Learn About Stem Cell Research Before Rejecting It

There has been much in the blogosphere during the last week concerning stem cell research, all of which seemingly triggered by Obama’s reversal of Bush’s policy to deny government funding for stem cell research. Arguments from the right consistently state that stem cell research is morally wrong because the cells being used come from embryos which are destroyed when the cells are taken for the research. From the left, a wave of praise that the research is now being allowed; now we can focus on finding cures for many diseases that have proved difficult, if not impossible to tackle for the last century.

The research has always been allowed, conservatives say, it has merely been denied funding from the government. The only change is where the money comes from. This is like listening to insurance companies say that they are not denying coverage when they refuse to pay for a surgical procedure—they are just denying payment. That argument will only wash if the client being denied has the money for the operation in the first place. The same holds true with stem cell research. Most medical research happens in Universities and most of that research is funded by government grants specifically set forth for said research. Conservatives know this already, so they should can that argument.

If you take a look at how this stem cell research happens it doesn’t seem so outrageous. One would think from listening to arguments against these programs that the laboratories had stables of young women intentionally getting pregnant and aborting their fetuses—or that these labs had harvesting teams camped outside of abortion clinics to collect tissue from freshly aborted fetuses--solely for the purpose of providing the necessary stem cells so the labs can have a steady supply to conduct their research. All of the recent preaching against this research on the grounds that this represents killing, or that it is stopping a potential life is gobbledygook. These stem cells are taken from cultures generated in a laboratory environment and grown in Petri dishes. Yes, they are from a laboratory fertilization process that results in embryos.

To take the moral high ground here would be one thing if these cells were taken from aborted fetuses, but they are not. In fact, the largest religious organization in the United States, The Catholic Church, frowns on using this type of embryo to achieve pregnancy anyway. They don’t approve of in vitro fertilization. So if this type of embryo shouldn’t be used to create life in the first place (according to the Catholic Church), what should be done with them? Why not use them in medical research? But wait; can’t we use other types of cells so we can avoid this dilemma concerning morals and ethics? According to The National Institutes of Health resource for stem cell research informational website, embryonic stem cells have two interesting characteristics:

"First, they are unspecialized cells that renew themselves for long periods through cell division. The second is that under certain physiologic or experimental conditions, they can be induced to become cells with special functions such as the beating cells of the heart muscle or the insulin-producing cells of the pancreas."

Adult stem cells also have an enormous range of research possibilities, but embryonic stem cells are showing more promise because they have a greater flexibility of application. In layman’s terms, these cells can be shaped, or programmed if you will, to morph into any type of cell in the body.

The scientific community is making tremendous progress in finding new ways to further stimulate these cells to achieve many desired end results that ultimately will make life for ailing and aging humans not only more bearable, but possibly bring about a complete return to disease free life. That translates into high quality life for many whom up until now had such low quality of life that they have lost all hope for anything but death. Where is the moral high ground in fighting that?

The President Is Not A Magician

Although Obama promised all in a televised speech that he would push for a stimulus bill that had no pork, or earmarks, (as senators and representatives like to call them) it is entirely unrealistic to actually expect him to be able to deliver on this promise as long as our President does not have the line item veto. In the absence of the ability to trim the pork from any bill, one item at a time, once it has finally found its way to his desk—our President only has two choices. He can either veto the entire bill, sending a message back to congress and the senate to rework things until they get it right, or he can sign the bill into law and get things into motion so our economy can begin to recover (assuming that the bill will actually trigger said recovery).

By vetoing the entire package he risks alienating everyone in congress; by signing the bill anyway he risks showing weakness or appearing as though he cannot deliver on his promises. What to do, you ask? It is quite the rock & the hard spot situation. There is a big difference between a lone senator not voting for a bill because of a certain clause, or the absence of one—and the President exercising his veto on a package that he has fostered in the first place. Welcome to the White House.

And now congress has sent yet another stimulus bill to the President’s desk for him to sign—or not. The fact that the earmarks alone on this bill amount to more than a billion dollars serves as an example of just how great of a challenge Obama faces as he tries to bring change to Washington. And that is only his congressional challenge. He faces even greater issues out in the private sector from recipients of the stimulus money. Without nailing down how the money is to be spent in clear, strict terms much of the money will ultimately wind up in foreign markets where it won’t even resemble being used to jump start an American economic recovery he intended to cause with this package.

This is exactly what has happened with the banks. When the TARP funds were doled out to the banks and mortgage companies many banks held on to the money and intended to use the funds for mergers and acquisitions instead of putting the money out in the street to consumers as the money was intended for. Just yesterday the Bank of America was in the news as having spent $7 billion, which is over half of the $15 billion they received in TARP funds, in investment in the China Construction bank. They are not the only bank that didn’t use the TARP funds as the government intended them to. The leaders of the banks which received the largest TARP amounts were hauled out on the carpet in front of angry members of congress recently to answer questions geared to find out why they didn’t change their business model when they got the money.

And it isn't just the banks. General Motors went through $14 billion in not much more time than it took to read the check, then it returned to Washington requesting more funds. Many economists would say that it might just be the best solution to let the market cleanse itself and allow businesses that cannot steer a profitable course to simply fold and make room for fresh capital to emerge in the form of new and more resilient companies. The painful truth about this particular company’s possible failure is the enormous number of workers who will lose their jobs if this particular company dies.

To add more to this mix, the Obama administration’s economic philosophy on how to bring the nation back on track seems to run contrary to the beliefs of the investor class, which is evidenced by the steady downward trend in the stock market. American investors have logged over $11 trillion in wiped out assets since Obama has taken office. If this is to be used as a barometer to measure Obama’s success rate so far it doesn’t look good. Today’s upward surge in the Dow Jones Industrial rating is encouraging, but only if it is the beginning of a steady period of growth and not just a blip on the chart.

Also, Obama is having difficulty getting the Treasury Department fully staffed. Challenges to appointments keep hindering efforts to gear up for the fight for economic recovery. So what exactly, one may ask, can the President actually do? And, is he on the right track? It is just possible that the solution to our dilemma lies in trying new methods of combining monetary and fiscal policy. But then again, it looks to many like we are already in experimental mode.

Did We Create Our Own Immigration Problem?

Whenever people here in Colorado get together and discuss our national problems someone always mentions that we have an immigration problem. At this point the conversation heats up as both sides get excited about our illegal alien issue, or our “Mexican problem” as some will call it. Interestingly, everyone agrees on that point. When discussing illegal aliens we are never talking about Cubans, Chechens, Brazilians, Western Europeans or South Africans who enter the country illegally and try to establish lives here. We are not even talking about Terrorists from the Middle East. Nope, it’s the Mexicans. To say that immigration is not a simple issue doesn’t even begin to describe how complicated this political hotbed of a discussion topic is.

Those who would rather have all illegal aliens deported back to Mexico think this solution will also rid us of many of our other problems associated with undocumented people from Mexico. To those who favor this argument we are spending money on undocumented Mexicans in the welfare system, at our hospital emergency rooms, in our schools and on our unemployment rolls that we shouldn’t be burdened with. They believe that all of the related problems from our over populated prisons to the annoying fact that an average citizen must now press 1 for English when calling their local bank or utility service help line will simply disappear if we just get up the gumption to deport the lot of them back to Mexico and let Mexico deal with it. After all, it is really their problem isn’t it?

To understand the reasons why our immigration problems come from Mexico we have to take a look at our immigration rules, our less than secure southern border and the inefficiently run, largely corrupt Mexican government. Imagine your name is Juan Jose and you cannot make a decent living in Mexico. Although Mexico has laws governing many aspects of life, most of these laws are either ignored or are only enforced to the point that it prompts a healthy bribe from any citizen or businessperson who wants to accomplish something or get away with something. Imagine a little further and visualize a system where the only way life can go smoothly for anyone is if the law is completely ignored until it is necessary to remember it in order to keep out of trouble with the largely corrupt, bribe seeking officials—whoever they may be.

After growing up in a system like that and constantly seeing life from this perspective and in the interest of having a better quality life than this, you will come to the quite natural conclusion that life in the U.S. would be better. After all, they accept the world’s tired, poor and hungry…right? So you find out from a friend or relative who is already in the U.S. that you can start working at the Holiday Inn in El Paso or San Diego on Monday if you can find a way to get there.

You go to the American consulate and apply for a visa to come into the U.S. to work. Fine, we say. We can get you a visa or a green card in approximately…18 weeks, give or take a month or two. This is what you will be told. After a life time of having to work around the system in your own country you will naturally come to the instant conclusion that you need to find a way to get to the El Paso Holiday Inn by Monday so you can start working and get the good life. But once you arrive and begin working (yes, they will let you start working just like your cousin said they would) the U.S. government tells you that you cannot get a green card or a visa because you entered the country illegally. So you stay anyway, which you can find a way to do. It isn’t difficult. Just stay. After a while you have a driver’s license and a social security card (somehow). There is an entire underground network of industries to help you get the proper identification. In fact, there is also an underground network of businesses on the Mexico side of the border that will help you get into the country to begin with if you can afford it.

However, Juan Jose is a productive individual and he works hard. He learns English during his first year here and he even pays taxes on his earnings at the Holiday Inn. Maybe he even gets married and has a family here. Some day he may retire here.

So, let’s get back to the reality of our immigration problem. Wouldn’t it be simpler if we just streamlined the official process so that they could come into the country legally? If Juan could have gotten a green card or a work visa in, say, one or two weeks—do you think he would come in here legally? As expensive as it is to hire a coyote to ferry him into the country just so he can work in the hotel business or pick vegetables (to begin with). My guess is he would.

To go a bit further with this let’s look at the high number of people who have been living productively in the U.S. for 20 years and cannot get official papers because they entered the country illegally. Why not let them become citizens a little easier? Will it damage our national security? I doubt it, but go ahead and let Homeland security verify that they are not some transplanted terrorist sleeper before allowing them to become a citizen. If they haven’t been in trouble with the law, and if they don’t have any citizenship preventing facts in their documentable life, why not streamline their pathway to citizenship? Isn’t that what America is all about?

On the other hand, if they have been in and out of jail for several years and they have an undesirable track record—deport them.