Stem Cell funding, USA and EU

The recent veto of federal funding of certain types of stem cell research has brought about predictions from the American left and Europeans of an impending exodus of American scientists to European labs. The theory is that Europeans have a better environment and more money to allow for this research. The EU approval of funding yesterday may only make things worse for the US while Europe will blow by us in this field.

However, not all Europeans have this kneejerk reaction. The British government refutes much of this nonsense on its own site that deals with stem cell research:

While the UK's academic and regulatory environment is seen favourable within the
US stem cell community, for the most part funding considerations might prevent
the attraction of top US researchers to the UK. Researches in the US are
generally very well funded and comparable packages in the UK are difficult to
obtain.

Another problem with this theory is that not all European countries are behind this. Germany has strong objections to embryonic research, here are some of Germany's concerns:

German Research Minister Annette Schavan warned approval would effectively give financial incentives to kill embryos - because the research involves removing stem cells from human embryos left over from fertility treatment, destroying the embryo in the process

What is missing from some of the reporting is that the new European Union proposal provides funding that includes restrictions that are harsher than those currently in place in the EU.

Scientists had mixed feelings about the ministers' compromise. There was relief
that some human embryonic stem cell research would still be eligible for EU
funding but disappointment that this could be more restricted under the existing
spending round, which expires at the end of the year.

and more:

Germany, which had led opposition among a group of countries with large Catholic
populations, won clarification that European funds could not be used to procure
stem cells

To draw away top American scientists, Europeans would need to offer up some big cash to make it worthwhile for US scientists in this area to abandon their current research. So how much did the EU set aside for this project that is set to cripple American scientific progress? $38 million from 2007 through 2013:

During the past seven years, nine research projects into human embryonic stem
cells have been financed with EU funds. The EU did not disclose the costs.
EU Science Commissioner Janez Potocnik said that throughout 2013, less than
$38 million would be spent on research projects.

Those who think America is full of idiots afraid of science might say "that is more than the US is putting up", yet that is incorrect. The state of Illinois recently put forth $5 million this year for research and that is chump change compared to the State of California, where voters approved $3 billion for research over 10 years.

Left wingers will use any opportunity to rag on the United States, yet they completely ignore America's standing in the scientific community. Far from becoming a third world outfit like some uninformed liberal posters claim, it is Europe that is facing a migration of its scientists to this alleged third world dump we Americans call home.

All over the U.S., such research facilities are teeming with bright, young
Europeans, lured by America's generous funding, better facilities and
meritocratic culture.

Liberals love to talk up the European model and how the French way of doing things is so much more advanced and sophisticated than what goes on in the land of Budweiser and Jerry Springer. How do they explain this:

France's 2004 budget hikes funding for research by about 0.9%, less than half of
what's needed to cover inflation and not enough to change the fact that "I pay
more for my cleaning lady than a researcher gets," says Pascal Degiovanni, a
theoretical-physics researcher at the Centre Nationale de la Recherche
Scientifique in France.

Seems like it is the Europeans who have the real problem when it comes to science, which explains this

No wonder the U.S. has 78% more high-tech patents per capita than Europe, which
is especially weak in the IT and biotech sectors

The article goes on to explain how inventiveness is encouraged and rewarded to a far greater extent in America than in Europe and how bureaucracy stifles the sharpest minds in Europe. Yet this doesn't fit into the angry left's view of the world. Since Bush is the President, then all things American must suck. Since the Europeans don't like Bush, they must have all the answers.

Reporters are liberal, but their corporate masters...

Liberals have began to use the same tactic conservatives used for years, by complaining that the media is biased against them. Yet survey after survey show that the media is made up by reporters who are far more likely to be liberal than conservative.

From a University of Connecticutt poll:

Interestingly, 18% of Americans describe themselves as liberal and 18% of journalists say they are politically liberal. But while only 10% of journalists say they are conservative, 34% of Americans say they are conservative. 53% of journalists say they are politically moderate, while 40% of Americans describe themselves that way.
Finally, 68% of journalists say they voted for John Kerry in 2004, while only 25% voted for George W. Bush. Only 1% say they voted for Nader, and 5% say they did not vote.


From the New York Times:

When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic.


When presented with these numbers, so liberals will claim that the affiliation is irrelevent because reporters will only say what their editors, newsroom bosses, and CEO's allow them to report. I have always thought this is a ridiculous arguement for a couple reasons. First, many people, not just liberals, have argued the need for diversity in the newsroom, both in terms of race and gender, in order to get the viewpoints of these groups to the table. So according to this liberal point of view, a black reporter will bring his race's slant to the newsroom, a woman will provide a female perspective, yet they claim a liberal reporter's views don't enter into his output.

Secondly, these corporate bosses aren't quite the right wing cabal the left accuses them of being. ABC is owned by Walt Disney, so the corporate master of ABC is George Mitchell, the Disney Chairman of the Board. Mitchell is a former Democratic Senate Majority leader. It was just reported that current Disney CEO, Robert Iger, has donated to Sen. Clinton's senatorial campaign, in the past has given mostly to Democrats. So ABC isn't quite looking like Ground Zero for the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

The company that owns CBS is Viacom, whose CEO is Sumner Redstone. Looking at his political donations, they strongly favor democrats. Move down the corporate chart at Viacom, to it's Co-President, Les Moonves, has given most of his political money to Democrats.




Liberals have even gone so far that they now claim NPR is a right wing media outlet. I don't know if most believe the press is conservative, this could just be analogous to a coach working the refs to get better calls the next time around.

Tax breaks for the rich

A couple of young billionaires just got a $38 Million tax break from the Democratic governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm. While Michigan struggles to find money for K-12 and University funding, the state seems to have found enough for some corporate welfare for Google.

In Google's latest quarter, ending June 30, 2006, it made $721 million, hardly a needy company. Its founders are each worth over $10 billion , so I think they can get by without a $38 million tax break.

Maybe the governor of a depressed state, one that has among the highest unemployment rates in the nation, was simply desperate to get some good news. Both of the sake of the state's economy and for her failing campaign. Perhaps she gave in to some greedy, Republican business moguls who pinched the poor citizens of Michigan for millions, in return for some jobs. Not quite. Google is a blue company, all its political donations have gone to democrats.

Bad comedians

Maxim has come out with a pretty solid list of the 12 worst comedians. Two that I don't think belong are Carlos Mencia and Kathy Griffin. The notable omission would be Robin Williams.

European misconceptions

After watching the Italians beat the French in the World Cup, an Englishman strolled into the bar where we were watching the game. He was here on business and had ventured out of his hotel for some of the local color and a Belgian beer. I peppered him with my usual questions about what is important to me about English culture: beer, Ali G, and chavs. He found it amusing for a while, but then moved the conversation to a higher level and asked about the Detroit area and some of the history and culture. He then quietly asked if people were allowed to criticize the President, because he had heard that it was not acceptable to do so in the States.

I informed him that plenty of Americans rip on Bush every day and that his approval rating was well under 50%. I explained that there may be certain people who don't like the President, but might take some offense to an outsider saying so on their home turf. Much like a bitter boyfriend or girlfriend complaining about their partner, but doesn't expect you to follow up with your own list of complaints. I have also been told by Canadians that Americans aren't allowed to question their President. These are odd statements coming from people who claim that Americans are ignorant about the world around them.

If it were not ok to in this country to harp on the President, then why does Michael Moore own a million dollar property in New York City and another million dollar property in northern Michigan? Liberals here and abroad throw money at this clown to hear his dishonesty on a variety of topics, including his criticism of President Bush. If raging on the Commander in Chief was not allowed, Moore would be in the stockade instead of a Manhattan penthouse.

George Soros has wasted millions trying to influence elections, (so much for liberals wanting to keep big money out of the process) to rid the country of Bush and get democrats elected. Being against Bush has certainly not harmed this guy. His greedy business practices epitomize what liberals regularly protest against, yet since he writes them large checks, he is worshipped on the left as a hero, a white knight, in the fight against extremism.


Some foreigners may know that it isn't illegal to protest against the government, but think that Americans are too compliant and don't think ill of their leaders. Yet there are large numbers of books at the entrance of Barnes and Noble that shred Bush, web sites that declare him a traitor, a coward, a nazi, and warmonger (or were they talking about Joe Lieberman that day), and a left wing radio network, Air America. Al Franken has had far more success as a critic of Bush than he ever did playing Stuart Smalley.

So large amounts of Americans disapprove of the President, and his critics make a boatload of money for their efforts. This hardly sounds like an environment where calling the President a bum is not allowed or is greatly discouraged. There was even a politician who talked about having a bullet put between his eyes. If George Bush is a dictator like many on the left say, he is doing a lousy job of cracking down on dissent.

Exploiting the poor, the progressive way

Everyone knows that the left loves the poor, because they constantly tell us they have a monopoly on helping the less fortunate. However, to quote the great movie, This is Spinal Tap: "Money talks and bullshit walks". When well-funded progressive organizations have an opportunity to redistribute some of their wealth, it is reasonable to expect them to pay a decent wage to their human capital.

These groups praise a higher minimum wage, or even the concept of a living wage, often pay their employees chump change. Left wing blogger Chris Bowers takes on the skinflints on the left with these admonishments:

I preface this post with that story because it is probably the most gratuitous example from my personal experience that demonstrates how progressive organizations view their supporters as people to be exploited, not praised or helped.

and

The longstanding practice of progressive organizations to exploit their most dedicated workers by forcing them to live ascetic lives in order to help "the cause" is being repeated with the way many progressive organizations and campaigns are now treating the blogosphere and the netroots.

and then he asks these left wing champions of the working class to:

Stop thinking that the best way for progressive activists to help the progressive movement is for those activists to live in poverty. You can't do your best work when you struggle to pay your bills.


There are also others who chimed in about their treatment by the oppressive and greedy liberal machine:

During those three weeks raising money for the DNC, I experienced the same cycle that the vast majority of PIRG/Fund canvass veterans will describe: intimidation followed by exhiliration, hard work increasingly beset by frustration, and then finally (as the priorities of our operation came into starker relief) disillusionment. If for some unlikely reason I had taken that job on its own, without the MoveOn campaign dangling in front of me like a lure, I would probably have lasted the average career span of a PIRG/Fund/GCI canvasser--two weeks--and then I would have walked out,

and further down the thread, a poster responded with:

I was a local volunteer with MoveOn's field effort in 04 and also housed a paid organizer -- and found it to be as horrendous as you suggest. From the beginning, they were resistent to input from local folks who had been doing local organizing for years and insisted everything had to follow an absurdly top-down model that fell apart completely within 2 weeks of the arrival of the paid organizers. The entire staff was let go and then when these 12 kids found jobs with another progressive campaign, MoveOn called me and told me that I should no longer house the staffer. IN other words, tell a 21-year old woman who had come to town to work for what amounted to sub-minimum wage that she had no place to stay.

That is some cold blooded behavior, while a company like Ford Motor Company reduces its workforce with buyout packages that offer six figure payoffs, paid retraining, or a continuation of benefits. So while shouting about the evils of Walmart, about how paying a living wage with benefits to employees is a human rights issue and that if you can't afford it, you shouldn't be in business, these liberals fail to live up to their own rhetoric.