The Science In Politics

Mitosis, blastocysts, cells, embryos, and the list of complicated words go on and on. It is all pretty boring stuff to provoke such fiery feuds. All of it stems, pardon the pun, from something found in every single living organism on the planet: cells. More specifically it is the cells that tell our body how to develop when we are just a weird little ball of fluid called an embryo. An embryo is a fertilized egg that has been allowed to develop for a couple of days. At this point the cells are getting their instructions to develop and can be manipulated into becoming anything from an ear to a new heart. I could go on but eventually it's all the mind-numbing stuff we learned in biology. For firm believers in science the premise doesn't disappoint, what does however, is what I can only call incompetence in part of the United States Government. In July 2001, months before the devastating 9/11 attacks, George Bush passed a law severely restricting research and threatening further restrictions making stem cells unapproachable for most scientists in the United States. The bill limited current, at the time, research to the 20 or so usable embryonic cell lines (not very many). True, all this happened 9 years ago, it seems like no big deal anymore, recently there has been a spark under the burner. In March 2009 President Obama issued an executive order that removed the restrictions against federally funded stem cell research. This came as encouraging news to the scientific community, but of course, there were obstacles. Something called the Dicker-Wickey Amendment prevented creating more cell lines. Keep in mind that once a cell is cultivated it is eventually destroyed while producing the intended result such as regenerating a spinal cord. All of these games of political footsie have prevented garnering incredible advantages in the biomedical world. Stem cells could have gone as far as creating a cure for cancer in the 10 years it has been slashed down by our government. I liken the separation of government and science to the separation of church and state. As much as I hate seeing private companies receiving the benefits of scientific breakthroughs I hate seeing the government blockading the same thing even more.

We Can All Live In Alabama?

I don't know much about Alabama other than it in the south. For some that is enough to turn the other cheek. Being from the south, I am always interested in what the other southern states have going on. This article about Alabama definitely peaked my interest.

Matt Osborne, I'm assuming, lives in the south, possibly in the very state he's discussing. In his article he expresses his opinion of the Republican Party saying: "The Republican Party has a proposal...blame the president, stay depressed...and forget to vote on November 2nd." What he's saying is that if the Tea Party Republicans get control they will turn the entire country into Alabama.

Osborne turns this into a threat by discussing Alabama's economical standing. He explains that Alabama is the most tax regressive (meaning the poor pay the most and the wealthy pay the least taxes) and poorest state and provides numerous links to PDF records straight from the United States government. One claim he makes is that Alabama is becoming, or already is, part of America's third world. It sounds offensive to say out right, yes, but Osborne provides the facts. One link sends you to a list of states listed from the lowest to the highest poverty rates in the United States. Alabama is the 5th from the bottom, with District of Colombia taking last place.

His basic argument appears to be that if we sit back, don't vote, and let the Republicans run the show we will end up broke with dumb kids, like Alabama. In the Alabamian economy the school's depend on the revenue from sales tax so when the economies in the toilet so are the schools. Though the best part about education in Alabama has got to be the warning stickers about Evolution in biology textbooks, that is just my opinion.

Osborne feels that it's Republicans goal to keep the people poor and ignorant so their idea of government can thrive. It's not that far fetched, according to his article, that's what the Alabama government has been doing over 100 years. By keeping property taxes low they attract manufacturing jobs, whose money goes to the wealthy, who don't pay many taxes, therefore no money goes towards fixing schools, in turn producing more poorly educated citizens. Ultimately, I think Osborne is afraid that Americans will let what is happening to Alabama spread to the rest of the country. He's using this as a scare tactic to get us to vote for any other candidate than the Republican. All in all, it worked on me; hopefully it will work on many, many more.

Unhold Us, Senators

Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart, Susan B. Anthony. We all know who these women are, and what they've done for women, and for America's history. It is borderline outrageous that there is not a national museum dedicated to such women and their roles in this countries life. This seems to be Gail Collins' sentiments exactly when she expressed said thoughts in Unhold Us, Senators. The bill in Congress is seemingly harmless, unless you hate women, and it's rather straight forward. If passed, the legislation would let a group, called National Women's History Museum, buy property on Independence Avenue, at market price. Okay, that doesn't seem so bad, I mean, they could have written something in that said the government had to fork it over. The group will also pay for the construction, again, not bad. Unless this is too good to be true, why is it being held up in Congress? Collins claims there are two men to blame: Jim DeMint, of South Carolina, and Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma. For those that don't know, a "hold up" is a nice way of saying that any member of the Senate has the right to complete stop a bill's progress and make sure they see it's demise. With Congress dragging their feet as recess draws near the Women's History Museum group is feeling a tremendous sense of urgency to get the bill back on it's feet. The two opposed Senators claim that when the group can't pay the bills they'll come crawling to the government looking for a hand-out. This doesn't seem likely to me, Gail Collins, or Meryl Streep, who personally offered one million dollars. She also has another person offering up some spare change for the museum. When Collins got a hold of DeMint to ask why, he sent her a list of museums that have "similar missions". As Collins pointed out that Streep pointed out, there are already numerous other museums such as; a postal, textile, and spy museums right there in Washington D.C. All, except the spy museum, sound dull and unnecessary, and sadly, a waste of someones money. Women's History is something we all learn for elementary school up to college, and then some. It only seems natural to have this as a Nationally recognised museum.