I really don't understand why it is that politicians on both nominal sides of the "life issues" make a half-hearted and lame attempt to straddle a miles-wide chasm, or to somehow split the unsplittable difference. I'll start with the GOP types, who are allegedly on my side. Anyone who's even slightly awake realizes that their "pro-life" positioning is purely a campaign tactic, to be used as political pornography to excite the "base" until the day after the election -- when it is instantly relegated to a back burner that's so far back, it isn't even within a country mile of the stove. But, in addition, they can't even lie consistently. "I'm opposed to abortion, except in case of rape-or-incest," they say, somehow never being asked to explain why your father being a rapist, or your parents being inappropriately related, should amount to a death sentence for you. O Elephant, do you imagine that a real pro-abort is going to vote for you, based on your weasel words, when he or she can vote for a real pro-abort? O Elephant, you of the futile and reprobate mind!
And then there's the Donk. Consider the Chosen One himself. I was eating my lunch on Monday (at Dawson's Dogs, for those of you who live around here) when Mr. Obama gave his speech on the teevee, and while I kept my gaze firmly on my book, I couldn't help hearing the wild enthusiasm of the cheer that went up when he first mentioned that it's about to be Federal Embryonic Stem Cell Time. It sounded like a rock concert, in the moment after the lights come up on the headlining band. Why didn't Rainbow Brite go ahead and raise his fists: Blood! Blood! We're going to have blood! No, he tried to do his own straddle dance:
He noted that "many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research," and he said he understands their concerns and respects their views.Do you imagine, O Donk, that you'll sway any actual opponents with your poor simulation of being conflicted and making hard choices? If it's a fine thing to combine actual human ova and sperm at the IVF clinic, and thus start large numbers of babies in vitro, almost all of whom are destined to become spare parts, why shouldn't it be acceptable to clone a bunch of babies who'll be destined to become spare parts? Incoherence is what usually happens, O Donk, when you set out to defend the indefensible. O Donk, you of the futile and reprobate mind!
But a majority of Americans "from across the political spectrum" believe the research should be pursued, Obama said, "and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided."
He said his administration will also support "promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells." This research on adult stem cells was favored by the Bush administration, which argued that it could produce scientific advances without destroying human embryos.
Obama also pledged to develop strict, rigorously enforced guidelines for embryonic stem cell research "because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse." He vowed, "We will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society."
And this is what passes for a sharp contrast between the two essentially-identical crime families that run the Empire: one taxes me for limited federally-funded crimes against decency, while the other taxes me for somewhat-less-limited federally-funded crimes against decency. Don't tell me we don't have choices in Our Democracy!