« June 2006 | Main | August 2006 »
July 28, 2006
DI Column up: The politics of pejorative in the stem cell debate
My latest DI column is up called "The Politics of Pejorative in the Stem Cell Debate".
The politics of pejorative in the stem cell debate John Bambenek Posted: 7/28/06After Bush vetoed recent embryo-destroying stem cell research funding, various quarters predictably became unglued. Cries of “fundamentalism” and dire predictions of death and destruction became the norm in the mainstream media. For as much as those quarters claim to have the intellectually superior position on the issue, they only seem to be practicing politics by pejorative. Instead of attempting to deal intellectually with the issue, they deceive.
First, Bush’s veto does nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent embryo-destroying stem cell research. State funds, local funds and private funds can be used to fund this research. Bush’s veto prevents federal funding for the research. That’s it. For all the time some spent shaking their fists in self-righteous indignation, they could have worked a few more hours and sent the money to Merck to further their life-destroying research. There is a clear difference between not supporting and preventing something from occurring.
Second, there are many forms of stem cell research, and the embryo-destroying research is only one form of it. Only recently has the media realized that much misinformation has been accepted on the issue. Adult stem cells have produced cures. Stem cells from umbilical cord blood have produced cures. Embryo-destroying stem cells have produced no such advances. As a result, private money is forthcoming in unimaginable amounts for adult stem cell and other viable stem cell research. It is the embryo-destroying research community that is begging for federal funds because no intelligent funding source sees viability in the research. That is why this fight is occurring over embryo-destroying research, not because there is some conservative plot to kill off everyone by denying medical research.
Third, those who claim that embryo-destroying stem cell research could produce valuable cures are largely ignoring the real debate and pretending it doesn’t exist. The question is not what the results could potentially be, but whether the means justify the end. Some sciences, for their part, almost stubbornly refuse to integrate any real moral or ethical calculus into their research. Some adamantly refuse to have any a prior restrictions on their work, even if it involves destroying life. Sure, embryo-destroying stem cell research could produce cures, much like Nazi human experimentation could have produced valuable advances in medicine, but at what cost? Do we, as a society, want to be in the business of growing embryos to harvest them for parts for the “more valuable” members of society?
It is long past time to push through the extremist rhetoric and deal intelligently with this issue. No real political discussion can take place when knee-jerk reactionaries emerge from the fever swamps and take to the airwaves to impugn the motives and character of all who do not conform to some prefabricated political thought. There are ethical alternatives that are producing results with stem cell research. There are serious ethical and moral concerns about life-destroying stem cell research. Much can be said about Bush’s first use of the veto, but temper tantrums do little to advance the debate.
——————————————————————————–
© Copyright 2006 The Daily Illini
Posted by John Bambenek at 2:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 26, 2006
Wictory Wednesday: Doug Lamborn for Congress
This week Wictory Wednesday presents Doug Lamborn for Congress for the 5th District of Colorado.
Doug Lamborn is a solid conservative with a history of fiscal restraint. He supports reforming education to give more choices to parents instead of dumping more money into a bloated bureaucracy. He believes there should be little to no federal role in education as those decision should be best left up to local areas to determine their own needs. Education is the absolute key to continued economic development and sustainability and it is clear that school choice will once again produce schools and students who are representative of the greatness of this nation.
Senator Lamborn understands that the problem with health care in the United States is not because the government isn't in charge, but because the government has skewed the incentive system away from consumers. The solution isn't to remove the consumer even farther from the equation, but to put the consumer square in the middle and allow them to make flexible choices for their own health care.
The use of eminent domain to take property from the disenfranchised and give it to the enfranchised has left those on all parts of the political spectrum a sense of fear. It was only a matter of time when the Court gave local governments the right to kick people out of their homes that those governments would stop paying fair market value for the properties they seized. Senator Lamborn understands private property rights as a foundational aspect of our society, government, and nation. Our freedoms are not something granted by the government out if its magnimity, but these are rights inherent in our society that the government is not free to intrude upon.
Senator Lamborn has won endorsements from the NRA, the National Pro-Life Alliance, and the Club for Growth as well as many other conservative endorsements. Please consider helping Doug Lamborn win in November by contributing or volunteering for his campaign.
This has been a production of the Wictory Wednesday blogburst. If you would like to join Wictory Wednesday, please see this post or contact John Bambenek at jcb (dot) blog [at] gmail {dot} com. The following sites are members of the Wictory Wednesday team:
Posted by John Bambenek at 12:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 21, 2006
DI Column Up: How to End Catch-22 Voting
My latest column is up over at the DI. Basically on why Illinois needs an open primary system.
--
Column: How to end Catch-22 voting
John Bambenek
Posted: 7/21/06
Is anyone truly happy with their parties' candidate for governor this year? Both Rod Blagojevich and Judy Baar Topinka have approval ratings that rival the president's for the gutter. How these unpopular candidates got on the ballot deserves a good look. What's more disturbing is that the only difference between the candidates is the letter after their name. They are almost identical when it comes to policy and they are both just about as transparently corrupt.One of the biggest reasons that low quality candidates end up on the ballot is because of the low turnout for primaries. Primary elections require voters to pick what party they belong to, then vote for which candidate should represent their party during the November elections. The problem is that most voters don't consider themselves as belonging to a political party.
This is further exacerbated by the fact that once you declare which party you are voting for, that fact becomes a public record. Some people do not vote in primaries for fear of public reprisal for picking up a ballot for an unpopular party. Others don't want to be harassed by that party for donations. The principle of private voting is violated by the primary system.
The result is that only the party-faithful vote in large enough numbers to matter during a primary, which generally means the party ends up anointing the victor before the election even takes place. Most Republicans despise Topinka, but her victory was a forgone conclusion, so they didn't bother.
The second problem is that there are only two parties to choice from. While third parties can get on the ballot, the system makes it much harder for them to do so. Many Democrats aren't fond of Blagojevich (or Governor Smith if you prefer) but they feared if they split ranks with him, they'd lose control in 2006. Party over principle.
While Topinka may be despised, she was viewed as the only "electable" candidate. As a result, the parties held their nose and picked those candidates, and now the voters get to choose between corrupt candidate A or corrupt candidate B.
Some view the solution as having a viable third party. The result, in a state that has brought political corruption to an art form, would likely be having three despised candidates to choose from. Having easy ballot access for third parties and independents is nevertheless a good step.
The solution begins with an open primary where voters can pick from the entire field of candidates regardless of party. This would keep what happens in the ballot box private and alleviate the concerns of those who don't want to show their political cards. Political party membership had relevancy about 50 years ago. It has no real practical implications anymore.
An open primary would allow candidates to have relatively free access to the ballot and with increased participation that would likely follow, two truly representative candidates would be chosen to compete against each other in November. Voters should never have to face the choice between bad and worse in general elections.
Posted by John Bambenek at 11:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 14, 2006
Tin Foil Hats and Net Neutrality
My latest DI column is up on Network Neutrality.
Tin foil hats and net neutrality John Bambenek Posted: 7/14/06 Network neutrality is a sham issue that deserves to be put to the violent death of all such faux rallying cries. After a great deal of research and after interviewing Frannie Wellings, government relations manager of FreePress, I have found nothing to base the charge that evil big business is plotting the demise of the Internet and with it the free world.What is clear from studying the issue is that the push for network neutrality is being driven by regressive politics and paranoia. These can be summarized by three components.
The first is the theory of the stupid consumer, the belief that the consumer lacks the motivation, intelligence, or moral wherewithal to advocate for their own interests in the marketplace. Basically, consumers are too stupid to realize they are getting the shaft and they need the benevolence of a federal agency to make sure consumer's values are respected (usually without even having to consult with consumers to know what those values are).
The second is that of perennial suspicion of any corporation. Usually when an entire group is generalized by the actions of a small minority, it is called stereotyping. When the group being stereotyped is corporations, it is called "progressive politics." Corporations are evil by definition, so they must not be allowed any freedom. In short, it's the legislative codification of rank bigotry.
The last is that corporations exist solely to stick it to consumers. Supply and demand is cast aside as an archaic concept. There is no such thing as a free exchange, there is only the continuous attempt by big business to pillage the countryside. The fact that Internet service providers have shown no inclination to start regulating what Web sites their consumers are seeing doesn't matter. They'll do it eventually because they hate society and their board members weren't loved enough by their mommies.
Never mind that it was corporations that built the Internet into what it is today. If it was left up to the government, we'd still be using Gopher. Ironically, up until about ten years ago Internet service providers exercised complete control over what services were available and what merchants you have access to online. That model was abandoned by the very same corporations that are now demonized. No consumer wanted it, advertisers stopped paying for it and it fell apart. The eminent return of a business model that was trashed a decade ago is absurd. It was Internet service providers that led the charge to open the floodgates, not the government and not partisan organizations.
The fact that the net neutrality debate is being driven by militant left-wing organizations makes the entire proposal suspect. Having attended FreePress events, I know their definition of a free media is one where society universally accepts and believes the regressive political agenda. If the Electronic Frontier Foundation were pushing this, or another organization that has some credentials in technology, the debate would have credibility. The fact that the organizations pushing this are purely partisan smacks of a political agenda.
The net neutrality debate is nothing more than the attempt to build a bogeyman and then demand the government do something about it. I'd prefer my congressmen deal with real problems instead of invented nightmares.
Posted by John Bambenek at 8:56 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 13, 2006
Crevical Cancer, Vaccines, and Deception
It's one thing to have reframing in political discourse where blind partisanship reigns. It is an entirely different matter when reframing starts affecting medical information presented to patients. The recent acclaim for the cervical cancer vaccine is one such case of reframing the debate going drastically wrong.
One important fact about the cervical cancer vaccine is that it is not designed to prevent cervical cancer. There is no medical study or information that will refute this point. What this vaccine prevents in human papillomavirus (HPV) or genital warts. It just so happens that HPV is the leading cause of cervical cancer.
Saying this vaccine prevents cervical cancer is like saying prohibition prevented car accidents. Sure, less people got drunk and starting driving cars, but that's not quite the point. The vaccine does not attack cervical cancer directly.
Typically medical treatments are described by the condition they are directly treating. A polio vaccine prevents polio. The measles vaccine prevents measles. The question is why this HPV vaccine is being described as a cervical cancer vaccine.
HPV is a sexually transmitted disease, one that isn't effectively prevented from being spread by condoms or other birth control methods. As a result, tens of millions of people in the United States alone are carriers of the virus. This disease is in pandemic proportions. Instead of taming sexual behavior to deal with the risk of this disease, the medical community invents a vaccine so promiscuity can continue without consequences.
In an attempt to downplay the significance of HPV and the rates people have been infected by it, the medical community refuses to describe this vaccine by what it actually does. What is even more disquieting is the attempt to have this vaccine administered to young girls as a requirement to attend school even before it has been established that there are no harmful effects that this vaccine will cause to girls of that age.
If the government is going to require children to congregate in schools, it has the obligation to make sure that those children do so in an environment that is healthy. This should not be confused with free license for the government to usurp the medical decision-making rights of parents.
Requiring vaccines for communicable diseases like polio, measles, mumps, and the like makes sense. Those diseases spread through no action of children who are in the same classroom with one another. HPV is in another class. In order to transmit HPV, one has to have sex with someone infected with it. While sex education is schools has the affect of encouraging premarital and promiscuous sex, schools still generally look down on children actually having sex at school. Therefore, schools have no stake whatsoever in whether students are vaccinated for HPV.
Describing this vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine makes it artificially "amenable" to parents when schools start requiring the vaccine. Who would be against preventing cancer? However, when one starts talking about preventing sexually transmitted diseases, other factors come into play.
For instance, the "conventional wisdom" of the school administrator and medical community elite is that abstinence education is harmful for children. Despite thousands of years of history that prove abstinence education works, these elites insist that children need to be taught not only the methods to prevent pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases, but be provided with those methods in schools despite parental objections. Parents who object should be overruled as acting against the children's best interests. Elites are using schools as a means of power-projection over children attempting to influence matters far beyond the scope of education.
The fact that government bureaucrats and medical professionals are calling the HPV vaccine a cervical cancer vaccine, with a clear eye towards mandating the vaccine for school children, should cause parents to stand up and take notice. This latest provocation against the authority of parents shows a bureaucracy not focusing on what it was designed to do, educate children, but ever expanding its power over children and families. Just who is serving whom?
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:56 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
July 8, 2006
Hollywood to America: You Much Watch Our Smut
A recent appellate court ruling has decided that it is illegal for companies to pay Hollywood for movies and then sanitize them of gratuitous nudity, over-the-top profanity, and puerile violence. For years, Hollywood has found ways to insert into otherwise coherent storylines scenes of nudity, sex, profanity, and violence.
In what seems like a simple compromise, a company would pay for the video, sanitize the content for those who request that service, and then sell the video to the consumer. In these cases, Hollywood gets paid for the price of the movie.
That apparently is not enough.
It isn't enough for Hollywood to get paid for their trash, consumers must watch the garbage in unedited form to make sure that viewers either have to manually fast-forward or otherwise endure pornography that is completely irrelevant to the storyline. Hollywood says that editing their films destroys the "creative intent" of movie producers.
Exactly what does a nude Kate Winslet add to the storyline of Titanic… well, besides masturbatory material?
Christians and other groups have responded to the trend of Hollywood being barely able to make a movie without some B-rate actress flashing the audience by setting up companies to siphon out the irrelevant content. Again, in cases where people buy these movies with the cleaned content, Hollywood gets paid full price. They make exactly as much as they would if someone bought the unedited film some place else.
There is simple economics involved. This is a free country, if people demand porn; they can get porn (despite the clear objectification of women and harm it does to society). However, if people want movies without the extraneous and non-plot enhancing nudity, violence, or profanity, that is something that presents a clear and present danger to our nation. In this case, we cannot allow supply to meet demand.
Here's the interesting feature, by pursuing this line of litigation with firms like Clean Flicks, Hollywood is causing direct harm to their bottom line. Instead of allowing consumers to buy the films edited to their standards, it generates a conflict. Consumers are now faced with the choice to either buy the film that they object to as-is, or to not buy it at all. This litigation has made the voice of the American Family Association, Coral Ridge Ministries, and the like that much louder. Ever better, it gives a catalyst to help propel the nascent efforts of a Christian movie-making industry into a viable movement.
The ability to choose to terminate a pregnancy (or more accurately, murder their child) is celebrated. The ability to choose the gender of one's sexual partner is hailed. The ability to choose to have sexual relations outside marriage (or adultery for that matter) is elevated to civil right. In all areas of American life, the right to choose whatever one wills is held up as the central and united ideal. That is, until someone chooses to express their Christian values in their economic activity. (Or for that matter, if they dare utter the name of Christ in anything that can be labeled a "public square".)
Hollywood, in rejecting a compromise that allows everyone to benefit, has chosen to bring the culture war to the forefront and fired the opening volleys. They believe that their monopoly on American moviemaking gives them the right to dictate what society's values should be. As a result, they've directly attacked one their streams of revenue.
Hollywood has the right to produce trashy films, or to attempt to integrate trashiness in films that can stand on their own without it. However, the consumer has the right not to buy such trash.
With the incredible success of films like The Passion of Christ, Lord of the Rings, and other family-friendly films one would think that the movie industry would see that there is an untapped market to be exploited. Instead, they've chosen against their financial interest and decided to alienate that market. In a free market, businesses that tell their customers that their values don't matter tend to not do well in the long term. Time will tell how long it will be until another entity fills the void.
Posted by John Bambenek at 9:50 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
July 7, 2006
DI Column Up: Vote Yes To Help Champaign's Poor
My latest column is up. It's on a referendum to increase the township tax rate to increase the budget to for general assistance. It's also a swipe at the News Gazette.
Column: Vote yes to help Champaign's poor John Bambenek Posted: 7/7/06 Come November, a referendum on the ballot will ask voters if they support increasing the property tax rate levied to support Champaign Township. The increase will fund greater support and general assistance to the poorest members of our community. The News-Gazette editorial board has come out against this increase.After interviewing Township Supervisor Linda Abernathy at length, I was unable to find any significant waste or misuse of spending. The township has only two functions - general assistance to the poor and property assessments.
The general assistance provided by the township is welfare of "last resort," meaning that it is available to only those who are getting no help anywhere else and have no assets to their name. In short, they are the poorest of the poor in the community, many of which are living on streets and under bridges.
While there has been an increase in spending under Abernathy, there was one fact that escaped the News-Gazette editorial board. The court had ordered the township, along with other government agencies, to spend the cash they had on hand instead of saving it in their general funds. In addition to the court-ordered draw down of funds, there has been an increase of the number of unemployed people seeking assistance. Somehow helping more poor people doesn't quite seem like rampant spending abuse.
The argument is that the township is a "relic of a bygone era" (much like one can describe the News-Gazette) and the functions should be assumed by the county government. One could argue that the states could be dissolved and the functions be assumed by the federal government, however, we constructed the U.S. system of government to include state governments. The same is true of townships. State law establishes townships and what functions they should perform and there is no movement to dissolve townships. Saying that the township should be deprived of needed funds because we can redo our governing structure is nonsensical.
It is true that the township operates largely invisibly to most voters; however, that is a sign that it is doing what it is supposed to do and not acting like an agency out of control. The township performs two functions and two functions alone. They haven't tried to expand their power or interfere with voters' lives. Ms. Abernathy was easy to reach and willing to spend about an hour on the phone for an unscheduled interview. That's hardly the behavior of an unaccountable bureaucrat. It is clear that those who think the township is unaccountable are just too lazy to pick up a phone.
While the city of Champaign is busy trying to figure out how to use eminent domain to take over utilities so that they can expand their base of power into areas they don't belong, the township is providing assistance to people who have no where else to turn. If providing help to these people is expensive, it is only because as a society we've pawned off our personal obligation to help those in our community on the government.
This is one of the very few tax increases that I support and find no fault with. Come November, join me in voting yes.
Posted by John Bambenek at 1:33 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
July 5, 2006
DI Column Up: Welcoming in our New Health Conscious Overlords
I'm also late on posting my latest column, "Welcoming in our new health conscious overlords" on the Champaign-Urbana smoking ban. I was on vacation, sue me.
Column: Welcoming in our new health conscious overlords John Bambenek Posted: 6/30/06 Capitalism has failed in Champaign. More than a hundred years of economic prosperity in the United States has proven to be a sham right here in the twin cities.Generously, the elites from the Coalition to Protect People from Themselves (as the Champaign-Urbana Smoke Free Alliance was known before they apparently got a public relations consultant) have lobbied for city regulations because we can't trust evil mega-corporations and Big Liquor to meet the demands of their customers. That whole supply and demand thing is really a device by Big Business to keep us "sheeple" as little more than indentured servants pulled around by the whims of board room elites.
Using statistics only slightly cooked to make their point, they showed the city councils that more than 76 percent of people in Champaign-Urbana support governments taking control of all decision-making powers of consumers. Now, at long last, I can enjoy the local hookah bar without having to suffer through the evils of second-hand smoke.
Cigarette smoke is the only weapon of mass destruction that we have to fear. Patrons of campus bars need not worry about the alleged public health concerns of roofies, or for that matter, the entirely mythical raging venereal disease epidemic on campus. It is of critical importance that we fight to stop second-hand smoke so 18-year-old freshmen can binge drink in Kam's without having to worry about lung cancer when they are passed out in a pool of their own vomit.
The several smoke-free establishments already in Champaign-Urbana are not enough for the coalition. It is important that every establishment caters to the desires of clients who will never frequent them. We need to make C.O.'s as comfortable for 50 year-old townies as possible. We'd hate for them to be coughing while they are busy ogling at freshmen girls in tight, black bar pants.
During the intense lobbying, name calling and threats, the coalition refused to let the matter be considerded in a referendum. They're afraid that Big Liquor and Big Burger would hoodwink the 76 percent of people who allegedly support a ban. See, we just can't trust those lemmings, I mean voters, to be able to figure out a ballot. So not only has capitalism failed, democracy is a failed and antiquated concept here in our little patch of cornfield.
I look forward to the future campaigns of the coalition who will not stop with simply banning smoking. After all, consumers are too stupid to be able to make any economic and life decision for themselves. The brave new day when all restaurants and grocery stories only offer organic and vegan fare will soon be here. Soda will be banned from vending machines to be replaced with fair-trade lattes.
There is too much variety in life and too many choices to make. It is high time that government did something about this and set a "one size fits all" standard upon our private lives. Long live the new oligarchy.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Framing as Strawmen Politics
Has George Lakoff ever met a conservative? Read any conservative books? Actually sat down and talked over conservativism with someone who actually holds it? From his latest co-written article "Bush is not Incompetent" it appears the answer is no. Lakoff's latest "research" shows that reframing a discussion isn't about getting your points out, it's about changing the facts and definitions so you can demonize opponents who may have perfectly valid points of view. It's the politics of tyranny, not democracy.
Consider how Lakoff defines the three fundamental tenets of conservativism: individual initiative, the President is the moral authority, and free markets are enough to foster freedom and opportunity. Focusing exclusively on the second tenet for a moment, where does this come from?
Certainly not any conservative books, politicians, or for that matter, any conservative church has ever or would ever say the President of the United States is the moral authority for the nation. If this were so, Bill Clinton would be doing crusades instead of Billy Graham. Or George H.W Bush. Or Jimmy Carter. No one is suggesting we supplant the Pope with George W. Bush. Not even dominionists believe this, and that's easy to verify because you can fit every real dominionist in this country in a phone book (despite hysterical claims that there are hundreds of millions of them about the wreak death and destruction on pagans, cross-dressers, and mixed-fabric clothing).
I challenge Lakoff and the Rockridge Institute to back up their "research" to prove that conservatives believe the President should be the moral authority. I have a veritable library of conservative books and articles in my office, and no where has this ever been suggested to my knowledge.
Moving to the third tenet, that free markets are enough to foster freedom, not only do conservatives not believe this, if they did believe it they'd be anarchists. When talking about the right to own property, absolutely, the free market is the answer. However, there are some areas that the free market is not sufficient and conservatives recognize that. If the free market where enough, there would be no need for government. Laissez-faire conservatives are by and large a thing of the past, or for that matter, they're called "libertarians" and even they would argue that government should enforce contracts.
Lakoff can say conservatives disregard stewardship of the commons all he likes, it still isn't true. If this were true, conservatives would be calling for disbanding (or at least privatizing) police departments, fire departments, and the like. Government should be the last resort when dealing with how to manage an asset, that doesn't mean it's completely off the table.
Lakoff further contents "where profits cannot be made – conservation, healthcare for the poor – charity is meant to replace justice". The horror at having a society that of its own initiative provides for those least fortunate and most in need! That's virtually putting the poor in boxcars to be gassed.
In regards to Katrina, one can argue that Bush (who is a moderate, not a conservative) failed to handle the situation appropriately. To blame conservativism for the failure is highly incongruous with the facts. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin (D) and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco (D) would be astounded to know that they are conservatives and they certainly share some blame in the fiasco. As far as planning in how to deal with hurricanes in New Orleans, it was entirely the effort of local officials, not federal ones. Lakoff engages in a radical rewriting of history in addition to his rewriting of conservative philosophy to construct a nice little strawman.
Lakoff demonstrates clearly the problem with framing, PR consultants, and politics in general. Instead of viewing the opposition as someone who may have reasonable disagreements with you, one portrays their opponents as demons, as evil incarnate that must be destroyed. Political discussion is impossible. Compromise is impossible. All that is left is the mud-wrestling that has become the norm on talk shows and blogs. No one wants to compromise or work with incarnate evil.
This is the beginning of the demise for democracy. As much as the left likes to claim that dissent is patriotic, with articles like this it is clear that dissent isn't what they want. Two sides arguing and presenting their ideas is one thing. One side insisting that an entire class of people, any iteration of ideology that disagrees with their own, is a demon to be destroyed isn't a free society. It's the politics of division. It's the founding blocks of tyranny.
It's time to lose the PR consultants, the focus group spin, and popular demonology of politics to realize that our political opponents may disagree with us, but generally they are sincere and honest people. Let's let the ideas do the talking and do battle and lose the politics of personal destruction that both sides use to devastating effects to democracy, to unity, and to freedom.
Posted by John Bambenek at 10:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
