Kill this Monster

[osupistolwhip]

I'm certainly on board with Goldwater economics.

However, I'm WAAAY out in left field on social issues.

Thats why I can't stand so many of today's republicans.
Their taking away all my freedoms and making me pay them to do it!

Actually, I think we might see a third party run this year depending on who wins the Republican primary. If McCain wins, a hardcore social conservative like Brownback or Huckabee could run as a third party. On the flip side if a hardline moral conservative somehow won, I think McCain or Guliani could run third party.

At this point it seems more likely we will se Guiliani or Mitt Romney.

Haven't quite made up my mind about Romney yet, still trying to get some more info.

 

[steross]

Look at Goldwater's history on social issues. I suspect you would not be that far "left" of him if by left you are meaning valuing personal freedom.

Sounds like you and I are probably pretty similar.

 

[osupistolwhip]

I don't know man . . .

If you are in your house . . .
about the only thing you can't do is beat people and look at child porn.

You want to have your two wives assist with your suicide while smoking crack and downloading a bit torrent of the X-rated version of Tin Drum . . you get right on it. Just do it in your own house.



I'd say thats a bit left of Goldwater and 99% of people.

 

[zachya]

I just don't understand all the uproar over the minimum wage. I've had four no-skill, no-experience jobs in my life, and only one paid mimimum wage (or anywhere close to mimimum). Quite frankly, there was no reason I should've been paid more to wash dirty pizza pans.
I notice help wanted signs all over the place (okay, slight exaggeration) on my way to and from work. Hell, 7-11 is always looking for more people, and they start right around $10/hour.
BTW, what happened to minimum wage legislation in Congress earlier this year? Hell, what happened to the 100-day agenda??

 

[apollo883]

BTW, what happened to minimum wage legislation in Congress earlier this year? Hell, what happened to the 100-day agenda??

Thankfully it kind of fizzled out, I think.

Sorry, just had to push this a little back to the right.

 

[ctaggie]

Yep, the House and Senate both passed legislation raising the minimum wage to whatever ... 7.15 or 7.25 ... can't remember ... but they're hassling over how much slack to cut the small businesses ... Senate wants something like 8 billion tax subsidies for small business and House only wants 1 billion ... or vice versa. Anyway, they've not yet agreed on that 7 billion difference. When they do, we ought to get a higher federal minimum wage.

Sidenote ... roughly 65-70% of the population lives in states that have a higher minimum wage law than the current fed law. All the big populations states ... except Texas ... have higher state minimum wage laws.

 

[Donnyboy]

All you Goldwater talkers on here HBO has a documentary on his life called "Mr. Conservative" done in large part by his family.

They have repeated it a few times or I am sure there is a DVD somewhere......it's worth the time on your TiVo

 

[osupistolwhip]

Thankfully it kind of fizzled out, I think.

Sorry, just had to push this a little back to the right.

No problem man.

Just give us some reasons next time. Keeps the debate interesting.

 

[apollo883]

No problem man.

Just give us some reasons next time. Keeps the debate interesting.

Well to start, raising the minimum wage won't have the effect that some are wanting, I think. It will likely move the poverty line higher, not move people above the poverty line. Either some buisnesses will hire less people, will cut hours, or raise prices on goods/services. Any of those affects are the opposite of what is desired. (yes, I know the thought is that the profit margin should be cut, but revenue will be made up from more people having more money, but I doubt this is reality)

Second, I heartily oppose more federal funding for embryonic (sp?) stem cell research. It is my understanding that little to no headway has been made in this research, just promises which have no science to back them up. Adult stem cells have proven promising in several cases; why not focus on them? Or if some want this funding, why not pour the money that has been used to lobby for it straight into the research? There is nothing preventing that. I am generally not for government funding something controversial like this; if enough people care about it, they should be able to raise the funds to do it privately. Heck, since it seems that several Hollywood types care, have them donate some of their sizable income.

Just my two cents on a couple of the issues they were trying to address.

 

[osupistolwhip]

Second, I heartily oppose more federal funding for embryonic (sp?) stem cell research. It is my understanding that little to no headway has been made in this research, just promises which have no science to back them up. Adult stem cells have proven promising in several cases; why not focus on them?

I read a student essay today about stem cell. He pointed out that invitro fertilization wastes 9 out of every 10 embryos. Currently those embryos are just being tossed out. We could be using that for stem cell research as we speak.

Also, the reason we don't hear about breakthroughs in stem cell is that it is happening in other countries. America is WAY behind on this technology and we really need to get over it and invest some more reseach funding in it.

The essay was actually quite convincing, epecially for an undergrad.

 

[steross]

We should not fund research into embryonic stem cells because little to no headway has already been made? Even if that is true, that is not a reason not to research something. Little or no headway in the past does not mean that you should not pursuit results in the future. Many research successes are born from prior failures. Have you ever looked at the wide variety of basic science research the government funds? Very little of it becomes an actual human therapy. Why pick this particular scientific subject to decide is not worthy based on past results? If you want to oppose it because your view is that it is doing research on a potential human life then fine, make that case. If you want to oppose federal spending on scientific research in general because it is not an appropriate use of your tax dollars, you can make that case too. But, unless you are a federal science grant reviewer, don't veil your moral concerns by complaining that it could not be useful science.

 

[osupistolwhip]

Wow,

Well said Steross!

 

[apollo883]

We should not fund research into embryonic stem cells because little to no headway has already been made? Even if that is true, that is not a reason not to research something. Little or no headway in the past does not mean that you should not pursuit results in the future. Many research successes are born from prior failures. Have you ever looked at the wide variety of basic science research the government funds? Very little of it becomes an actual human therapy. Why pick this particular scientific subject to decide is not worthy based on past results? If you want to oppose it because your view is that it is doing research on a potential human life then fine, make that case. If you want to oppose federal spending on scientific research in general because it is not an appropriate use of your tax dollars, you can make that case too. But, unless you are a federal science grant reviewer, don't veil your moral concerns by complaining that it could not be useful science.

I can make the cases for a moral arguement, but I was going to try and stick with something a little more objective. Are you aware of any treatments that have come from embryonic stem cell research? To my knowledge, there haven't been any. If we wish for the government to fund something, I think we should have some idea that it will work first. At least wait until we have some proven results from the private sector before we pour millions to billions of dollars on something that will not work; otherwise, keep funding something we know does work, like adult stem cell treatments.

 

[steross]

I can make the cases for a moral arguement, but I was going to try and stick with something a little more objective. Are you aware of any treatments that have come from embryonic stem cell research? To my knowledge, there haven't been any. If we wish for the government to fund something, I think we should have some idea that it will work first. At least wait until we have some proven results from the private sector before we pour millions to billions of dollars on something that will not work; otherwise, keep funding something we know does work, like adult stem cell treatments.

You have that backwards from what actually happens. The basic science research is typically done in university labs often using government grant funding. Private industry does not usually get involved in this type of research, there is little likelihood of a profitable product. Industry funds or does research nearer to product completion. For example, when I was an undergrad at OSU many years ago I assisted in a lab that was studying vitamin A metabolism in chickens. This was done with a government grant as there is no likely product coming out of that research. Does not mean it was not worthy science. If we depended on private industry to do the base research, most would not happen. What private company is going to do basic research for years then hand the results over to the government to finish as you propose?

When penicillin was accidentally discovered it was a great antibiotic. Now, there is significant bacterial resistance and its use is more limited. We have to use an assortment of antibiotics in different classes. If you would have been alive in the 1950s, would you have advocated that the government limit funding in antibiotic research to penicillins, since none of the others had yet proven efficacy? The millions and billions of dollars spent by the government are what create the result. Rarely do you get the results early on.

Again, the government already funds billions in "unproven" basic science. Why did you pick this particular basic science to take your objective look at? My guess would be on moral grounds. If it is on moral grounds, then you cannot look objectively at the scientific value anyway. That fact that you are only comparing it to adult stem cells and not all of the other basic science competing for these funds is not an objective look.

 

[apollo883]

You have that backwards from what actually happens. The basic science research is typically done in university labs often using government grant funding. Private industry does not usually get involved in this type of research, there is little likelihood of a profitable product. Industry funds or does research nearer to product completion. For example, when I was an undergrad at OSU many years ago I assisted in a lab that was studying vitamin A metabolism in chickens. This was done with a government grant as there is no likely product coming out of that research. Does not mean it was not worthy science. If we depended on private industry to do the base research, most would not happen. What private company is going to do basic research for years then hand the results over to the government to finish as you propose?

When penicillin was accidentally discovered it was a great antibiotic. Now, there is significant bacterial resistance and its use is more limited. We have to use an assortment of antibiotics in different classes. If you would have been alive in the 1950s, would you have advocated that the government limit funding in antibiotic research to penicillins, since none of the others had yet proven efficacy? The millions and billions of dollars spent by the government are what create the result. Rarely do you get the results early on.

Again, the government already funds billions in "unproven" basic science. Why did you pick this particular basic science to take your objective look at? My guess would be on moral grounds. If it is on moral grounds, then you cannot look objectively at the scientific value anyway. That fact that you are only comparing it to adult stem cells and not all of the other basic science competing for these funds is not an objective look.

Alright, I will admit I am more of a fan of private research than government funding. Yes, yes I know that possibly leads to the privitization of several government programs, but I don't know that that would be a bad thing. I think it would be better if we were able to keep more money and put that into programs we wished. Other problems exist with this though, so I'm not going to push the matter. But I used embryonic stem cells as an example that many find quite controversial and would not want their tax dollars going to. I am unaware how many felt penicillin or chicken metabolism was controversial, but I think there is a significant enough chunk that have qualms about this research that their money should not have to go and fund it.

In never said there was not some moral arguement here, but it is not just personal. Nor did I say that I looked at this subject objectively; I was just posing a more objective arguement, since any arguement on values would likely get sticky in a hurry. I don't think anyone can look upon any subject with total objectivity; everyone brings presuppositions to any idea. But I think moral objections to scientific research should not just be dismissed. Otherwise, we would have just continued some of the work the Nazis were doing. There has to be a limit somewhere. Where would you propose this limit being set?

 

[steross]

The Nazis are a perfect example of my point. I have in the past reviewed some of their research. I have massive moral objection to their methods. But, IF you could exclude the barbaric method, some of the research is pretty enlightening. So, I see the moral objection as a separate issue. You seemed to be justifying your moral position by advocating that there is better research out there anyway. I don't think the quality of the research has any bearing on the morality.
I think the limit is being very well defined. There are medical ethicists and/or Institutional Review Boards that have to approve any research. Embryonic research is not a subject that I have spent much time reviewing myself. But I would have to think that moral concerns would need to be raised at the point of creation of the embryo that will be discarded, not with the research itself.
Regarding privatizing, much of this research has no readily available product to sell. "Privatizing" would just mean it would not happen, except in cases where universities self sponsored. Think about something like field biology, there is a lot of science but very few practical consumer applications.

 

[apollo883]

The Nazis are a perfect example of my point. I have in the past reviewed some of their research. I have massive moral objection to their methods. But, IF you could exclude the barbaric method, some of the research is pretty enlightening. So, I see the moral objection as a separate issue. You seemed to be justifying your moral position by advocating that there is better research out there anyway. I don't think the quality of the research has any bearing on the morality.
I think the limit is being very well defined. There are medical ethicists and/or Institutional Review Boards that have to approve any research. Embryonic research is not a subject that I have spent much time reviewing myself. But I would have to think that moral concerns would need to be raised at the point of creation of the embryo that will be discarded, not with the research itself.
Regarding privatizing, much of this research has no readily available product to sell. "Privatizing" would just mean it would not happen, except in cases where universities self sponsored. Think about something like field biology, there is a lot of science but very few practical consumer applications.

Maybe privatizing was the wrong word; if there are individuals who care about a subject, they should be able to donate to or raise money from like-minded individuals. As there are many who seem to care a lot about embryonic stem cells, including many wealthy, raising money for at least some research shouldn't be that big a problem. How was any research done before governments gave out money in the first place?

As for science for science sake, I don't really understand what the point is. If there is little use in the information, what is the reason for the research? I am for utility driving science, but not utility at all costs. Hence, what was learned from some of the Nazis could be useful, it should not have been researched in the first place, at least with their methods.

I also do not see moral objection as a separate issue. My values system and worldview influence everything in my life. I do not understand how that isn't the case for someone else; my guess is they are unaware of it doing so.

 

[steross]

Research prior to government funding was rudimentary. The expensive equipment required to do modern research did not exist at the time. Science was something of a hobby for many.

"Science for science sake" is not really possible. "Science that currently appears to be for science sake" would be more accurate. When Watson and Crick discovered DNA in the 1950s it would have been easy to say, "Interesting, but so what." Now 50 years later we have sequenced the entire genome. 50 years from now it is possible that we will have no more useful information than that. It is also possible that we will have developed cures for all genetically based disease. But, that is 100 years after "so what."

Some guy researching pygmy snail shell size somewhere in Tanzania may find nothing interesting. Most would not want to fund that. But he may also find that the snail shell size exactly correlates with the quality of the water. That could create a low cost water test for 3rd world countries and save human lives. Our society, through voting, has determined that these type efforts are worth some tax dollars. If you feel otherwise, then vote for candidates that would not support research.

I agree with you on private funding to some extent. In fact, I gave $1200 dollars last year to a private local researcher studying Orangutan population loss in Malaysia. I also give $250 each year to my residency's research fund. But I am realistic enough to know that type of goodwill will never completely replace government funding. It takes both.

When I said morality as a separate issue, I was referring to separate from the quality of the research. Meaning, the quality of the research is not the driver of my moral compass. You agreed with that in regards to the Nazis.

 

[Donnyboy]

Appollo maybe you just sit the next few out......