Comments: Liberals Start Hearing Black Helicopters
Bush is doing more than backing the principle. An article in the back of the paper in the K.C. Star a couple of weeks before the election spoke of how the U.S. was the only industrialized nation really pushing for the treaty. So while Bush was defending himself to the public saying that he did really fund stem cell research and was proud of how he'd struck a reasonable balance he was really pushing for a ban out of the public's eye. Gotta love that straight talking President who really always says what he means.
BTW, following a treaty that you've agreed to in the light of day is one thing. Notice that you haven't seen any Republicans coming out in public to defend their position on this one? I certainly noticed that two Republicans near me never came out bragging about their support of the Republican backed bill to ban stem cell research.
Posted by Jim S at November 19, 2004 09:50 AM | permalink
This is another unexplained allusion. What the hell do black helicopters have to do with anything? What have you got against *them,* huh? You really ought to spell things out a bit when you post.
Thanks.
Posted by Liberal Hoosier Troll Trolling Your Message Boards at November 19, 2004 10:32 AM | permalink
If I may be so bold, I believe the black helicopter reference is an oblique reference to the fact that conspiracy theorists who are always worried with the new world order, trilateral commission, etc often report seeing such things as unidentified black helicopters and UN tanks preparing their hostile takeover.
Posted by Brent at November 19, 2004 11:37 AM | permalink
We shouldn't expect an idiotic liberal hoosier troll to figure that out.
Posted by Anonymous at November 19, 2004 11:45 AM | permalink
Fascinating to see the right become so deluded by their ideas of self-perfection that they start ascribing the worst traits of their own wackos (in this case paranoid right wing militia types) to the left.
I think most liberals would RTFA, and therefore understand the part that reads "Friday's vote, if it happens, would be just the first step toward a treaty." Meaning that a UN declaration is not binding and that IF a treaty eventually resulted, our (democratic) legislature would have to approve it before it applied to Americans.
Posted by Lance at November 19, 2004 11:59 AM | permalink
Lance, treaties only require Senate approval. Look at the current numbers in the Senate. Think it might pass?
Posted by Jim S at November 19, 2004 12:03 PM | permalink
Cloning Hitler. Yes, that's what stem cell research is all about.
It's strange to see that you oppose any significant medical and economic progress in a blue state, though. Where is your congresscritter going to get your pork from?
Posted by scarshapedstar at November 19, 2004 12:16 PM | permalink
Wow, Brad DeLong must really be sending some shrill folks our way. Where in this post does Paul say that he opposes stem cell research? No where. The post uses stem cells as a commentary on the UN. In fact, although I have no idea, I'd wager that Paul supports stem cell research, at least in privatized form if not government subsidized.
I think some Dems are coming over looking for a fight when there's none to be had.
Posted by Joshua Claybourn at November 19, 2004 12:21 PM | permalink
Joshua, you are a little behind the curve here. Remember the riots in Seattle? That was when Conservatives were claiming liberals like me didn't get it -- we need these transnational economic institutions to make our laws conform to free market norms, set by such sterling institutions as the judicial arm set up by the NAFTA treaty.
So -- you rightwingers are now against that business? Good! I expect to see a contingent of ardent conservatives turn up for the next demonstration against the IMF. Glad to have you aboard.
Posted by roger at November 19, 2004 12:27 PM | permalink
What the hell is that about?
Posted by Joshua Claybourn at November 19, 2004 12:37 PM | permalink
"I'd wager that Paul supports stem cell research, at least in privatized form if not government subsidized."
A very good bet. Indeed, my criticism of the California law isn't that it's "morally bad" or anything, but rather that locking your budget into a long-term committment on a speculative technology through a plebsicite isn't exactly good fiscal technique.
Posted by Paul at November 19, 2004 12:43 PM | permalink
"Cloning Hitler. Yes, that's what stem cell research is all about."
Perhaps the next W3C standard version of HTML can include [joke] tags for the humor-impaired. And the reading-comprehension-impaired too, because the UN declaration would ban reprodcutive cloning.
Posted by Paul at November 19, 2004 12:49 PM | permalink
> Lance, treaties only require Senate approval. Look at the current numbers in the Senate.
> Think it might pass?
Who knows. Irrelevant to my point, which was had nothing to do with stem cell per se. Rather, I was disagreeing that liberals would be "ranting about the undemocratic nature of the UN" because our legislature (yes, only the Senate) would choose to enter or refuse the treaty. It is NOT analagous to a WTO dispute settlement panel or its like, where we (the US) are handed an accomplished fact. Paul is implying that liberals are hypocritical and only complain about global institutions being undemocratic when it suits their issue, but it's based on a false premise.
Posted by Lance at November 19, 2004 01:46 PM | permalink
Another note concerning Bush's dishonesty during the campaign. Here's a quote from his September 21st speech to the U.N.
"Because we believe in human dignity, we should take seriously the protection of life from exploitation under any pretext. In this session, the U.N. will consider a resolution sponsored by Costa Rica calling for a comprehensive ban on human cloning. I support that resolution and urge all governments to affirm a basic ethical principle: No human life should ever be produced or destroyed for the benefit of another."
No, he never proposed a complete ban on stem cell research. Never.
Posted by Jim S at November 19, 2004 02:01 PM | permalink
The principle involved in world government, so naively embraced in the glow of the end of WWII, has long lost its supporters, who, collectively, would probably be unable to gather enough members to face off against the Flat Earthers in a soccer match.
Left-liberals support international organizations when those are the proper instruments to obtain left-liberal ends -- such as buffering the aggressive foreign policy of a hyper-power. They oppose them when they are the instruments aimed at obtaining an anti-liberal end -- such as ramming IP law down the throats of third world countries.
There's no mystery or hypocrisy in this. The right does the same thing. At the moment, in fact, the right is supporting the invasion of one country by another, and the implantation of laws favorable to the occupying country by force -- something that would make the old classical freetraders, the Burkes, the Cobdens, the Brights, turn over in their graves.
Posted by roger at November 19, 2004 02:10 PM | permalink
roger, out of curiosity, by "Brights" do you mean the Dawkins-Dennett group or someone else? Not sure off the top of my head.
And, yes, I'm well aware of Burkean disdain for adventurism at home and abroad.
Posted by Paul at November 19, 2004 02:32 PM | permalink
Paul, I'm really not into euphemisms, especially of the "unbright" kind that Dawkins wants to promote. No, I'm talking about the Manchester industrialist and free trader, John Bright, who had the guts to resign his cabinet post when Gladstone annexed (for all practical purposes) Egypt. As long as we are on the subject, on my blog I have a link to the econlib text of Richard Cobden's speeches, one of which, against the war in Crimea, is marvelously apposite the American adventure in Iraq: "... I maintain that we do not come here to lay taxes on the people for the purpose of carrying out schemes of universal benevolence, or to enforce the behests of the Almighty in every part of the globe. We are a body with limited powers and duties, and we must confine ourselves to guarding the just interests of this empire. We ought, therefore, to cast to the winds all the declamatory balderdash and verbiage that we have heard from the Treasurybench as to our fighting for the liberty and independence of the entire world. You do not seriously mean to fight for anything of the kind; and, when you come to examine the grave political discussions of the Vienna Conferences, you find that the statesmen and noble Lords who worked us into this war, and whipped and lashed the country into a warlike temper by exciting appeals to its enthusiasm, have no real intention to satisfy the expectations which their own public declarations have created. I say, we are dealing with a question affecting the interests of the realm, and one which may be discussed without any declamatory appeals to passion from any part of the House."
Great stuff.