Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (5247)	1/5/2004 8:20:46 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 6358

The challenge of biotechnology This is the conclusion to the series of editorials on the challenges raised by the October report of the President's Council on Bioethics. Last week, many resolved to enrich their lives and deepen their life experience by breaking old habits and trying new things. Although many of those promises are broken before mid-January, the resolution to develop and improve is essential to human nature. The same aspirations are driving developments in biotechnology. At first glance the field's products seem a gift to every guilt-stricken resolution breaker, providing an accessible means to permanent self-improvement. Biotechnologies could help children becomehighacademic achievers and help athletes improvetheirperformances. They could give each person lengthened days (stretching, perhaps, to immortality) and happier moments in them. Yet, as this series has demonstrated, such improvements could come at the cost of lessened humanity. The yardstick of a life experienced fully is a useful baseline against which the skewing effects of biotechnologies can be seen. Increased lifespans might make individuals less purposeful and society less dynamic. Drugs that improve performances (whether on the athletic field or in the classroom) might devalue the excellence sought and even diminish the drive to achieve. Pharmaceuticals that brighten moods and dull the pain of memories might become chemical crutches that reduce self-sufficiency and erode moral agency. While many question when particular biotechnolgies will come into full development and what their effects might be, few doubt that individuals will use (and abuse) them as they become available. Students are already using anti-anxiety drugs to raise their test scores; prospective parents (particularly in the developing world) are already using sex selection techniques to choose sons instead of daughters. Yet the drive to improve will ensure that biotechnologies continue to develop. Many, perhaps most, should, since their potential to restore health and aid in the quest for self-improvement cannot be cast aside. Though the techniques give new powers, the problems that they present are ancient. As the council argued, "The age of biotechnology is not so much about technology itself as it is about human beings empowered by biotechnology."Considering humanity's experience of being empowered by other revolutionary technologies, that is an unsettling thought. That disquiet raised by the council should encourage policy-makers to carefully examine new biotechnologies as they develop, to consider their implications and to examine their potential abuses. There may be some technologies that should be prohibited; some lines of research that should be slowed or even stopped. At the least, public debates should continue to be held on them. Examination of what biotechologies might make mankind into may even lead men and women to evaluate their lives as they are, and to pursue the opportunities for improvement allowed in each unforgiving moment. It's a wise resolution for the new year, one in which there will be many new challenges from biotechnology.

To: calgal who wrote (5247)	1/5/2004 8:20:56 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6358

The press and the candidates By Cal Thomas It's 2004 at last, and another presidential campaign year can be said to have officially begun. Because most Americans will never have the chance to see, much less personally question, President Bush or any of the Democratic candidates, the media — and especially television — will shape the views most people have of them. How are they doing so far? Are they giving the public a "fair and balanced" look at all the candidates so people can make up their minds based on solid, accurate and verifiable information? To quote a rental car commercial: "not exactly." The one thing to remember about the media is that they hate a one-sided race, unless the one side in the lead happens to share their political philosophy. Generally, electoral blowouts hurt TV ratings and diminish the sense of importance most journalists have about themselves and their ability to influence events and "save the world." President Bush's approval ratings are in the low 60s, according to several polls. Like they did with his father when the elder Bush's ratings were even higher, the media will do what they can do reduce his approval. Remember the phony story about Bush the elder not recognizing a supermarket price scanner? The media turned that into a story about his "insensitivity" to ordinary folks. The early media line was unveiled on ABC a week ago when correspondent Terry Moran, sitting in on "This Week" for former Clinton administration operative George Stephanopoulos (no ideological difference there) noted that in the 2000 campaign, Mr. Bush campaigned as "a uniter, not a divider." Mr. Moran concluded he had failed and that he has become a "divisive president" and a "divisive figure." To liberals like Mr. Moran, one is a divider when he doesn't buy into the liberal line and offends their governmental, economic and cultural sensibilities. It does not matter to most of the media when conservatives are offended and, thus, "divided" and excluded from consideration by their leaders. To them, one can only unite (even though he divides conservatives) when he reflects a liberal world view. On CBS, Bob Schieffer echoed the Moran view, calling the president "a polarizing politician." While acknowledging that Mr. Bush, as governor of Texas, did seem to bring people together, now, according to Mr. Schieffer, he "seems to have become someone that you either love or hate." Liberal Democrats did not find that a problem with President Clinton. While agreeing that people either loved or hated Mr. Clinton, much of the media didn't think that made Mr. Clinton "divisive" and it treated negatively people who hated Mr. Clinton, while the media frequently treat Bush haters as noble and virtuous, wanting only the best for all of us. Back on ABC, Mr. Moran was doing his best to set the tone and the agenda for the media's campaign approach. In a question to former Clinton Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Mr. Moran observed: "For many Americans, this is a divisive president. Is he vulnerable in the manner in which he seems to polarize people's opinions?" Mr. Panetta answered, "I think that is the case." (Surprise.) No self-respecting media liberal would ask such a question of, say, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, about any of the Democratic presidential candidates and why they fail to draw conservative support. Apparently division is a one-way street. On CBS, Mr. Schieffer claimed that Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean is bringing people together. His source? A New York Times writer who believes the evidence comes from Mr. Dean's success as an Internet fund-raiser. Again, if most people form their impressions of political figures by what they see on television and read in their newspapers, would it not be fair to say that the media shape those views by the way they choose to cover the candidates, the questions they ask and the biases they convey? Call someone a "divider" long enough and at least some people will believe it. Constantly referring to a candidate as a "uniter" (while ignoring those from whom he is divided) sends a different message. The media are just getting warmed up. If Mr. Bush's approval ratings begin to decline (as they surely will), watch for the media attack to intensify. If they remain high, watch for the media to become apoplectic because, the media are the real dividers, not uniters. Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.

To: calgal who wrote (5247)	1/5/2004 8:25:03 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6358

S. District Court Enjoins Bush Administration’s New Union Financial Disclosure Requirements AFL-CIO gets green light to conduct 2004 election activities without providing meaningful disclosure FOR RELEASE: January 2, 2004 Free e-mail alerts Washington, D.C. (January 2, 2004) – The U.S. District Court ruled on New Year's Eve to block the implementation of the Bush Administration's new union financial regulations that were scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2004. The new disclosure requirements, which National Right to Work Foundation officials have argued should have been much more stringent, would nevertheless have provided more information than in the past to rank-and-file union employees as to how their compulsory union dues are spent. The Foundation filed as amicus curiae in defense of the regulations, arguing that there is not an undue burden on unions to comply, and that the regulations are greatly needed to help combat rampant union corruption and financial malfeasance. U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington, DC, granted the AFL-CIO's motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby effectively halting implementation during the 2004 reporting year. However, the court will decide the ultimate fate of the regulations at a later time. "Judge Kessler gave the AFL-CIO what it wanted -- the ability to conduct an all-out campaign to defeat President Bush and Congressional Republicans without having to reveal to rank-and-file workers the depth and breadth of the political activities funded by their compulsory union dues," said Stefan Gleason, Vice President of the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation. "For the past two years, the AFL-CIO's strategy has been to run the clock in order to stall the implementation of this much-needed reform until such time as a new president would be in place to overturn it." The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in close to 300 cases nationwide.