Siding With Stem Cells

Stem Cell research has been a huge struggle for the biotech industry ever since the technology was discovered. Republicans have strong feelings about the treatment of embryos. One could simply assume that since republicans are pro-life (against abortion), they are also against the use of embryos for stem cell research. I side with the democrats on this issue because I see stem cell research as an opportunity to save lives. Some also argue that the tiny blastocysts that are being used have no human features. Republicans make their rebuttal claiming that anything that has the potential to have a life should be considered an individual with the same rights as us all. One of the toughest aspects of this debate is that it is hard to tell where the line is drawn between life and nonexistence. This matter doesn't seem to be addressed in the constitution. In an article discussing the pros and cons of stem cell research, it is stated that:

"Advocates of embryonic stem cell research claim new human lives will not be created for the sole purpose of experimentation."

Besides tampering with potential human life, opposers are concerned for the animals being tested on.

"Others argue against such research on medical grounds. Mice treated for Parkinson's with embryonic stem cells have died from brain tumors in as much as 20% of cases."

I understand that it is unfair to the animals, but we must accept that this is a part of scientific research. In order to make any advancements scientists have to take risks and make sacrifices.
Depending on which party has the majority, scientists have either been denied money for research or have been given more. This article explains that:

"In the summer of 2006 President Bush stood his ground on the issue of stem cell research and vetoed a bill passed by the Senate that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. Currently, American federal funding can only go to research on stem cells from existing (already destroyed) embryos."

This article explains that after Obama was elected, his democratic qualities caused him to do the exact opposite.

"President Barack Obama said Monday he is allowing federal taxpayer dollars to fund significantly broader research on embryonic stem cells because "medical miracles do not happen simply by accident," and promised his administration would make up for the ground lost under his predecessor."

I think that stem cell research is a key area of science that deserves an adequate amount of federal funding.

 

 

Who Are the Democrats?

Democrats are commonly called liberals or progressives. Some democrats prefer to be called progressives since it has a more positive connotation. One of the key characteristics of the democratic party is their push for change. This quality is useful but many start to oppose this way of thinking when things become too radical. One of democratic President Barack Obama's main slogans was "Vote For Change." At this website, all of Obama's most popular slogans are listed. About half of them are about bringing change to America, which is a key part of the democratic strategy.
The opinions on the level of government involvement in the US is a major colliding factor between the different political parties. Democrats are known for preferring increased government regulation. The common misconception is that democrats are socialists or some people even go as far to call them communists. I believe that capitalism is a good system but without much government regulation at all, things will get out of hand.
I found a statement in a blog entry posted by Stephen Daugherty that explains what the democrat's goals to fix capitalism rather than getting rid of it. He writes that:

"They have the flexibility to pursue the different kinds of policies, to reshape capitalism to something Americans can better live with. The Republicans don't want to lose, so instead of coming up with a better alternative, the GOP seeks to batter their dissenters with labels and criticisms designed to destroy people's faith in them."

Perhaps republicans should reconsider calling a liberal some sort of communist when they don't have much to offer in trying to stabilize the economy themselves.
As stated from this website:

"Our party was founded on the conviction that wealth and privilege shouldn’t be an entitlement to rule and the belief that the values of hardworking families are the values that should guide us."

Where Do You Stand?

Every young adult in America is given the opportunity to make a choice about what political party they feel most closely associated with. It's not too difficult to understand the key differences between both parties yet some still struggle to figure out what they truly believe rather than be influenced by their parents and teachers. I found this quiz to be particularly helpful in that it addressed each category of politics and offered multiple political stances rather than just democrat or republican.
Here are my results:

Michael Moore Sees the "Biggest Box of Fruit Loops"

Michael Moore feels that there are a lot of candidates in the upcoming election that are a little out of the ordinary. He expresses that he does have confidence in American citizens in that we will make the "right" choices though. See the video below to watch the interview between him and Larry King.

What's my Party?

I used this website to take a quiz that tells me my political party. Here are my results:

Conservative/Progressive score: 11
You are a social progressive. You generally consider yourself a humanist first. You probably think that religion and patriotism go too far in society. You probably consider yourself to be a citizen of Earth first rather than a citizen of your country.

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 7
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 7
You're a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority's lives or quality of lives. You might think that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary anymore because letting everyone a gun is extremely dangerous to the community. You might also be against illegal drug use or public pornography because of its possible harmful effects to society.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 1
You're a Pacifist. You are angered that the United States thinks it should dominate the world through its military force. You think that the only time war is necessary is when we are in direct danger of being attacked. You also believe the US spends way too much of its money on defense, as we can practically cut it in half and still easily defend ourselves, and use that money to fix all our economic problems.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Democrat

Anger Drives Citizens to Vote

An article titled, "Who's upset over the economy? Everybody, everywhere" by Jane Sasseen, discusses the difference in attitude between Republicans and Democrats. She also goes on to explain how these attitudes effect the poles. Apparently Republicans tend to be more angry which causes them to vote more and Democrats are just dissatisfied giving them less motivation to head to the voting booths. Not only is there a difference in attitude between the political parties, but there are differences between generations. The article explains that:

"While many Americans middle-aged and up have lost jobs, seen the value of their homes collapse and their retirement savings eviscerated, younger adults, despite the drab job market and daunting levels of college debt, probably feel they have more time to wait out the downturn."

"Millennials have not lost as much in the downturn, so they have less to be angry about," says Michael Cornfield, an adjunct professor at the Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University. Moreover, he adds, "They don't have as high expectations from government as boomers do."

Sasseen summed up the end of the article by making clear why an angry person is more likely to vote than someone who is just dissatisfied.

"Everyone is unhappy today, but when you get the higher level of intensity, those people are more motivated to vote than those who are just dissatisfied," says Cornfield. Republican voters, along with an increasing number of independents, don't like what the government has done; they're eager to put a stop to policies they see as both intrusive and ineffective. Democrats, on the other hand, are unhappy with the pace of change but think the administration deserves more time to right the economy. "If you're a Democrat, you're in favor of waiting," he adds. "But waiting doesn't get you to the polls." 

Boehner's Close Ties with Lobbyists

In an article written by Eric Lipton, brings up the topic of John A. Boehner's (representative of Ohio) connections to lobbyists. In order to conquer the passing of the regulatory bill, Boehner suggested to lobbyists to team up. He felt that this would be the best way for them to take their last shot. In the end the bill passed, however, many people express negative feelings toward his relationship with the lobbyists. Lipton writes that,

The woman he hopes to replace, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, derided him on Friday as having met “countless times with special-interest lobbyists in an effort to stop tough legislation” that would regulate corporations and protect consumers. And the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, through a spokeswoman, charged that he “epitomizes the smoked-filled, backroom, special-interest deal making that turns off voters about Washington.” 

Obviously, democrats are turned off about Boehner's close ties and they hope that these ties won't have a positive impact on his political endeavors.