Comments Posted By superhawk
Displaying 21 To 30 Of 85 Comments
SGRENA'S LIES WILL NOW COST LIVES
Think about your comment please...you want the names of soldiers out there?
And suppose you were a terrorist who instead of wanting to score political points like you, you wanted to kill someone that would get you plenty of news coverage.
And you wonder why the American people won't trust liberals with the national security of the US?
Comment Posted By superhawk On 3.05.2005 @ 16:59
COWERING IN THE SHADOWS OF "THE BRAVE NEW WORLD"
TMH: Whew! I seriously thought of posting your outstanding comments as either an addendum to my own post or as a separate post all by itself. But as you know, I'm much too selfish for any kind of crude display of generosity or sentimentality. Besides I hate being shown up on my own blog!
Seriously, you raise several interesting points. First, I support the use of all lines of stem cells for the purposes of research. I think controls are strict enough that no woman is going to sell her fetus for the sole purpose of having it harvested for its stem cells. I don't agree it's a woman's "right" to do this any more than a woman has a "right" to an abortion. Roe v. Wade clearly establishes a right of privacy between patient and doctor - and by extension an implied constitutional right of privacy for all of us - one of the few "implied" rights I can see the Founders would have covered if they were alive today. But there is no implicit right to abort one's fetus.
Sorry...but we disagree there.
As for why this activity is going on below the radar I'd have to agree with both your reasons with special emphasis on #2. Carl Sagan (God rest him) was a passionate advocate for scientists taking the time and energy to explain to the public what they were doing. His reasons have to do with the fact that science is now pretty much of a public endeavor. The days when a Rutherford could unlock the mysteries of the atom in a dank basement with a few graduate assistants are gone. To do the kind of science today that allows for breakthroughs in human understanding, scientists need public monies. Even though the U of Nevada study mentioned in the article appears to have been privately funded (or perhaps funded with general grants from the University whose origin could be public like NIH or NAS) I'm sure you know that not much in the way of real science gets done in this country that doesn't have the hand of government somewhere.
That being said, with few exceptions scientists act like Democrats - they think they're so effing brilliant that we mere mortal peons couldn't possibly grasp what they're trying to do. In fact, Sagan documented cases where scientists actually felt it wasn't the publics business what the hell they were doing with their money. Needless to say, that kind of attitude must change.
As for Mickey Mouse wailing "Why me" as his little mouse brain develops human characteristics - well, nice image but I agree not likely. Actually, I sort of imagined the researcher walking into the lab one day to find mice standing on two feet leaning against the cage having a conversation about breakfast. Neither one is a likely outcome.
The fact that the Stanford ethics panel felt it necessary to instruct Dr. Weismann to immediately euthanize any mouse that started to "act human" (whatever that means)was something I found extremely interesting. Which brings me to the real point I was trying to make.
Are ethics panels up to the task? Professor Greely of Stanford was a law prof! That may explain the panel's thought that there was a possibility the mice would start to ask for something besides hamster turds for breakfast. The expertise and knowledge to deal with bio ethical issues was lacking on that panel or at least not in evidence. Is this a problem - even though as we push forward with this kind of research the possibility that some day we'll be looking at not a human/animal hybrid but a "Superman" whose perfect organs and superior brain have been constructed using this kind of research? The law of unintended consequences is what concerns me - and my belief that without ethics panels examining these consequences, we'll be faced with a fait accompli some day and Huxley's world will have hit us with a vengeance.
Clones don't worry me as it appears that something starts to go horribly wrong just before middle age with cell structure - an interesting and from a scientific point of view fascinating problem. But I think you're right...other countries are apparently going ahead full bore with a human cloning program. The legal status of such people will be a nightmare. Will someone be able to leave his wealth to their own clone? Or will clones evolve into servants of some kind, doing the scut work that oppressed minorities always seem to do. The issues are mindboggling and we'll not be ready when the first one appears on Good Morning America.
Finally, when you say "we really DONT know what is going to happen" that scares the beejeesus out of me. Again, it's the little kid in the basement with a chemistry set....and not enough thought is given to the consequences.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 1.05.2005 @ 11:58
Hey chickenhawk! Why don't you use your real name.
Are you so ignorant that you don't know enough to hide your IP? What really gave you away was your obsession with Gannon. You should really see a psychiatrist. You're issues with homosexuality are getting in the way of you living a full life. Why not come out of the closet.
Just don't leave any more commnents here. They'll only be deleted.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 30.04.2005 @ 12:35
Two more short points:
I think it unfair to compare southern soldiers to the nazis...not because both ideologies where evil but because the southerners were, after all, Americans and not part of a different country. Isn't that why we fought the war in the first place?
Second: I think Kentuckians and Missourians would give you an argument about remaining in the union voluntarily. I think the presence of tens of thousands of federal troops in those two states may have had something to do with that.
And didn't Lincoln bemoan the opposition to compensation in border states in 1864 while the 13th amendment was being debated in Congress?
Comment Posted By superhawk On 4.05.2005 @ 09:31
I will concede a couple of your points.
First, you make an excellent distinction between being pro slavery and actually taking part in the atrocity. It's a subtle yet important difference.
Second, the ante bellum Republican party was indeed composed of soft and hard anti slavery men. Lincoln made it pretty clear prior to his innauguration in that famous letter that if he could save the union without touching slavery, he would. In the sense that he was adamantly opposed to the spread of slavery, we can call him anti-slavery.
Suppose however he had been able to limp along like Buchanan had for four years, steering clear of controversy while keeping his mouth shut about slavery and turning the other way while a few southerners migrated to the territories with slaves? If you love history, you probably like counterfactuals so I'll give you a "what if" question.
What if Lincoln hadn't tried to resupply Sumter and in fact had ordered the fort abandoned? Some were uging him to do so making the argument that the secessionists would be overwhelmed in the next state elections if Lincoln did nothing to provoke a southern response.
There is the possibility that indeed the hot heads would have been defeated and those seceded states coaxed back into the union.If that happened, I dare say it would have saved the union but probably destroyed the Republican party. Even so, Lincoln's overarching goal of keeping the country together would have been achieved.
So much for "what if"...but my point is that Lincoln could very well have turned out like Buchanan; a weak sister whose administration would have done precious little to end slavery.
One more word on "heritage" and the southern soldier...The letters and diaries of the time make it clear that this was a "People's War" (Page Smith). While we can blame the attitudes and beliefs of political leaders who as you say panicked when Lincoln was elected, never before or since has a war been fought where the politics of the common man played such a large role.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 4.05.2005 @ 09:26
First of all, I support consigning the battle flag to oblivion. I'm sorry you either didn't read or misunderstood that point.
Second, your point that Southerners supported slavery proves...what? Most northerners supported slavery as well and were, if anything, more casually obscene about their racism than their southern brothers.
To say that Lincoln was "mildly anti salvery" is ridiculous. If the south hadn't seceded, he wouldn't have touched the atrocity nor would he have said much about it. His only stipulation was the prevention of the spread of slavery into places like New Mexico where it wouldn't have prospered anyway.
While there's no doubt Southern soldiers were pro slavery,does this make their sacrifice or service any less a part of our American heritage than Northern soldiers who were also pro-slavery? I can understand completely why the battle flag should be consigned to the ash heap. But why put the bravery and courage of the southern soldiers there as well?
Comment Posted By superhawk On 3.05.2005 @ 21:14
TMH: Edgar will explode when the next terrorist suspect disappears into the infamous "holding room." He'll turn out to be innocent and start walking out the door at which point fat geek Edgar will sit on him, crushing his neck and killing him by asphyxiating him with "geek farts."
Or...not.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 26.04.2005 @ 08:35
Anyone check your belfry for bats?
Comment Posted By superhawk On 26.04.2005 @ 09:01
Sorry...Mother died more than 5 years ago.
And you must be young...either that or never heard of savings. Drawing down retirement a little at a time is of concern, but nothing to panic over. I live pretty cheap.You see my dear moonbat, I'm of the "investor class" that you and your bloodthirsty tribe would like to hang in the public square (or tax to death...I forget which).
Plus...I'm living off my girlfriend's disability...pretty neat, huh?
As for being a useless "punk" I am neither. Exposing nincompoops like you for what you are should earn me some kind of medal. At the very least, I'm performing a valuable public service.
Comment Posted By superhawk On 26.04.2005 @ 02:23
BBC: "BLOVIATING, BIASED CADS"
LOL...Howard's a dingbat. Just cause he's a conservative that doesn't make him any less repulsive.
(Sigh) Whatever happened to the party of Maggie Thatcher?
Comment Posted By superhawk On 24.04.2005 @ 15:07
