Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Pink slipped
In a story that has received very little press coverage, the White House quietly issued pink slips earlier this month to the 18 Bush appointees serving on the President’s Council on Bioethics, informing them that their services were no longer needed. Ten of the council members had recently criticized President Barack Obama for lifting restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Obama indicated that he plans to appoint a new bioethics commission that will offer “practical policy options” rather than functioning like a “philosophically leaning advisory group.”
Topic: Politics, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top24 Comments to “Pink slipped”
Meaning of the last line: “people who will believe as I do.” Fine. Since ethics has come to mean anything you want it to, change the ethics council to suit your beliefs. “Change we can believe in.”
Report comment to moderator
PeterL: GWB appointed these guys. You don’t suppose he appointed folks to suit his beliefs, do you? These aren’t civil servants, they’re appointees who are nominated by, and serve at the pleasure of the President.
And actually, if you pay attention to the words, he is suggesting that just a bit more legislation and regulation of these biotech cowboys is in order.
Do you disagree? Or are you happy with the prospects of hybridized, genetically engineered, custom ordered, babies?
Report comment to moderator
Are federal attorneys general likewise? I get so confused sometimes.
Disclaimer: Other times I merely pretend confusion, which helps confuse when I am and when I’mn’t.
Report comment to moderator
The timing on this is interesting. If all of this had happened in January or February, it would have been standard “cleaning house” between administrations, and nobody really would have noticed or cared.
How convenient, really, that this happens after some of them are critical of Obama. Is he allowed to do this with the council? Yes, of course. They may have even leaned in Bush’s philosophical direction. But it’s the timing that draws the questioning, which will likely only come from conservative quarters. Shame that many media won’t ask questions.
Report comment to moderator
This illustrates one of the central problems in the culture war. Instead of seeing that both sides have a right to hold their viewpoints and that there are arguments on both sides worth listening to, the Left casts the situation as one side being “practical” and the other side being “biased.”
Ugh!
Report comment to moderator
Manufactured outrage.
Presidents have every right to appoint whom they like and remove whom they choose, whether at the beginning of the term or not.
When Bush fired the US attorneys, the left was up in arms and the right said it was fine. Now Obama does something similar, and the right will be up in arms and the left will say it’s fine.
Idiocy all around, if you ask me.
Report comment to moderator
#2 Arcadia: Of course the President can put whomever he wants on his bioethics council. But c’mon–you know the President won’t stop the development of “hybridized, genetically engineered, custom ordered” embryos, to be consumed by us in the name of medical treatment before they become babies. (The unpractical among you who share my philosophical leanings recognize that embryos are babies, and that consuming embryos for medical treatment is just a sophisticated way of eating our young. It’s, practically, canibalism.)
Report comment to moderator
Where bodies like the President’s Council on Biothethics are concerned, banter about “who appointed whom” is a lazy substitute for actually becoming familiar with the conversations they had and questions they raised.
I think the criticism that the former appointees acted more like “public debating society” than consensus policy advisers is telling. Those leveling this criticism don’t seem to have gotten the message, pretty thoroughly outlined in the past several years, that one of the main problems in bioethics is that folks are trying map out policy in territory they don’t yet understand. Hear, hear for a few more philosophers on topics that people think they’ve thought about and are a ready to write laws on, but haven’t. Hear, hear for a few more Presidentially-appointed voices that caution, “Hey, you don’t really know what you’re doing, or where you’re going.” A little less practicality might be in order when treading the borders of unfamiliar places.
Report comment to moderator
“In a story that has received very little press coverage…”
There is no such thing as “press coverage” anymore; only press worship.
Report comment to moderator
I have to correct SteveG’s comment by adding one word. I will capitalize the word I added to SteveG’s comment from #6:
“DEMOCRAT Presidents have every right to appoint whom they like and remove whom they choose, whether at the beginning of the term or not.”
SteveG forgot to specify that detail.
Report comment to moderator
Of course, we all remember the undying outrage in the media when Pres. Bush let go a few presidential appointee positions in the justice dept and the LACK of outrage when Pres. Clinton fired the entire staff in the justice dept.
Report comment to moderator
“practically, canibalism” is a little over the top.
“A little less practicality might be in order when treading the borders of unfamiliar places” is fairly sensible.
There is no such thing as “press coverage” anymore; only press worship.
When was the last time you read a comment by Joel Mark that made much sense?
I’m sorry. No peace treaty with you next week.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you, Kristin Chapman for sharing this information. This is why I follow WORLD’s blog.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia @#2- I think Serious George @#8 answered for me.
Report comment to moderator
It’s really sad how hyper-partisanship distorts a person’s view of everything.
Joel Mark says: There is no such thing as “press coverage” anymore; only press worship.
On liberal sites, I read hundreds of complaints about how anti Obama the media is.
The reality, as ususal, is in between.
Report comment to moderator
Politics is the religion of Secular Progressives. “Ethics” is defined as “political morality” or “politically correctness”. Those who disagree are heretics.
Obama would like to redefine bioethics in order to fit in with his sweeping health care changes. Abortion, Euthanasia, Cloning, stem cell research, embryo farming and matters of health and race will all better suit Obama’s brave new world view.
Report comment to moderator
“The reality, as ususal, is in between.”
Actually, “the reality” has nothing to do with “liberal sites.”
Report comment to moderator
Actually, “the reality” has nothing to do with “liberal sites.”
That’s what I said. It also has nothing to do with your far-right declarations.
It is in between.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG, reality is by definition what is real. It may have little to do with being “in between”, in front of, or behind other things. Reality is simply what it is.
And, in my view, what the reality is is that the mainstream media is worshipful to all things Obama and to the left. You disagree with that. Okay, I get that. But there is no basis, necessarily, for saying it is “in between.”
Report comment to moderator
Joel, the undying outrage in the media when Pres. Bush let go a few presidential appointee positions in the justice dept was because they refused to go after or otherwise failed to cooperate with the political agenda of the Bush administration. The Bush administration was the most egregious in history when it came to partisan political appointments.
It’s called the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Ye who whines mightily when you see Democrats “name calling” seems to have no problem slurring the name of the Democratic Party. You sir are a hypocrite.
As far as reality being in between, look ay the two partisan media watch dog sites, Media Matters for America on the left, and News Busters on the right. One, Media Matters, almost always provide links to primary sources and background material to document the bias. It’s very professionally done despite it’s partisan leaning. News Busters on the other hand is full of allegations of bias that don’t link to any primary sources, and contains a significant number of stories that criticize democrats, but have nothing to do with media bias. News Busters prominently features the “News Busted” video that does little more than insult Democrats. One side does a thorough and professional job of exposing bias, the other is little more than hateful smears.
It’s like that all over, compare Democracy Now or Bill Moyers Journal on PBS to any of the Fox Prime time programming. It’s the difference between journalism and hateful propaganda. See for yourself. The truth has a well known liberal bias.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s remember these words for the future: “manufactured outrage.” Because I know I will having listened to the manufactured outrage of the left for the past eight years.
And then there’s Obama who says he wants competition in healthcare and that’s why we need the government. I wonder — did he not look over that THICK book when he became a government employee listing ALL the DIFFERENT plans available to him as a federal government employee? Yet with a straight face he says there is no competition.
And the leftys believe everything that comes out of this man’s mouth without ever questioning him.
Report comment to moderator
Actually a think book of plan options have nothing to do with competition especially if the different options are all offered by the same company. Or if different companies offer wildly different policy options that defy comparison. True competition in the Adam Smith sense is not possible when services are bundled beyond comparison.
And a true lefty disagrees with almost everything that comes out of Obama’s mouth since he like most Democratic politicians is prone to compromise and/or appeasing the hyper-critical and sensitive right of America.
Report comment to moderator
Joel
reality is by definition what is real. … Reality is simply what it is.</i?
And, in my view, what the reality is is that the mainstream media is worshipful to all things Obama and to the left.
So reality is simply what it is and, in your view, it is
Do you realize within three sentences you went from asserting the existence of empirical objective reality to admitting reality depends on a person’s viewpoint?
Report comment to moderator
Manufactured outrage.
One of the best and honest comments uttered recently by Obama is the declaration that while cable TV may be on a 24 hour news cycle, he is not. The previous administration tried to spin cable news to their advanatage. The current administration is trying to gets its work done while tuning out the annoying cable news chatter.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!