Blogcritics Comments on Embryos, elderly escape Bush

Comment by fiddlercrab

Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:44:45 EDT

Geez fellas All I want to know-now that I'm an "Old man" that if science can use my stem cell for research?I do not care that it may be an religious isue or a political one.Regardless of what one thinks of the Bushes or their mistakes,Reagan and his,Nixon and his..they are still representatives of a free society and "They too have their story" as Max Ehrmann states in Desiderata.I do admit that in my estimation to live and let live.I do not think we should get involved in "family disputes" Remember when Iraq and Iran were at war?And Afghanistan?Well as far as Korea,at that time Russia and China could have owned the world."Good ole soldiers never die Mc Carthur", thought it was a good idea to "go Into China".Yup,Stalin and Moa, plus the Bomb,plus how many in a Standing Army.The Viet Nam war was another story.Thanks to HST for firing him.That would have been the end of Asia..I've made up my mind to try and show my kids,grandkids and great-grandkids that to attack a country is wrong.Now that Bush "W" has proven himself incompetent there's not much we can do,but show the "other" party that we are fed up with their nonsense.Third party anyone?They do go out on the same golf course, and dine at the same Table of Greed.But I'm sure even there-there is some sincerity...So off politics gentlemen..Is it feasible for an old geezer to donate a stem-cell?I know all the vitals(heart,liver,kidneys etc)aren't much good for research.But I am a believer in sensible research.Lets not compare Salk,Fleming,Curie etc. with the butchers of Nazism.

Comment by RealCon

Fri, 27 May 2005 10:21:06 EDT

To respond to -- "why we are in Iraq" -- It's because George came into the White House -- hardly knowing how to spell "Middle East" ... and was completely overshadowed by the neo-cons (read neo-fascists)... 1. The neo-cons (New American Century Group) had planned a war against Iraq in 1995. 2. When Clinton would have none of it -- they stay on the sidelines until Cheney and Rumsfeld get into the White House. 3. The attack on 9/11 gives them a big break -- now they can tie Saddam to "terrorism". 4. The big lie is leaked to get the news media to spread it. And the media is a willing accomplice. 5. The neo-cons show their cunning and deviousness. They promote the lie that Saddam has WMD's just before the 2002 elections -- thereby making an election issue out of it. The poor Dems are made to declare their positions and don't dare to look "unpatriotic". They approve a resolution giving George the power to wage war - whenever and wherever -- The Dems are trapped - Remember -- " You are either with us or against us." 6. The half-awake public is duped into thinking that Saddam probably has WMD -- and is about to attack us (where and how is never even hypothesized) -- Some can see through the flimsy slide show that Colin Powell gives at the UN. (Trucks "moving the WMD" are shown - nobody asks the obvious question -- if we know these trucks are carrying WMD -- why don't we take them out - now! -- like immediately! -- or at least follow them to see where they go!) 7. To anyone with half a brain -- it's obvious that the reasons for war are phoney -- but the news media gives short shrift to any opposing voices -- just a bunch of cranks who don't appreciate all the evidence from "reliable sources" ...The media becomes complicit in creating war hysteria... 8. Then -- when the "mission accomplished" sign on the aircraft carrier does nothing to halt hostilities -- and the deception starts to fall apart -- the reasons for war evolve through a series of compounded lies -- from WMD -- and on and on -- to keep Iraqis from being killed (Ha) -- to rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure -- and on -- and on -- ad nauseam... 9. When a scapegoat has to be put forth -- "curveball" is "outed" ... And lo -- and behold -- we are told that a single, incompetent idiot -- has cost us -- THOUSANDS of military casualties, BILLIONS of dollars (borrowed of course) and UNTOLD dead innocent Iraqi... Now who can believe that a single dolt could have bamboozled all our "intelligence" agencies (which cost us over 50 billion dollars a year to operate)? By the way, my mother who sits and watches TV news most of he day -- saw through the fake "intelligence" throughout -- George could save a lot of money by disbanding the CIA, etc., and just consult her). 10. And when it comes time to chop a few neo-con heads -- what happens -- they get medals and promotions -- and what is truly amazing -- is that some in this country are still baffled about all the commotion -- "It wasn't a lie" -- P.S. The only winners in George's war are -- the neo-cons who got medals and promotions for their "heroic duty" -- AND -- Israel -- which got rid of Saddam -- Sharon's self-declared #1 enemy -- without firing a shot or taking a single casualty... Go figure...

Comment by RealCon

Fri, 27 May 2005 10:19:48 EDT

Re: Comment 27 Not surprising...

Comment by kindascarred

Fri, 27 May 2005 01:44:06 EDT

Kudos, Realcon / Gonzo Marx I enjoyed reading your little spat. It's all good is it not ? But the real concern is this: Big business will do what ever it wants. No politician or clergyman has much influence over society except to express their opinions. A few of us listen. Most don't. The ever expanding idea of continual growth has put most people at the throws of big business or better stated, the capitalist ideal. Anyway, enough of this poppy-kocky. Now it would be nice to see you two debate the real reason we, the U.S.A., are in Iraq. That would be fun. kindascarred.

Comment by gonzo marx

Fri, 27 May 2005 01:32:18 EDT

my Apologies Leoniceno i'm afraid i am partially to blame for a severe Thread hijacking... /end highjack Excelsior!

Comment by Leoniceno

Fri, 27 May 2005 01:18:24 EDT

I'm afraid that this conversation has escaped me...

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 22:52:01 EDT

Yep -- as for "right or wrong" in our Judicial system...some Laws you may think are "right" and others may think are "wrong" and vice versa. And -- "right" and "wrong" can very easily be Subjective...that's why we have a Rule Of Law...one would hope that the Laws are "right" and punish what is "wrong" ...but since the very Definitions fo those words are Subjective and can vary....it is up to our Laws to define what is or is not acceptable Behavior for our Society..and outline the punishments for transgressions within the Context of the Principles put forward in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the attendant Amendments I have no quarrel with what you have said here -- bit keep in mind that our laws -- which are the accumulation of over two centuries of jurisprudence -- are based primarily on Judeo-Christian morals -- it has only been during last few decades where these established laws have been attacked... And that may or may not continue -- we will have to stay tuned... Hopefully you will not require more explanation... Vincit omnia veritas!

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 26 May 2005 22:24:45 EDT

well now..i did say morality can not be legislated...what can be legislated, and described as well as enforced by Law is Behavior as for the difference between "morality" and "ethics"..you are correct in stating that i think there is a difference between the two.. for each word, you can find 3 main definitions..you hit close when you differentiate between "a set of Principles" and a "series of Ideas" a nuance..i know...but i'm a bit picky your mileage may vary i can be called many things..cute ain't one of 'em as for "right or wrong" in our Judicial system...some Laws you may think are "right" and others may think are "wrong" and vice versa "right" and "wrong" can very easily be Subjective...that's why we have a Rule Of Law...one would hope that the Laws are "right" and punish what is "wrong" ...but since the very Definitions fo those words are Subjective and can vary....it is up to our Laws to define what is or is not acceptable Behavior for our Society..and outline the punishments for transgressions within the Context of the Principles put forward in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the attendant Amendments hopefully that is enough of civics class hopefully you will not require a further "injection" nuff said Excelsior!

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 21:51:45 EDT

Gonzo says -- "Morality"...is between each Individual and their Faith. Gonzo also says -- "i do, on occasion speak about Ethics, and give my personal Opinion there, and always state it clearly as such... Not so fast... mo�ral�i�ty The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct eth�ics A set of principles of right conduct: a theory or a system of moral values Seems like they are somewhat intertwined... And Gonzo says "morality" can NOT be legislated... That would imply that ... "A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct" cannot be legislated... Does that mean that there are no ideas of right and wrong conduct in our Criminal Law? Then gonzo shows his lack of self-confidence by trying to slam me (in his mind) by hypothesizing what my religion might be by saying -- "you seem to come from the "christian conservative" school of philosophy... So what does it matter where I come from? You don't really know... but you think it makes you look important to say it... Then Gonzo winds down with -- "thanks for playing , please visit us again when they let you out of your uphostered room and the white dinner jacket that ties up in the back.....i promise.. we'll even chip in for a new drool bucket for ya.." Now why does Gonzo feel he has to inject this? It should be obvious -- he lacks self confidence and believes he can impress others into thinking -- Wow -- this guy is really cute and smart... I think not... Vincit omnia veritas!

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 26 May 2005 16:38:06 EDT

RealCon sez.. *You speak about ethics... How you determine what is ethical?... How do you distinguish what is right or wrong?* how?...that's my business...how you determine your own is yours...you seem to come from the "christian conservative" school of philosophy in these things...my own prediliction is just that...my own.. RealCon sez.. *Why should I pay tax dollars to do what I believe is unethical...?* decent Question..that woudl depend on your commitment to your personal Ethical Principal, as well as your own underlying Postulates...if you truly disagree..it is always your option not to "pay"..however you must accept Responsibility for violating the Social Covenant and Laws of our Nation in doing so... but in simple terms of Christian Morality perhaps the phrase "render unto Ceasar" will be sufficient? RealCon sez.. *You don't have to go back several centuries to find examples to support your rants...* thanx ever so very for your concern..but i am quite comfortable in my mad meanderings...i have nop need nor desire for any kind of instruction from the likes of you, me boyo.. poge ma hone thanks for playing , please visit us again when they let you out of your uphostered room and the white dinner jacket that ties up in the back.. i promise..we'll even chip in for a new drool bucket for ya.. {8^P~~~~~~~~~~~ Excelsior!

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 15:33:28 EDT

Re: Comment 21 posted by gonzo marx Yes... "look it up for yourself...make up your own mind, and do what you think is best.." You speak about ethics... How you determine what is ethical?... How do you distinguish what is right or wrong? Most importantly here is -- Why should I pay tax dollars to do what I believe is unethical...? Yes -- if we as a society seek to define or limit such endeavors...we can make laws via the conditions set out in our Rule of Law... That is what is being done... And don't ever forget what the nazis (and the communists) have done during our lifetimes... You don't have to go back several centuries to find examples to support your rants... I hope that helps clear it all up -- but I know it won't... Vincit omnia verities!

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 26 May 2005 12:54:29 EDT

heh..nice try, RealCon but you may note in my tirades that i am consistent in saying ...look it up for yourself...make up your own mind, and do what you think is best.. i have NEVER spoken of "Morality"...that is between each Individual and their Faith i do, on occasion speak about Ethics, and give my personal Opinion there, and always state it clearly as such.. "morality" can NOT be legislated...that comes from each Individual...what our government CAN do is state the conditions of our Nations social contract within the Rule of Law big difference what scientists seek is up to their morals and ethics...if we, as a society seek to define or limit such endeavors...we can make a Law via the conditions set out in aforementioned Rule of Law... see the difference yet? as for your fallacious world war 2 examples..i think you will find that our Nation has Laws limiting such things already...but a nice try to slip more "nazi" stuff into another of your rants now, remember what the Church did to Galileo for his "heresies"...to use one of your own examples i hope that helps clear it all up Excelsior!

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 12:44:47 EDT

Gonzo sez.. "and then we can leave it up to the elite theocrats of "religion" to bet it right using their tools of Crusade and Inquisition? Good tirade... Typical. No -- we'll just leave our morality up to gonzo...

Comment by gonzo marx

Thu, 26 May 2005 12:28:06 EDT

RealCon sez.. *Science is free to seek "understanding" -- unless it is treading on ground where there is a moral question...* and then we can leave it up to the elite theocrats of "religion" to bet it right using their tools of Crusade and Inquisition? cuz we all know how well the Inquisition does in settling these pesky scientific questions... nuff said? Excelsior!

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 12:22:39 EDT

Re: Comment 17 "Perhaps they (religion) would do better asking big business to question application ethics..." They do -- one example is the big business of pornography... Science is free to seek "understanding" -- unless it is treading on ground where there is a moral question... Keep in mind -- that during WWII -- certain governments experimented to see how much cold a person could endure -- or how little oxygen they needed -- and other experiments that "could lead to better lives for others"...

Comment by Veto

Thu, 26 May 2005 12:00:02 EDT

Science and religion do not have to be at odds. In fact many scientist are religious as many theologians understand the value of scientific inquiry. Science inspires us to move forward in understanding. Our religious or ethical standards inspire us to question the ramifications to all. It seems to me that religion has picked the wrong opponent. Perhaps they would do better asking big business to question application ethics then attacking science for seeking understanding.

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 11:15:42 EDT

Re: Comment 14 posted by Leoniceno "I just think that it's best for scientists to judge science and preachers to judge religion." Then --- what do judges do? Great scientists such as Galileo, Newton, Pasteur, etc., worked diligently on physical phenomena -- they were not "judges" of what they learned -- they simply were masters at revealing physical truths which we were not previously aware of ... Great preachers have told us how to live -- what is acceptable behavior -- and what is not in the best interest of society...

Comment by Nancy

Thu, 26 May 2005 08:33:51 EDT

I do wish Bush would get himself an adviser who would steer him away from these cynical, cheap, and tacky publicity stunts & photo opshe's so fond of. Talk about the old 'politician kissing babies' schtick!

Comment by Leoniceno

Thu, 26 May 2005 01:28:40 EDT

3.1 Christians get pissed off at 2.1 scientists and vise versa when they meet and talk about issues that are of mutual interest. What do you want? Witness the reams and sheaths of text that have been produced on the internet in this conflict.

Comment by RealCon

Thu, 26 May 2005 01:12:23 EDT

I'm impressed by the lack of specificity in that reply...

Comment by Leoniceno

Wed, 25 May 2005 23:28:26 EDT

It's a way of saying that science and religion do not easily mix.

Comment by RealCOn

Wed, 25 May 2005 22:47:47 EDT

Re: Comment 9 posted by Leoniceno "I just think that it's best for scientists to judge science and preachers to judge religion." Please elaborate on just what this means...

Comment by BillB

Wed, 25 May 2005 20:58:06 EDT

>men on death row are not considered innocent life ..find another example please or your remark can be disregarded.< Oh really? Even the ones who are or may be innocent? Some, the ones with the snoozing incompetent lawyers, didn't even get reasonable representation. You'd think the "culture of life president" would at least go the extra mile to insure that those killed on his watch got a fair shake. Bush can stand by and allow someone, such as the above, to be killed in Texas but if I'm terminally ill, near death, and in pain, he and his band of self-righteous buddies are gonna tell me that only God can take human life? What a joke.

Comment by Leoniceno

Wed, 25 May 2005 17:58:26 EDT

Of course he can use personal faith and morality, he can do whatever he wants to advance or set his agenda. And I, of course, expect him to. I just think that it's best for scientists to judge science and preachers to judge religion. When the two are mixed, you get lots of ill-will. And numerology. Many of the stem cell activists are motivated by irrational beliefs. I've seen some of them on television saying that stem cells will cure everything from tennis elbow to senile dementia. The people actually doing the research are the ones that I'm concerned with. The government doesn't have to support any research at all, but the fact that the government contributes such a considerable percentage of research funding gives them control over much of the decision of what is worth researching, and thus, what can be considered science. For this reason it's imperative that the officials that distribute these grants remain impartial, judging the gains to the nation in terms of knowledge and technological progress. Any attempt to twist the procedure to accomodate debate on social issues has the effect of turning what was an office playing a supposedly objective and judicial role into another means to distribute money to the friends of those in power, and those who are willing to support pre-determined and foregone conclusions.

Comment by Matthew T. Sussman

Wed, 25 May 2005 17:07:35 EDT

Bush is trying to apply articles of personal faith and morality to a scientific issue. That's all fine and dandy on a personal level, but as national policy it's not so hot. Bush can't use personal faith and morality? Then what are pro-stem cell lobbyists using to make their decisions? 20-sided dice?