C minus 11 - blizzard is an Iowa word

Yep, this morning we awoke to find lots of snow, on top of a nice layer of ice. The snow had drifted, as after it stopped falling the temperature dropped like a rock and the wind picked up. Shoveling was a joy we could have done without!
How all this will affect the caucuses is unclear. If the caucuses had been last night, would I have attended? Yes, absolutely. Would everyone who plans to attend on January 3? Who knows - caucus goers are a pretty dedicated bunch. So, who will win if the weather is bad? Probably the same person as will win regardless! Probably naive of me, but there you go.
So, what to consider on a day like today, which first of all is a pre-Christmas family day, and second is cold, snowy, windy, and full of driveways to be plowed? How about considering immigration!
Of my four remaining possible choices (Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain) this is probably an issue in which Thompson is strongest. His proposal for dealing with this is clear, and in many ways similar to the others (enforce the laws, reform the current system so it works efficiently, and then, and only then, consider making changes). As an approach it is eminently sensible, and as noted, the four candidates all pretty much agree on this, so why does Thompson have an edge?
Put simply, the issue is credibility. Both Giuliani and Romney have incidents in their past in which their commitment to the enforcement of the immigration laws were less than stellar. While both are currently talking the talk, and both sound credible in what they say, there is a question that can fairly be lodged against both candidates about their past practices. With McCain, this issue is magnified. Earlier this year McCain was strongly in favor of a bill that essentially granted amnesty, in all but name, to illegal immigrants. He claims he has "heard the people speak" and will thus change his approach in the future, but...
So, on the issue of immigration, the award clearly goes to Thompson. Not that the others could not do a good job if they actually do what they say they will do, but he has a much better record than any of them on this issue.

Stem Cells off the Table

A couple of scientific papers, published today, have, I think, essentially removed the issue of embryonic stem cell research from the 2008 election. The breakthrough, which is well described in both the New York Times, and the Washington Post, was developed essentially simultaneously by two research groups, one in Japan, and the other in Wisconsin. In essence, the results are that it is possible to create pluripotent stem cells (which previously had been thought to be only available from embryos) from ordinary human skin cells, by introducing four genes into the adult stem cell. What is especially nice about this research finding is that this means it would be possible, perhaps, to take some of my skin cells and transform them in such a way as to grow me some new nerves, or even a whole new heart. That means I could, at least in theory, be given a completely new heart that is a perfect genetic match to me (since it grew from my own cells) and thus I would not need any anti-rejection medication. Of course, what was reported in these two scientific papers today is only the first step on a very long road toward growing our own replacement organs, but it is a great step, and it means we can go down that road without having to use embryos. As you may know, President Bush has vetoed a couple of bills that proposed funding embryonic stem cell research, and has also acted to ban federal funding of embryonic stem cell research apart from that done on a limited number of existing embryonic stem cell lines. In one sense, some may see today's news as vindicating his stance, and I think that is a reasonable way to view it. In all this is great news in that science has managed to find a morally acceptable way to investigate the potentially huge benefits of pluripotent stem cells.

There has been some political response to the news today. Not surprisingly, there was a very upbeat comment from the White House. To my mind, a critical quote from that is the following:

The President believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life. We will continue to encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem cell research and continue to advance the understanding of human biology in an ethically responsible way.

We need to consider the ethical implications of scientific advances more than we typically do, and I hope that the stem cell issue will prove to be a good case study for this. Romney can claim a certain prescience on this issue because of his remarks on this topic in June of this year. Fred Thompson had a comment on this topic, and he noted, quite correctly, that adult and umbilical cord blood stem cells have far more successes to their name than do embryonic stem cells:

There is exciting news for patients today. In yet another breakthrough for adult cell research, scientists have made normal human skin cells take on the relevant properties of embryonic stem cells. That is in addition to 73 breakthroughs for adult and cord blood research to date. There are still no embryonic stem cell breakthroughs.

Anyway, regardless of who makes political hay on this topic, it is good news, and once again congratulations to those scientists who made the breakthrough happen.

Issue Musings

Clearly part of what should drive anyone's decision about their candidate of choice is the issues. However, what constitutes an issue is clearly at least somewhat a matter of personal choice. During the next 58 days I will from time to time muse on issues without too much specific attention to candidates' positions. So, what are my issues? The following list is a first attempt at a brain dump of what I think some of the major issues are:

International: the war on terror (or whatever your personal choice for the name might be) is clearly a major issue, with its current components in Afghanistan, Iraq, and possible future components who knows where. The need to express a consistent approach in this is paramount. This also includes dealing with all the fun stuff like North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, and of course, the whole West Bank, Gaza, Palestine mess. Oh yippee.
The Economy: Which, by the way, seems to be doing very well, although the current value of the dollar (which is resulting, at least in part, in high oil and gold prices) is a bit troubling. This is an interesting issue, since by and large there is not a lot a president can do about it, except for one area, to whit:
Taxes: I want a President who will make the Bush tax cuts permanent, get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and ideally reform the whole damn tax code so that one single person of reasonable intelligence can understand all of it with less than one hour of study. That should not be impossible to achieve, and if achieved would do a great deal to stamp out corruption in congress. Which raises another issue:
Pork: I want a President who will veto bills that are sent to him (or her) laden with pork. If President Bush had done this consistently from the start of his administration we would for sure have less of a deficit than we do right now, and we might even have a Republican congress and senate - sigh. But I'm not done on economic issues, because there is always:
Social Security: and let's not forget Medicare, but for now we can focus on Social Security. And kudos, by the way, to Senator Obama for being willing to raise this issue. We have to address this and the sooner we do so, the better. I'm willing to consider any plan, as long as it is clear and honest. I would prefer not raising taxes, and my own preference would be (in the absence of some sort of personal account system) to delay the age at which people can start to take benefits, and also to choose a more suitable index for the annual inflationary adjustments. But, I need to see a plan.
Immigration: I think that this is going to be a really crucial issue in the election next year. I will likely be proved wrong, because a week is a long time in politics, never mind a year, but there does seem to be a genuine need for a change in the current way that we are dealing (or rather, not dealing) with illegal immigration. It is no surprise that states like Arizona are taking draconian measures, and I expect to see more such local actions. First step has to be enforcement. And that has to include holding employers responsible (as they are right now - every employee must produce an I-9) for the people they hire. Yes, there are problems with however this is done, so some sort of appeal process would be needed, but we have to start enforcing the law here. In the long term, it would be good to consider why it is that so many people from Mexico (which seems to provide the lion's share of illegal immigrants, although I could be mistaken) want to come to the US. What is Mexico doing wrong? Mexico is a country blessed with amazing natural resources - they should be as wealthy, on a per capita basis, as the US (or at the very least, as wealthy as Canada). Are there systemic issues that hold people in Mexico in a position of poverty? Don't know, but this may be one of those questions that never get asked because it is somehow not right to ask them... Anyway, immigration or more specifically illegal immigration, is a key issue.

I do have some other issues (and some of you might say I have a whole host of them, but that's your problem not mine!). Those would include health care, education, the environment, maintaining and improving the crumbling infrastructure of the nation, and one that will not be on most people's radar screens but is definitely on mine, namely the technological singularity! I will muse on these on another day!