"Mr. Obama's directive [to review signing statements], released by the White House on Monday afternoon, was the latest rebuke of his predecessor. Earlier in the day, Mr. Obama reversed Mr. Bush's ban on federally funded embryonic stem cell research, and during his first seven weeks in office he has overturned many of Mr. Bush's executive orders."

OK, what's with making a big deal of "the latest rebuke" of Bush's policies? Why is this news? Who cares? Isn't a new president, king, poobah, etc supposed to put his imprimatur on his new office? Wouldn't we expect in 4 or 8 years that whomever replaces the previous person would repudiate, to some degree, his predecessor's policies?

And it seems to me the fact that there is a repudiation of Bush's stem cell research policy misses the point. It's not about whether stem cell research can be conducted, it's about whether we should be using taxpayer dollars to do it. Personally, whatever money can be thrown at research that most people think will help mankind is fine by me. Nor do I mind my tax dollar going toward it. But that's just me.

However, I don't speak for everyone in the US. There may be, and by all accounts are, people who don't feel the same way I do about stem cells, or for that matter, abortion or war. If I'm against war, but for stem cell research, or for war and against stem cell research, is there a difference? Is one cause better than the other? Apparently so. One is correct and the other is not, according to whomever thinks they have the morally correct imperative.

In terms of government spending they're the same. Either we spend it on everything, or spend it on nothing.

[Apparently and unfortunately we're entering a spending on everything phase, most of it unproductive nor self-sustaining.]