This is a very ‘hot button’ issue that keeps arising in the face of politicians everywhere in the country.  What if anything should the government involve itself in for the issues of stem cell research?  How far should the government press into the fields of medical science research?  Should the government interfere at all, or stand back and come up with laws to handle the consequences of such research?

 

It comes into question, how many ordinary Americans really know and understand what stem cell research is, how it can effect our lives, and what does it have the ability to do in the future?  With topics such as abortion being very hot and causing pressures on all sides, it only seems natural that stem cell research should cause just as much controversy.  Many supporters argue that the research gathered will be able to save millions of lives, while those opposing the research all argue that they are killing thousands of innocent children in the process.

 

This brings the question, where do the embryos come from?  The majority of the embryos used in the research come from couples that have donated them, following a treatment for infertility; there are often 10 or more embryos left over after such procedures, which can be put to use in the laboratory environment.  The options for those embryos are limited; they can be preserved, adopted to a needy couple, destroyed, or donated to medical research.

 

The embryos are only a few mere days past conception when they are frozen, and are unable to sustain life in any form on their own.  From a legal standpoint, they are not living humans, and are not an infant since legally an embryo becomes an infant once the first breath of air is taken.  This leaves the questions of who has the right to determine what can happen to them.

 

The embryos are the building blocks of people, yet, they have no rights themselves.  Whom do they belong to?  Who is responsible for ensuring they are taken care of?  Many consider the embryos being used in research as the same category as murder.  Is it actually murder when the child is never born, and is only conceived in a test tube?  Who should really make the decision about how these embryos should be handled?

 

The embryos themselves are rich in stem cells, which scientists have said can help cure some of the worst diseases and conditions in the world.  This makes the concept very tempting, but is this dabbling in aspects of science that shouldn’t be used?  Should humans really be trying to recreate whole body parts and organs from the stem cells in order to help a few, but at the expense of a few other lives?

 

The current administration has tried to place a ban on this research and block the use of the embryos.  This has upset many supporters who feel this research is vital to the survival of the human race, while those who digress the ideas are upset that is has not been banned fully yet.  Where is the better side to stand?  Should we allow the government to meddle into the scientific aspects of medicine, or should we continue the research to save thousands, or millions of lives?

Where in the world can a person check their mail, pay bills, check bank balances, book a vacation, and show support for their favorite political candidate all in the same place?  Simple – online of course.  Candidates and politicians are looking to cash in on the most impact for their time and what better way to become a part of that powerful trend than welcoming cyber space into their lives?  Who knew that a craze that started a few short years ago with social websites such as MySpace.com would turn into a tool to be used so heavily in campaigns?

 

Barack Obama has enjoyed adding 100,000 friends to his MySpace page, and other campaigns are even adding other MySpace pages as well as joining into the Second Life craze that has struck recently, with many people looking to expand the internet as one of their major sources of advertisement.  Each candidate has their own website of course, with a great amount of information on their individual views, their position on the issues, and what they wish to see happen in the country.  Never before has the democratic process reached so close to home, now pulling in a new generation of voters to guide the future of the country.

 

Is this a good idea?  Should candidates really be losing that personal and physical touch?  However, this is actually one of the most prevalent ways to get information out recently, with websites popping up everywhere where political opinions can be viewed, and with sites such as digg.com becoming popular it enables sites with good content that is full of information people find fascinating or helpful to rise to the top, and help spread the word to the masses.

 

Seems almost like a grass roots type campaign.  Yet it does not involve any physical interaction from the candidates.  This is the ultimate tool that can be used to spread the word quickly about progress and updates in their campaign without ever leaving their house or office and interacting with those they so desperately need votes from. This seems to be a bit of a strange position to be taking, but with the internet reaching so wide and far, it is a tool that many politicians are utilizing, and to great practical effect.

 

Many are even recruiting volunteers to manage their spaces in Second Life as well as MySpace so that their time is better spent and their ability to reach even more people is extended further.  Seems almost strange that volunteers are now able to help on campaigns that they never would have been able to work on before, but thanks to the internet, they are able to show support for their favorite candidate in a way never before seen.

 

How much further can this really go, with the possibility of the internet growing into an even larger portion of the campaign, it is very much possible to keep track of all the happenings and events in almost every political campaign and race without ever leaving the comfort of your home.  Whether this engages the ordinary citizen on a more direct level will remain to be seen, and the outcome this will have on the voter demographic at the next election will surely be profound. Now if only the election voting could be handled online, securely it would truly be a virtual world…

There is a bill in the progress before the House of Representatives that is trying to put the issue of the pay and compensation package that executives of publicly traded companies receive in front of stockholders.  This bill is actually expected to pass through the house successfully; however, it is unclear how well the Senate will receive it.  Is this bill the right direction for a modern America, or do we need to consider more intimately the economic implications of such a decision?

 

The White House has already formally registered its opposition to such a plan, however the backers are unconcerned.  Many feel that the compensation plans of the major officers of the publicly traded companies should be tied to the performance of the company and the officers themselves, and not to the figures that the officers wish to receive.

 

This bill if passed could place an enormous amount of power into the hands of stockholders who are upset with the way several companies have behaved lately, with declining profits and horrible business practices while the officers of the companies have picked up large compensation packages that include their salary, benefits, and stock options.  Each officer can end up with hundreds if not thousands in profits even while the company is performing badly, which stockholders believe is an inequitable outcome.

 

Many have wondered if the officers in charge of these companies would tighten the belts on spending if their own pay was tied to their performance rather than their wishes, and with numerous companies falling short of profits with huge pay packages going out, and raises occurring almost yearly many investors have started complaining loudly.

 

While current President Bush has urged the officers of the companies to step up and take responsibility.  He has also said that it is not an issue that the government should become involved in.  How far should the government extend into a private business?  How many people would really feel comfortable with the idea of having the government determine what their pay could be?  Most Americans can agree that they would not like the idea of the government interfering with their job and pays.

 

At the same time, while most Americans do not wish to have the government intruding into their jobs and careers, many still want some measures put into place to hold the executives accountable who are responsible for multi-million and multi-billion companies that employ hundreds to thousands of people.

 

Many have argued that the concept is nothing new; it is similar to ideas that are currently in place in countries such as Sweden, Australia and even in Britain.  With examples such as those to follow, it makes people wonder if this actually does have the chance to pass through the House of Representatives and the Senate once the voting time has arrived.

 

With time as the key factor, there is scheduled to be a vote on the issue in the House of Representatives in the very near future, which is very much expected to pass without much opposition.  It is the next step in the Senate that is where it starts getting sticky with people unsure of the results once the voting in the Senate starts.  However, with increasing support from the people, many of whom work for companies affected by this issue, there is scope for a mass political influence, which will certainly make the outcome interesting.