Please, explain yourself. How did he want attention? Where are you getting that? The video starts with him after he's been tazered.
No, the video starts at a computer screen on the other side of the room. At which time, you can hear the guy screaming at the top of his lungs, "I AM NOT LEAVING! YOU CAN NOT MAKE ME LEAVE!" Then you hear him get tazed. Afterwards there is a bit of silence, poleice telling him to leave, more screaming, then another tazing. THEN you can see the action on video.
Let me ask you this: Should the cops have just left? When someone is where they are not supposed to be, acting belligerent and confrontational, refusing to cooperate, should the police just leave? Maybe the police should only arrest those that are cooperative.
However, I do agree. After the third tazing, I would have simply removed my billy-club and gently and repeatedly placed it upon his head. If he won't respond to tazing, maybe he'll respond to being toothless. If nothing else, it will be funnier to hear him scream next time.
"You ofitherth can't forth me to leave the premethith"
Sorry, but I have little patience for those who refuse to obey a simple and lawful command given by an police officer.
If I give you plenty of notice that you are going to be shot in the head with my revolver, does the warning justify my use of force? If you don't comply with my command to get up, is my continued shooting into your head justified?
You are correct. The police officers in this case should have either removed the man by force (ala Rodney King) or just given up and gone home. "Oh, we couldn't do anything. He said 'no'."
This guy is not a troll. I hate to say, but he's right.
When the police tell you to leave, leave. When the police tell you stand up, stand up. When the police tell you to lay down, lay down. When the police tell you to show your ID, you show you ID.
I don't see what the problem is here. What you don't do is scream at the top of your lungs, "I WILL NOT LEAVE". And while this guy did change his tune after he was tazed and said he was leaving, he said it as he was lying on the ground, refusing to leave. Seeing that this guy was tazed and beaten within an inch of his life by large metal, rubber coated sticks is a testament to the patience the police officers maintained.
While I've heard people say that he could not move because he was tazed, I call bullshit. He was sure screaming loud enough. And I've seen people tazed. They get back up a second or two later. Not five minutes as some have claimed. Here is a video proving as much. You'll notice the guy keep trying to get back up as the cop zaps him again... and again... and again. The suspect continues to get back up.
I'm really growing weary of seeing good cops lose their jobs when they defend themselves. Recently in Austin, while trying to serve a warrant, a 250 lb man attacked the police officer (175 lb), had him on the ground and was on top of him. His partner, 120 lb female, shot and killed the attacker. She lost her job.
In San Marcos TX, an 18 yr old punk had stabbed his mother several times because he had an argument with his brother. When the police showed up, he had a fork to his mother's throat. After several warnings, they finally shot him, fatally. Both cops are currently under investigation, could lose their jobs and of course, the family is suing the police department.
It's a simple rule. When you attack a police officer, you need killin'!
This is not a troll! Whoever modded this should be meta-moderated out of existence!
I was going to say the same thing. When I pull up my house on Google Earth, it shows an empty lot where my house has been for at least three years. Yeah, these Indians may find a mine, but by the time they get there, all the miners would have left and the forest would have retaken the land.
I mean, it's not like you can go outside, wave at the sky and find yourself on GoogleEarth!
* Make the code simple and open-source.
* No last minute "patches" being applied by Diebold personnel on election day with no explanation why or review of the code beforehand. The machines should be frozen for most purposes when they're shipped and completely at least 72 hrs before election day.
* Do a "dry run" of the election equipment to make sure everything is working properly before election day! I keep hearing about what sound like fairly simple problems cropping up at the polls that make you wonder if they do any testing at all on these systems before releasing them.
I'd be happy if they'd just give me a fuckin receipt, even if I have to leave it a ballot box on my way out just in case there is need for a recount.
Someone clue this guy in. The Democrats won this time.
That means there's no problems with Diebold.
In a few weeks you'll learn that the machines were hacked to make the Democrats win... The surprise will be that they were hacked by Rove to make the Dems look like cheaters so that Jeb Bush can get elected in '08 with Lynn Cheney as a running mate.
I think you need to put your tin-foil hat back on. The rays are getting to you. And get the bong while you are up.
His point was that Bush's judicial nominees did not get a rubber stamp from congress. Try to keep up!
For that matter, neither did his energy policy, his voucher program nor his plan to give more control of retirement accounts to younger workers. Congress was not a rubber stamp for President Bush. President Bush was a rubber stamp for congress!
>>Just because all you hear on the news everyday is a body count of American soldiers lost does not mean there is nothing else going on over there
Right, there's also the Iraqui body count.
It's Iraqi. And there are power stations and schools being built, clean watter running for the first time in decades, children being fed and given medicine and many other things that are happening that are simply not interesting enough to make the headlines. If it bleeds, it leads. Power staying on for 24 hrs is simply not headline material.
Something completely different and with no relation whatsoever with Iraq. D-Day was a landing against one of the strongest armies in the world, part of a war in which the USA had bee agressed and attacked, while Iraq is the utter failure of the occupation of a country the US have agressed and invaded.
Funny, I don't recall reading about Germany ever attacking the US. Japan did, but Germany did not. Same goes for every war after 1812 I believe. Should we restore the Nazi's to power?
You're right that things could be worse in Iraq. Things could be worse regarding freedom and liberty in the US.
Your point is invalid, though. Just because things could be worse doesn't mean they're not horrible. Things could always be worse. The whole world could blow up, but hey at least we didn't lose the sun.
Anyone who thinks things are going well in Iraq is retarded. Anyone who thinks the home of the free has never been freer is retarded. And you're not helping by mocking those who are pointing out blindingly obvious problems.
We've lost fewer troops in Iraq than any war in history. We've done more in Iraq in 3 years than we did in 15 years in Japan or Germany. Just because all you hear on the news everyday is a body count of American soldiers lost does not mean there is nothing else going on over there. Yes, I'll agree that it could be better, but I responding to the GGP that called Iraq a disastrous failure, which it is not. If Iraq is a disastrous failure, what was D-Day?
."With the complete destruction of civil liberties you've pointed to" Nice strawman argument a destruction of civil liberty need not be complete to exist. nor does torture need to happen daily.... etc.
The GGP used hyperbole. I just replied in kind. I thought we were playing make believe.
He only used VETO once, when he stopped embryo stem cell research.
Sorry, I can't let this one slide:
From the President's speech on stem cell research in August 1991:
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
So did he block stem cell research or did he block the destruction of embryos to create more stem cell lines? I really don't stand on either side of the issue, but at least be honest and get your facts straight.
I like lower taxes as much as anyone, but when the alternative is to have the economy crumble and all my cash become worthless, I'll vote for the tax.
Where do you get your information from. All the real economic indicators from reputable news sources show that the economy is doing great. Which economy is crumbling and what currency is worthless?
Wait! Have you been in a coma since the late 70's?
That's because most slashdotters can't tell the difference between sarcasm and trolling. What was said that wasn't true? I just pointed out that even though Republicans controlled both houses, it was not enough for Bush to get his way, as the GGP implied. Are we drilling in ANWAR? Can I put 2% of my Soc Security payments into an IRA that I have limited control over? Can a poor child that lives in a crappy school district go to a private school that was only accessible to rich white kids before? Did Bush judicial nominees get rubber stamped?
NO. Why, because Bush has not had his way with congress, even though Republicans controlled both houses they had 2/3 of neither. I don't expect anything to change in that respect. What you can now expect is investigations into everything. If you thought the 90's were bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
Civil liberties, dismantling of checks and balances, deficits, torture, a disastrous failure in the occupation of Iraq. Hopefully, we can at least stop digging, and start finding a way out.
You are a brave squid for posting that. With the complete destruction of civil liberties you've pointed to, I certain you have already been detained for crimes against the state. I hope you survive the torture you will certainly receive without delay. But with the havoc the deficit spending has had on our economy, at least you will get bread and water between your torture sessions. Since I can't find a job, maybe I should post something similar so that I can at least get a free meal.
As for Iraq, I hope that the Democrats can find a way to break the deadlock our forces have encountered. With the hundreds of thousands of soldiers we have lost there trying to take Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein's forces, it's amazing that we still have the will to fight. I hear they are about to start drafting children under 15 to send to the meat grinder. Let's hope my daughter dies with honor.
Yeah, those Social Security reform and School Voucher programs breezed right through both houses. Don't even get me started on the easy time Bush judicial nominees had it!
It's hard to be an asshole when you are right. I made myself look like a dumbass by not researching BEFORE I posted. I was trying to get out of work early so I could make it to the polls which is 2hr away from the office.
I specifically remember teachers telling me that the founders saw to it all Americans had access to a free education in order to ensure that the voting public would be literate. Either they were confused or I heard something they never said. I wasn't all wrong, however as a free education is written into the Constitutions of all 50 states.
As to the US Constitution, I've read it although it has been a few years since doing anything beyond "searching" it for what I know to be in there (much like a free education!) I was kind of shocked to have my search come up empty this time. Personally, I prefer the Federalist papers for light reading but it can confuse me some issues as well.
What educational system does this statement refer to?
From Wiki:
In the United States, all powers which are not assigned to the federal state by the U.S. Constitution are reserved to the individual states. Since the federal Constitution does not mention education, and the U.S. Supreme Court has held conclusively there is no federal Constitutional right to an education, public education has always been under the general control of the individual states. The steadily expanding role of the federal government in public education since the late nineteenth century has recently become a subject of heated debate, as many states (and more than a few Senators and Members of Congress) perceive the U.S. Government to be overstepping its constitutional bounds.
Dammit! As the product of a public education, looks like I'll be staying home today!
(mod parent up for making me look like a dumbass... and rightly so)
When people say that it is your civic duty to vote, they are only telling you a third of the story. It is your civic duty to lean about the issues, make up your own mind, and then, (and only then) vote. That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system. They knew that an ignorant electorate would not be able to make informed decisions. Otherwise, the public only votes on catch-phrases like "Iraqi quagmire" or "Soft on terrorism".
Yes and no. Yes: I've done TS for over 10 years so I feel it's time to move on. With 10+ years experience and a degree, I feel I'm too good to TS. When I started, TS was a way to get your foot in the door to an IT job. That ended shortly after I started.
No: With my experience, TS jobs pay quite well, but not as good as mid-level IT. With a new baby at home and a wife who is no longer working, I can't afford the pay cut it would take to be entry level IT. So, I'm not too good for TS as I'm doing it now, while I dabble at home in higher technology (Linux, JSP, AD and so on).
I have a BSIT degree with a 3.5 GPA, but without real world experience in an IT department, it's impossible for me to find anything in IT that pays above tech support!
I'm tired of the chicken-egg thing. If I don't have experience I can't get the job. If I can't get the job, how am I supposed to get experience?/rant off
>There are existing stem cell lines, created from embryos, that have funds available for research. There is no good reason to fund the creation of more embryonic stem cell lines.
could you be more specific. i dont understand what you mean.
From the President's speech in August 2001
Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments -- yet, the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril. So I have decided we must proceed with great care.
As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research. I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life and death decision has already been made.
Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line, by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.
I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord placenta, adult and animal stem cells which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this important research.
That pretty much explains my position.
The only good argument for using embryos to harvest stem cells is the fact that they will be tossed in the dumpster anyway. Still, there are ethical and religious arguments against embryonic stem cell research and when human life begins. No matter which way you go, there will be a controversy. This is why I believe that we use the existing lines available and find new sources for stem cells (adult, cord blood) for research so that no one's ethical objections are overlooked and no one is forced to pay for research they are morally opposed to.
That's why you do research. Cant you understand how twisted your reasoning is? You might as well use that arguement to stop spending money on any research of anything.
No one says we can definitely achieve anything through either course. thats the purpose of experimentation and research. My god, we'd all be living in caves if everyone took that line of reasoning. and My understanding is that non-embryonic stem cells are already partially differentiated, which means they have less potential abilities. There is nothing wrong with experimentation on them as far as I am concerned, and despite your implication resources are put there. But that is irrelevant, since there are properties of embryonic stem cells that are not present in the non-embryonic cells, and this is the whole crux of wanting to conduct research specifically on embryonic cells.
There are existing stem cell lines, created from embryos, that have funds available for research. There is no good reason to fund the creation of more embryonic stem cell lines.
That's why you do research. Cant you understand how twisted your reasoning is? You might as well use that arguement to stop spending money on any research of anything.
No one says we can definitely achieve anything through either course. thats the purpose of experimentation and research. My god, we'd all be living in caves if everyone took that line of reasoning.
That's like me saying that under your argument, there should be no limit to research as long as it has potential. I try to resist that kind of attack. While we both agree that we should not experiment on prisoners, we disagree on where the line should be drawn. But, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I can't say when human life begins, no one can for sure. And if you are not sure, where do you draw the line?
Whose throat is it being forced down? Are you being forced to conduct stem cell research at knife point? If this were passed in the US, that would be the IRS that is forcing me to pay for it.
Who says we can acheive it through other means? We dont even know what we're going to find yet so how can you assert that it can be found elsewhere? I'd rather potantially find a cure for parkinsons disease than "avoid pissing people off". Pissing people off is pretty feeble excuse for not trying to do something so incredibly important. Who says we can achieve it through embryonic stem cell research? Who says we CAN'T find by using chord blood stem cells. Can you tell me the difference between chord blood stem cells and stem cells harvested from embryos? Why harvest embryos when we are throwing away perfectly viable stem cells after every child birth? WHY MUST YOU PERFORM RESEARCH THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL WHEN THE SAME GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH NON-CONTROVERSIAL MEANS???!!??!
No human is hurt, tormented or killed by stem cell research True. It's where you get the stem cells that so many have a problem with. Read above for the solution.
Good post. You make good points. Now I'd like to try to make a few good counter-points. (or is that counter-counter-points? I think I'll go to the counter and order a pint!)
I suppose you'll tell me it's when it gets a soul? Well that would be a religious debate, not so much an ethical one. I do not feel that religion should play a part in legislation. But, since you brought it up, the Bible says before one cell.
Did not he who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same one form us both within our mothers? (Job 31:15).
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God (Psalm 22:9-10).
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be (Psalm 139:13-16).
This is what the LORD says---he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you...(Isaiah 44:2).
Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel, you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your birth. Even to your old age and gray hairs I am he, I am he who will sustain you. I have made you and I will carry you; I will sustain you and I will rescue you (Isaiah 46:3-4).
And now the LORD says---he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength (Isaiah 49:5).
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).
When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (Luke 1:41-42, 44).
I'd say a human is a "person" for our purposes when and if they become capable of thought. I have a one month old baby girl. After observing here for some time, I would say that she is not quite capable of thought. Is it OK to experiment on her?
my toenail clippings will show up as "100% human" on a DNA test. Your toenail clippings can not grow into a human. However, if you wanted to clone your toenail clippings for stem cells, I'm OK with that. That's what the whole "adult stem cell" thing is all about.
What does that leave? The mind, and little else. There is no trait that is more distinctly human on earth. Cognitive ability does not make one human. There are many "humans" who are alive that have little or no brain function. However, medical experimentation is not allowed on the invalids in our society, and rightly so. There are monkeys with more smarts that some humans. It is not the reasoning mind that makes one human.
So, when does a human mind develop to the point where we consider the human a legal or ethical person? I have no idea. I don't know either. That's why I don't leave it to chance. Jews are considered by some to not be human. They are called apes and pigs by many Muslims throughout the world. The Germans considered them sub-humans as well and had no ethical qualms about doing horrific experiments on them. So bending the rules on what you consider human can be disastrous. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that cloning unwanted embryos is comparable to Nazi experimentation, but where do you draw the line? How far do you bend the definition of "human"? Personally, I think we should not take any chances especially when other viable options exist, such as chord blood and adult stem cell research that have so far led to more promising results.
Slashdot Mirror
Please, explain yourself. How did he want attention? Where are you getting that? The video starts with him after he's been tazered.
No, the video starts at a computer screen on the other side of the room. At which time, you can hear the guy screaming at the top of his lungs, "I AM NOT LEAVING! YOU CAN NOT MAKE ME LEAVE!" Then you hear him get tazed. Afterwards there is a bit of silence, poleice telling him to leave, more screaming, then another tazing. THEN you can see the action on video.
Let me ask you this: Should the cops have just left? When someone is where they are not supposed to be, acting belligerent and confrontational, refusing to cooperate, should the police just leave? Maybe the police should only arrest those that are cooperative.
how do explain the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tasing?
If at first you don't succeed.....
However, I do agree. After the third tazing, I would have simply removed my billy-club and gently and repeatedly placed it upon his head. If he won't respond to tazing, maybe he'll respond to being toothless. If nothing else, it will be funnier to hear him scream next time.
"You ofitherth can't forth me to leave the premethith"
Sorry, but I have little patience for those who refuse to obey a simple and lawful command given by an police officer.
If I give you plenty of notice that you are going to be shot in the head with my revolver, does the warning justify my use of force? If you don't comply with my command to get up, is my continued shooting into your head justified?
You are correct. The police officers in this case should have either removed the man by force (ala Rodney King) or just given up and gone home. "Oh, we couldn't do anything. He said 'no'."
This guy is not a troll. I hate to say, but he's right.
When the police tell you to leave, leave.
When the police tell you stand up, stand up.
When the police tell you to lay down, lay down.
When the police tell you to show your ID, you show you ID.
I don't see what the problem is here.
What you don't do is scream at the top of your lungs, "I WILL NOT LEAVE". And while this guy did change his tune after he was tazed and said he was leaving, he said it as he was lying on the ground, refusing to leave. Seeing that this guy was tazed and beaten within an inch of his life by large metal, rubber coated sticks is a testament to the patience the police officers maintained.
While I've heard people say that he could not move because he was tazed, I call bullshit. He was sure screaming loud enough. And I've seen people tazed. They get back up a second or two later. Not five minutes as some have claimed. Here is a video proving as much. You'll notice the guy keep trying to get back up as the cop zaps him again... and again... and again. The suspect continues to get back up.
I'm really growing weary of seeing good cops lose their jobs when they defend themselves. Recently in Austin, while trying to serve a warrant, a 250 lb man attacked the police officer (175 lb), had him on the ground and was on top of him. His partner, 120 lb female, shot and killed the attacker. She lost her job.
In San Marcos TX, an 18 yr old punk had stabbed his mother several times because he had an argument with his brother. When the police showed up, he had a fork to his mother's throat. After several warnings, they finally shot him, fatally. Both cops are currently under investigation, could lose their jobs and of course, the family is suing the police department.
It's a simple rule. When you attack a police officer, you need killin'!
This is not a troll! Whoever modded this should be meta-moderated out of existence!
I was going to say the same thing. When I pull up my house on Google Earth, it shows an empty lot where my house has been for at least three years. Yeah, these Indians may find a mine, but by the time they get there, all the miners would have left and the forest would have retaken the land.
I mean, it's not like you can go outside, wave at the sky and find yourself on GoogleEarth!
My recommendations:
* Make the code simple and open-source.
* No last minute "patches" being applied by Diebold personnel on election day with no explanation why or review of the code beforehand. The machines should be frozen for most purposes when they're shipped and completely at least 72 hrs before election day.
* Do a "dry run" of the election equipment to make sure everything is working properly before election day! I keep hearing about what sound like fairly simple problems cropping up at the polls that make you wonder if they do any testing at all on these systems before releasing them.
I'd be happy if they'd just give me a fuckin receipt, even if I have to leave it a ballot box on my way out just in case there is need for a recount.
Someone clue this guy in. The Democrats won this time.
That means there's no problems with Diebold.
In a few weeks you'll learn that the machines were hacked to make the Democrats win... The surprise will be that they were hacked by Rove to make the Dems look like cheaters so that Jeb Bush can get elected in '08 with Lynn Cheney as a running mate.
I think you need to put your tin-foil hat back on. The rays are getting to you. And get the bong while you are up.
His point was that Bush's judicial nominees did not get a rubber stamp from congress. Try to keep up!
For that matter, neither did his energy policy, his voucher program nor his plan to give more control of retirement accounts to younger workers. Congress was not a rubber stamp for President Bush. President Bush was a rubber stamp for congress!
>>Just because all you hear on the news everyday is a body count of American soldiers lost does not mean there is nothing else going on over there
Right, there's also the Iraqui body count.
It's Iraqi. And there are power stations and schools being built, clean watter running for the first time in decades, children being fed and given medicine and many other things that are happening that are simply not interesting enough to make the headlines. If it bleeds, it leads. Power staying on for 24 hrs is simply not headline material.
Something completely different and with no relation whatsoever with Iraq. D-Day was a landing against one of the strongest armies in the world, part of a war in which the USA had bee agressed and attacked, while Iraq is the utter failure of the occupation of a country the US have agressed and invaded.
Funny, I don't recall reading about Germany ever attacking the US. Japan did, but Germany did not. Same goes for every war after 1812 I believe. Should we restore the Nazi's to power?
You're right that things could be worse in Iraq. Things could be worse regarding freedom and liberty in the US.
Your point is invalid, though. Just because things could be worse doesn't mean they're not horrible. Things could always be worse. The whole world could blow up, but hey at least we didn't lose the sun.
Anyone who thinks things are going well in Iraq is retarded. Anyone who thinks the home of the free has never been freer is retarded. And you're not helping by mocking those who are pointing out blindingly obvious problems.
We've lost fewer troops in Iraq than any war in history. We've done more in Iraq in 3 years than we did in 15 years in Japan or Germany. Just because all you hear on the news everyday is a body count of American soldiers lost does not mean there is nothing else going on over there. Yes, I'll agree that it could be better, but I responding to the GGP that called Iraq a disastrous failure, which it is not. If Iraq is a disastrous failure, what was D-Day?
."With the complete destruction of civil liberties you've pointed to" Nice strawman argument a destruction of civil liberty need not be complete to exist. nor does torture need to happen daily.... etc.
The GGP used hyperbole. I just replied in kind. I thought we were playing make believe.
Sorry, I can't let this one slide:
From the President's speech on stem cell research in August 1991:
So did he block stem cell research or did he block the destruction of embryos to create more stem cell lines? I really don't stand on either side of the issue, but at least be honest and get your facts straight.
I like lower taxes as much as anyone, but when the alternative is to have the economy crumble and all my cash become worthless, I'll vote for the tax.
Where do you get your information from. All the real economic indicators from reputable news sources show that the economy is doing great. Which economy is crumbling and what currency is worthless?
Wait! Have you been in a coma since the late 70's?
That's because most slashdotters can't tell the difference between sarcasm and trolling. What was said that wasn't true? I just pointed out that even though Republicans controlled both houses, it was not enough for Bush to get his way, as the GGP implied. Are we drilling in ANWAR? Can I put 2% of my Soc Security payments into an IRA that I have limited control over? Can a poor child that lives in a crappy school district go to a private school that was only accessible to rich white kids before? Did Bush judicial nominees get rubber stamped?
NO. Why, because Bush has not had his way with congress, even though Republicans controlled both houses they had 2/3 of neither. I don't expect anything to change in that respect. What you can now expect is investigations into everything. If you thought the 90's were bad, you haven't seen anything yet.
Civil liberties, dismantling of checks and balances, deficits, torture, a disastrous failure in the occupation of Iraq. Hopefully, we can at least stop digging, and start finding a way out.
You are a brave squid for posting that. With the complete destruction of civil liberties you've pointed to, I certain you have already been detained for crimes against the state. I hope you survive the torture you will certainly receive without delay. But with the havoc the deficit spending has had on our economy, at least you will get bread and water between your torture sessions. Since I can't find a job, maybe I should post something similar so that I can at least get a free meal.
As for Iraq, I hope that the Democrats can find a way to break the deadlock our forces have encountered. With the hundreds of thousands of soldiers we have lost there trying to take Baghdad and overthrow Saddam Hussein's forces, it's amazing that we still have the will to fight. I hear they are about to start drafting children under 15 to send to the meat grinder. Let's hope my daughter dies with honor.
(Is it safe to return to reality now?)
Yeah, those Social Security reform and School Voucher programs breezed right through both houses. Don't even get me started on the easy time Bush judicial nominees had it!
It's hard to be an asshole when you are right. I made myself look like a dumbass by not researching BEFORE I posted. I was trying to get out of work early so I could make it to the polls which is 2hr away from the office.
I specifically remember teachers telling me that the founders saw to it all Americans had access to a free education in order to ensure that the voting public would be literate. Either they were confused or I heard something they never said. I wasn't all wrong, however as a free education is written into the Constitutions of all 50 states.
As to the US Constitution, I've read it although it has been a few years since doing anything beyond "searching" it for what I know to be in there (much like a free education!) I was kind of shocked to have my search come up empty this time. Personally, I prefer the Federalist papers for light reading but it can confuse me some issues as well.
Good catch!
What educational system does this statement refer to?
From Wiki:
Dammit! As the product of a public education, looks like I'll be staying home today!
(mod parent up for making me look like a dumbass... and rightly so)
When people say that it is your civic duty to vote, they are only telling you a third of the story. It is your civic duty to lean about the issues, make up your own mind, and then, (and only then) vote. That is why our founding fathers set up our educational system. They knew that an ignorant electorate would not be able to make informed decisions. Otherwise, the public only votes on catch-phrases like "Iraqi quagmire" or "Soft on terrorism".
If you don't know, stay home.
Too good for tech support eh?
Yes and no.
Yes: I've done TS for over 10 years so I feel it's time to move on. With 10+ years experience and a degree, I feel I'm too good to TS. When I started, TS was a way to get your foot in the door to an IT job. That ended shortly after I started.
No: With my experience, TS jobs pay quite well, but not as good as mid-level IT. With a new baby at home and a wife who is no longer working, I can't afford the pay cut it would take to be entry level IT. So, I'm not too good for TS as I'm doing it now, while I dabble at home in higher technology (Linux, JSP, AD and so on).
I have a BSIT degree with a 3.5 GPA, but without real world experience in an IT department, it's impossible for me to find anything in IT that pays above tech support!
/rant off
I'm tired of the chicken-egg thing. If I don't have experience I can't get the job. If I can't get the job, how am I supposed to get experience?
could you be more specific. i dont understand what you mean.
From the President's speech in August 2001
That pretty much explains my position.
The only good argument for using embryos to harvest stem cells is the fact that they will be tossed in the dumpster anyway. Still, there are ethical and religious arguments against embryonic stem cell research and when human life begins. No matter which way you go, there will be a controversy. This is why I believe that we use the existing lines available and find new sources for stem cells (adult, cord blood) for research so that no one's ethical objections are overlooked and no one is forced to pay for research they are morally opposed to.
That's why you do research. Cant you understand how twisted your reasoning is? You might as well use that arguement to stop spending money on any research of anything.
No one says we can definitely achieve anything through either course. thats the purpose of experimentation and research. My god, we'd all be living in caves if everyone took that line of reasoning.
and
My understanding is that non-embryonic stem cells are already partially differentiated, which means they have less potential abilities. There is nothing wrong with experimentation on them as far as I am concerned, and despite your implication resources are put there. But that is irrelevant, since there are properties of embryonic stem cells that are not present in the non-embryonic cells, and this is the whole crux of wanting to conduct research specifically on embryonic cells.
There are existing stem cell lines, created from embryos, that have funds available for research. There is no good reason to fund the creation of more embryonic stem cell lines.
That's why you do research. Cant you understand how twisted your reasoning is? You might as well use that arguement to stop spending money on any research of anything.
No one says we can definitely achieve anything through either course. thats the purpose of experimentation and research. My god, we'd all be living in caves if everyone took that line of reasoning.
That's like me saying that under your argument, there should be no limit to research as long as it has potential. I try to resist that kind of attack. While we both agree that we should not experiment on prisoners, we disagree on where the line should be drawn. But, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I can't say when human life begins, no one can for sure. And if you are not sure, where do you draw the line?
Whose throat is it being forced down? Are you being forced to conduct stem cell research at knife point?
If this were passed in the US, that would be the IRS that is forcing me to pay for it.
Who says we can acheive it through other means? We dont even know what we're going to find yet so how can you assert that it can be found elsewhere? I'd rather potantially find a cure for parkinsons disease than "avoid pissing people off". Pissing people off is pretty feeble excuse for not trying to do something so incredibly important.
Who says we can achieve it through embryonic stem cell research? Who says we CAN'T find by using chord blood stem cells. Can you tell me the difference between chord blood stem cells and stem cells harvested from embryos? Why harvest embryos when we are throwing away perfectly viable stem cells after every child birth? WHY MUST YOU PERFORM RESEARCH THAT IS CONTROVERSIAL WHEN THE SAME GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH NON-CONTROVERSIAL MEANS???!!??!
No human is hurt, tormented or killed by stem cell research
True. It's where you get the stem cells that so many have a problem with. Read above for the solution.
I suppose you'll tell me it's when it gets a soul?
Well that would be a religious debate, not so much an ethical one. I do not feel that religion should play a part in legislation. But, since you brought it up, the Bible says before one cell.
I'd say a human is a "person" for our purposes when and if they become capable of thought.
I have a one month old baby girl. After observing here for some time, I would say that she is not quite capable of thought. Is it OK to experiment on her?
my toenail clippings will show up as "100% human" on a DNA test.
Your toenail clippings can not grow into a human. However, if you wanted to clone your toenail clippings for stem cells, I'm OK with that. That's what the whole "adult stem cell" thing is all about.
What does that leave? The mind, and little else. There is no trait that is more distinctly human on earth.
Cognitive ability does not make one human. There are many "humans" who are alive that have little or no brain function. However, medical experimentation is not allowed on the invalids in our society, and rightly so. There are monkeys with more smarts that some humans. It is not the reasoning mind that makes one human.
So, when does a human mind develop to the point where we consider the human a legal or ethical person? I have no idea.
I don't know either. That's why I don't leave it to chance. Jews are considered by some to not be human. They are called apes and pigs by many Muslims throughout the world. The Germans considered them sub-humans as well and had no ethical qualms about doing horrific experiments on them. So bending the rules on what you consider human can be disastrous. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that cloning unwanted embryos is comparable to Nazi experimentation, but where do you draw the line? How far do you bend the definition of "human"? Personally, I think we should not take any chances especially when other viable options exist, such as chord blood and adult stem cell research that have so far led to more promising results.