CE Volume 3

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

Let me try and paint as simple a picture as I can while still doing justice to the incredible science involved. Let's say that ten or so years from now you are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. There is currently no cure and drug therapy, with its attendant side-effects, can only temporarily relieve the symptoms.


Now, imagine going to a doctor who, instead of prescribing drugs, takes a few skin cells from your arm. The nucleus of one of your cells is placed into a donor egg whose own nucleus has been removed. A hit of chemical or electrical stimulation will encourage your cell's nucleus to begin dividing, creating new cells which will then be placed into a tissue culture. Those cells will generate embryonic stem cells containing only your DNA, thereby eliminating the risk of tissue rejection. These stem cells are then driven to become the very neural cells that are defective in Parkinson's patients. And finally, those cells — with your DNA — are injected into your brain where they will replace the faulty cells whose failure to produce adequate dopamine led to the Parkinson's disease in the first place.


In other words, you're cured.

This is the part that had me so angry. If you review it, you'll see that there are no "may"s or "possibly"s in it. He is presenting it as "this will work". Not "this is how they HOPE it will work.

I will also say again that it baffles me that Ron, and other members of the Reagan family are putting so much time and energy into challening the federal funding policies, when that energy could be put into securing PRIVATE funding for the same research, which is allowed currently without the obstacles that federal funding has. If Ron Reagan is THIS confident that these experiments WILL lead to a cure, why not use this time, and the emotion connected with his father's death, to get private donations? I'd give. I can't help but compare his families reaction to Ronald Reagan's death to the Bush family's reaction to Robin Bush's death. Since she died from lukemia, the Bush family, primarily George and Barbara have raised MILLIONS of dollars for privately funded cancer research, primarily for Sloan Kettering, where Robin was treated, and the cancer center in Houston whose name just lept from my mind, not to be found again in the near future.

[chrisfan]

ProudIllness said:

kind of a random point i'm about to make, but i personally believe women should also have to register for the selective service.

*wants people to comment on that belief in some way or another*

My opinions on this issue fall in line much in the same way of Strat-o's. There is no question in my mind that men and women ARE different. We are not the same, and we cannot do the same jobs. Men, both physically and mentally, are better cut out for combat. Women can't handle the job nearly as well as men can. I think it would be a travesty to weaken our military in the name of political correctness, which is why I believe that selective services registration should remain something that just men do.

[chrisfan]

MD Anderson ... that's the cancer place i couldn't think of.

[rockysigman]

As a trembling pussy boy, I'm confident that most women can handle combat better than me.

[Mary]

Chrisfan, I can see how those two paragraphs of the speech would be the most troubling part from your perspective. I think one can read them in light of the rest of the speech as a hypothetical example of what this science "may" bring should it work, but I'm not going to belabor the point...I can understand where you're coming from.

As for women in combat - I understand that women and men are genuinely physically different (on average), and that men tend, again on average, to be stronger than women. I'm not sure how relevant this is to a modern-day military rooted more in technological strength than brute physical strength, but I'd grant the point. What I'm not sure I understand is how women are less "mentally" capable of combat? Could you elaborate?

The thing is, if we're worried about people who are either physically or mentally incapable of going into combat, why not just test directly for these attributes (after all, nobody would claim that all men are physically and mentally cut out for combat!) rather than using gender as a proxy for them? If the result is that the vast majority of women don't get to serve in combat roles, that's totally fine with me - but I'm not sure excluding them out of hand is the right way to go about this. If there's several women who are exceptions to the general physical (and mental?) rules, then why deny them the opportunity to serve their country and make the ultimate sacrifice?

Now - I take strat-o's point that there are other issues beyond just competence here. Issues involving the kind of solidarity in combat units that some have argued would be threatened by mixed-gender units and the sexual tensions this might produce, the way in which men in these units might feel obligated to be especially "protective" of the women and how this could affect their resolve, and the problems which arise from women being taken as POWs (though this has already happened, I believe?) and how rape and sexual assault could then become a regularized weapon of combat. (though again - it's not like male POWs haven't been sexually assaulted) These issues, more than the idea that women aren't physically or mentally competent to serve in combat, do give me some pause.

However, just to keep this in perspective, the expanding role of women in the military means that the military already has been the subject of a "social experiment" and has remained, unquestionably, the strongest millitary in the world. Restrictions in women in the military have steadily given way, including some combat restrictions (women can serve on combat planes and combat ships, women are no longer excluded from units which have a "high probability" of seeing combat). I'm also just skeptical that allowing women who meet the standards to fight in combat units will transform the face of the military, as i suspect you're still going to be talking about a miniscule number of women who will take us up on these new options.

I'm not radical about this. I'm not pressing for some kind of immediate compelled sexual integration of all the branches of the military, and I don't think this is the same sort of equal protection issue as other questions of gender discrimination, where military strength isn't at stake. Court review of military policy has always been more deferent, and that's fine with me. But I just don't buy the more alarmist strains of the opposition to women in combat, where the very idea heralds some kind of mass-weakening of the military. So consider me ambivalent, I guess.

Cheers,
M

[chrisfan]

Mary said:

As for women in combat - I understand that women and men are genuinely physically different (on average), and that men tend, again on average, to be stronger than women. I'm not sure how relevant this is to a modern-day military rooted more in technological strength than brute physical strength, but I'd grant the point. What I'm not sure I understand is how women are less "mentally" capable of combat? Could you elaborate?

First, please realize that I'm speaking in generalizations here, realizing that "men" does not represent ALL men, and "women" does not represent ALL women. That being said, I believe that in general, men and women process emotions differently. Women are more effected by things emotionally at the moment it happens, while men tend to hold their emotions in check until a time comes that they can be dealt with. You can apply this to combat, you can apply it to other stressful situations. For an example, going by the generalizations, consider a husband and wife in a house where an intruder has just entered. Typically, the woman begins to panic, while the man begins to focus on what he can use for a weapon, where the intruder is, and how to take care of it. Down the road, the man will likely be more disturbed by the incident, but at the moment it's happening, he's focused on fixing it, not what is hapening. That's the trait you need in combat.

Mary said:

The thing is, if we're worried about people who are either physically or mentally incapable of going into combat, why not just test directly for these attributes (after all, nobody would claim that all men are physically and mentally cut out for combat!) rather than using gender as a proxy for them?

There is testing that does go on in the military. Many of the exercises in training that they do are intended to weed out those who can't handle combat, and put them into other roles. But when you're talking about selective services, you're talking about a military situation where time is of the essence. You need troops. You need a given number, and you need to get them trained and ready to go in a very specific time frame. You only complicate the process if you bring in a mixed gender group with a higher probability of more people not suitable for combat. You have to take the time to weedthose ones out, bring in more, weed some more out of that group, etc. In a draft situation, you don't have enough time to slow the process that much. So, we go by the traditional indicators which show that women are less likely to endure the process than men.

Mary said:

However, just to keep this in perspective, the expanding role of women in the military means that the military already has been the subject of a "social experiment" and has remained, unquestionably, the strongest millitary in the world. Restrictions in women in the military have steadily given way, including some combat restrictions (women can serve on combat planes and combat ships, women are no longer excluded from units which have a "high probability" of seeing combat). I'm also just skeptical that allowing women who meet the standards to fight in combat units will transform the face of the military, as i suspect you're still going to be talking about a miniscule number of women who will take us up on these new options.

But there is a huge difference, IMO, between women who believe they are capable of combat ... women who generally recognize that they don't fall into the "norms" of female behavior/strength and volunteer for service, and those who'd be drafted into service.

[Mary]

Woops, I sort of forgot that the origin of this conversation involved selective service registration for a possible draft. I was mostly just pontificating about a volunteery army where women could have an option to serve in combat units - I do think a draft raises different questions, and I agree with a lot of your points, Chrisfan.

I'd still support selective service registration for everyone, but this is only because the draft does not serve exclusively for combat positions. About 1/3rd of draftees are never placed into combat units or even units likely to see combat. If women are just as capable of doing these kinds of jobs as men, then I do believe, as a matter of equal protection, they too should be subject at least to this portion of the draft.

....I've got to run to class, but more later on your other points...!

[rockysigman]

Mary actually touched on a point there that I was going to jump in with.

Why not have everyone register for the draft, and then alter the draft according to need? You still may draft far more men if combat roles are the most needed, but why not still draft a number of women for the other jobs? So long as they're capable of filling these roles equally as men (and I don't think there was any disagreement about women being equal to men in non-combat roles, right?) then why not draft some women proportional to the non-combat jobs that need to be filled?

Time is certainly of the essence in situations where conscription has already started up, but it wouldn't take any longer at all if you simply had two separate pools to draft out of, one for combat only roles and a separate one that includes everyone for non-combat roles.

[chrisfan]

RockySigman said:

Mary actually touched on a point there that I was going to jump in with.

Why not have everyone register for the draft, and then alter the draft according to need? You still may draft far more men if combat roles are the most needed, but why not still draft a number of women for the other jobs? So long as they're capable of filling these roles equally as men (and I don't think there was any disagreement about women being equal to men in non-combat roles, right?) then why not draft some women proportional to the non-combat jobs that need to be filled?

Time is certainly of the essence in situations where conscription has already started up, but it wouldn't take any longer at all if you simply had two separate pools to draft out of, one for combat only roles and a separate one that includes everyone for non-combat roles.

On the surface, it makes sense to me. However, when you look into the idea deeper, I think there's another vital role that women do play during a draft time that would not be fulfilled, and that is taking care of things at home. Not only did the Rosie the Rivoters of the WW2 era prove that women are needed at home to keep commerce up and running, but you have children at home who need to be cared for. Going by the generalizations again, you are more likely to have children being cared for by women than by men. If we focus ALL of our resources towards winning a war when a draft is needed, what good does it do when we've let things fall apart at home in the mean time, because we didn't think about our needs there?

[rockysigman]

Thing is, if more woman are in the military, then less men will be leaving their commerce roles behind. It would be the same number of people leaving and the same number of people still at home to fill in for them either way.

As far as the child rearing aspect...I should think that single parents should be exempt from a draft anyway, whether they be single mothers or single fathers. I'm a little more torn about married parents. Women certainly do still do more work as far as caring for children goes than men do, but in families in which both parents work, it's a whole lot more evenly split. I don't know, this is something I'm going to have to think about a little more, but on instinct I don't think it's really something that would become a big problem.

[chrisfan]

A caller just called into the Rush LImbaugh show to make a point that was so brillant, that I just have to share it here.

When you look at the Democratic Convention, and you look at the stories being highlighted about John Edwards and Barak Obama ... the rising stars who came from humble beginnings to achieve great success and a national stage ... are they better examples of the conservative approach to helping the poor -- removing obstacles to success to enpower people to work hard and achieve success? Or, are they examples of the liberal approach of providing government assistance to lift such people up?

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

Chrisfan said:

JLLM ... we've been there and done that. Quite frankly, the issue bores me. And more importantly, the way you've been approaching things lately, with this "you are such an idiot for not thinking like me" approach, and utter disrespect for opposing viewpoints leaves me with absolutely no desire to discuss virtually any issue with you. So if you're looking for fun, go jack off or something, because I"m not interested in playing.

I'll just take that knee-jerk assault on me as an admission you've not nothing useful or worthwhile to say on green issues.

I'm disappointed by your lack of class.

[RocDoc]

Sorry rocdoc, but I just don't see how those quotes establish that Ron Reagan is implying the inevitable triumph of stem cell research in vanquishing all these horrible diseases.

Oh?
No, then EITHER I miscommunicated OR you misunderstood, because what I was trying to get at(I thought pretty clearly)was that RR pretty explicitly was saying that with GWB continuing at the helm, there would be him and ONLY him to blame(ie GWB, that 'him')when all these people whose cures are apparently HINGING on Stem Cell Research die horrible, painful and humiliating deaths......and NOT meaning at all, that he said somehow that ALL cures are inevitable due to SCR's 'magical' 100% certain success rate that RR might've cited.

But he's using the ruse of 'Look, HERE's where your hope absolutely should lie, and he's the cocksucker screwin' ya's!!!' to these emotionally vulnerable and apparently gullible people.

People who, after ALL else has failed, sure as fuck wish to have something to hope for. RR doesn't HAVE to tell them this...their assumption is that something eventually WILL be discovered, based on their love for their dying relative(s) AND based on the past 100 years of incredible progress the entire world has had in medicine.

This,while RR's speech ignored the possibility of ongoing privately funded research ALSO effecting their cures, as Chrisfan said, because then he wouldn't have something with which to damn GWB to hell in THEIR eyes.

I will be interested to see if you are equally outraged every time someone at the Republican convention suggests that a particular Kerry policy preference would bring about massive problems in the future.

'Outraged'...as a man on the hunt for 'truth'? And always on the lookout for ridiculous semantically and un-fairmindedly inept comparisons and projections? Oh, that wouldwould be me...
Oh.
Ha-ha...that's funnnneeee.

In this case the bullshit RR laid down came pretty clearly to me. Sorry that you're agreeing to miss it all...

~

Didn't that Hee-Haw idjit Edwards promise to track down all the loose nukes in Russia last night?

A typical campaigning exaggeration, eh?

But the folks in Peoria will be,

'Golly gee, hot damn that fella Edwards has got it going on! TELL all those Rooskis to fess up where they done put all that!'

'Gee I wonder why Dubya didn't think of THAT?'

[chrisfan]

JesusLooksLikeMe said:

I'll just take that knee-jerk assault on me as an admission you've not nothing useful or worthwhile to say on green issues.

I'm disappointed by your lack of class.

And I said several days ago that I'm dissapointed with this sudden lack of respect for opposing points of view that you've discovered. I am not going to be baited into the same old tired insulting discussion on this issue. If I had any inkling of belief that it'd be an actual exchange of ideas, I'd discuss it in a heartbeat. But I don't think you have ANY interest in understanding my viewpoint (or else you'd have accepted it the countless other times this subject has been thrown around).

[Mary]

Chrisfan,

Yeah, I definitely take your point about someone needing to stay home and look after the children. However, I think there are relatively easy ways that a draft could avoid this problem. One would simply be to have a "household draft" for the non-combat positions - these would be gender-neutral draft call-ups distributed to a particular household with children, such that either the wife or the husband could fulfill it, and it would be up to them to choose between themselves who should stay and who should go. If indeed women still overwhelmingly fulfill the more domestic roles in families, then things will sort themselves out naturally such that men overwhelmingly go while their wives stay behind. On the other hand, single women and single men would be equally subject to this portion of the draft, and in any exceptional cases where the father in a family spent more time with the children, he could stay behind and be part of a statistical minority. I don't think this would cause much an administrative hassle at all, nor be particularly difficult to implement.

Cheers,
M