Comments Posted By The MaryHunter
Displaying 141 To 150 Of 181 Comments
I. I just can't see Audrey as the mole. That would be really.too.freakin.much. (N.B.: according to the FOX-24 website, she's still a Raines.) My bet: Heller himself. He's too important to have been gone from the show for so long, barely a mention for hours. Alternates: Mike Novik or Paul Raines (despite his sacrifice for Jack, they still haven't adequately resolved his possible complicity IMO).
II. When nuke is launched, it will be intercepted mid-air with less cataclysmic results. Would be too ridiculous to have two nukes go poof on American soil in 3 seasons. Target: D.C.
III. Paul alive? Sort of a Beatles conspiracy in reverse? Nah. I say: requiescat in pace, poor misunderstood guy (or maybe not; see above), yet he'll live on as an organ donor.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 9.05.2005 @ 09:17
Sue, you've added lotsa good stuff to think on today, and recently, re 24! You seem new around here, but that might just be because I'M new to the neighborhood. Do you have a blog?
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 3.05.2005 @ 14:16
Fantastic analysis SH. So much to say and you said most of it already.
A few Qs:1) Did you add Paul to Jack's body count? Though he was shot by the terrorists, it's arguable that Jack, um, killed him... even as he tried to save him. Audrey will surely see it that way.
2) Heller: any additional thoughts on his possible involvement in the terrorist plot? There's that DOD link yet.
3) Tony is toast by end of season -- :( But will he and Michelle get a real, spoken, huggy resolution before then, H'wood style?
Man, only 3 episodes left (must be more like 4 or 5 hrs?) What the heck am I gonna do all summer? Watch the Orioles, I guess.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 3.05.2005 @ 09:01
COWERING IN THE SHADOWS OF "THE BRAVE NEW WORLD"
Collin: In the immortal words of Neo: woa. I sit, aghast, to ponder this profound non sequitur whilst slurping oatmeal.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 1.05.2005 @ 05:36
Superhawk, I'm really glad you wrote on this. (And, I'm sorry my comment is so damn long!) I can tell from this and your other science posts that your respect and admiration for biomedical research comes from deep within. It's a difficult subject for anyone, scientist, ethicist, or lay. All dramatic hyperbole from that AP article aside (and c'mon, whom among us really trust the MSM to offer a fair and balanced report on anything, let alone science?), I am at once supportive of pushing the boundaries of biomedical research AND working within the boundaries of ethical norms.
I'm coming at this as a scientist who, on ethical grounds, is very much against use of human embryonic stem (ES) cells derived from new embryos, and I have a huge problem with the use ES cells from "leftover embryos" in in vitro fertilization clinics… in fact, I oppose IVF on moral grounds. Thems ain't embryos, thems is people. However, in the research described, I am pretty sure (I haven't looked up the source material) that ES stem cells weren't involved. More likely, they were stem cells from adult tissues, which carry no ethical baggage. The stem cell debate is constantly mischaracterized in the MSM and even good cable news and science, because people pretty much don't understand the difference, they just hear STEM CELL and think CLONING.
Unfortunately, technology threatens to move beyond ethics once again. But sci-fi has a way of messing with our sense of what is really possible, and then giving us neuroses. Since the present topic involves biomedical science (which is arguably the American public's most misunderstood scientific field, next to physics), Jeremy Rifkins and ignorant biased reporters can easily scare folks into unreasonable palpitation, to further their own antitechnologic ends.
If this stem cell research is going on "below the radar of public discourse", IMHO that is largely the fault of: (1) our educational system which pollutes young minds with too much crap and not enough science; and (2) the waning but still numerous scientific elite who rarely deign to explain their work in a language that the science illiterate can comprehend.
In the case of mice with "human brains", I will get skewered for this analogy but consider the human stem cells like a different brand of potter's clay being put into the mix so that the potter can learn how that new clay behaves, so she can ultimately learn more about pottery as a whole. These Frankensteinish researchers will probably be watching to see how the cells develop, mature, and ultimately could be used to heal damaged brain tissue, for example. Scientists obviously can't do the human experiment now (in fact Chinese researchers killed some Parkinson patients by putting human ES cells into their brains, which then turned into really nasty tumors).
But experiments with rat olfactory stem-cell transplants have already shown promise in spinal cord repair. In the scientific mode, it then makes sense to try transplanting similar human olfactory stem cells into injured rats, to see if the same repair occurs. If the answer is yes, you've learned something potentially valuable about human health. The stickler is when you consider the brain as the target tissue. That changes everything because at once we so cherish its power and fail to understand it's workings.
Yes the image is creepy. But human-mouse chimeras with Mickey tearing up and crying "Why me?" are not about to happen by a long shot. I seriously doubt that the fascinating and wonderful neurodevelopmental process that flows from the union of a human egg and sperm and makes us -- in the likeness of God -- can be replicated in the experiments described in that AP article (though I would like to read the original research first to see their real aims and techniques, not as filtered through the oh-so-trustworthy media lens of the AP).
As noted in the article, scientists have been creating genetic chimeras (e.g., human genes plopped into mice or even yeast) and have injected human cells into other critters for at least two decades. These experiments, once thought horrifying to behold, have yielded tremendous knowledge about the molecular basis of many genetic diseases like Alzheimer, cystic fibrosis, and cancer. Such work has led to the development of effective pharmaceuticals and other treatments, even simple diet-related cures, for what were otherwise devastating illnesses.
Doubtless, there are ethical concerns, as there damn well should be, and the experiments should be closely monitored because we really DONT know what is going to happen. However, I wouldn't worry too much about this technology being taken to some Huxleyan, nefarious end. People were freaking out when the first gene splicing experiments were being done in the 70s and 80s, and ethical panels were wisely installed to monitor research. We are seeing the same for stem cell research. What we SHOULD worry about are ivory tower scientists who might indeed, despite practically all cultural and ethical norms, attempt human cloning. Very unlikely, yet possible and truly gruesome to ponder. Cloning -- be it therapeutic or full-blown "let's bring back old Aunt Edith" -- is simply WRONG. Despite the best grab-your-gut sci fi, I have faith that legal, ethical and moral standards of the funding agencies and academia (and hopefully industry) will continue to evolve, which will utterly prevent at least the latter type of cloning.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 30.04.2005 @ 22:57
It's scary how life is imitating art today, what with al Zarqawi having just barely evading capture in Iraq at a check point. At least we got his laptop. Let's just hope that the inevitable capture of Marwan this season is also mirrored in reality.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.04.2005 @ 16:14
PPS:
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.04.2005 @ 08:35
The above PS was supposed to open with
Jay:
For that err I humbly apologize.
PS:
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.04.2005 @ 08:30
It’s called a VCR (or DVR). Get one. And: your latest ACLU post ROCKS!
CHLOE ROCKS!!! GIVE THAT BITCH A GUN AGAIN!!
The best line of the night: *she pauses and then sez* "I know." It was the thoughtful pause that did it for me. I actually heard gears spinning.
The whole episode had to be one of the best this season, for sheer variety, intense character development, and glue-to-the-seat frustration at Logan's utter incompetence. It had The Sig OtherHunter and me cheering out loud and high-fiving Chloe (yes, in fact, we got to watch it in realtime this time)
My main argument was the unrealistic 'come-down' of Edgar after his nearly going postal last episode. Continuity Checker, where was thine editorial pen?
And... didn't Marwan say something about an East Coast city in that videotape? or Eastern? Hmmm... from Iowa to either coast in a few hours seems improbable unless a plane is involved--which would be quite risky.
Superhawk, your leadership intro was quite profound. Something that Frist should read.
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.04.2005 @ 08:29
I'm thinking George is just jealous of you, SH, because he has to work for a living. (As a matter of fact, so am I.) Maybe George works with Jessica at that freegan store Van Helsing wrote about. Or, maybe George is selling vegan tofu moonbat shakes at the beach.
Mmmm. Writing about food is making me HUNGRY. Is Raven about, and if so, does she have any sammiches?
Comment Posted By The MaryHunter On 26.04.2005 @ 10:04
