With the Senate’s passage of S.5, a bill that will allow for the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, and Bush’s promised veto, the pundits are beginning the bioethics debate once again.

The New York Times can’t seem to understand Bush’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, but they ask concerned voters to “ratchet up the pressure on recalcitrant Republicans to help stop the president from killing the second enlightened stem cell bill in less than a year.”

The Washington Post thinks that both sides in the recent Senate debate stretched the science to make their point. The Post says that we need federal funding that is “open to supporting as many avenues of stem cell research as a considered look at the morality of the issue allows.”

Steve Benen doesn’t buy the president’s “culture of life” talk. On the one hand the president opposes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, but on the other hand he praises the fertility clinics that produce the extra embryos that are at issue.

Michael Sandel asks why so little of the recent senate debate and so few of the ensuing opinion pieces addressed the real question of embryonic stem cell ethics: are embryos persons? Sandel says that it would be a mistake to pass that question by.

The LA Times believes that Bush’s position on embryonic stem cell research is “bad science and bad policy.” They say “he should thank Congress for the chance to do it all over.”

The President’s Council on Bioethics gave Bush guidance on his stem cell policy. Reading their report on stem cell research is enlightening for anyone who wants to understand why the president is opposed to expanding federally funded embryonic stem cell research.

Brent Rasmussen, writing on Daily Kos, believes embryonic stem cell research may hold the promise to treat “virtually every major cause of death in the US.” To restrict federal funding for such research, he says, may kill “more Americans than all other White House sins combined.”

Ed Morrissey doubts the honesty of congress in pursuing the stem cell bill. He says that they are using “junk science” as a wedge issue to score points against the Bush administration.

Cardinal Justin Rigali writes that the issue at concern with embryonic stem cell research is not whether one is for or against progress. It is a question of whether or not technology will be a “servant to humanity” or our “cruel master.”

Author and self-proclaimed humanist Kurt Vonnegut Jr. died Wednesday in Manhattan at the age of 84. So it goes. Writers all over the world are celebrating his works for their irreverent humor and scornful treatment of the absurdities of life on planet Earth.

NPR’s Peter Sagel said his teenage penchant for sci-fi first attracted him to Vonnegut’s works. As an adult, though, he learned to appreciate the central question Vonnegut address: “What in the world do you do in the face of mechanized death, governments gone mad, corruption, evil?”

Verlyn Klinkenborg says to read Vonnegut when you’re young, not that he is just for young readers.

Novelist Dave Eggers has a useful annotated bibliography of Vonnegut’s canon.

The Nation has a look at some of Vonnegut’s more memorable quips: “But like Mark Twain and Abraham Lincoln, even when he's funny, he's depressed. His has always been a weird jujitsu that throws us for a brilliant loop.”

The AP (via the International Herald Tribune) churned out collage of praises and remembrances by Vonnegut’s contemporaries, noting that even though his works were picked up by Vietnam-era counter-culturals, he wasn’t one them, having come of age during World War II.

John McCain’s recent speeches on Iraq have hit a certain nerve in the ears of the pundits. For some McCain’s pronouncements sound like the harmony of a brass band leading the way forward; for others McCain is creating a clashing cacophony of partisanship and rightwing pandering. It seems that however well his campaign is going, McCain is the new litmus test.

E.J. Dionne longs for the good old days of McCain the maverick when his campaign was an “unruly and joyous romp.” That was 2000, now Dionne says that McCain’s campaign is “carefully planned, meticulously calculated—and a tragedy.”

The National Review stands by McCain as he is “dumped” by the mainstream media. McCain, they say, is defending an Iraq strategy that shows real promise and is being “ignored by mainstream media that apparently love the narrative of defeat more than they every loved John McCain.”

Bill Maher doesn’t think John McCain is foolish. For Maher, McCain’s foolishness comes only by trying to please the Republican base. This is a move that Maher thinks will make Republican candidates look “increasingly ridiculous and out-of-touch as the months go on.”

The Washington Times calls McCain a true statesman who is willing to “tell unpleasant truths regardless of the political consequences." His speech to the Virginia Military Institute, they say, demonstrated a Churchillian flair.

John Dickerson, writing on the same speech, sees a new partisanship in McCain’s language. McCain’s jabs at Democrats are out of character for the man who once won the respect of the left and right. Dickerson worries that McCain is no longer “holding much red meat for the right in reserve.”

The Wall Street Journal, admittedly not always friendly to McCain, praises him for his courage. When McCain said that he’d “rather lose a campaign than lose a war,” the WSJ recognized a leader at his finest hour.

Gasoline prices are high and global warming is a problem. The need for alternative energy sources is being broadly felt, but what those alternatives should be is up for debate. Ethanol is a popular option, but many from left to right have their doubts.

The Nation carried a piece Monday by Nicholas Von Hoffman on the “Ethanol Hoax.” Hoffman argues that ethanol is little more than a political ploy to make it look as though the government is doing something about global warming: “Ethanol will stop global warming, and as an added plus, it will make the agribusiness interests richer and insure that the GOP carries the corn-growing states of the Midwest. Talk about living happily ever after!”

Vahan Janjigian agrees that ethanol is no solution, particularly from an economic point of view. “Growing demand for ethanol is pushing up food prices all over the world,” he writes. Furthermore Janjigian argues that since the U.S. will not be able to produce enough ethanol to supply its energy needs it will need to import ethanol. By continuing the energy import economy Janjigian says that we will merely be replacing OPEC with a new Organization of Ethanol Exporting Countries (OEEC). He suggests that energy conservation is a more viable alternative.

Writing in The Weekly Standard, Jaime Darenblum argues that ethanol could bolster U.S. foreign policy. Ethanol could both strengthen our relationship with key South American countries like Brazil and give the U.S. more choice in energy trading partners since corn production is not as geographically limited as oil is.

With President Bush’s visit to the U.S.-Mexico border Monday the immigration debate heated up once again. At issue in most of the arguments were two things—what are the costs and benefits of immigrants to the economy and what would be the implication of having “guest workers” rather than immigrants on a firm path toward citizenship.

On the National Review Online Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies wrote a piece criticizing Bush’s mixed signals on immigration. For Krikorian the focus of immigration reform should be “to reassert control over the immigration system and establish legal status as a labor standard.”

Byron York in another piece on the National Review Online looked at a new study from the Heritage Foundation that tries to gage the economic cost of illegal immigration by looking at the cost of low-skilled workers to U.S taxpayers.

In a piece last week in the Lost Angeles Times Shannon O’Neil of the Council on Foreign Relations argues that demographic changes in Mexico might make the immigration debate mute. Due to falling birth rates and longer life expectancy, Mexico could have “5 million fewer new workers” in the next ten years.

The New York Times today warned Bush against trying to play to the immigration hawks while formulating a comprehensive immigration policy. The editorial was particularly concerned that under some of the current plans the path to legal citizenship would become so costly that most immigrants would never be able to afford full legal status.

Arguing along the same lines in the Los Angeles Times John Sweeny and Pablo Alvarado warn that anything less than a pathway to full citizenship would result in slave-like conditions for immigrants.

Pelosi's visit to Syria is still making waves.

Eric Cantor says that Pelosi’s actions in Syria divided the U.S. and the world.

The Washington Times says that Pelosi needs to get the House back to work on a war appropriations bill.

The Chicago Tribune says that Pelosi went to Syria to make a point to Bush: you must talk to your enemies. Of course you have to have something to say.

Andrew McCarthy says that Republicans should debate Pelosi rather than charge her with a Logan Act violation.

Truthdig.com names Pelosi the "Truthdigger of the Week."

John Kerry says that the Democrats shouldn't be defensive for what he calls a Republican smear on the Democratic leadership.

A regular feature appraising the logic of an editorial from the week's news.

Today's Editorial: Detente with Tehran? Ilan Berman argues in today’s Washington Times that the West should not make any accommodations with Iran. He offers three reasons to support his case.

First he says that Iran’s ideology makes it “far more than simply a nation-state.” This he bases on Iran’s 1979 constitution which tasks Iran’s clerical army with more than simply national defense, but also “fulfilling the ideological mission of jihad in God’s way; that is extending the sovereignty of God’s law throughout the world.” This sentence in the constitution shows, Berman believes, that Iran “was—and remains—a radical revolutionary movement.” As such its goal is “not to become a part of the world community, but to overturn it.”

On this point we must note that Berman is not trying to argue that Iran is not a nation state as has generally been done with the Taliban government in Afghanistan, but simply that it is more than a nation state due to its interest in expanding its revolution. The same could have been said of the former USSR. Being a communist state the USSR was interested in expanding the communist revolution and supported radical militant groups to do so. It was not simply interested in using its military for “national defense.” Yet the U.S. was able to successfully engage diplomatically with the USSR and signed several treaties with the Soviets during the Cold War. It doesn’t logically follow then that being “more than a nation state” should exclude Iran from diplomatic conversations.

The second point Berman makes for his case is strategic. The Bush administration has imposed the condition that Iran “suspend it’s uranium enrichment prior to any dialogue.” Berman argues that this precondition keeps the Iranians from using protracted negotiations to stall for time to make more progress on their program. However, Berman does not provide us with an argument for why no dialogue will in any way keep the Iranians from making progress with their nuclear program.

Berman believes his last reason to be his “most compelling.” “In the next five to ten years,” Berman argues, “irrespective of what transpires on the nuclear front, Iran’s current leadership will give way to a new ruling order.” A bargain with Iran could lead to the “alienation of Iran’s young, pro-Western population.” However, he offers no reasons why a deal with Iran will alienate this young, pro-Western population. That it would do so is simply stated without a valid argument made for it.

While Berman’s premise that the U.S. should make no accommodations with Iran may well be true, he makes no valid arguments for his case.

It’s been four years today since Saddam Hussein fell to the U.S. and the punditry on Iraq is still going strong.

Andrew Bacevich thinks that the media and candidates need to move far beyond answering the question: “what’s your Iraq plan?”

William F. Buckley Jr. says that sometimes the good news from Iraq really is good news.

Robert Scales predicts disaster if we don’t do something to restock the military with battle ready equipment, failure will be inevitable.

Mark Benjamin reports that the U.S. sent injured troops back to Iraq.

David Abromowitz and Joan Ruttenberg argue that increased taxes would be a good way to make the rich share the burden of the war with the poor.

General Petraeus writes an open letter to the Iraqi people four years after their “liberation.”

Joe Conason takes a hard look at McCains "Potemkin village."

In this book released today, Allawi, who until recently was a senior minister in the Iraqi government, offers an insider's view of the Iraq war and its failures.

Climate change has remained in the headlines this week and the pundits are making either accusations of hypocrisy or calls for change.

The Washington Times looks at the lifestyles of Bush and Gore. Guess who needs fewer carbon offsets?

Powerline claims media bias in reporting on global warming.

The New York Times says that last week’s news on climate change from the Supreme Court to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can lead to only one conclusion: we must change.

Ronald Bailey criticizes the environmentalists for their selective use of the “scientific consensus.”

Jerry Adler says that the moment of truth for global warming is now.

Peter Seligmann of Conservation International offers solutions to the global warming problem.