Editorial CE #5

This week’s editorial is called “Behind the Cell Curve” by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post. It is discussing how Barack Obama has cut spending on stem cell research and that any scientific decisions will be made based on fact not ideology. Parker feels that Obama is being oblivious to some amazing strides that researchers have made in alternative stem cell research. Unfortunately, the stem cell debate has always been a conflict between science and religion. The majority of Americans have reached a consensus that we should pursue this research. Polling confirms as much, but most Americans, including most journalists and politicians, aren't fluent in stem cell research. If people know anything, it is that embryonic stem cells can cure diseases and that all stem cells come from fertility clinic embryos that will be discarded anyway. Every success in treating patients with stem cells so far has involved adult or umbilical cord stem cells, not embryonic stem cells. And though federal dollars still won't directly fund embryo destruction, federally funded researchers can obtain embryos privately created only for experimentation. Thus, taxpayers now are incentivizing a market for embryo creation and destruction. Embryonic stem cells have been argued to be pluripotent. But studies in 2007 have shown that with injection of genes into skin cells, the same pluripotent cells can be created. Many scientists want to conduct embryonic stem cell research, as they have and always could with private funding. One may agree or disagree with their purposes, but one may also question why taxpayers should have to fund something so ethically charged when alternative methods are available. Parker feels that “science handed Obama a gift, and he sent it back.” I agree and disagree with Parker on this editorial. We do need the private funding so we can further stem cell research, but if there are alternate methods, we should take advantage of those instead of drowning ourselves in more debt by spending more money. It is amazing to be able to cure cancer with stem cells and it is something I advocate. I think we should cut back a little bit on funding stem cell research rather than cutting funding completely.

Editorial CE #4

This week’s editorial is called “The Audacity of Audacity” by E.J. Dionne Jr. in the Washington Post. It discusses how President Obama is facing three overlapping questions: When will middle-of-the-road voters start blaming him for the sick economy? When will he act decisively to deal with the mess that is our banking system? And can he keep managing his political two-step of appealing simultaneously to centrists and progressives? The economy is still in crisis and will remain so until there is a solution to the problems with the banks, and if things keep going bad, more and more voters in the middle will start blaming Obama for not fixing them. All of the bad news is empowering Obama’s critics who consider themselves moderates. They say that the president, in trying to keep his campaign promises on health care and energy, is "overreaching" and not focusing on economic recovery. Dionne says that it's hard for the fair-minded not to have some sympathy for Obama. He has been in office for less than two months, and no president since Franklin D. Roosevelt had to deal with such a crisis as the one Obama is dealing with now. Wall Street conservatives are arguing that the stock market is collapsing because Obama wants to institute a relatively modest set of tax increases on the wealthy. But these voices supported lower taxes on the rich when the economy was bad, when the economy was good and when the economy was so-so. They have no credibility. These same voices claim to worry about future budget deficits. Unfortunately for Obama, such arguments matter far less right now than unemployment hitting 8.1 percent and the downward spiral of the stock market since he took office. All of the administration's critics are being emboldened by its hesitancy in dealing with the banking question and its apparent fear of temporary bank nationalization. On this issue, the president genuinely is trying to steer a moderate course. Obama's calm and deliberative style is one of his greatest strengths. He doesn't want precipitous action in the midst of an economic collapse to come back to haunt us all. But sometimes excessive caution can be as dangerous as impetuousness. The president has no choice but to be bold. If there is one thing he should fear, it is fear itself. Overall, I believe that Obama is doing the right thing with the economy right now. We do need higher taxes in order to solve this downward slope in the economy. It is better that we spend less and pay more than to lose all of our money in the banks and stock markets. I think it is very typical of the wealthy to criticize Obama’s actions. He wants tax cuts for the middle class and I think that that would help put more money into the economy.