[itai195]

Originally posted by Spoogepieces:
Stereotyping would be saying "oh, he's a Godless cruel scientist, therefore, they all are."

I think of the hundreds of scientists I have known or worked with perhaps mabe a handful actually had a conscience or soul to them. The rest were barely more than living machines.

That hardly means it's true for the community at large, which makes it a stereotype.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't recall where I saw the article. It was a couple of months back. However, this is a separate thing from a stop-loss. Stop-losses affect those who decide not to reenlist, or (in some cases) those whose active duty commitment has expired so that they are called back to active duty from the individual ready reserve. Both of these have occurred with respect to certain critical military occupational specialties. That's a different question from reenlistments in the Army as a whole. It isn't the case that those are down, in fact at least in Iraq, they are up. The reason, I understand, is because of unit cohesion. People in tight units tend to stick together.

Okay, I think I understand the difference.

You are obviously against the war. But don't assume that volunteer troops feel the same way about it that you do. You would probably never consider the military, but they did -- and did so willingly, and knowingly.

You misunderstand me. I would imagine anyone who volunteers after the war has begun is very likely for the war.

I am most interested in the question of whether a universal draft, in today's USA would be a deterrent to American's willingness to fight foreign wars. I am against the draft for selfish reasons; I don't want to lose either of my children, who are of draft age. But it's something of a moral dilemma for me, since I also don't like the idea of having poor people fight and die in a rich man's war.

[Spliffdaddy]

what's inherently wrong with being rich?

[voyageur]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
what's inherently wrong with being rich?

Nothing, I hope!
However, there does seem something wrong when poor people end up fighting and dying in disporportionate numbers, because they are they ones who end up being in the military due to lack of other opportunities in life.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
what's inherently wrong with being rich?

Have you not read your Gospels?

Turning to his disciple Simon, who was sitting with him, he said, "Simon, son of Jonah, it's easier for a camel to squeeze through a needle's eye than for a wealthy person to get into heaven's domain

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Okay, I think I understand the difference.

You misunderstand me. I would imagine anyone who volunteers after the war has begun is very likely for the war.

I am most interested in the question of whether a universal draft, in today's USA would be a deterrent to American's willingness to fight foreign wars. I am against the draft for selfish reasons; I don't want to lose either of my children, who are of draft age. But it's something of a moral dilemma for me, since I also don't like the idea of having poor people fight and die in a rich man's war.

Leaving aside the canard of poor people dying for a rich man's war, I think the answer is it depends. If the war seems necessary, history indicates public opinion will support it, even if it means reinstating a draft that they think will involve them. World War II is an example of how popular opinion went from isolationism and being in favor of a small Army to supporting the war very quickly. You could also imagine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 something similar could have happend, had a mass Army been required (which it is not).

Of course, if the war is seen as unnecessary, then people will not be so willing. Many in the military when I was in resented being sent to Somalia and Bosnia because they didn't see them as being in the US' national interests. They weren't opposed to being sent to war, but they didn't want to go for what they saw as an invalid reason.

I think the foundation of your opinion is your preconcieved notion that wars occur because leaders somehow dupe people into them, and that somehow people are more easily duped if they think that someone else is going to do the fighting for them. I don't think that is justified. Not least because the very section of American society that seems most hostile to the war is also the same section of society that seems least interested in military service, and conversely, the section of society that seems most willing to serve, is also the most supportive of the war. Unless you want to argue that people who are pro war are just dumber than people who are against it, I think you are going to have to concede that support for the war doesn't seem to depend on not being vulnerable to being sent.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
because they are they ones who end up being in the military due to lack of other opportunities in life.

With respect: don't make that argument on a military base. You will be perceived as a snob who is dissing their service.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think the foundation of your opinion is your preconcieved notion that wars occur because leaders somehow dupe people into them, and that somehow people are more easily duped if they think that someone else is going to do the fighting for them.

Leaving aside the fact that we were duped into invading Iraq by the fanciful threat of WMD, no, I don't believe leaders necessarily try to dupe the populace into them. Although reasons to go to war often rest on intelligence that may not be available to the general populace, so we have to trust our leaders beyond what we know. The degree to which we are willing to trust them in this may depend somewhat on how much we personally have on the line.

However, you may well be right about the draft not being a deterrent; thanks for the discussion.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
With respect: don't make that argument on a military base. You will be perceived as a snob who is dissing their service.

I have no plans to! But, I still wonder if it's true or not.
edit: My Dad served in the army, so I'm not quite as insensitive as you might think.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
I have no plans to! But, I still wonder if it's true or not.
edit: My Dad served in the army, so I'm not quite as insensitive as you might think.

Yes, but did he volunteer, or was he drafted? It makes a difference. People who volunteer for the military tend in my experience to regard their service quite differently from people who were drafted. It's not just me who would say that. Just listen to Kerry talk about how important it is that he was a volunteer. There is a pride there.

And the no better opportunities line really would get you a mouthful. It's insulting.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, but did he volunteer, or was he drafted? It makes a difference. People who volunteer for the military tend in my experience to regard their service quite differently from people who were drafted. It's not just me who would say that. Just listen to Kerry talk about how important it is that he was a volunteer. There is a pride there.

And the no better opportunities line really would get you a mouthful. It's insulting.

And you might get a mouthful from other quarters for suggesting otherwise. Relax.
My Dad was ROTC. It was a way for him to pay for college, and he served willingly.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
And you might get a mouthful from other quarters for suggesting otherwise. Relax.
My Dad was ROTC. It was a way for him to pay for college, and he served willingly.

Presumably, you understand the difference between officers and enlisted.

[voyageur]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Presumably, you understand the difference between officers and enlisted.

Well, my understanding is an enlisted person starts off at the lowest rank, private, whereas an officer is someone with a rank of Lieutenant or higher. Am I close?

And please let me make it clear that I'm not trying to insult you or anyone in the military, I'm trying to learn here. I know that the military tries to recruit in various ways, one of which is offering tuition assistance. So it makes sense to me that high school grads who had no other way of funding college would enlist. I tried to find stats on why people enlist on the internet, but couldn't. If you have such info, please post.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
The Clinton administration promised to spend money in South Africa to combat AIDS, and failed to uphold that promise with even a single dollar. They sure did appreciate the photo op, though.

While I agree it was a lot less than it should've been, and that the Clinton administration did f*ck it up, I have to point out that Clinton did raise the overseas AIDS budget from $123 million to $340 million. It's not the amount that they promised, nor the amount everyone wanted, but it's over $200 million more than the previous Bush administration.

The Bush administration promised to spend money in South Africa to combat AIDS, and has spent and will spend a total of $15 BILLION USD over the next five years.

This is coming from a man who thinks AIDS is a "gay plague." Only $350 million of that "promised" $15 billion is going towards HIV/AIDS prevention. Bush also withheld an additional $250 million for sex education classes and planned parenthood meetings, as well as opposed teaching about the use of condoms in existing educational curriculum.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Well, my understanding is an enlisted person starts off at the lowest rank, private, whereas an officer is someone with a rank of Lieutenant or higher. Am I close?

Officers require a 4-year degree, are appointed the President, and make the decisions. They're the ones who decide who does what and have the highest level of responsibility.

Non-comissioned Officers (or Enlisted) do not require a college education, is purely voluntary and unassigned, and don't make any command decisions. Their job is to report to their superiors and have them make the decisions. The only jobs they can hold is grunt work.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voyageur:
Well, my understanding is an enlisted person starts off at the lowest rank, private, whereas an officer is someone with a rank of Lieutenant or higher. Am I close?

And please let me make it clear that I'm not trying to insult you or anyone in the military, I'm trying to learn here. I know that the military tries to recruit in various ways, one of which is offering tuition assistance. So it makes sense to me that high school grads who had no other way of funding college would enlist. I tried to find stats on why people enlist on the internet, but couldn't. If you have such info, please post.

Right. Officers are college graduates. They therefore come from a somewhat different background than enlisted folk. It's not necessarily that they come from a more privileged background (though some do). It's more often that they come from a slighty different cultural background. They are also older on average (an extra four years). But officers are only a small minority of people in the military. The vast majority are enlisted.

Robert Heinlein wrote an interesting observation in one of his books. He observed that when civilians without military experience imagine themselves in relation to military persons, they always see themselves as officers, rarely as enlisted. It's very true, and enlisted people notice this, and tend to be a little sensitive about it. When you make a comment about people joining because they don't have any better opportunities in life, you are insulting the most significant commitment of their lives, and you are insulting them. I'm sure you don't mean to, but it is insensitive.

Enlisted people tend to be shortly out of high school. Not always, but that is the tendency. In many cases, a good part of the reason why they enlist is in order to get money for college. But that isn't all of it. You shouldn't fall into the middle class trap of thinking that everyone who doesn't go to college right after high school is too poor to do otherwise. Lots make a concious or unconcious choice not to go to college directly from high school. Opportunity or lack of parental pressure may be part of it, but there can be other reasons. Perhaps a feeling that they aren't ready for college, or an impatience to get out in the world and do something real. There are really very few things that you can do with yourself at age 18 that are more significant or more honorable than volunteering for your country. Don't discount the patriotic or service incentives. People by and large don't join the military only for the financial incentives, and resent the assumption that they do. Whether you meant it that way or not, it's patronizing and people don't like to be patronized.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Non-comissioned Officers (or Enlisted) do not require a college education, is purely voluntary and unassigned, and don't make any command decisions. Their job is to report to their superiors and have them make the decisions. The only jobs they can hold is grunt work.

That's really a gross exaggeration. The grunt work is done by enlisted soldiers below the rank of sergeant (or Petty Officer). Non-commissioned officers are the "backbone of the Army." They are the managers that hold the military together. Not only do they make often the most critical command decisions in battle, but they also manage the workforce. In civilian terms, you can think of them as personnel managers. They also train the military -- including the officers -- and maintain the equipment (along with the less experienced ranks below them). The people who keep F-16s in the air, and multimillion dollar tanks in the field are far from doing "grunt work."

Unassigned is also wrong. Enlisted soldiers each have a military occupational specialty. They are trained in some field depending on aptitude and choice. It may be a combat field, or it may be a technical specialty. Or it may be a combination of both. Those training courses take anywhere from 8 weeks to a year or more to complete. Most are probably around 3 months long and are generally a combination of classroom instruction and hands on training. Most can qualify for college credit. NCOs receive advanced training at various points of their careers.

Maybe there should be a draft, just to dispel some of these ignorant ideas.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
While I agree it was a lot less than it should've been, and that the Clinton administration did f*ck it up, I have to point out that Clinton did raise the overseas AIDS budget from $123 million to $340 million. It's not the amount that they promised, nor the amount everyone wanted, but it's over $200 million more than the previous Bush administration.



This is coming from a man who thinks AIDS is a "gay plague." Only $350 million of that "promised" $15 billion is going towards HIV/AIDS prevention. Bush also withheld an additional $250 million for sex education classes and planned parenthood meetings, as well as opposed teaching about the use of condoms in existing educational curriculum.

HOW DARE YOU.

You have quoted so poorly that the reader cannot tell who you're insulting by claiming someone thinks AIDS is a 'gay plague.'

Which do you mean to disparage? Me, or Mr. Bush?

Because neither is true.

[voyageur]

With all due respect Simey, I think you are being a bit oversensitive about the opportunities issue. You're assuming a bit much about my attitude, and I find that quite patronizing in itself. I've known enough people in the military and they're people like anyone else, no better, no worse.
I would very much like to see stats on why people enlist. They don't seem to be easy to come by, though.

[ebuddy]

Just to touch on the topic at hand;

Stradlater, I understand you wanting to vote for Kerry and that you may be mildly disenchanted with the two options, but the botom line for me is;

These are compelling times. I believe Kerry sends mixed messages Internationally. I believe while he may have a platform domestically, he's not disseminating it. I know spending is through the roof and our borders are porous, I believe this is a real problem. Kerry's ambiguous policies do not suggest he'll change the only two aspects I'm really concerned about with Bush. If I thought Kerry could exact real change on those two fronts, I'd be more likely to swing his direction, but I don't believe he could or would. Nor is he talking about it, not at his convention, not on the campaign trail.

While I personally disagree with homosexual behavior, I think the government should stay out of it, but this is not something I'm willing to oppose or support fervently. I lean away from Bush on this one as I believe we were endowed by our Creator with freewill. I can only imagine God wanted it this way so man could make a choice between the ways of the flesh and the earth, or the ways of God. I don't believe man should turn this around to take freewill away from man on his own. All in all however, not a voting point with me.

I know Bush scared some folks with his speech the other night and made many believe he's bent on imperialism. The sad fact of the matter is this; If we don't take it to them now, they will surely take it to us later and with greater numbers. I don't want to "react" to an attack here in the States as Kerry suggests, I want to hinder it. Bush's message to the world is clear, we won't tolerate terrorism that seeks to influence legislation through fear and he's acting on that policy whether you agree or not. Bush's opposition seems to believe and pretend the threat will just "go away on it's own". I believe the threat is real, is growing, and has to be removed.

I believe Bush's oppostion would not have the economic angle to their argument had it not been for 9/11. Estimates suggest the cost to NewYork City alone was $95 Billion and over a million jobs were lost throughout the U.S. within months of the event. In the following two years after 9/11, a total of 3 million jobs were lost and since then unemployment has started working it's way back down. It's now at .02% less than it was during Clinton's administration in which Clinton claimed the economy was at an "all time high." You can say, well we still have a deficit of jobs and we're not where we want to be! I say to you, this is not a swift boat, it's the SS America and nothing turns on a dime. I find our economic situation in America today as incredibly successful considering and I'm very optimistic about it's future! To the extent that the Commander in Chief directly affects unemployment numbers, he's done all he can do.

As for me and my house, we're voting 4 more years.

Now on to Simey's points; I'm a much more pathetic case, but before I discuss that...

By Simey; You could also imagine in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 something similar could have happend, had a mass Army been required

The good news is, after 9/11 people were volunteering their lives to military service in droves! I was watching the news last night regarding the waning threat of Frances to Florida; in times of trouble-American's reactions are uniquely American in that we jump swiftly to help those in need, risking our own lives. While other people's react as well, it seemed to the journalist with experience abroad that the magnitude of our reaction is unique in these cases. Good posts as always Simey!

Now about how pathetic I was;

About 18 years ago, I had long hair, a chain-wallet, Iron Maiden concert T on and walked into the Marine Reserve Recruitment Center here in town. Why? Because I wanted adventure and an opportunity to earn respect. I Love my country, but the primary reasons I wanted to join were purely selfish. I wasn't even thinking of a college education-though I didn't have money to fund my own. Boy was the recruiter all over it. I was going to be jumping out of helicopters, driving tanks, scaling down mountain-sides, etc...and he was closing me out hard! He kept trying to get that signature. I told him I wanted to discuss this opportunity with some confidants. Then I talked to my brother, two friends of mine serving in the military, and my sister's boyfriend. They all told me, "you'll be cleaning guns." "you'll sign all of your rights away as a citizen." It now occurs to me while all they said may have been true in the beginning, you can get out of it what you put in. I would be close to military retirement right now at mid 30's with military pension. Oh well. Now, with wife, two daughters, flat-feet, and a nasty smoking habit-I may be more effective sitting here writing you all. Moral of my story? Join. Serve your country. Serve your selfishness. In time, you will have reaped rewards you could've only imagined. If you put in that is.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Which do you mean to disparage? Me, or Mr. Bush?

Not you. George Bush appointed Jerry Thacker as one of his presidential advisories to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Jerry Thacker believes that AIDS is a "gay plague," that they're living a "death-style," and that only Jesus can save them. It's also co-chaired by numerous other people who can't stand strongly enough against the homosexual "death-style."

Bush would not appoint these people if they did not share similar interests with him. Given Bush's crusade to amend the constitution and refuse certain civil liberties to an entire population and the type of people he's appointed to his HIV/AIDS councile, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Bush would also see AIDS as a "gay plague."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Jerry Thacker believes that AIDS is a "gay plague," that they're living a "death-style," and that only Jesus can save them.

It's not just a "Gay plague" it's a "sexually promiscuous" plague.

I would say that if you are living such a lifestyle in this day and age, it is "Death Style"

Jesus can't hurt them.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by ebuddy:

About 18 years ago, I had long hair, a chain-wallet, Iron Maiden concert T on and walked into the Marine Reserve Recruitment Center here in town.

You may have changed through the military, but let's hope you have taste in music.
If something terrible happens in 3 or 4 years, I'd join. I'm not much athletically, but unlike alot of this board, I have some patriotism left in me. I'd give up 4 years of my life to help the cause.

IMO, anyone who engages in alot of promiscuous sex lives a death style.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's really a gross exaggeration. The grunt work is done by enlisted soldiers below the rank of sergeant (or Petty Officer). Non-commissioned officers are the "backbone of the Army." They are the managers that hold the military together. Not only do they make often the most critical command decisions in battle, but they also manage the workforce. In civilian terms, you can think of them as personnel managers. They also train the military -- including the officers -- and maintain the equipment (along with the less experienced ranks below them). The people who keep F-16s in the air, and multimillion dollar tanks in the field are far from doing "grunt work."

I didn't mean to insult anyone. And yes, it is a gross exaggeration. However, you're wrong about the sergeant. It is their job to report to their commanding officer and to carry out the officer's orders. Under normal circumstances, petty officers do not make command decisions, ever. The sergeant will do the firing, but it is the officer who tells him to do it, and it is ultimately the officer's responsibility. A petty officer may be required to make a command decision if, and only if, communication can not be established with an officer. A sergeant may give advice, voice an objection, tell the officer he's crazy for doing something, but the ultimate decision still lays with the officer.

Being an aviation or auto mechanic is still grunt work, no matter how you swing it. That doesn't mean they're any more or less important than an officer. As you said, they are the backbone of the army, and they help keep the army functional. By association, it's the type of work that enlisted men due that earned them the title of "grunt," hence, "grunt work."

Unassigned is also wrong. Enlisted soldiers each have a military occupational specialty. They are trained in some field depending on aptitude and choice. It may be a combat field, or it may be a technical specialty. Or it may be a combination of both. Those training courses take anywhere from 8 weeks to a year or more to complete. Most are probably around 3 months long and are generally a combination of classroom instruction and hands on training. Most can qualify for college credit. NCOs receive advanced training at various points of their careers.

I used the wrong word. The above is correct.

Maybe there should be a draft, just to dispel some of these ignorant ideas.

That'd be great. And when you're a sergeant and decide to attack an establishment without your superior's consent, let me know what happens.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Not you. George Bush appointed Jerry Thacker as one of his presidential advisories to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Jerry Thacker believes that AIDS is a "gay plague," that they're living a "death-style," and that only Jesus can save them. It's also co-chaired by numerous other people who can't stand strongly enough against the homosexual "death-style."

Bush would not appoint these people if they did not share similar interests with him. Given Bush's crusade to amend the constitution and refuse certain civil liberties to an entire population and the type of people he's appointed to his HIV/AIDS councile, it's not unreasonable to conclude that Bush would also see AIDS as a "gay plague."

I don't know much about Mr. Thacker, but what I can find seems to indicate that he wants to help victims of HIV/AIDS being one himself.

Cutting and pasting from four different biographies:

Recently Jerry was part of a quasi-governmental team that, along with Shepherd Smith, visited Uganda to research the effective HIV/AIDS reduction program going on there. He was a signatory on the report that prompted President Bush to ask for $15MM in aid for Africa in 2003.

His book, When AIDS Comes Home, is the story of how he and his family have dealt with HIV/AIDS contracted as a result of a blood transfusion given to his wife in 1984. Jerry, his wife Sue, and their daughter Sarah are all infected with the virus. The couple also lost their 16-year-old son to pneumoccal meningitis in 1995. He was not HIV infected, but he was affected by what was going on in the family he loved so much.

Back to me:
Did he come from a religious background? Did he turn to religion? Sure, a lot of people do when crisis strikes their family. But it doesn't seem to have prevented him from working for AIDS prevention. He isn't pushing prevention and treatment for only those who contract the virus through transfusion, he's pushing for prevention education and treatment regardless of who the sufferer is.

Do you disagree with his early 1986 association of homosexuals and the virus? Sure. Does he still hold that view? Quite possibly, but it hasn't prevented him from working with compassion for sufferers of this virus. Mr. Bush's re-routing money to be more effective in the fight against AIDS and assigning new money to the fight is partly attributable to Mr. Thacker and his report.

As I said, I don't know anything more about the man, and won't attempt to defend him, but assigning whatever Mr. Thacker's viewpoint is to Mr. Bush is a reach. Or isn't it possible that Mr. Bush just found an effective worker for AIDS prevention who had written a convincing report on AIDS and Uganda, and chose to appoint him. Not all appointees are marching in lockstep with the President, and that is as it should be. Their personal beliefs can be very different from the President's and this makes them more valuable to him than surrounding himself with yes-men would be.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
I don't know much about Mr. Thacker, but what I can find seems to indicate that he wants to help victims of HIV/AIDS being one himself.

Now that he's a victim, sure. Before it was f*ck the gays, it's their problem. Funny how becoming a victim yourself can change your point of view. Now his daughter's dead and his wife is sick, he's miraculously reformed and wants to help people inflicted by this disease (by this non gay disease, mind you. Wouldn't want people to think he's gay.)

It isn't fair to say that's only how he is, because that's how most people are. If it doesn't effect them, why worry? Most people don't give to charities to help find a cure for (insert disease here) unless it has effected them personally in some form or another.

I'm guilty of it myself with my Mom and when she went through chemotherapy for her breast cancer. Suddenly I was aware of all the issues with cancer, how to prevent it, went to cancer workshops, worked with people, etc. Before that, I don't think I gave a single penny to cancer research.

After that happened I realized, unremarkably, that here's an easier way to cure most diseases rather than just worrying about the ones that effect you personally. After I read an inspiring story about stem cell research and returning 80% mobility to mice with cerebral palsy, figured that I'd concentrate my time and money towards helping the development of stem cell research. Later that year there was breakthrough in removing specific proteins similar to mad cow and Alzheimer's by "programming" stem cells to attack the proteins (the problem with proteins is that your body doesn't know to attack them if they're harming you. That's why there's no cure for mad cow and Alzheimer's.) The same tactics could be used in cancer research, HIV and AIDS, diabetes, and tons more. It's not a cure-all solution, there never will be. But it's a huge step.

I see people like Bush opposing stem cell research because of religious beliefs, oppose the use of condoms because of religious beliefs, tell people that the only cure for AIDS is through abstinence (a lot of help abstinence was for Thacker's daughter) because of his religious beliefs, then hires people who share those beliefs (and people who follow it even more)... not because any of those decisions are practical, but because he thinks his god tells him so.

$15 billion to Africa as long as they don't buy condoms, don't have sex, and don't use that money in stem cell research to create a vaccine that could cure them all. I guess they could always use that money to buy a gun and a bullet for every man, woman, and child infected so they can shoot themselves. Not like it can get any worse for them, they're all godless homosexuals going to hell anyway.

[vmarks]

$15bn teaches people what causes them to contract the virus, and pays to treat them so they don't have to suffer the effects of it. Medication costs. Teaching people that they can die a horrible death if they engage in unprotected sex without a care about who they engage with costs. You may not like that the policy isn't something akin to 'flood the country with condoms and then go home' but it's a policy that has done far more than ever done before for that area of the world, for that problem.

So then you go off the deep end on stem cell research, when the Republicans have supported stem cell research. You read that right.

Embryonic stem cells have killed most of the animals they've been tested on. Using embryonic stem cells in humans would be disastrous, and if current research is any indication yield no positive benefit.

Listen to what Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke told the Washington Post: ‘People need a fairy tale,’ he said, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that [embryonic] stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. He added ‘Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.

Look to adult stem cell research--which has yielded many clinical successes- In fact, Sam Brownback, R-Kansas and speaker at the RNC 2004 has been a major proponent of adult stem cell research. http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64221,00.html - of course, people are upset that embryonic stem lines aren't supported by that bill or the administration, because people have been led to believe in the 'fairy tale' as per McKay (see above)

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp

[CreepingDeth]

Here's another article I found a couple weeks ago from the Washington Post.

As far as AIDS in this country, here's a suggestion: Don't. Have. Sex.
Seems pretty safe if you're afraid.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
As far as AIDS in this country, here's a suggestion: Don't. Have. Sex.
Seems pretty safe if you're afraid.

You don't even have to be celibate. Just stick with one person. And request they do the same.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
You don't even have to be celibate. Just stick with one person. And request they do the same.

True. Good point. But still, my focus on all the kids today. My God, the numbers on 15 and below sex are incredible. Here's a revision:
No dates with needles.
No dates with people who think getting AIDS is sexy.
No dates with the freaky people at school.
No dates with pervs, rapists, child molesters, murderers, NAMBLA members, etc.

That seems a little better.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by vmarks:
$15bn teaches people what causes them to contract the virus, and pays to treat them so they don't have to suffer the effects of it.

You're still wielding the $15bn. Tsk, tsk. We haven't given nearly that amount.

[Spoogepieces]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Here's another article I found a couple weeks ago from the Washington Post.

As far as AIDS in this country, here's a suggestion: Don't. Have. Sex.
Seems pretty safe if you're afraid.

No, it's better to let people have multiple partners and engage in bizarre sex acts and let the rest of us pay for their diseases.

Frankly, I don't know why we should spend a dime on AIDS research since it is punishment for doing the wrong things.

[Zimphire]

Not in all cases. Just because someone is doing something wrong (we all do) doesn't mean we shouldn't try to save them.

[CreepingDeth]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Not in all cases. Just because someone is doing something wrong (we all do) doesn't mean we shouldn't try to save them.

But it should be recognized that they did it to themselves. It's not like Cancer. Besides, AIDS can a disproportional amount of funds compared to the number of dead and money for heart disease, cancer, etc.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
But it should be recognized that they did it to themselves. It's not like Cancer. Besides, AIDS can a disproportional amount of funds compared to the number of dead and money for heart disease, cancer, etc.

I certainly do not feel sorry for horny morons who cannot control themself and contracted the disease because of their stupidity, but I do believe that research should still be conducted inorder to find a cure, because there are innocents involved also, such as small children contracting the disease or other people contracting the disease through bad blood transfusions etc.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
I didn't mean to insult anyone. And yes, it is a gross exaggeration. However, you're wrong about the sergeant. It is their job to report to their commanding officer and to carry out the officer's orders. Under normal circumstances, petty officers do not make command decisions, ever. The sergeant will do the firing, but it is the officer who tells him to do it, and it is ultimately the officer's responsibility. A petty officer may be required to make a command decision if, and only if, communication can not be established with an officer. A sergeant may give advice, voice an objection, tell the officer he's crazy for doing something, but the ultimate decision still lays with the officer.

Being an aviation or auto mechanic is still grunt work, no matter how you swing it. That doesn't mean they're any more or less important than an officer. As you said, they are the backbone of the army, and they help keep the army functional. By association, it's the type of work that enlisted men due that earned them the title of "grunt," hence, "grunt work."



I used the wrong word. The above is correct.



That'd be great. And when you're a sergeant and decide to attack an establishment without your superior's consent, let me know what happens. [/B]

You realize I used to be a sergeant, right? Please don't try to correct me about a job I have held. Thank you. I know what an NCO does, and I know what the responsibilities are, including the responsibilities as combat commanders of small units. Your description is a good one for the Soviet Army, but it isn't how NCOs operate in the US forces.

I also used to be a grunt. The word "grunt" refers specifically to the infantry. It's not a rank thing. "Grunt work" isn't really connected to being a grunt. In fact, real grunts are rather proud of being grunts.

[vmarks]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
You're still wielding the $15bn. Tsk, tsk. We haven't given nearly that amount.

Tsk, yourself. It's the total amount intended to give over time. olepigeon even used it in his reply. Would you prefer I say $204m per year since announced? Nice of you to ignore what he and I were discussing and focus on that which has already been covered.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by vmarks:
$15bn teaches people what causes them to contract the virus

Why do you keep saying that? They're not getting $15 billion.

So then you go off the deep end on stem cell research, when the Republicans have supported stem cell research. You read that right.

Some Republicans support stem cell research. The most important figure in the Republican party, the President, does not. There are more notable Republicans like Nancy Reagan who want the President to reverse his decision, but he's not going to because God told him so and he has at least 51% of Congress behind him.

Embryonic stem cells have killed most of the animals they've been tested on. Using embryonic stem cells in humans would be disastrous, and if current research is any indication yield no positive benefit.

That's why most research is tested on animals first, approved by the drug administration, then trial tests on humans proceed. It's called testing. Stem cell research is in its infancy, and it needs money and support to mature.

Listen to what Ronald D.G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke told the Washington Post: ‘People need a fairy tale,’ he said, explaining why scientists have allowed society to believe wrongly that [embryonic] stem cells are likely to effectively treat Alzheimer's disease. He added ‘Maybe that's unfair, but they need a story line that's relatively simple to understand.

He said that using the stem cells to actually repair the damaged parts of the brain is probably one of the least likely treatments for Alzheimer's. To actually generate brain tissue and repair the brain is just not feasible at this time, and yes, the majority of organizations are guilty of not making that clear.

However, detecting Alzheimer's at an early state, then creating specialized cells to attack the proteins causing it is a very plausible and reachable goal. Early detection and proper treatment can remove the threat, but not reverse the damage as people would like to believe. The brain is just too complex that actually repairing the damage is not something that will happen soon, if ever.

Look to adult stem cell research--which has yielded many clinical successes- In fact, Sam Brownback, R-Kansas and speaker at the RNC 2004 has been a major proponent of adult stem cell research. http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,64221,00.html - of course, people are upset that embryonic stem lines aren't supported by that bill or the administration, because people have been led to believe in the 'fairy tale' as per McKay (see above)

The problem is acquiring enough of them in an unadulterated state. Adult stem cells from the liver, spinal column, etc. are very limited and hard to extract, and there are not nearly enough of them to conduct proper research. Scientists simply need more sources.

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp

Yes. Adult stem cells can be found all over the body. Often, however, those stem cells can only be engineered into one form or another for the specific region of the body from which they were extracted, and not into any tissue like the stem cells found in embryos. The frequency of adult stem cells that can be used for other tissues in the body are rare. The other problem, as I stated above, is that there are just so few of them that it makes it nearly impossible to do proper research.

If you're only allowed to extract stem cells from 9 specific places in the body, what do you do about the thousands of other ares? If only a small fraction of adult stem cells extracted from those areas can be used for other parts of the body, how are scientists ever going to enough stem cells to do proper research?

What I don't understand is why people are against embryonic stem cell research in the first place? If the embryos are going to be literally thrown away into the garbage (Literally! They're thrown away! Into the garbage!), why not use them to potentially save billions of lives?! Don't you think your God would approve of that? If you consider embryos children, and they're being murdered, why not use their deaths to save people?

[vmarks]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Why do you keep saying that? They're not getting $15 billion.

They are, just not in a lump some, and not all new money, but redirected money from where it may not be needed any longer. We've been over this, and you can't stand the notion that the larger number might actually be true, over time.

A good abstinence presentation is frank, thought-provoking, medically accurate, and interactive. It is "in your face" bold about condoms, sexually transmitted diseases, strategies for staying abstinent, the consequences of premarital sex including physical, mental, emotional, and social effects. It talks about marriage and relationships and how to tell the difference between love and infatuation.

Some Republicans support stem cell research. The most important figure in the Republican party, the President, does not. There are more notable Republicans like Nancy Reagan who want the President to reverse his decision, but he's not going to because God told him so and he has at least 51% of Congress behind him.

And there are Republicans like Michael Reagan who know that the President's decision is the right one, and has nothing to do with G-d.

Here's where you go off into buying into the myth that embryonic stem cells are the answer. They are not.

Adult stem cells are, and the President has not limited that research.

The problem is acquiring enough of them in an unadulterated state. Adult stem cells from the liver, spinal column, etc. are very limited and hard to extract, and there are not nearly enough of them to conduct proper research. Scientists simply need more sources.

Yes. Adult stem cells can be found all over the body. Often, however, those stem cells can only be engineered into one form or another for the specific region of the body from which they were extracted, and not into any tissue like the stem cells found in embryos. The frequency of adult stem cells that can be used for other tissues in the body are rare. The other problem, as I stated above, is that there are just so few of them that it makes it nearly impossible to do proper research.

If you're only allowed to extract stem cells from 9 specific places in the body, what do you do about the thousands of other ares? If only a small fraction of adult stem cells extracted from those areas can be used for other parts of the body, how are scientists ever going to enough stem cells to do proper research?

Are you sure you understood the link I posted from nih.gov? The beauty of stem cells is that they are not assigned to what sort of cell they will become. An adult stem cell from the nasal area can be used elsewhere on the body. A stem cell from one region is useful elsewhere. Even the researcher quoted saying embryonic cells are a fairy tale has said that adult cells are the ones that are useful. Besides, embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are different, and using one to research simply because they're potentially more widely available will not cast any light on the other variety.

What I don't understand is why people are against embryonic stem cell research in the first place? If the embryos are going to be literally thrown away into the garbage (Literally! They're thrown away! Into the garbage!), why not use them to potentially save billions of lives?! Don't you think your God would approve of that? If you consider embryos children, and they're being murdered, why not use their deaths to save people?

It's wasteful to spend federal money on something that has already shown evidence of being a useless money pit. There is nothing that prohibits private spending on such research, but as for federal spending? Perhaps not, when it's shown to kill every animal tested on.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
They are, just not in a lump some, and not all new money, but redirected money from where it may not be needed any longer. We've been over this, and you can't stand the notion that the larger number might actually be true, over time.

A good abstinence presentation is frank, thought-provoking, medically accurate, and interactive. It is "in your face" bold about condoms, sexually transmitted diseases, strategies for staying abstinent, the consequences of premarital sex including physical, mental, emotional, and social effects. It talks about marriage and relationships and how to tell the difference between love and infatuation.[/b]

What you fail to note is while abstinence is very effective (the most effective)... it's application is by far the least effective.

By far every study has shown condom education to lead to a reduction in risky activity... where abstinence hasn't.


There was a time where modern medicine said the best way to prevent illness was to avoid ill people... we dumped the sick into pits, later we dumped them into shanty towns outside civilization... leaving nothing but a few priests to care for them... civilization never did get over illness. New people kept contracting disease.

Then modern medicine said washing, and sanitary living (sewers not crossing with drinking water, washing hands, clean operating rooms) were the better method. Using protection rather than obstaining (which is extremely hard to do in real life).

And shockly... disease died down.

Abstinence never did work, and most likely never will work. Religions and societies have went as far as mutiliating genitals in hopes of having it work... but it doesn't.

Ultimately, only medication would make abstinence effective (remember the book "the giver"). A teenage body is going to produce enough hormones to make the individual inclined for sexual activity. Since the natural life for most of human civilization was into the mere 30's. To raise a child, one must start having children at 15-17.

Unless you alter the chemistry of puberty (as some already do, as the medication does exist... or through removing sexual organs associated with puberty... though extremely controvercial).... it's doomed to fail.

Abstinence will never work, as it never has. And good luck trying to pass a law requiring all young adults to take medication or having surgery. Fat chance on that ever passing. Hasn't happened since removing the testicles of masturbating school boys in the middle ages.

And there are Republicans like Michael Reagan who know that the President's decision is the right one, and has nothing to do with G-d.

The president himself said it's a decision strongly influenced by religion... so there's nothing else to say here.

Here's where you go off into buying into the myth that embryonic stem cells are the answer. They are not.

Adult stem cells are, and the President has not limited that research.

Are you sure you understood the link I posted from nih.gov? The beauty of stem cells is that they are not assigned to what sort of cell they will become. An adult stem cell from the nasal area can be used elsewhere on the body. A stem cell from one region is useful elsewhere. Even the researcher quoted saying embryonic cells are a fairy tale has said that adult cells are the ones that are useful. Besides, embryonic stem cells and adult stem cells are different, and using one to research simply because they're potentially more widely available will not cast any light on the other variety.

Actually the research is way to limited on embryonic stem cells to say they don't work. All we know is that the potential is much greater do to many favorable characteristics. *The reason the funding is requested*

It's wasteful to spend federal money on something that has already shown evidence of being a useless money pit. There is nothing that prohibits private spending on such research, but as for federal spending? Perhaps not, when it's shown to kill every animal tested on.

You know how many animals died through the ages as organ transplants were tried? You know how many animals died testing modern day pain killers for cancer patients? Any idea how many animals died perfecting corinary bypass and other not routine surgery?

Most doctors who created these amazing procedures based their work on what other doctors did with farm animals. Quite a few famous medical figures did their research on animals.

Since the middle ages, until fairly recently, the idea of using anything less than a proven procedure on a patient, no matter how dire the situation was unthinkable. Now we have people willing to try artificial hearts because they know they are so close to death... real patriots willing to help by sacrificing themselves for testing.

Only a few decades ago that wouldn't have been allowed.


Organ transplant has been something medicine has considered the holy grail of medicine since B.C. It's something many spent their entire lives working on in vain.

But now it's approaching the point of becoming routine surgery. Some already are. Heart is not quite, but things like cornea transplants are (my father is the recipient of 3, as one rejected after several years).

Do you want to even guess how many animals the procedure was tested on with no positive results?



If were going to test to your standards, we might as well give up on cancer and AIDS. If were going to look that briefly at every avenue, it's a lost cause. Perhaps everyone whose donated to such causes should request refunds?

[vmarks]

but we no longer transplant sheep testicles under the skin of the upper torso as a fix for impotency (a practice in the 20s and 30s) - do you suggest that it simply needs more funding and it will be proven useful?

http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_m...200166,00.html

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4286

http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/basics/basics4.asp

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by vmarks:
but we no longer transplant sheep testicles under the skin of the upper torso as a fix for impotency (a practice in the 20s and 30s) - do you suggest that it simply needs more funding and it will be proven useful?

But modern medicine shows that's ineffective.

We have nothing to show embryonic stem cells aren't effective. There's actually many reasons to believe we could develop technologies to harness their capabilities.

They just have very minimal testing.

But we have no problem spending millions of dollars researching erectile disfunction.