The University of Vermont's Independent Voice Since 1883

The Vermont Cynic

The University of Vermont's Independent Voice Since 1883

The Vermont Cynic

The University of Vermont's Independent Voice Since 1883

The Vermont Cynic

In News

In the past week some important events have been taking place/ in our beautiful country/ the land of the free/ a Democracy/ where everyone can do what they see on TV/ as long as they can pay the fee/ don’t be quiet, disagree!/ and write back to me. This past week, the debate about stem cell research has continued to heat up because some scientists are convinced that they can cure blindness using stem cells. This type of research has remained highly controversial as pro-life enthusiasts, among others, reject the idea that unborn fetuses should be used for science and that this particular type of science is dangerous and unnatural.

Clearly this type of science is unnatural, but whether it is morally right or wrong is up to debate. On one hand, if stem cell research were allowed and applied extensively then populations would grow even more quickly than the rapid rate we are now experiencing.

Avoiding stem cell research is a type of population control which theorists like Malthus might see as positive. But imagine if you were blind and there was a possibility to see again; you would want this research and science to be allowed. Laura and George Bush argue that it is unfair to let the still largely unproven results from stem cell research give sick people false hope. In other news, the debate about global warming has been covered in newspapers almost daily. The good news is that more people are finally starting to believe that it really is happening. The bad news is that global leaders like the US are doing very little to slow the process.

If global warming continues, at least ski seasons in the coming years will be better and powder days will be plenty. Yet this is somewhat shortsighted because if global warming continues, than in a few hundred years ski season will be a year-round event because of an ice age. The media has heavily criticized Dan Rather for using evidence that was not only faulty but highly partisan. Is this the same Dan Rather who has been a non-political news journalist for decades? It is interesting because this should not even be news. Who cares? He apologized. Other partisan journalists rarely apologize. All of the focus on this event is taking America’s eye off the real news: war, poverty, racism and inequality.

More to Discover
Activate Search
In News