknowledgement that the American public had no taste for the raping of our rule of law for fear’s sake.
I have to admit that I am surprised that Gordon advocates overstepping the bounds of law in the interest of some arbitrary code of morality. If we were to apply the schoolyard scenarios to real world situations we could condone vigilante justice on our streets. We could condone any conduct by the police in the execution of their duties. We could condone any action by the executive branch of our government that it claims is in the interest of security.
The fact is, we have guidelines in place to prevent that application of lawless “morality”. They are based on principles we hold as uniquely American. If we surrender those ideals, what do we tell our sons and daughters when we send them off to war? What are they fighting for?
From Broader View Weekly, May 8, 2009
My fellow columnist has gone to great lengths to trivialize the offenses of the Bush Administration where torture is concerned. First, he chooses to omit the word “torture” completely from his essay. This tactic is not surprising since most officials involved in the memo controversy (including Obama and those in his administration) have avoided using the term themselves. Torture is often referred to as interrogation techniques or some other innocuous representation.
My brother also presents his case using anecdotes to color the audience’s perception. Unfortunately, the analogies he offers are quaint but irrelevant to the discussion. The use of torture as a method to attempt to extract useful information is nothing like overstepping rules to come to a brother’s aid or being prevented by schoolyard rules from meting out revenge on an attacker.
The problems with Gordon’s argument are issues of principle and of fact.
For years the United States has successfully engaged various types of enemies in military and aggressive operations. During our dealings with these adversaries, our agents and service men and women were often subjected to techniques that were illegal by international standards, were immoral and unethical, and were classified as torture. Yet, out of principle, our official code of conduct prohibited the use of torture in our name. Yes, some frustrated or rogue soldiers exhibited behavior outside these guidelines, but official policy refused to stoop to the unacceptable methods of the enemy. These were guidelines that attempted to live up to the “city on a hill” image of moral superiority, which has been a model of American conduct throughout history. They also acted as a buffer to protect our own soldiers from more abusive treatment at the hands of captors.
In the early days after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration urged Americans to hit the malls, travel and resume life with as much normalcy as possible. The idea behind this encouragement was simple: if we changed our principles the terrorists would have won. By this measure, we lost to terror when we allowed our government to craft definitions of torture in acceptable terms, to vet those definitions through whatever filters the Justice Department or Congress applied, and to put those definitions to practice.
We lost again when, as evidence emerged about abuses in Guantanamo, Afghanistan and Iraq, we accepted administration officials’ denial of involvement and their willingness to prosecute those who carried out these orders as “bad apples.” Yes, some of these abuses even violated the abhorrent standards manufactured by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), and those who perpetrated those offenses should accept responsibility for their own actions. However, it was clear that a culture existed that blurred the lines of ethics, morality and the rule of law. This culture permitted and encouraged the abuse.
Throughout history we have engaged enemies for reasons noble and dubious. Regardless of motivation, the official line was always that we were sending our young men and women to fight for American principles. By forfeiting the moral high ground we are selling out our principles and transforming America into something less than its image. Once that nation and those principles are sullied, what are we fighting for?
The fact is, as much as my brother hopes to avoid the term, the techniques approved by Bush’s counsel and employed by the CIA and our military constitute torture. Waterboarding and the practice called “walling” (where a subject is hurled against a false wall) are characterized by most experts (those without political interest at stake) as torture. Yet, both of those practices are approved in the memos of the OLC’s John Yoo and the Justice Department’s Jay Bybee.
However, even though those practices were being directed from the highest offices down through the chain of command, Bush and administration sources were emphatically proclaiming that the United States Does Not Torture. As much as some in Washington are now saying that these methods were necessary to glean actionable intelligence, the attitude of denial suggests the acknowledgement that the American public had no taste for the raping of our rule of law for fear’s sake.
I have to admit that I am surprised that Gordon advocates overstepping the bounds of law in the interest of some arbitrary code of morality. If we were to apply the schoolyard scenarios to real world situations we could condone vigilante justice on our streets. We could condone any conduct by the police in the execution of their duties. We could condone any action by the executive branch of our government that it claims is in the interest of security.
The fact is, we have guidelines in place to prevent that application of lawless “morality”. They are based on principles we hold as uniquely American. If we surrender those ideals, what do we tell our sons and daughters when we send them off to war? What are they fighting for?
The Patriotism of Protest
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 24, 2009
For the past eight years, dissent has been viewed by many as a lack of patriotism. Pundits on Fox News and talk radio would demonize protestors for hating America or failing to support the government’s agenda.
For example, when the Dixie Chicks dared to make a public statement criticizing George W. Bush (during his march to war with Iraq), a media campaign was launched that sought to destroy the careers of, and mobilize a grass-roots persecution of Natalie Maines and other band members. Results included death threats to Maines and radio network boycotts of the group.
Fast forward to 2009 and a different mood has dawned on conservative media. National Tax Day Tea Party events were organized largely based on the instigation of those same pundits. Only this time it was acceptable to criticize the administration during a time when our servicemen and women are engaged overseas. In fact, this time dissent was the epitome of patriotism.
For weeks Fox News has been promoting its coverage of the Tea Parties, which were billed as grass-roots protests of taxes imposed by the Obama administration’s policies. Interesting omissions were discussions of the facts that the T.A.R.P. bailout program was the product of the Bush administration, and that the federal surplus its administration inherited from Bill Clinton had been frittered away by excessive spending and unrealistic tax cuts. Those policies contributed greatly to the tax burden that these protests claim to deplore.
The coverage of the actual events exaggerated turnouts, inflating numbers at certain locations to nearly twice the official estimates.
Even local media coverage of events in our area seemed to misrepresent the scope and size of the events. One regional newspaper devoted several column inches to the gathering in Corning, NY’s Centerway Square, which was organized by the Steuben County Young Republicans. Cherry-picked quotes implied that the event had a bipartisan appeal, even though the bulk of the commentary and signs depicted a strong partisan bias. A sidebar alluding to the nationwide events and verbal embellishment gave the impression of a much larger turnout than other estimates suggest.
I am happy to see that dissent and the patriotism of protest are alive and well after a brief absence during the Bush reign. I am a little disappointed that see signs referring to a sizable group of Americans who support the president as the “Obamanation”, as if it were an abomination; or others that compared Obama to Hitler or Stalin. Especially when dissenters on the left were demonized when those misguided comparisons were made to Bush or former Vice President Dick Cheney.
If we continue to cling to double standards like these when it is politically expedient, there is little hope that we can bridge the gaps we must in order to weather the storms that face us in these troubled times.
Distinctions have rightly been drawn between our current struggles and those of early last century. Our economy is stronger than during the Great Depression. Our unemployment rate is much lower than during those dark days. The military actions of today are minor compared to the consuming World Wars of the 20th Century.
However, we are also living in an America that is drastically different. The divisive nature of our politics and social issue thwarts the unity that allowed us to meet yesterday’s challenges. Today’s average citizen is so averse to personal sacrifice that one can scarcely imagine the dedication it required to return the U.S. to the peace and prosperity it enjoyed by the latter part of the last century. We are unlikely to see anything that approaches the noble selflessness of the Greatest Generation. Perhaps we are too concerned with the easy and unearned celebrity of American Idol or reality television to even care.
But if we are to envision a brighter future, we had better learn to care – not just about parties and personalities; not even about policies and issues. We must care about concerns beyond our own narrow interests. We must care about the dream and vision of what our nation could and should be and not blind nationalism. And we must care about our fellow man. Until we realize that we share common challenges and common consequences, we will never succeed no matter how a few may prosper.
May we raise our voices in protest against injustice and may our voices be heard. Yet, may we not be led by those with political agendas into destructive divisions that stand in the way of progress. Only then can we truly celebrate the patriotism of protest.
From Broader View Weekly, April 24, 2009
For the past eight years, dissent has been viewed by many as a lack of patriotism. Pundits on Fox News and talk radio would demonize protestors for hating America or failing to support the government’s agenda.
For example, when the Dixie Chicks dared to make a public statement criticizing George W. Bush (during his march to war with Iraq), a media campaign was launched that sought to destroy the careers of, and mobilize a grass-roots persecution of Natalie Maines and other band members. Results included death threats to Maines and radio network boycotts of the group.
Fast forward to 2009 and a different mood has dawned on conservative media. National Tax Day Tea Party events were organized largely based on the instigation of those same pundits. Only this time it was acceptable to criticize the administration during a time when our servicemen and women are engaged overseas. In fact, this time dissent was the epitome of patriotism.
For weeks Fox News has been promoting its coverage of the Tea Parties, which were billed as grass-roots protests of taxes imposed by the Obama administration’s policies. Interesting omissions were discussions of the facts that the T.A.R.P. bailout program was the product of the Bush administration, and that the federal surplus its administration inherited from Bill Clinton had been frittered away by excessive spending and unrealistic tax cuts. Those policies contributed greatly to the tax burden that these protests claim to deplore.
The coverage of the actual events exaggerated turnouts, inflating numbers at certain locations to nearly twice the official estimates.
Even local media coverage of events in our area seemed to misrepresent the scope and size of the events. One regional newspaper devoted several column inches to the gathering in Corning, NY’s Centerway Square, which was organized by the Steuben County Young Republicans. Cherry-picked quotes implied that the event had a bipartisan appeal, even though the bulk of the commentary and signs depicted a strong partisan bias. A sidebar alluding to the nationwide events and verbal embellishment gave the impression of a much larger turnout than other estimates suggest.
I am happy to see that dissent and the patriotism of protest are alive and well after a brief absence during the Bush reign. I am a little disappointed that see signs referring to a sizable group of Americans who support the president as the “Obamanation”, as if it were an abomination; or others that compared Obama to Hitler or Stalin. Especially when dissenters on the left were demonized when those misguided comparisons were made to Bush or former Vice President Dick Cheney.
If we continue to cling to double standards like these when it is politically expedient, there is little hope that we can bridge the gaps we must in order to weather the storms that face us in these troubled times.
Distinctions have rightly been drawn between our current struggles and those of early last century. Our economy is stronger than during the Great Depression. Our unemployment rate is much lower than during those dark days. The military actions of today are minor compared to the consuming World Wars of the 20th Century.
However, we are also living in an America that is drastically different. The divisive nature of our politics and social issue thwarts the unity that allowed us to meet yesterday’s challenges. Today’s average citizen is so averse to personal sacrifice that one can scarcely imagine the dedication it required to return the U.S. to the peace and prosperity it enjoyed by the latter part of the last century. We are unlikely to see anything that approaches the noble selflessness of the Greatest Generation. Perhaps we are too concerned with the easy and unearned celebrity of American Idol or reality television to even care.
But if we are to envision a brighter future, we had better learn to care – not just about parties and personalities; not even about policies and issues. We must care about concerns beyond our own narrow interests. We must care about the dream and vision of what our nation could and should be and not blind nationalism. And we must care about our fellow man. Until we realize that we share common challenges and common consequences, we will never succeed no matter how a few may prosper.
May we raise our voices in protest against injustice and may our voices be heard. Yet, may we not be led by those with political agendas into destructive divisions that stand in the way of progress. Only then can we truly celebrate the patriotism of protest.
The Right to Assemble and to Petition
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 24, 2009
it is with great pride and patriotism that i admit to the faithful readers of all in the family that i was one of those who stood in centerway square in support of the local tea party. i would like to hereby give a report of what i saw and what i didn’t see. i would also like to set the record straight regarding the motives and the means that drove the several hundred petitioners there.
however, before i delve into the facts surrounding this movement, which, strangely or not-so-strangely, do not always agree with my fellow-columnist’s description of things, i feel i must re-acquaint him and others to what true patriotism is.
i offer the following quote from the bill of rights, that wonderful appendix to our constitution that was added by those prescient men of our first congress.
amendment 1: “congress shall make no law …prohibiting… the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
despite the claims by many in the mainstream media that this was: 1.) corporate sponsored; 2.) organized as a publicity stunt by fox news; 3.) driven by racist hatred for obama (direct quote from olbermann and garofolo on msnbc); 4.) partisan belly aching by republicans bitter over the recent electoral defeats; i am proud to say that this was truly a grass-roots movement. my definition of grass-roots movement is any movement whereby individuals join in something that moves them to action without regard to a particular political party, labor organization or civic group. it spreads like grass spreads – from one person contacting another and spreading the word by phone, webblog, email or radio talk show. it is true that fox news decided to send many of its commentators to various sites, but the actual tea parties had already been organized by local groups of concerned citizens.
the movement really began after the details of the stimulus package were revealed and many realized that their tax dollars would be paying the mortgages of those who bought beyond their means. it infuriated them the same way the original tea partiers of boston were infuriated when king george imposed unfair tax burdens on the colonies.
now, let me tell you what i did see at the tea party. i saw several hundred people. the local media gave estimates of around 600, however, i would estimate it as closer to 900; and some gave estimates of 1,000. we do know that close to 700 signed the petition (more on that later) and i know that several people left without waiting through the long line at the petition table.
i also saw a crowd behaving decently and orderly. i heard no mindless chanting of rhythmic slogans or incitement to violent coups. there was no litter left behind. the signs were handmade and original, showing passion and political involvement. i saw older people and youngsters. i saw tattoos and biker gear. i saw white collar types and i saw faded jeans and calloused hands. this was not a racist, hate-mongering crowd as some would have you believe.
the speakers included a local merchant who gave a passionate anecdotal glimpse into the struggles she faced as she dealt with the new taxes and fees; and the conversation she had with her employees as she told them the reason why their paychecks were shrinking. another speaker gave a list of the new taxes and fees imposed on a local cigar store. a third speaker spoke about the new york state budget woes and some recent decisions that will spell more job losses, population shrinkage and economic hardships for businesses in new york state.
then there was the wrap-up of the event, in which the crowd was invited to drop off their donated canned goods to the salvation army truck parked nearby and to sign the petition that was to be delivered to our representatives in albany and washington.
the above-mentioned petition was not a partisan declaration. it asked for a repeal of both tarp 1 and tarp 2. it asked for a law requiring a balanced budget. it asked for a business tax ceiling matching the 12.5% ceiling of ireland. it also asked our congress to follow the governments of china, singapore and others who have abolished the capital gains tax.
we also signed our names to a petition destined for our leaders in albany to cap property taxes, and to pass a law requiring a balanced state budget.
i challenge my brother to find examples of “destructive divisions” or “strong partisan bias” in either of the above petitions.
i am thankful that we still have the right to peacefully assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. i am saddened though, by the lack of objectivity and credibility in the news media in the coverage of this event. some of the disparaging remarks and closed-minded comments such as referring to it as “tea-bagging”, which is a sad attempt at a double-entendre, only prove the point that it is the national media that is practicing partisan bias and not the people who gathered at centerway square.
From Broader View Weekly, April 24, 2009
it is with great pride and patriotism that i admit to the faithful readers of all in the family that i was one of those who stood in centerway square in support of the local tea party. i would like to hereby give a report of what i saw and what i didn’t see. i would also like to set the record straight regarding the motives and the means that drove the several hundred petitioners there.
however, before i delve into the facts surrounding this movement, which, strangely or not-so-strangely, do not always agree with my fellow-columnist’s description of things, i feel i must re-acquaint him and others to what true patriotism is.
i offer the following quote from the bill of rights, that wonderful appendix to our constitution that was added by those prescient men of our first congress.
amendment 1: “congress shall make no law …prohibiting… the right of the people to peacefully assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
despite the claims by many in the mainstream media that this was: 1.) corporate sponsored; 2.) organized as a publicity stunt by fox news; 3.) driven by racist hatred for obama (direct quote from olbermann and garofolo on msnbc); 4.) partisan belly aching by republicans bitter over the recent electoral defeats; i am proud to say that this was truly a grass-roots movement. my definition of grass-roots movement is any movement whereby individuals join in something that moves them to action without regard to a particular political party, labor organization or civic group. it spreads like grass spreads – from one person contacting another and spreading the word by phone, webblog, email or radio talk show. it is true that fox news decided to send many of its commentators to various sites, but the actual tea parties had already been organized by local groups of concerned citizens.
the movement really began after the details of the stimulus package were revealed and many realized that their tax dollars would be paying the mortgages of those who bought beyond their means. it infuriated them the same way the original tea partiers of boston were infuriated when king george imposed unfair tax burdens on the colonies.
now, let me tell you what i did see at the tea party. i saw several hundred people. the local media gave estimates of around 600, however, i would estimate it as closer to 900; and some gave estimates of 1,000. we do know that close to 700 signed the petition (more on that later) and i know that several people left without waiting through the long line at the petition table.
i also saw a crowd behaving decently and orderly. i heard no mindless chanting of rhythmic slogans or incitement to violent coups. there was no litter left behind. the signs were handmade and original, showing passion and political involvement. i saw older people and youngsters. i saw tattoos and biker gear. i saw white collar types and i saw faded jeans and calloused hands. this was not a racist, hate-mongering crowd as some would have you believe.
the speakers included a local merchant who gave a passionate anecdotal glimpse into the struggles she faced as she dealt with the new taxes and fees; and the conversation she had with her employees as she told them the reason why their paychecks were shrinking. another speaker gave a list of the new taxes and fees imposed on a local cigar store. a third speaker spoke about the new york state budget woes and some recent decisions that will spell more job losses, population shrinkage and economic hardships for businesses in new york state.
then there was the wrap-up of the event, in which the crowd was invited to drop off their donated canned goods to the salvation army truck parked nearby and to sign the petition that was to be delivered to our representatives in albany and washington.
the above-mentioned petition was not a partisan declaration. it asked for a repeal of both tarp 1 and tarp 2. it asked for a law requiring a balanced budget. it asked for a business tax ceiling matching the 12.5% ceiling of ireland. it also asked our congress to follow the governments of china, singapore and others who have abolished the capital gains tax.
we also signed our names to a petition destined for our leaders in albany to cap property taxes, and to pass a law requiring a balanced state budget.
i challenge my brother to find examples of “destructive divisions” or “strong partisan bias” in either of the above petitions.
i am thankful that we still have the right to peacefully assemble and to petition for redress of grievances. i am saddened though, by the lack of objectivity and credibility in the news media in the coverage of this event. some of the disparaging remarks and closed-minded comments such as referring to it as “tea-bagging”, which is a sad attempt at a double-entendre, only prove the point that it is the national media that is practicing partisan bias and not the people who gathered at centerway square.
Friday, April 10, 2009
Something old, something new…
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 10, 2009
In the rush to bring about the change promised throughout his long two-year-long campaign, President Obama has sought to differentiate his policies from those of his predecessor. We don’t have to look very hard to find evidence of this effort. Almost every news headline concerning Obama (and there are plenty as our American news media plays along at his heels, leaving tongue tracks on the carpet like a slobbering lap dog) exposes another “new” concept that when studied, shows nothing new.
“The Redefinition Express” leaves the station at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue each morning with a fresh load of freight. The freight consists of news releases and internal memos that are intended to present an image of a new administration that is entirely different.
It started with Obama re-packaging the Bush surge doctrine that worked successfully in Iraq, and applying it to Afghanistan. However, in the all the news stories about this surge of U.S. troop levels, the word “surge” has been purged. Why? Well, the answer is in the internal memos between Obama’s people and Senate leader, Harry Reid. Reid agreed to go along as long as that evil ‘s’ word was not mentioned.
In another silly example of Orwellian newspeak Obama’s people have been ordered to refer to our defense against the Islamic terrorist’s declared war upon us as anything but a “war on terror”. It seems we were wrong to assume the intent – of those who strap bombs to themselves and wander into populated areas, or to commandeer jets full of passengers and fuel – was to initiate terror. They were merely attempting to manufacture a “man-caused disaster”. We were the mistaken ones if we became terrorized while watching our fellow citizens and emergency workers buried unceremoniously beneath a mountain of concrete and steel.
I do not disparage Obama for trying to point out valid differences between himself and Bush. However, I do believe that words carry weight. If the terrorists declared war on us, then our response to their attack should be designated as part of that war. Likewise, if we are sending a surge of troops to Afghanistan, call it a surge.
Now, concerning the G-20 Summit and Obama’s capitulation to the foreign leaders whose interests clearly are not our interests, I must defer to one who holds more credibility than I when it comes to foreign affairs. I recently found this correspondence between two former presidents:
I agree with the above statement and while this was written 185 years ago from the desk of Mr. Thomas Jefferson to President James Monroe in October of 1823, its main points are as relevant today as are those of his most famous writing – The Declaration of Independence.
As I watched and read the words of our current president I saw a departure from that spirit of independence that compelled Jefferson and his compatriots so many years ago. Obama seemed intent upon weakening our position as a sovereign state among the nations. Obama conceded that Wall Street was the source, not only of our nation’s economic troubles, but also of the global economic turmoil, as if he is in agreement with the Marxist who sees capitalism as the root of all evil. His words of concession diminish our superior status and seek to relegate us to just another nation on the global stage.
As Obama seeks out advice from, and agreements with Russia, China and other socialist nations, he will certainly accomplish his goal of change. The increasing talk of a global regulatory body that will oversee all major banks and financial institutions – especially those on Wall Street – and a new global currency to replace the dollar is indeed a change. But this change holds more significance and more danger than merely a change in definitions.
From Broader View Weekly, April 10, 2009
In the rush to bring about the change promised throughout his long two-year-long campaign, President Obama has sought to differentiate his policies from those of his predecessor. We don’t have to look very hard to find evidence of this effort. Almost every news headline concerning Obama (and there are plenty as our American news media plays along at his heels, leaving tongue tracks on the carpet like a slobbering lap dog) exposes another “new” concept that when studied, shows nothing new.
“The Redefinition Express” leaves the station at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue each morning with a fresh load of freight. The freight consists of news releases and internal memos that are intended to present an image of a new administration that is entirely different.
It started with Obama re-packaging the Bush surge doctrine that worked successfully in Iraq, and applying it to Afghanistan. However, in the all the news stories about this surge of U.S. troop levels, the word “surge” has been purged. Why? Well, the answer is in the internal memos between Obama’s people and Senate leader, Harry Reid. Reid agreed to go along as long as that evil ‘s’ word was not mentioned.
In another silly example of Orwellian newspeak Obama’s people have been ordered to refer to our defense against the Islamic terrorist’s declared war upon us as anything but a “war on terror”. It seems we were wrong to assume the intent – of those who strap bombs to themselves and wander into populated areas, or to commandeer jets full of passengers and fuel – was to initiate terror. They were merely attempting to manufacture a “man-caused disaster”. We were the mistaken ones if we became terrorized while watching our fellow citizens and emergency workers buried unceremoniously beneath a mountain of concrete and steel.
I do not disparage Obama for trying to point out valid differences between himself and Bush. However, I do believe that words carry weight. If the terrorists declared war on us, then our response to their attack should be designated as part of that war. Likewise, if we are sending a surge of troops to Afghanistan, call it a surge.
Now, concerning the G-20 Summit and Obama’s capitulation to the foreign leaders whose interests clearly are not our interests, I must defer to one who holds more credibility than I when it comes to foreign affairs. I recently found this correspondence between two former presidents:
Our first and fundamental maxim should be, never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe. Our second, never to suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America…has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe, and peculiarly her own. She should, therefore, have a system of her own, separate and apart from that of Europe. While the last is laboring to become the domicil of despotism, our endeavor should surely be, to make our hemisphere that of freedom.
I agree with the above statement and while this was written 185 years ago from the desk of Mr. Thomas Jefferson to President James Monroe in October of 1823, its main points are as relevant today as are those of his most famous writing – The Declaration of Independence.
As I watched and read the words of our current president I saw a departure from that spirit of independence that compelled Jefferson and his compatriots so many years ago. Obama seemed intent upon weakening our position as a sovereign state among the nations. Obama conceded that Wall Street was the source, not only of our nation’s economic troubles, but also of the global economic turmoil, as if he is in agreement with the Marxist who sees capitalism as the root of all evil. His words of concession diminish our superior status and seek to relegate us to just another nation on the global stage.
As Obama seeks out advice from, and agreements with Russia, China and other socialist nations, he will certainly accomplish his goal of change. The increasing talk of a global regulatory body that will oversee all major banks and financial institutions – especially those on Wall Street – and a new global currency to replace the dollar is indeed a change. But this change holds more significance and more danger than merely a change in definitions.
A Farewell to the Cowboy
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, April 10, 2009
It is interesting to read my fellow columnist’s opinion. He seems to be walking a fine line between imperialism and isolationism.
The push to globalize economics where U.S. interests are served has been part of American policy for decades. Suddenly, when failure on Wall Street launched global repercussions, some would have us deny all responsibility. Previous administrations have promised a culture of accountability. Now a president who accounts for the reality of the global market is criticized for his candor.
The Bush Administration sought the cooperation of a coalition of nations to pursue his war of choice in Iraq (though it ended up with a fairly unilateral endeavor propped up by a handful of countries manipulated into limited participation). Now, when Obama is seeking to gather international support for policy in Afghanistan, North Korea and elsewhere, he is being criticized for weakening our standing in the world.
It was all well and good when George W. Bush sought to throw more troops at the quagmire of Iraq. Now, when Obama tries to increase troop levels in Afghanistan he is drawing the ire of those who lent support the Iraq surge.
Some claim it is a reversal of strategy for the Obama team who campaigned on troop withdrawal. Actually, the effort in Afghanistan is in keeping with the president’s philosophy that that was the war we should have been fighting when we decided to pursue Iraq (where the threat was inconsequential at the time).
I, for one, oppose the surge of troops in Afghanistan, no matter what name it is given. I think we too often apply military action as a first resort. The Soviet defeat in the country as well as the resurgence of the Taliban make it clear that military might alone is not the solution.
I am no expert, but many who are say that the surge is the wrong recipe for success. Some say the region is ripe for diplomatic measures, with warring factions open to the idea of negotiations. Others believe the focus of the mission is somewhat blurry. Recent speeches by Obama and administration officials have mentioned al Qaeda more frequently than the Taliban. Critics think the influence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is marginalized and that the threat should be addressed in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Like my brother, I feel that renaming the war on terror as “overseas contingency operation” (or whatever it is now called) is silly. Especially if it means that the policies will remain pretty much the same. The Bush administration introduced the term after 9/11 and has used it to imply that we were engaged in a conventional war. The problem with this is that it has led to an arrogance of policy. Strategies, methods and operations which are deemed necessary and appropriate when in the midst of a conventional war against a nation state are inappropriate, unethical and dangerous when employed within the context of this struggle against an extremist ideology. I support throwing out the phrases “Long War” and “Global War on Terror” only if it means we adopt a realistic approach to a real threat.
I disagree, however, with my brother’s isolationist view. The world was a far different place when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to which Gordon referred. Part of that change has resulted in the superpower dominance that he has celebrated. The United States has intervened in world affairs when it has suited its interests. When it has been expeditious America has sought international support and worked to form alliances. To insist that now that our interests are threatened along with our supremacy, we should place independence above accountability seems absurd.
The world is ensnared in global struggle. It is not the time for the “cowboy” foreign policy of the past, or for unilateral aggression. As a member of the global community the U.S. must recognize the common bonds that join it to its neighbors. Of course we must remember that we are a superpower. But we should bear in mind that with great power comes great responsibility. As Obama reaches out to our partners and allies, I trust he will do so responsibly.
From Broader View Weekly, April 10, 2009
It is interesting to read my fellow columnist’s opinion. He seems to be walking a fine line between imperialism and isolationism.
The push to globalize economics where U.S. interests are served has been part of American policy for decades. Suddenly, when failure on Wall Street launched global repercussions, some would have us deny all responsibility. Previous administrations have promised a culture of accountability. Now a president who accounts for the reality of the global market is criticized for his candor.
The Bush Administration sought the cooperation of a coalition of nations to pursue his war of choice in Iraq (though it ended up with a fairly unilateral endeavor propped up by a handful of countries manipulated into limited participation). Now, when Obama is seeking to gather international support for policy in Afghanistan, North Korea and elsewhere, he is being criticized for weakening our standing in the world.
It was all well and good when George W. Bush sought to throw more troops at the quagmire of Iraq. Now, when Obama tries to increase troop levels in Afghanistan he is drawing the ire of those who lent support the Iraq surge.
Some claim it is a reversal of strategy for the Obama team who campaigned on troop withdrawal. Actually, the effort in Afghanistan is in keeping with the president’s philosophy that that was the war we should have been fighting when we decided to pursue Iraq (where the threat was inconsequential at the time).
I, for one, oppose the surge of troops in Afghanistan, no matter what name it is given. I think we too often apply military action as a first resort. The Soviet defeat in the country as well as the resurgence of the Taliban make it clear that military might alone is not the solution.
I am no expert, but many who are say that the surge is the wrong recipe for success. Some say the region is ripe for diplomatic measures, with warring factions open to the idea of negotiations. Others believe the focus of the mission is somewhat blurry. Recent speeches by Obama and administration officials have mentioned al Qaeda more frequently than the Taliban. Critics think the influence of al Qaeda in Afghanistan is marginalized and that the threat should be addressed in Pakistan and elsewhere.
Like my brother, I feel that renaming the war on terror as “overseas contingency operation” (or whatever it is now called) is silly. Especially if it means that the policies will remain pretty much the same. The Bush administration introduced the term after 9/11 and has used it to imply that we were engaged in a conventional war. The problem with this is that it has led to an arrogance of policy. Strategies, methods and operations which are deemed necessary and appropriate when in the midst of a conventional war against a nation state are inappropriate, unethical and dangerous when employed within the context of this struggle against an extremist ideology. I support throwing out the phrases “Long War” and “Global War on Terror” only if it means we adopt a realistic approach to a real threat.
I disagree, however, with my brother’s isolationist view. The world was a far different place when Thomas Jefferson penned the words to which Gordon referred. Part of that change has resulted in the superpower dominance that he has celebrated. The United States has intervened in world affairs when it has suited its interests. When it has been expeditious America has sought international support and worked to form alliances. To insist that now that our interests are threatened along with our supremacy, we should place independence above accountability seems absurd.
The world is ensnared in global struggle. It is not the time for the “cowboy” foreign policy of the past, or for unilateral aggression. As a member of the global community the U.S. must recognize the common bonds that join it to its neighbors. Of course we must remember that we are a superpower. But we should bear in mind that with great power comes great responsibility. As Obama reaches out to our partners and allies, I trust he will do so responsibly.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Science Has Returned to the White House
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 27, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing a policy that denied access to valuable research. Scientists and medical researchers applauded the shift from the dark ages to a new age of enlightenment that embraces science instead of distorting and suppressing it.
No one could accuse Obama’s predecessor of promoting scientific research. In fact, the Bush Administration’s reputation for obstructing the scientific community is notorious. Thousands of scientists signed on to an indictment of the highest level of the administration for interference and abuses that had widespread effects on issues from health to climate change. Reports from the Environmental Protection Agency were purged of language that was inconsistent with the administration’s energy agenda or was inconvenient to parties with vested interests in high-emissions activities. Despite objections from the staff of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), data and research about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education vs. comprehensive education programs were misrepresented. A fact sheet on the CDC’s own website, which included information on proper condom use, the efficacy of different types of condoms, and what effects condom education has on sexual activity, was replaced at the behest of administration officials by a document over-emphasizing the failure rates of condoms. Information was posted on the National Cancer Institute website, which suggested a connection between abortion and breast cancer that had long been refuted by scientific study. Myriad other offenses were cited by the Union of Concerned Scientists who issued a full report, which is available at www.ucsusa.org.
Bush gave stem cell researchers a slap in the face in 2001 when he restricted study to a handful of cell lines and banned public funding for further research. The 21 existing lines were limited in their diversity and hundreds of new lines showed promise for the treatment of diseases like Parkinson’s. The decision further hindered progress by blocking cooperation between privately- and federally-funded research.
The administration chose to limit medical advancement in order to solidify a select group among its political base that sees stem cell research as a moral issue. This sect of conservatism has been successful in presenting a false connection between stem cells and abortion. Fear tactics have been employed to build up slippery slope scenarios that are scientifically unfounded.
Myths abound about both the embryonic stem cell process and the effectiveness of alternative adult stem cells.
Pro-life propaganda equates stem cell research with abortion and the destruction of a fetus despite the fact that the embryos originate in fertility clinics and would be discarded if not used for research. Some argue that a program called Snowflake Children (which adopts embryos from fertility clinics to be implanted in infertile women) could make use of those that would otherwise be destroyed, but the numbers that will be used by this project are insignificant compared with the hundreds of thousands that will be discarded. Still others claim that advances in adult cell research have made it possible to create induced pluripotent stem cells that are comparable to their embryonic counterparts. The fact is that these processes are imperfect at best. Early methods required use of viruses to induce the reprogramming of adult cells, which increases the risk of cancer. A recent breakthrough has offered a reprogramming process that doesn’t use viruses, and that has caused many to declare embryonic stem cell research obsolete. The fact is most scientists agree that the resulting cells are at least in some ways inferior to embryonic cells and that their viability is in question. In any case, the reprogramming of cells requires vast resources above and beyond those required to employ embryonic cells which already have the flexibility and power to create any human cell.
The consensus in the scientific community is that both adult and embryonic cells need further study. Obama’s decision to reopen the science books allows that study to proceed.
Health foundations and researchers are excited by the promise of progress toward the treatment of conditions like diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s made possible by this change in policy. The freedom of federally funded and privately funded scientists to collaborate on research is a key difference as is the ability to work with ethnically and genetically diverse cell lines. New projects will be eligible for federal funding, which will increase their chances for success. Private research will also be brought under the umbrella of the National Institute of Health (NIH) providing greater funding. NIH involvement brings with it ethical oversight, which may help calm the fears of stem cell research opponents.
Moral controversy remains and will continue, fueled in part by disinformation and deceit. However, the moral obligation to provide the best medical treatment science will afford should not overlooked. Embryonic stem cell research is not the only answer, but Obama has reopened the door to finding new solutions.
From Broader View Weekly, March 27, 2009
A couple of weeks ago, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing a policy that denied access to valuable research. Scientists and medical researchers applauded the shift from the dark ages to a new age of enlightenment that embraces science instead of distorting and suppressing it.
No one could accuse Obama’s predecessor of promoting scientific research. In fact, the Bush Administration’s reputation for obstructing the scientific community is notorious. Thousands of scientists signed on to an indictment of the highest level of the administration for interference and abuses that had widespread effects on issues from health to climate change. Reports from the Environmental Protection Agency were purged of language that was inconsistent with the administration’s energy agenda or was inconvenient to parties with vested interests in high-emissions activities. Despite objections from the staff of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), data and research about the effectiveness of abstinence-only sex education vs. comprehensive education programs were misrepresented. A fact sheet on the CDC’s own website, which included information on proper condom use, the efficacy of different types of condoms, and what effects condom education has on sexual activity, was replaced at the behest of administration officials by a document over-emphasizing the failure rates of condoms. Information was posted on the National Cancer Institute website, which suggested a connection between abortion and breast cancer that had long been refuted by scientific study. Myriad other offenses were cited by the Union of Concerned Scientists who issued a full report, which is available at www.ucsusa.org.
Bush gave stem cell researchers a slap in the face in 2001 when he restricted study to a handful of cell lines and banned public funding for further research. The 21 existing lines were limited in their diversity and hundreds of new lines showed promise for the treatment of diseases like Parkinson’s. The decision further hindered progress by blocking cooperation between privately- and federally-funded research.
The administration chose to limit medical advancement in order to solidify a select group among its political base that sees stem cell research as a moral issue. This sect of conservatism has been successful in presenting a false connection between stem cells and abortion. Fear tactics have been employed to build up slippery slope scenarios that are scientifically unfounded.
Myths abound about both the embryonic stem cell process and the effectiveness of alternative adult stem cells.
Pro-life propaganda equates stem cell research with abortion and the destruction of a fetus despite the fact that the embryos originate in fertility clinics and would be discarded if not used for research. Some argue that a program called Snowflake Children (which adopts embryos from fertility clinics to be implanted in infertile women) could make use of those that would otherwise be destroyed, but the numbers that will be used by this project are insignificant compared with the hundreds of thousands that will be discarded. Still others claim that advances in adult cell research have made it possible to create induced pluripotent stem cells that are comparable to their embryonic counterparts. The fact is that these processes are imperfect at best. Early methods required use of viruses to induce the reprogramming of adult cells, which increases the risk of cancer. A recent breakthrough has offered a reprogramming process that doesn’t use viruses, and that has caused many to declare embryonic stem cell research obsolete. The fact is most scientists agree that the resulting cells are at least in some ways inferior to embryonic cells and that their viability is in question. In any case, the reprogramming of cells requires vast resources above and beyond those required to employ embryonic cells which already have the flexibility and power to create any human cell.
The consensus in the scientific community is that both adult and embryonic cells need further study. Obama’s decision to reopen the science books allows that study to proceed.
Health foundations and researchers are excited by the promise of progress toward the treatment of conditions like diabetes, heart disease and Alzheimer’s made possible by this change in policy. The freedom of federally funded and privately funded scientists to collaborate on research is a key difference as is the ability to work with ethnically and genetically diverse cell lines. New projects will be eligible for federal funding, which will increase their chances for success. Private research will also be brought under the umbrella of the National Institute of Health (NIH) providing greater funding. NIH involvement brings with it ethical oversight, which may help calm the fears of stem cell research opponents.
Moral controversy remains and will continue, fueled in part by disinformation and deceit. However, the moral obligation to provide the best medical treatment science will afford should not overlooked. Embryonic stem cell research is not the only answer, but Obama has reopened the door to finding new solutions.
“…Decisions based on facts, not Ideology…”
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 27, 2009
The quotation above comes directly from the speech given by our president the day he issued an executive order that would allow the use of our Federal funds to pursue research that would result in the exploitation of human embryos. It is my hope that this promise of Obama’s will be one that he does keep; in contrast to the many he has already broken in his first two months of leadership.
It is the endeavor of pure scientific research to always seek the facts; regardless of what direction those facts may lead. I agree with Obama that science should be free of bias, and political pressure should not inhibit true reporting of those facts or encourage the reporting of fallacious discoveries.
However, in the case of using the embryos of humans as if they were mere waste products, science must also be guided by a greater purpose that would retain the dignity of human life and preserve our collective morality as a society.
In the opening paragraphs of my fellow columnist’s laudatory treatise, he makes the inference that we have suddenly been thrust into a new age of enlightenment by the progressive leadership of Obama. His following paragraphs seem to imply that Bush had been the one who closed the door on all manner of scientific research. Well, let’s examine that charge for moment.
I think he was referring to the following piece of legislation – better known as the Dickey Amendment. Let me quote the most applicable portions, in which the signee prohibits using appropriated funds for:
The creation of a human embryo for research purposes; or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death…
If that is the legislation that stifled scientific research and kept us hidden in the dark ages as my brother claims, then he should at least credit the rightful signee of that bill. It was not George Bush who signed that law and it was not initiated because of some “sect of conservatism”. President Bill Clinton signed it after Congress passed it in 1995. Again, these are facts, not ideology.
Furthermore, it was Bush who opened the door on funding of adult stem cell research, which ultimately resulted in the discovery, in the fall of 2007, of the successful use of adult skin cells to produce pluripotent stem cells. I am hoping that Obama will allow these facts to guide our continued research into this area.
Despite the misleading claims made by my brother in his column, there are many scientists who agree that embryonic cells are less effective as a means of disease control because the recipients would naturally have a rejection of this foreign genetic material. This natural rejection forces them to undergo lifelong anti-rejection medication.
Other facts to be considered are as follows: First of all, it should be understood that it is a fact that human embryos represent a new, unique individual. The point of conception results in the union of two separate strands of DNA into one new strand of a never-before and a never-again combination of genetic material. If a citizen decided that the fertilized egg of a Bald Eagle held some great promise for her sick mother and endeavored to climb up to and disturb the nest of a pair of Eagles, she would suffer prosecution for threatening a protected species. However, we seem to think that the fertilized ovum of a human is not worthy of the same protection. Ideology – instead of facts.
The common cry from those who advocate the destruction of these lives is “these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway”. The facts are that there are many potential parents waiting to become adoptive parents. Another sad fact is that as researchers compete for Federal dollars, demand will ultimately call for greater supply and, again despite my brother’s claim to the contrary, we will start sliding down a slippery slope of producing embryos solely for the purpose of research. Facts – instead of ideology.
The conclusion of this matter is this: Use of Federal Funds for embryonic stem cell research is 1. Illegal because Congress has stated that no funds should be used. (Dickey Amendment) 2. Immoral because human beings are killed in the process. One-celled human life is still human life. 3. Unnecessary because ethical “Do No Harm” alternatives are available such as human somatic cells which have shown more promise than embryonic stem cells.
For those who believe that I have played fast and loose with the facts, please take the time and email me and I will reply with the documented materials to back up each of the above claims. It is my hope that our president does indeed allow the facts to guide him and not the ideology of a sect of progressivism.
From Broader View Weekly, March 27, 2009
The quotation above comes directly from the speech given by our president the day he issued an executive order that would allow the use of our Federal funds to pursue research that would result in the exploitation of human embryos. It is my hope that this promise of Obama’s will be one that he does keep; in contrast to the many he has already broken in his first two months of leadership.
It is the endeavor of pure scientific research to always seek the facts; regardless of what direction those facts may lead. I agree with Obama that science should be free of bias, and political pressure should not inhibit true reporting of those facts or encourage the reporting of fallacious discoveries.
However, in the case of using the embryos of humans as if they were mere waste products, science must also be guided by a greater purpose that would retain the dignity of human life and preserve our collective morality as a society.
In the opening paragraphs of my fellow columnist’s laudatory treatise, he makes the inference that we have suddenly been thrust into a new age of enlightenment by the progressive leadership of Obama. His following paragraphs seem to imply that Bush had been the one who closed the door on all manner of scientific research. Well, let’s examine that charge for moment.
I think he was referring to the following piece of legislation – better known as the Dickey Amendment. Let me quote the most applicable portions, in which the signee prohibits using appropriated funds for:
The creation of a human embryo for research purposes; or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death…
If that is the legislation that stifled scientific research and kept us hidden in the dark ages as my brother claims, then he should at least credit the rightful signee of that bill. It was not George Bush who signed that law and it was not initiated because of some “sect of conservatism”. President Bill Clinton signed it after Congress passed it in 1995. Again, these are facts, not ideology.
Furthermore, it was Bush who opened the door on funding of adult stem cell research, which ultimately resulted in the discovery, in the fall of 2007, of the successful use of adult skin cells to produce pluripotent stem cells. I am hoping that Obama will allow these facts to guide our continued research into this area.
Despite the misleading claims made by my brother in his column, there are many scientists who agree that embryonic cells are less effective as a means of disease control because the recipients would naturally have a rejection of this foreign genetic material. This natural rejection forces them to undergo lifelong anti-rejection medication.
Other facts to be considered are as follows: First of all, it should be understood that it is a fact that human embryos represent a new, unique individual. The point of conception results in the union of two separate strands of DNA into one new strand of a never-before and a never-again combination of genetic material. If a citizen decided that the fertilized egg of a Bald Eagle held some great promise for her sick mother and endeavored to climb up to and disturb the nest of a pair of Eagles, she would suffer prosecution for threatening a protected species. However, we seem to think that the fertilized ovum of a human is not worthy of the same protection. Ideology – instead of facts.
The common cry from those who advocate the destruction of these lives is “these embryos are going to be destroyed anyway”. The facts are that there are many potential parents waiting to become adoptive parents. Another sad fact is that as researchers compete for Federal dollars, demand will ultimately call for greater supply and, again despite my brother’s claim to the contrary, we will start sliding down a slippery slope of producing embryos solely for the purpose of research. Facts – instead of ideology.
The conclusion of this matter is this: Use of Federal Funds for embryonic stem cell research is 1. Illegal because Congress has stated that no funds should be used. (Dickey Amendment) 2. Immoral because human beings are killed in the process. One-celled human life is still human life. 3. Unnecessary because ethical “Do No Harm” alternatives are available such as human somatic cells which have shown more promise than embryonic stem cells.
For those who believe that I have played fast and loose with the facts, please take the time and email me and I will reply with the documented materials to back up each of the above claims. It is my hope that our president does indeed allow the facts to guide him and not the ideology of a sect of progressivism.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Paterson and his Budget -- Sad State of Affairs
by Gordon Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 13, 2009
As we New Yorkers look ahead at the upcoming pages of our 2009 calendars, we can be certain of a few red-letter days. First of all, we can be sure that eventually, maybe by mid-May, the salt will wash away from our roads, cars, sidewalks and vegetation. We can be sure that the robins will once again fly low over the green grass of our lawns, seeking worms and bugs and singing to us from sun-washed branches as they greet summer mornings. Undoubtedly, we will someday take the covers from our swimming pools and barbecues and enjoy some healthy summertime activities. So, you can see, we have many positive things to look forward to.
However, there will also be some dark days on this year’s calendar. There will be the day when Governor Paterson – yes, the governor who now holds the record for the lowest approval rating of any governor on record – will sign the 2009 – 2010 NYS budget. This will be a dark day for many reasons, and almost all of them are tax-related.
As we begin to learn some of the details of Paterson’s proposals we are learning more about his liberal views. The fact that Paterson had several scandals that had to be explained away shortly after his rapid rise to power, following the disgraceful exit of former governor and client number nine, Eliot Spitzer, I can overlook with a mere tsk, tsk and a head shake. After all, it seems it is becoming common policy for public servants to serve their own prurient interests before they serve the interests of the public. However, the changes in our daily lives that will come from the enactment of Paterson’s policies will result in more than a shake of my head; it will result in the shake-down of my wallet and bank accounts.
Some of the proposed changes in his budget will send taxpayers and small businesses heading for the Border States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Ohio, or even across the International Border to Canada. And with the exit of these revenue creators will go the revenue needed to pay for these new plans and programs. If you don’t believe me, just drive east along I-86 and then south into any Pennsylvania gas station. You will be amazed to see how many cars with New York State license plates are lined up at the pumps and how many packs of cigarettes and cartons of beer are being purchased by the drivers of those cars. After Paterson’s proposed budget is imposed upon us, you will see them walking out with cartons of soda as well, as soon as they realize that the cheaper gas makes it worth the trip to save the extra 18% off the price of a soft drink.
Paterson seems to be following the failed policies of his predecessor, Mario Cuomo, who mistakenly believed that we could tax our way out of debt. It is funny that those who claim we cannot drill our way out of high oil prices somehow believe we can drill deeper and deeper into the taxpayers’ pockets and keep pumping revenue into the state coffers.
The fact that Paterson is proposing increases in welfare benefits while simultaneously increasing taxes on businesses and consumers of everything from music to Mountain Dew, indicates where his priorities and principles lie.
He has suggested an increase of 30 % in welfare benefits and a cut in school tax relief and tuition assistance. Now, let’s just look at these two items for a minute. Taxes have always been used for dual purposes by our legislators. Beyond the obvious goal of raising money for protection and services for the general public, taxes have also been used to promote and stifle behavior. Through taxes we either penalize bad behavior or reward good behavior. In this one example, we see welfare recipients being rewarded and students and taxpayers being penalized. What then, do you think, is the behavior being targeted? Should we believe that Paterson believes it is in our best interest to punish SUNY students with higher tuition, thereby driving them to consider out-of-state schools? The statistics show that once a student enrolls in an out-of-state school, she is less likely to return to her home state, taking with her the skills and income needed to expand our economy.
On the other hand, by increasing welfare benefits, we will reduce the incentives to remove numbers from the welfare rolls, thereby limiting the number of producers (income tax payers) and increasing the number of welfare consumers (income tax suckers).
Space and time does not allow me to expose more of the many misguided policies in this budget, but I do have enough words left to encourage you to call and write our state representatives and voice your opposition to this budget. As sure as the robin sings and the flowers bloom, taxes will always come, but while we have our voices, let us use them to make sure we have representation with our taxation.
From Broader View Weekly, March 13, 2009
As we New Yorkers look ahead at the upcoming pages of our 2009 calendars, we can be certain of a few red-letter days. First of all, we can be sure that eventually, maybe by mid-May, the salt will wash away from our roads, cars, sidewalks and vegetation. We can be sure that the robins will once again fly low over the green grass of our lawns, seeking worms and bugs and singing to us from sun-washed branches as they greet summer mornings. Undoubtedly, we will someday take the covers from our swimming pools and barbecues and enjoy some healthy summertime activities. So, you can see, we have many positive things to look forward to.
However, there will also be some dark days on this year’s calendar. There will be the day when Governor Paterson – yes, the governor who now holds the record for the lowest approval rating of any governor on record – will sign the 2009 – 2010 NYS budget. This will be a dark day for many reasons, and almost all of them are tax-related.
As we begin to learn some of the details of Paterson’s proposals we are learning more about his liberal views. The fact that Paterson had several scandals that had to be explained away shortly after his rapid rise to power, following the disgraceful exit of former governor and client number nine, Eliot Spitzer, I can overlook with a mere tsk, tsk and a head shake. After all, it seems it is becoming common policy for public servants to serve their own prurient interests before they serve the interests of the public. However, the changes in our daily lives that will come from the enactment of Paterson’s policies will result in more than a shake of my head; it will result in the shake-down of my wallet and bank accounts.
Some of the proposed changes in his budget will send taxpayers and small businesses heading for the Border States of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Ohio, or even across the International Border to Canada. And with the exit of these revenue creators will go the revenue needed to pay for these new plans and programs. If you don’t believe me, just drive east along I-86 and then south into any Pennsylvania gas station. You will be amazed to see how many cars with New York State license plates are lined up at the pumps and how many packs of cigarettes and cartons of beer are being purchased by the drivers of those cars. After Paterson’s proposed budget is imposed upon us, you will see them walking out with cartons of soda as well, as soon as they realize that the cheaper gas makes it worth the trip to save the extra 18% off the price of a soft drink.
Paterson seems to be following the failed policies of his predecessor, Mario Cuomo, who mistakenly believed that we could tax our way out of debt. It is funny that those who claim we cannot drill our way out of high oil prices somehow believe we can drill deeper and deeper into the taxpayers’ pockets and keep pumping revenue into the state coffers.
The fact that Paterson is proposing increases in welfare benefits while simultaneously increasing taxes on businesses and consumers of everything from music to Mountain Dew, indicates where his priorities and principles lie.
He has suggested an increase of 30 % in welfare benefits and a cut in school tax relief and tuition assistance. Now, let’s just look at these two items for a minute. Taxes have always been used for dual purposes by our legislators. Beyond the obvious goal of raising money for protection and services for the general public, taxes have also been used to promote and stifle behavior. Through taxes we either penalize bad behavior or reward good behavior. In this one example, we see welfare recipients being rewarded and students and taxpayers being penalized. What then, do you think, is the behavior being targeted? Should we believe that Paterson believes it is in our best interest to punish SUNY students with higher tuition, thereby driving them to consider out-of-state schools? The statistics show that once a student enrolls in an out-of-state school, she is less likely to return to her home state, taking with her the skills and income needed to expand our economy.
On the other hand, by increasing welfare benefits, we will reduce the incentives to remove numbers from the welfare rolls, thereby limiting the number of producers (income tax payers) and increasing the number of welfare consumers (income tax suckers).
Space and time does not allow me to expose more of the many misguided policies in this budget, but I do have enough words left to encourage you to call and write our state representatives and voice your opposition to this budget. As sure as the robin sings and the flowers bloom, taxes will always come, but while we have our voices, let us use them to make sure we have representation with our taxation.
Paterson and his Budget -- The Long View
by Keith Cooper
From Broader View Weekly, March 13, 2009
It has been interesting to see the way conservative optimism has given way to doomsday pessimism and blatant fear-mongering (as opposed to the disguised fear-mongering of the past few years).
My fellow-columnist has painted a vivid depiction of a mass exodus of taxpayers and business leaders and a bankrupting of New York State’s economy. My hopeful liberal optimism allows a slightly rosier perspective.
It is true that our state’s taxes dwarf those of other states. However, this condition is not unique to Governor Paterson’s administration. For years, smokers have headed North or South to purchase tobacco products at cheaper prices. Drivers near the Pennsylvania border have been able to travel short distances to fill up for less. Businesses have relocated in states with friendlier taxation laws.
That Paterson is unpopular is also undeniably true. His poll numbers show only a quarter of the state’s residents approve of the job he is doing. Of course, his story isn’t much different from other states’ governors who have seen their numbers drop in the face of economic hardship and tough budgetary decisions.
That said, I have my own criticisms of Paterson’s choices. Slashing education funding at a time when a skilled workforce must be built, and when the technological and intellectual needs of the future must be met, worries me greatly. I would prefer an increase in spending for both K-12 schools and higher education, even if it comes with a larger tax burden.
I can understand the motivation behind taxing unhealthy practices like smoking and consumption of large quantities of high-fructose corn syrup. But, like my brother I disagree with this targeted taxation that seems to take aim at the working class, which represents the largest group of consumers of such products. These folks are already bearing the burden of our consumer-driven economy, and are suffering the most from job losses and rising prices. Since I have a penchant for sugary caffeine-rich drinks and downloaded music, I have a personal aversion to taxes attached to such luxuries. However, I can always vote with my feet and purchase a CD or two (it may curb my spending to a responsible level and keep me from those impulse buys that I regret within moments of the download). I also might look back one day and celebrate giving up Pepsi the same way I smile when I see the carton price at Walmart and thank God I crushed out my last butt twenty years ago.
I do find Gordon’s appraisal of relief spending somewhat offensive. At a time when jobless rates are rising and economic conditions find greater numbers in need, he takes the tired old “welfare state” line. It seems ludicrous to believe that increased spending will result in increased welfare rolls, as if public aid will somehow appear favorable to earning a decent living in a secure job. I guess he missed the recent stories of hopefuls camping out to compete with hundreds of applicants for a few dozen fire-fighter jobs, or of the well-attended job fairs in our region. As jobs are created, there will be an eager workforce to fill them, regardless of any perceived incentive to sit back and collect a government check.
Of course, Paterson’s budget isn’t a done deal. Alternative proposals have been offered that may trim a few million from the $121.1 billion in the governor’s plan. I find it interesting that some Republicans in the state legislature who opposed the federal stimulus package have been proposing using those same funds to cover the $14 billion deficit in the expected budget. It seems shortsighted to count on that lump-sum money to shore up the budget when the following year is apt to see a greater shortfall.
I hate to see the STAR rebate program die as much as anyone else does. I hate the thought of paying even more for a twelve-pack of soda. I would hate to give up my iTunes purchases. But these are tough times and I know there will be plenty of sacrifice in the short term and the long term.
Maybe we can’t tax our way out of our problems, just as we can’t drill ourselves into oil independence, but spending the stimulus funding to close the budget gap is just postponing the tax burden. Spending cuts and increased revenue efforts have to intersect in order for the state to function in a fiscally responsible manner. We should raise our voices to protest unfair taxes or to preserve programs that are vital. But we should remember that we will survive this budget and these tough times as sure as we have endured the worst of the winter.
From Broader View Weekly, March 13, 2009
It has been interesting to see the way conservative optimism has given way to doomsday pessimism and blatant fear-mongering (as opposed to the disguised fear-mongering of the past few years).
My fellow-columnist has painted a vivid depiction of a mass exodus of taxpayers and business leaders and a bankrupting of New York State’s economy. My hopeful liberal optimism allows a slightly rosier perspective.
It is true that our state’s taxes dwarf those of other states. However, this condition is not unique to Governor Paterson’s administration. For years, smokers have headed North or South to purchase tobacco products at cheaper prices. Drivers near the Pennsylvania border have been able to travel short distances to fill up for less. Businesses have relocated in states with friendlier taxation laws.
That Paterson is unpopular is also undeniably true. His poll numbers show only a quarter of the state’s residents approve of the job he is doing. Of course, his story isn’t much different from other states’ governors who have seen their numbers drop in the face of economic hardship and tough budgetary decisions.
That said, I have my own criticisms of Paterson’s choices. Slashing education funding at a time when a skilled workforce must be built, and when the technological and intellectual needs of the future must be met, worries me greatly. I would prefer an increase in spending for both K-12 schools and higher education, even if it comes with a larger tax burden.
I can understand the motivation behind taxing unhealthy practices like smoking and consumption of large quantities of high-fructose corn syrup. But, like my brother I disagree with this targeted taxation that seems to take aim at the working class, which represents the largest group of consumers of such products. These folks are already bearing the burden of our consumer-driven economy, and are suffering the most from job losses and rising prices. Since I have a penchant for sugary caffeine-rich drinks and downloaded music, I have a personal aversion to taxes attached to such luxuries. However, I can always vote with my feet and purchase a CD or two (it may curb my spending to a responsible level and keep me from those impulse buys that I regret within moments of the download). I also might look back one day and celebrate giving up Pepsi the same way I smile when I see the carton price at Walmart and thank God I crushed out my last butt twenty years ago.
I do find Gordon’s appraisal of relief spending somewhat offensive. At a time when jobless rates are rising and economic conditions find greater numbers in need, he takes the tired old “welfare state” line. It seems ludicrous to believe that increased spending will result in increased welfare rolls, as if public aid will somehow appear favorable to earning a decent living in a secure job. I guess he missed the recent stories of hopefuls camping out to compete with hundreds of applicants for a few dozen fire-fighter jobs, or of the well-attended job fairs in our region. As jobs are created, there will be an eager workforce to fill them, regardless of any perceived incentive to sit back and collect a government check.
Of course, Paterson’s budget isn’t a done deal. Alternative proposals have been offered that may trim a few million from the $121.1 billion in the governor’s plan. I find it interesting that some Republicans in the state legislature who opposed the federal stimulus package have been proposing using those same funds to cover the $14 billion deficit in the expected budget. It seems shortsighted to count on that lump-sum money to shore up the budget when the following year is apt to see a greater shortfall.
I hate to see the STAR rebate program die as much as anyone else does. I hate the thought of paying even more for a twelve-pack of soda. I would hate to give up my iTunes purchases. But these are tough times and I know there will be plenty of sacrifice in the short term and the long term.
Maybe we can’t tax our way out of our problems, just as we can’t drill ourselves into oil independence, but spending the stimulus funding to close the budget gap is just postponing the tax burden. Spending cuts and increased revenue efforts have to intersect in order for the state to function in a fiscally responsible manner. We should raise our voices to protest unfair taxes or to preserve programs that are vital. But we should remember that we will survive this budget and these tough times as sure as we have endured the worst of the winter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
