Alcohol is a depressant. In small quantities, it creates a feeling of euphoria by stimulating the release of endorphins and dopamine. It also tends to decrease inhibitions, and impairs judgment. Under the influence of alcohol, you do things you normally wouldn't.
And you say things you normally wouldn't say, at least, out loud.
There's nothing in the biochemistry of alcohol metabolism to suggest that it makes you lie, and say things you don't really mean. In fact, it's the exact opposite. By relaxing inhibitions and depressing critical thinking skills, those under the influence are much more likely to say what they really mean, instead of hiding it under some politically correct facade.
So when you hear Mel Gibson's apology:
I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested, and said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable.
Realize he's telling at best a half truth.
Yes, what he said was despicable.
And yes, Mel, at some level, you do believe it's true.
When Israel targets the launch location of Hezbollah rockets and kills civilians, the international community blames Israel for being overly aggressive and bloodthirsty.
When Hezbollah launches rockets into Israeli cities deliberately targeting civilian population centers, the international community declines to blame Hezbollah, because, well, I'm not exactly sure why nobody blames Hezbollah.
The easy answer is "Well, after all, they're only killing Jews," and we know how the world community feels about that.
Another easy answer is "Well, they're Arabs, and you know how those people can be."
Is the answer really as simple as overt/covert racism, or is there another dimension to this dementia?
How about cultural decadence? Moral cowardice? We have become so sensitive and so afraid of giving offense that we are no longer willing to differentiate between the deliberate targeting of civilians and collateral damage. Sure, innocents are dead in either case, but doesn't motive matter?
I think it does.
In the past, civilians were legitimate targets. Tokyo. Dresden. London. Hiroshima. Atlanta. Destroying the enemy's will to fight by bringing the fight home to them was a part of war.
In the last 60 years, we've moved away from that. We see war as a business between professional armies, leaving the civilian population relatively safe. Unfortunately, not all combatants follow the new way of warfare. They still believe in total war.
To the knife.
So here's Israel, fighting an enemy that believes there are no non-combatants, being held by the international community to a higher standard of behavior than their brutal enemy.
Hezbollah fires rockets that kill civilians indiscriminately and the world yawns. Israel kills civilians in the course of fighting back, and the world condemns them for it.
If you remember, a little while back, I wrote about a court case in Virginia. A 16 year old boy and his parents decided to pursue alternative treatment for his Hodgkin's Disease after conventional chemo gave only temporary improvement.
A social worker decided that the boy and his parents had no right to decide what was best for their family, and promptly filed suit to have the boy removed from his parents and forced to undergo treatment.
Well, the decision is in.
Juvenile court Judge Jesse E. Demps has ruled that the boy must undergo chemo as prescribed by his doctors, and that his parents were being neglectful by supporting his decision, so they must continue to share custody with the county Social Services bureau.
Can you imagine that? This is wrong on so many levels, it's hard evn knowing where to start.
I've argued this before, and most folks tend to disagree. Of course, it's usually religious parents and the alternative therapy is prayer, so the objectors throw out a few buzz words like "fanatic" or "ignorant hicks" and go merrily about their business. I then warn that if the state has the right to interfere, soon, it won't just be in the case of religious folks.
And here we are.
A 16 year old can be tried as an adult, and sentenced to prison for life, or given the death penalty. If they're responsible enough for that, then aren't they responsible enough to make decisions about their health care?
Not in Virginia, they aren't.
And a parent only has rights when he chooses to exercise those rights in accordance with the wishes of some unelected county bureaucrat.
And there are still people who think this is a good thing.
Did I change any minds?
Probably not.
Did I cause anybody to at least think about it?
I hope so, but I'm not all that optimistic.
This is an issue where people make up their minds, then refuse to re-examine their decision. What makes it even harder is that ESC research is being so heavily sold as a miracle cure for what ails you, which pulls hard on the old self-interest lever. After all, we all know somebody who has suffered and possibly even died from one of the many ailments that researchers claim ESC's will cure, if only the Fed would fund the research.
So why do I do it? Knowing that I'm probably not changing any minds, why do I keep writing about ESC research, and why it's so very wrong?
It sure ain't to win friends, I'll tell you that much. All the cool kids are all for it. Say you're against ESC research, and not only are you an ignorant, hyper-religious luddite standing in the way of progress, you're also a cruel, inhuman monster that wants people to die just to protect a small lump of undifferentiated tissue.
I guess it's the Don Quixote in me.
People ask those of us against ESC research if we would refuse treatment derived from ESC if it would save our lives.
I would.
But ask me if I would refuse to allow my child to be treated, and you would probably get a different answer. My self interest would triumph over my ethical principles.
But that doesn't mean my ethics were wrong, now does it? Nope, just that I'm a typical human, weak and imperfect.
I think what gets to me the most is the hypocrisy inherent in the whole debate.
It's not really a life; it's just a lump of tissue. We can use it however we want without ethical qualms. But for God's sake let's not make it on purpose and harvest it! That would be icky.
Ask yourself why it's ok to harvest cells on a retail basis, but not a wholesale one. Why is it icky?
Iraq. Iran. North Korea. Syria. al qaida.
So, does it bother anybody else that the only issues being discussed by the lead Republican candidate for the Senate are gay marriage, abortion, and judicial activism, while the Democrat candidate apparently thinks that high gas prices are the biggest problem facing America right now?
I know, I know, you all hated those questions on the SAT, but bear with me; unlike the SATs, this actually has meaning.
To solve the riddle, let's look closely at Lebanon. Lebanon has a weak central government, one that is unable to extend it's influence throughout the entire country. As a result, Hezbollah, a very small minority of the Lebanese population, controls the southern border, where Lebanon and Israel meet. Hezbollah has also managed to eke their way into a minority position in the government, meaning that when they act unilaterally, they still manage to implicate the entire Lebanese government.
What that means for the average Lebanese citizen is that the depraved actions of a small minority can put the rest of them in grave danger.
Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it?
If we pull out of Iraq too soon, we're creating the exact same conditions there as exist in Lebanon right now.
And we see how that's turning out.
Let the troops finish the job, then we'll talk about coming home.
A quick trip through the libertarian blogosphere shows that I'm pretty much standing alone on this one. But that's OK. Copernicus stood alone, as did Galileo.
I can live with that kind of company.
But I do have a question for all my libertarian friends who want to see federal funding for ESC research expanded.
If an embryo is not a person, just a lump of tissue, and destroying it is A-OK if it leads to cures for all kinds of horrible diseases, then why isn't it A-OK to create fetuses specifically for doing the research? Tissue is tissue, whether created by accident or on purpose, so why would the Senate vote 63-37 to expand ESC research, but 100-0 against fetal farming?
Either it's a person, or it's a lump of tissue. Make up your minds and act accordingly.
Picture this. In some lab somewhere, Dr. Cureall discovers a way to use embryonic stem cells to treat Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases. The cure is 100% effective when used in the early stages of the diseases, and is moderately effective in reversing the ravages of the diseases even with late use. You now have a patient pool of hundreds of thousands of people, all of whom want the cure right now.
Where will we get the embryos?
Either farming, or by cranking up the abortion rate. There's no other answer. Either we create fetuses specifically for research and therapy, or we start to encourage abortions. If culturing existing strains can't keep up with the demands of research, then I highly doubt it will be able to keep up with the demands of ongoing therapy. And I'm only talking about 2 potential therapies. Throw in heart disease therapies, or kidney repairs, and the patient pool explodes in size.
Do the math, folks. If we start down this road, farming fetuses is the only efficient way to generate enough material to keep up with the eventual demand.
Are you A-OK with that?
It's the Kelo decision all over again, only this time it's written in the blood of our unborn children. Take a piece of private property and give it to somebody else and the libertarians cry out in outrage. Take the life of an unborn and give it to somebody else, and they applaud.
I cut off most of my hair yesterday. The doctor said I needed to lose weight, and that was easier than dieting.
I don't know what I'll do for next week. Short of some radical shaving, I've about exhausted the possibilities.
I could trim my toe nails...
My son Adam leaves today for BCT at Fort Leonard Wood.
Pride and concern make for a very uneasy heart.
Life begins at conception.
If you don't believe me, don't ask a priest; ask a biologist. It isn't a religious decision, it's a scientific one.
Here's the short version.
First, throw out all supernatural notions, including the idea of a soul. We're talking about good old-fashioned rigorous science. In the world of science, identity boils down to one thing, and one thing only.
DNA.
You are your DNA and your DNA is you. It's better than fingerprints. Not only does your DNA identify you, it defines you as well. How tall you are, what color your hair is, what color your eyes are, how you perceive the world; all of these things are determined by your DNA. In fact, some go so far as to argue that your DNA actually determines not only how you think, but what you think as well.
Given that DNA identifies and defines an organism, then the only logical conclusion is that as soon as a new DNA pattern emerges, the bearer of that pattern is a new, unique organism. This occurs at conception, therefore life begins at conception.
Like I said, check with a biologist if you don't believe me; you won't find a reputable one who disagrees.
Now, what they will say, in one way or another, is that personhood is separate from identity, and that the newly created organism may be human, but it isn't a human until it has a brain. Or until that brain passes through the vaginal canal. Or some other more or less arbitrarily defined moment.
But personhood is no more a scientific concept than is the soul, and we agreed to leave that soft stuff out of this. It's a legal fiction, used at different times to justify slavery, as well as genocide.
Probably not the best guidepost to be using here, eh?
So science tells us that life begins at conception. What does this mean for embryonic stem cell research? Simply that if we proceed, we're cannibals, devouring our young for our own benefit.
Probably not the optimum survival strategy when you think about it. Darwin would not approve.
And that's the science. I didn't have to bring God or morality into it at all.
I could go on, and talk about how few (zero) ESC treatments have actually worked, and how many ASC therapies are already in use. I could talk about the experiments showing that ASC can be coaxed into pluripotency, if not totipotency. I could talk about the benefits of autologous ASC transfers, and how they avoid immune system complications. I could talk about all of these things, but the core is still the same.
A species which cannibalizes its future to enhance its present will soon discover for itself where the dinosaurs went.
Alexander that is.
A few weeks back, the Senate voted to build a wall and beef up our border security. On that vote, Sen Frist said NO, but Sen "Lamar!" said YES, demonstrating his commitment to protecting America.
Or just posing for the cameras.
Today, the Senate opposed including the money to actually build the fence in the latest appropriation for DHS, and this time, Alexander joined with the majority, saying NO.
You know, I disagreed with Frist's vote both times, but at least the man had consistency. He said no to building it, and no to funding it. Alexander, on the other hand, is looking to claim he supported the fence without actually, you know, supporting it.
It's got to be hard to be lamer than a lame duck, but Sen Alexander has managed it.
The following has been cleaned up and formatted just a bit to make it easier to read.
EB=Ed Bryant
VH=Van Hilleary
BC=Bob Corker
HF=Harold Ford
OK, they're blathering their prepared closing remarks now. Here are my impressions:
But I don't like him. He's slick, not substantial. I'm listening to him right now and he's still using the same tactic of saying he doesn't want to be negative while simultaneously attacking Hilleary and Bryant. What turns me off can be summed up by his commercials claiming that Chattanooga property taxes are the lowest they've been in 50 years, implying that he cut taxes.
But when pinned down, he admits he never did.
I don't like deceptive tactics.
I did like what he said during the post debate interview, about needing to send somebody to Washington who won't need training wheels. Corker is trying to score points off of Hilleary and Bryant having been in Washington, and Hilleary turned it back on him with that remark.
I wish he'd managed to get it into the debate.
I was leaning towards Ed Bryant after the first debate, but his answer to the final question really bothers me, particularly in light of all that has happened over the last couple of days. The person we send to the Senate has to understand that events in the Middle East have to be our top priority, followed closely by immigration reform.
I still like Bryant, but based on the current state of the world, I'm probably going to vote for Hilleary.
As I did during the last debate, I'll be watching this one to see if the candidates actually say anything interesting. Unlike last time, I'll be watching from home. I didn't want to fight the west Knoxville traffic, and I didn't really care to be shown hunched over my laptop with a camera slung around my neck.
Of course, the drawback is I won't get to see Christine Jessel again...
I was over at McKay's bookstore the other day and I saw a bumpersticker on a car in the parking lot that read
If war is the answer, then it must have been a stupid question!
So here are some stupid questions:
Yep, those are pretty stupid questions alright.
It's good to know that there are limits to how far our college professors are willing to go in the pursuit of academic freedom. For example, while it's perfectly OK to say that the folks in the WTC were "little Eichmanns" who probably deserved to die, we certainly can't stand for a librarian recommending a right wing book! Why, that would be harassment!
And certainly, having a professor on campus who teaches that 9-11 was a BushCo conspiracy is the mark of a truly open institution of learning, as is stealing the entire press run of the campus conservative newspaper. After all, freedom of expression is reserved only for those who say what we want them to say, right?
This is a copy of an e-mail I just sent to my Congressman.
Like he really cares....
Sir,
When we elect representatives to go to Washington, we send them to represent our will, not to impose their will on us. No legislation should be passed that inhibits the freedom of the people, unless that freedom directly infringes on the rights of others.
By that criteria, your vote on HR4411 was absolutely wrong.
The Constitution empowers Congress to protect the citizenry from enemies foreign and domestic, not themselves. Every law you pass that attempts to protect us from our own actions chips away at our personal autonomy. The justifications for this bill, that some people have a gambling problem, that gambling is immoral, can be used to ban or regulate nearly every facet of human behavior.
Sugar is deadly to diabetics; should we ban it?
Aspartame is deadly to those suffering PKU; should we ban Diet Coke?
Fast food is unhealthy; should we ban it?
If your answer to these questions is "No," then you realize the logic behind your vote is deeply flawed.
But it gets worse.
If gambling is so corrosive to our society that it must be banned on the internet, then why were exceptions made for horse racing and lotteries? It seems a bit hypocritical to allow the States to promote internet gambling, but not private companies.
This bill was garbage, and you supported it, and that will be remembered come election time.
just the time to say them in. So here's a quick catchup post
Their dedication and sacrifice is truly inspiring, isn't it?
Poor deranged Cindy Sheehan writes that
I find traveling out of the country very challenging being on a fast. When I was on a layover in Madrid on my way to Venice, Italy yesterday, the closest thing I could find to a smoothie to get a little protein was a coffee with vanilla ice cream in it.
Her dedication and gutwrenching agony is so moving that I almost don't have the heart to point out that vanilla ice cream and coffee are not sources of protein.
Does anybody else find it odd that a 16 year old girl can elect to have an abortion without her parents knowledge or support, but a 16 year old boy can't choose what course of treatment he wants for his cancer?
It only makes sense if you realize that in both instances, the state is overruling the basic rights of parents to raise their children.
Israel is behaving exactly as anybody would predict; they're fighting back. Hard. It looks like there may even be a formal declaration of war in the very near future. Given that Iran and Syria have a mutual defense pact, if Israel attacks Syria, we can expect Iran to get involved. And if Iran gets involved, what will we do?
North Korea. Iran. Lebanon. Syria. Pakistan. And Israel.
The conflict is going global.
We've all heard them a lot, lately. Folks on either side of the political debate talking about how they simply can't stand to be around people on the other side. Conservatives even have their own dating website, so that they don't have to worry about meeting somebody who might be a gasp liberal! The ideological divide has grown so deep, that for some, it is impossible to bridge even socially.
And it isn't just politics. Segregation has once again become a hot topic, although this time it is the minorities clamoring for separate schools and such. They want to maintain their cultural identity. Immigrants coming to the US have always formed their own communities, where they could bring a little of the home country with them, but until recently, they all wanted to become part of America. Now, it seems that many of them look at America as a place to live and work, not a home.
We're becoming a society divided by our differences instead of united by our commonalities, and we're weaker for it.
How is it that in a time when we're being bombarded with messages about inclusiveness, tolerance, and "Can't we all just get along?" that we're fast becoming the Disunited States of America?
I think that part of the problem is that we've allowed those values that once made America great to fall into disrepute. Today, you're much more likely to hear patriotism denigrated rather than praised. We push reliance on the government over independence. We push conformity over individualism. We actually punish people for being different.
We've lost the meaning of the word tolerance. For most of us, tolerance extends only so far as our own beliefs allow. For example, for most people, bigotry and prejudice are bad things, and we work to avoid them. In fact, we work so hard to avoid them that we have actually criminalized their very expression. A man can be scrupulously fair in his dealings with people of all races, but if he voices his opinions, he is punished, not for what he does, but what he believes.
Is this tolerance?
Let's take a look at another man, also a bigot. He shuns the object of his hatred, ans works to shut them out of his life totally, using the law wherever possible. He speaks out against them, calling them names, and making sure that those people know exactly how he feels about them.
A pretty reprehensible character, that one, eh?
But isn't that exactly how we treat him?
If we only extend tolerance to folks we understand and agree with, then we're no different than our hypothetical bigot. The only difference is the target of our intolerance.
Christians have a saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." It's an idea we would do well in adopting in our daily life. For example, I'm dead set against illegal immigration; I think it represents a tremendous threat to our country on several levels. However, I don't hate those who are here illegally, nor do I wish them harm. I understand the forces that drive them to come to the US, and the forces that drive American companies to employ them. Another example, I have several folks in my family who are very prejudiced, based both on the way they were raised, and their life experiences. Some of them feel guilty about it, others believe they are absolutely right in how they feel.
Should I condemn them as bigots, and refuse to associate with them?
Heck no! They're family, and that cuts through a lot. And even if they weren't family, they're good people, despite their flaws, and I would be a poorer person without them. Lord knows, I have my own set of flaws, and none of them have walked away from me because of them.
I guess the point I'm trying to get at is that tolerance only counts when it's hard; when the person is so different, or his beliefs are so antithetical to your own that you really have to work to accept him for who he is, instead of trying to change him or shut him up.