Whoops, he did it again
The gall of Blagojevich.
The News Gazette reported this on March 9:
Gov. Rod Blagojevich quietly filed an executive order that essentially eliminates legislative oversight of his controversial stem cell research grant program, The News-Gazette has learned.
When the General Assembly failed to pass a bill for state-funded stem cell research last spring, Blagojevich circumvented the legislative process and issued an executive order creating the Illinois Regenerative Institute for Stem Cell Research.
The July 2005 executive order required the Illinois Department of Public Health to adopt rules for the issuance and administration of stem cell research grants, funded by $10 million that had been hidden in the budget under the vague description of "scientific research."
Those rules would have had to have been approved by the General Assembly's Joint Commission on Administrative Rules, a panel made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats from the House and Senate.
A new executive order, filed on Feb. 10, amended the old executive order by eliminating the requirement that rules be adopted to govern the grant program....
[GOP] State Sen. Dan Rutherford... said... "[H]e's going to have his state agency receive money without having any guidelines or oversight as to how they're going to spend this money or give it out to people without having legislative oversight."
Are you embryo/cloning research supporters so bent on getting your way that you're fine with this?
Is it acceptable to you that Blagojevich not only flouted the legislative process to fund embryonic/cloning research but is now abolishing all checks and balances as to who gets the money, who decides who gets the money, and for what sort of experimentation?
16 comments:
From Mark Gordon's blogger brief,
Whitaker relayed a conversation between himself and his agency’s “Rules Coordinator”:
“…when she saw it, she said, ’Why are we doing rules to give out this money? We give out millions of dollars. Given our general statutory authority, why do we need rules?’ And, as we had our lawyers look into it, the question was: why do we need rules?”
DICTATOR BLAGO HAVING INSTILLED STALINISM IN THE FREE DEMOCRACY OF ILLINOIS THINKS THAT THIS IS BEST FOR THE PEOPLE.AS SOON AS HE CAN DECREE ALL FARMS WILL BECOME GOVERMENT LAND.
given that you don't seem to have a *rational* reason why this is wrong (outside of the procedural context, which every governor and the president is doing), i see no reason why voters won't be fine with this. sure, it pisses off the extremists, who are out of the mainstream on this (and probably other) issue(s). but most voters support stem cell research...
bored now,
it's actually not about the underlying substantive issue (I support stem cell research), it's about the process, which should remain sacrosanct. Past diversions from the process (eg. wiretapping)should be grounds for redoubling our guard, not for setting precendent.
too lazy: i happen to agree with you, BUT there's no way that one should fight this battle on extremist issues. the governors and president have overreached and exceeded their authorities, but the legislatures, quite frankly, allowed them to get away with it. they will have to change first, reassert their roles, rights and responsibilities. jill's obsessive criticism of the governor for playing the game is pretty silly...
Miss Stanek is right on with this issue! Rod overreaches to an extreme and yes the legislatures need to finally get a backbone.
But that doesn't excuses what the governor is doing. I am sorry I am extremists for wanting the government to follow the consitution.
Did somebody say, "Kickback?" Cause I am...
kick back to the Medical Industrial complex which somehow gets a free pass from the left on this issue.
sorry, jill, i'm not concerned that you play the game, either, even if you might be more sincere than bush or blago. what i *am* concerned about is your attacks on science in general. while i generally find your naivete refreshing -- i think it's important to revitalize the political debate with the deaniacs and pro-lifers -- redefining science for your own political needs is extremely cynical...
(oh, and, bill, try to remember that *i* am a certified reaganaut -- although i'll admit that you may view reagan as a lot more liberal than i do.)
hope that made you feel better, because it certainly didn't make sense...
good. then you already understand that your extremism makes it impossible for any legitimate criticism FROM YOU of the guv's usurption of authority to be taken seriously. like i said, it doesn't bother me that you play the game any more than it bothers me that bush or blagojevich et al play the game. as long as you understand that there's no difference between you and them in the game-playing -- and unlikely to be bring any change (none from the extreme). you're clearly not in the game to change it, just to obsess about it...
just to make this crystal clear, since you've obviously chosen to take this personal (it's not): i welcome the infusion of the deaniacs and people like you on the right because they reinvigorate the political system. your idealism/naivete is critical to keeping the system honest (not that it is).
what i don't welcome is your need to reinterpret concepts and make up definitions in order to justify your attack on science (i know, you think science is a bad thing, you want us to return to the middle ages). and this displays your ignorance (or, possibly, dishonesty -- i choose to believe that you are merely ignorant), because science itself offers numerous lines of attacks without making up your own definitions of words or reinterpret concepts. this demonstrates that you are not serious about the subject matter, only about the political rhetoric. and that's a shame. that makes you no different than blagojevich in other, less admirable, ways. that's less an insult than an observation...
wow. i'm truly struck by your denseness. i'm not opposed to a discussion of the topic -- that's why i pointed out that *you* are not a credible commentator on it. you are so eager to play the victim that you seem to miss this point. but that probably explains why you are so quick to jump to conclusions, ascribing positions to others (eg, me) that they neither took nor advocated.
(btw, i get that you don't see your positions as a broad attack on science, which is one reason why i think you are ignorant of it. but i'm glad that you understand to middle ages metaphor. you understand rhetoric, just not principles!)
ps: your need to paint any opponent as a liberal is just so darn cute!
now THAT'S playing the game! (see why you're not a credible critic of the governor?)
Ms Stanek;
I support stem cell research, and I am a Republican. This Governor didn't seize power in a coup, he was elected by you and me collectively. If there is a great uprising against what he has done, by a year from now he won't be Governor.
I am not holding my breath for that to happen. I suspect that many people don't share your outrage, and some of those who do don't consider stem cell research to be the most important issue facing Illinois today.
By the way, if you never see gray, your eyesight is far, far better than mine. I also believe in absolute rights and wrongs, I just think we don't run into them very often. You see, if they are so patently black and white absolute, it's very hard to understand why a great majority of people don't instantly recognize them as such (incest, for example; almost universally recognized today as wrong).
A point of science for bored now...as I have already stated the advancements are in adult stem cell research, not embryo. The countries doing embryo research have made little to no progress. The progress is all in adult. Why are we wasting money on a science that is not producting, when we have one that is? Because its a great talking point to attack pro-lifers. That is not science, its politics.
And by the way I am a college student and most of the biology majors at my school will be the first to tell you what I just said is the case, and this is a very very liberal school. Ward Churchill is an Alumni. So are all the liberal biology majors at my school playing a right wing game?
Just because we oppose something doesn't mean we don't have science backing us up too. Scientist often don't agree with eachother.
I find the fact that you seem (correct me if I am wrong and I will apologize) to think just because someone has a moral issue with embryo research we don't take the time to look at the science. I can be moral and scientific at the same time. Most of the early advancements in science were done by religious people. Despite the press spin, we do look at the science as well as the moral implications.
cp: as a scientist, i'm not particularly impressed by any of the "advances" in this area of study. we are clearly at the *very* beginning of the research, and we have *no* idea where it will lead.
moreover, i'm not attacking jill for being a pro-lifer, i'm criticizing her ignorance of the subject matter and her abuse or re-interpretation of scientific concepts and definitions.
feel free to offer up a few papers at a major conference spouting your own scientific research in the area. it's got to be an exciting field of study. but, until i see it on the x-archive, i won't pretend to understand your point here.
finally, it's fine to have a moral position against stem cell research, but it is important to recognize that this is by no means settled theologically, let alone scientifically. it may be settled for you, prerhaps even for jill, but both religions and theologians are all over the moral/political map on this one. i personally think jill's position is indefensible here, but i have not settled on an "answer" in this area...
Post a Comment