Third Party & Independents: Archives

A national sales tax would not necessarily be regressive. It would be a danger in which the feds might just tack it onto existing taxes, and would be difficult to engineer into a non-regressive structure, but I think it’s knee-jerk and partisan of you to dismiss it outright as regressive.

Journalistic sources just seem less credible when they’re anonymous. “An anonymous insider told me that Bill Clinton used to do it with 12 year-old boys at the Michael Jackson ranch!” Mmmmmkay, and who might that source be? “I AIN’T TELLING!” It’s wrong for judges to get involved in that though. Just let it lose the credibility capital that it does, when it’s anonymous like that.

Cloning is not necessarily the Rosetta Stone of medical research, but it is petty and backward to ban it. Both sides are wrong in the extremities of that argument, but generally the religious fundamentalists are more wrong. You do know, don’t you, that Clinton signed the original U.S. ban? My what a short memory we have. We as a nation have ADHD, it seems.

Nuclear waste does have to be dealt with, and this will be even more necessary as we eventually get a clue and migrate to hydrogen as a vehicular fuel. It takes energy to isolate it out of the water, and that spells “NUKULAR (sic)”.

You’d think three layers of lead containers, something like that, would suffice. In such containers, for a price, I’d store them in my own basement. I wouldn’t even charge hundreds of millions of dollars—just a couple million is all (gotta save the taxpayers money somehow).

I do think you’re spot on in the left/right debate over the economy. As I said before, it’s all “tastes great versus less filling”. Even most of Europe has a clue and attempts to splice the two concepts—and they’re not exactly early adopters of good ideas. Then again, that might be the problem, for those on the right. Europe likes the blend a little TOO much for their taste, LOL.

As for reinventing intelligence, via the 9/11 Commission, that’s political for both sides of the one mindless mainstream party. Each side wants to be seen as the one most eager to “do something”. Blah blah blah. Prepare to hear more happy horse caca than you can imagine, in the coming election debates. Ironically though, most of the intelligence budget is secret, so we the people don’t even know what the mainstream party is debating ABOUT, in the particulars. Don’t you feel safe now?

Potential civil liberties abuses are never a good idea. To any Republicans reading out there: can you imagine if Clinton could jail you just for reading the Drudge Report, back during his administration? Hmmmmmm?

The thing about illegal aliens is, the Democrat side of the mindless mainstream (I’ll just call it the MM for short) loves them because they have a perception that all those illegals will vote Democrat if you just offer them a bit of baksheesh (an insulting and racist proposition, but there you are—it’s worked for the D-side of the MM in the past). The R-side of the MM can’t wait to HIRE them all to work in their planta—er, factories. (Hide the whips while the camera crews are visiting the facility!) And so there you have it. The MM in general just wants lots and lots of immigrants, with no restrictions. Again: don’t you feel safe now?

Yes, the MM is all about the government magic. They just dicker over which flavor of the government magic should be used over the next four years. “Corporate Welfare or turning the inner cities into Slave Quarters this coming quadrennium? Hmmmmmmm… let us cogitate!”

We were and are for the moment great and powerful.

We just benefitted from a huge credit card limit after World War II is all. Now we have to figure out how to pay those bills.

We are indeed reinventing the 1860’s if we the voters do not become harshly anti-incumbent at the polls regarding candidates who seek to divide Americans rather than unite us in surmounting the obstacles to our future greatness and strength.

By this you voice support for Kerry, and ironically hold a mirror up to your own face for the sort of people exacerbating division in the U.S.

To rise above a binary division in a nation, said nation needs to choose “neither of the above”. Minnesota did it. The result wasn’t perfect, but proved, if nothing else, that it could be DONE.

Great comments, Ciggy. Thanks for joining in. You are right to a degree about the mirror. The one difference is my call for the people to hold representatives responsible - given them the boot for 9/11. Give them the boot, for 7 Trillion dollars of debt. Give them the boot again and again until they get over their divide and conquer politics and espouse bipartisan plans that will truly, effectively, and in the long term, deal with national security (read borders) and the debt (read, end the deficits without sacrificing our future).

Oh, I forgot my big point. They are dividing us, the voters, in order that they may win. We need to turn it around so that we divide them from us until they show their intent for us all to win. Give them the boot!!!

Tah Dah!

On the cloning ban. It is stupifying that Americans will on the one hand demand capitalism and free enterprise and on the other ban human cloning. The contradiction is like the grand canyon. If one believes in the invisible hand of free markets and supply and demand, one must predict that where there is a demand, a supply will be created.

This is precisely what is wrong with unbridled capitalism. It will never ask “should we”? It will only ask if it can be profitable. Should we is an ethical decision that capitalists are incapable of making where there is a demand and a profit to be made.

I am opposed to human cloning. I am not opposed to human cell or replacment parts cloning. But one cannot be both opposed to the idea of cloning and an unbridled free market capitalist. The congitive dissonance of such jointly held concepts gives me a migraine. Hence I am opposed to UNBRIDLED capitalism as well as human being cloning. Hence, the migraine goes away.

How many aspirin are the rest of you taking these days?

David, when rephrased as you did, then I’m on board with your flavor of “give them the boot”. For a minute there I thought you were just parroting the Sorosean party line of “just switch out Bush and everything will be okay”. That alone, among the D-side of the MM, makes my skin crawl, and I’m glad to see you don’t buy into it.

Regarding cloning, I believe in some government regulation in reasonable areas, but I don’t think cloning is a reasonable area. I liken it to if the government were to propose banning body piercing or tattoos. What the hell business is it of theirs?

David, it rings a little hollow to complain about how “they” are trying to divide us when you yourself so blatantly mischaracterize and misrepresent events.

Bush never endorsed, and certainly never proposed, the sales tax idea—he said it was interesting, perhaps something worthy of study when asked about it. So there was nothing for his aides to pull him back from. They merely clarified, when asked if Bush was proposing this, that he wasn’t. Clarifying a point which is actually quite obvious to anyone with ears is not evidence of Bush being manipulated and reigned in by his aides—the partisan picture you’d like to paint for you own political motives. So who is being divisive here?

Even worse is your allegation that the State Department (as opposed to some Democratic representatives) “agrees” that our voting system is broken. There is absolutely nothing in the link you provide to substantiate that claim—so again, you are basically adding your own divisive interpretation to facts that aren’t there.

If you read your link, you’ll see this: “OSCE members, including the United States, agreed in 1990 in Copenhagen to allow fellow members to observe elections in one another’s countries.”
This is a long-established protocol from before Bush was president—not some State Department emergency measure because our voting system is broken. In fact, your link has NOT one mention of anyone in the State Department saying anything close to what you say. I see no defense for your statements here. If you’d care to offer one—since your links contradict instead of support you—then you deserve to be heard out. Otherwise you are fibbing shamelessly—and compounding the error by calling others “divisive” for reasons founded on those very fibs.

> perhaps something worthy of study
> when asked about it

Perhaps? More like “ought to explore seriously”

> This is a long-established protocol

It looks to me that even though we signed that OSCE agreement in 1990, that 2002 was the first time they ever came here to observe, a direct result of our voting difficulties in 2000.

Are you seriously arguing that our voting system is fine and dandy?

-Cf

Ciggy, my concerns about human being cloning have to do with notions of replacement identities. If one is able to take a great mind and substitute it with a cloned one conditioned to use its mind according to the will of others, a classic case of slavery is developed.

If one is able to clone human beings, it blows future security protections out of the water with replicant retina’s and fingerprints and DNA. A black market for cloned identities will indeed be created.

If cloned human beings achieve bloodline family status through which family wealth can be passed, monarchies and royal families will be established in what otherwise could have been a democracy of individuals each with their own unique foibles and gifts.

Then we can get futuristic like in Star Wars with cloned armies. Unless and until some concensus on these issues can be reached, I don’t believe this genie should be let out of the bottle. For just as certainly as we now live in fear of a dirty atomic bomb going off in neighborhood near us as a direct result of inventing the A-bomb, human cloning could threaten the core of our social and public lives if we do not carefully contemplate and achieve concensus about whether we “should” permit human clones.

Martin, I provided the links to reference headlines about rehashing, changing, and reinventing. I do not claim that those stories support my interpretation of what they mean, nor, do I necessarily interpret those linked stories the way the author’s of those headlines do.

They point to a lack of responsible leadership and willingness to tackle the big issues that we all face in common.

As for the tax code, I have to wonder if you even read the linked story, Martin.

From the link:

Conservatives have pushed for the administration to do more to overhaul the tax code, with some calling for either a so-called “flat” income tax or some variation of a federal sales tax.

Bush and his senior aides have suggested that overhauling the tax code would be a second-term priority if the president is re-elected. And Bush said at the Florida meeting: “We’re working to simplify the tax code.”

combined with :

The flap was prompted by an exchange between Bush and a supporter who asked during a town-hall meeting in Niceville, Fla., about Bush’s position on legislation for a national sales tax.

“He’s talking about getting rid of the current tax system and replacing it with a national sales tax,” Bush told his audience. “It’s an interesting idea. You know, I’m not exactly sure how big the national sales tax is going to have to be, but it’s the kind of interesting idea that we ought to explore seriously.”

My quote from my article states “President Bush commented about looking into a regressive sales tax…” So would you mind pointing out how what I said is misleading toward some political agenda, as you put it?

Methinks you make much ado over the facts in the attempt to cast doubt on them as facts. A tactic which has little value or impact on me as you can see.

CF, I think Martin is attemtpting obfuscate in order to blunt the effect of the article on his favorite candidate. Of course, our electoral system is in trouble. It is a democracy. And the experts are trying to tell us that a margin of error of a few percent across the nation is both unavoidable and inconsequential. Each and every eligible American who votes has the right to demand that their vote be counted honestly and accurately.

Yet the headlines of late indicate that the electoral system in 2004 is no better off, and possibly worse off than in 2000. Seems to me a bunch of folks are simply trying to rationalize their right to rig elections by defending slop in the system as unavoidable.

David, you might want to pare off the science fiction out of your research sources about cloning. If you don’t fear the existence of TWINS (who each have the same DNA), then you should have nothing to fear of CLONES—which would be like a twin sibling only born at a different time than the cloning DNA source. He or she would completely have a mind of their own in almost all ways, although there is probably a likelihood of some intuitive affinity between the source and target clone pair.

The religious fundamentalist argument against cloning is an extension to what is ridiculed in Monty Python’s “every sperm is sacred”, meaning, that if you produce life without benefit of spermatazoa, then it’s a sin. How these people manage to hold reputable scientists in their sway, does indeed give Europe plenty of valid ammunition with which to mock us. I join in that mockery, on this topic. (Not so much in divisions regarding how to fight terrorists, but in this subject, I’m absolutely in Europe’s camp.)

If one is able to clone human beings, it blows future security protections out of the water with replicant retina’s and fingerprints and DNA. A black market for cloned identities will indeed be created.

You could just as easily do the same with twins today. If you re-watch the Manchurian Candidate enough times, you might even begin to fear that everyone around you is a corporate robot and you’re the only normal person in your city. I’ll feed into your paranoia because it’s fun: muwahahahahahahahahaha!

Seriously though, there’s no reason cloning can’t be tracked and regulated to ensure against abuse.

If cloned human beings achieve bloodline family status through which family wealth can be passed, monarchies and royal families will be established in what otherwise could have been a democracy of individuals each with their own unique foibles and gifts.

All the more reason to absorb all inheritances into a National Life Insurance program, as we’ve previously discussed.

Then we can get futuristic like in Star Wars with cloned armies.

And we can stymie all robotics research for fear that it will produce robotic armies. To quote an SAS sergeant who was trying to teach me the proper way to fire a Walther PPK in a kill-house: “You’ve been watching too many movies, mate!”

And Bush said at the Florida meeting: “We’re working to simplify the tax code.”

Gee… that’s SO horrible! Oh my gawd, I simply MUST vote for Kerry NOW! Complication! Fetch us hither thine Holy Obfuscation in thine Laws, O Lord!

I don’t agree with the sales tax approach, but I do note that a flat tax (the right approach IMHO) is also on the table. Where’s Kerry’s plan? Oh yeah, that’s right—more shelters for his wealthy buddies as he pays lip-services to NOMINAL increases in the tax RATE which are MEANINGLESS to those who can shelter their income through creator/donor trusts, et al.

Each and every eligible American who votes has the right to demand that their vote be counted honestly and accurately.

And you’re saying the Republicans advocate dishonesty and inaccuracy, and with a straight face claim not to be a partisan hack for the D-side of the MM?

> And we can stymie all robotics research
> for fear that it will produce robotic
> armies.

I’m with you on one level Ciggy: It’s futile to try to stop science. People will clone themselves. Worse, people will genetically engineer their children and their clones. I have almost no doubt that, within two generations, there will be a dramatic difference in the health, intelligence, and lifespan (not to mention height, visual acuity, dexterity, and blue-eyed-blonde-ness!) of the children of the rich and the children of the poor. We’re talking Huxley here, Alphas and Deltas.

This is where I start to lean towards David. Will it be good for society as a whole when, 50 years from now, the children of 5% of the population (the portion that already controls, what, 50% of America’s wealth?) suddenly becomes a class of 7+ foot tall, 200+ IQ, 150+ year lifespan superhumans, while the rest of us limp along as normal Homo sapiens?

Back to my “its futile to stop science” point, because I want to add a final spin to it: Over the past 60 years, the world has managed reasonably well to keep nuclear weapons from expanding beyond a handful of nations. But, I fear, this particular suppression of science will start to fall apart soon, and we’ll see not only North Korea and Iran go nuclear, but, within 30 years, I predict, darkly, that probably another dozen countries will do the same. This is not to say that the last 60 years were futile, though. It’s better that Egypt gets its nukes in 2027 instead of back in 1967. So I come back to David again: we should take it slowly.

I have a certain (minimal) sympathy with Bush’s reluctance to go whole-hog into stem cell research, and I definately have a more substantial sympathy for the cloning ban. We’ve got to take this slowly, I think, but we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that we’re ready for this stuff to just explode into society overnight to whatever degree the free market would bear.

-Cf

> And you’re saying the Republicans
> advocate dishonesty and inaccuracy

Let’s just say there’s a discernable difference between the Democratic party’s commitment to improving our voting system and the Republican Party’s commitment to improving our voting system.

-Cf

CF,

not to mention height, visual acuity, dexterity, and blue-eyed-blonde-ness!

Hitlerian fiction aside, blue-eyed blondness results from recessive genes as a reaction to unusual environmental conditions. You need not fear a blue-eyed, blonde planet here in the real world.

We’re talking Huxley here, Alphas and Deltas.

We already have Huxley here. And the Gammas go on Springer. Haven’t you noticed? For “Soma”, try… Ritalin! There is no new thing under the sun.

Will it be good for society as a whole when, 50 years from now, the children of 5% of the population (the portion that already controls, what, 50% of America’s wealth?) suddenly becomes a class of 7+ foot tall, 200+ IQ, 150+ year lifespan superhumans, while the rest of us limp along as normal Homo sapiens?

With the recent observances that we are led by a poor sap with the IQ of a chimp in the White House, one would think an IQ boost of the patrician class would be welcome. How quickly the fickle change, even before the wind direction.

7’ tall? Having visited Japan in a 6’5” body, I can tell you that nobody would want to be lumbering around with a bruised forehead from getting it smacked in doorways whenever one forgets to duck. Being this tall is overrated. Try driving a car, for example.

It’s better that Egypt gets its nukes in 2027 instead of back in 1967. So I come back to David again: we should take it slowly.

As overcautious as we will probably be in reacting to nuclear proliferation after Bush’s big cry of WMD Wolf, I think it’s likely Egypt will get “nukular” as early as tomorrow morning and we’ll still be listening to Hans Blix’ assurances that there’s no there, there. So sleep soundly.

Remember: Russia still has nukes, and they’re not exactly our best buddies, even after the symbolic drop of the Hammer and Sickle.

The world never was “safe”, and it never will be. But it will probably also not end as soon as we all fear, because that would just put our species out of its misery, and where’s the existential nausea in that?

I have a certain (minimal) sympathy with Bush’s reluctance to go whole-hog into stem cell research, and I definately have a more substantial sympathy for the cloning ban. We’ve got to take this slowly, I think, but we can’t delude ourselves into thinking that we’re ready for this stuff to just explode into society overnight to whatever degree the free market would bear.

You’re such a Republican sometimes! LOL, J/K.

Let’s just say there’s a discernable difference between the Democratic party’s commitment to improving our voting system and the Republican Party’s commitment to improving our voting system.

The main criticism I hear is that a lack of a paper printout constitutes automatic rigging of the system. Are you aware that millions of people conduct credit card transactions online without paper receipts? It’s a movement of billions of dollars daily. The security around it is not perfect, but it’s actually more reliable than the phenomenon of an individual writing bad paper checks, or fudging bad paper ballots.

You technophobes just slay me.

Me? A technophobe? Wow. You obviously don’t know me! You should visit my web site and see how much I love thinking about the future, the good and the bad.

Regarding elections, well, Democrats advocate making election day a national holiday (have you ever worked somewhere where the boss would hold it against you if you left work to vote? I have). Democrats advocate “provisional ballots” (which let people vote even if their name is on a “cannot vote” list, essentially putting their vote in escrow until they’ve appealed their denial). Democrats advocate DC statehood. Republicans oppose all of this. There is a difference. Democrats aren’t favoring this stuff out of pure patriotic altruism, that’s for sure, but you certainly can’t argue that these proposals are unfair.

Just for kicks, y’all should check out this site we just built for the Smithsonian. Lots of great voting history therein.

-Cf

Wow there’s enough here in David’s post to start a new Watchblog!

As for Yucca Mountain, I must admit that I am a little biased because I work in the nuclear industry. But, that “stuff” has to go somewhere and Yucca Mtn. is the logical choice. It is the lesser of many evils.

Kerry was there a couple of months ago on the stump saying he would not open it which I’m sure made him popular in Las Vegas. Bush knows he committed to Yucca Mtn. back in ‘02 and has no choice but to “face the music”, even if it costs him votes and potentially a swing State. But I think that is the right thing to do.

have you ever worked somewhere where the boss would hold it against you if you left work to vote? I have

You’d think Democrats would want hard-working people to be tied up working so they wouldn’t be able to vote away all the taxation they advocate attacking them with, or the handouts to those who refuse to work.

But then last time I voted it only took 20 minutes, and I did so on my way to work, in the morning. Business-wise it wasn’t even a blip. More time than that is wasted in meetings trying to get the damn phone to work.

Democrats advocate “provisional ballots” (which let people vote even if their name is on a “cannot vote” list, essentially putting their vote in escrow until they’ve appealed their denial).

Would this include the military votes you guys tried to squash last time around?

Democrats advocate DC statehood.

Well hell, let’s just make Duluth a state while we’re at it. Peoria too. And Fort Worth. And my neighbor’s back yard. That’s pretty big. So let it be written, so shall it be done. It’s a state.

“Democrats advocate DC statehood”

As you awknowledged, no one actually thinks they do this out of ONE inkling of care for the democratic process? (belly laugh). If DC was demographically Republican I can promise you the Republican party would be for statehood and the dems would be against it(one look at the Democrats’ fight to exclude absentee ballots from overseas military voters in Florida in 2000 makes this very clear indeed).

As for me, I would support DC statehood only if we have proportional representation in the Senate- otherwise, the people of DC would go from being unfair unrepresented to being unfair over-represented. We really need a constitutional convention to hash out a lot of the problems in the constitutional structure of our democratic system…

For the superrich who spend a pitance of their income on living expenses a national sales tax would exclude them from virtually all taxation, without going offshore. This is why Hastert proposed it, for Bush and his chronies.

Bush realizes it’s still a tight race and is actively seeking issues which would garner popular support. New tax, immigration and trips to Mars fit that category. Why bother with any real problems, like the deficit or jobs, when all that matters is whether Bush gets reelected.

RE: DC Statehood, I’d be sorta happy if they at least had a representative in the House that could actually vote. The population of DC is larger than that of Wyoming, for example. I’m with Misha that the Senate should be made proportional, though.

> Would this include the military votes you
> guys tried to squash last time around?

That is, in fact, exactly what happened to those military votes. I thought it was crummy myself, but the Dems were trying to squash ballots that were not dated correctly (or at all) and that were improperly sent out by GOP party officials. Civilians for whom voting mistakes were made on the day of the election, such as the Florida faulty felon folio or the polling places nationwide with broken machines, were simply turned away.

> But then last time I voted it only
> took 20 minutes

You must live somewhere nice. The last time I voted it took an hour just to wait in line at the polling booth because they had to fix the machines every five minutes. Also, taking 20 minutes off from work will get you fired from a dishwashing job, voting rights be damned. It still shocks me that most of the country’s polls close before 7:00, some close at 5:00. In NY it’s 9:00, which is wonderful for those citizens who cannot take time off.

Ciggy, you take this condescending and argumentative tone with me (and everyone else, I guess), but for the life of me I cannot discern if you are even disagreeing with me or if you’re just trying to be disagreeable. Do you think that the American voting system should not be improved? Do you dispute the fact that for lots of people it’s impossible to make time to vote without jeopardizing their livelihood? Do you think it’s cool that DC residents don’t have voting representation in the US legislature? Or do you simply think that it’s fun to mock people from your “I hate both parties equally!” sniper’s nest?

-Cf

Ciggy said, ” If you don’t fear the existence of TWINS (who each have the same DNA), then you should have nothing to fear of CLONES”

Ciggy, twins are rare and occur randomly among the population. Twins have protections as citizens and human beings.

Clones on the other hand can be, and likely will be, an occurance for the wealthy and powerful only, given that the pricing for a clone will be astronomical and insurance is not about to cover getting a clone.

Secondly, the potential exists for generating clones without brains - literally! To be used for spare parts. The moral and ethical implications alone are mind boggling let alone the bias toward 300 year old wealthy folks who can afford a clone and everyone else who can’t.

George said “Wow there’s enough here in David’s post to start a new Watchblog!”

I am concerned by the volume of issues the media is covering, troubling issues, that flit past the radar screen and are lost as issues and as old news, by the time November 2 comes around. I hope to help give some of these issues a little more duration.

There are only two logical places around this glove for nuclear waste as far as I am concerned, George. One is outside its gravitational field, and the other is as near its solid metal core as we can get it. Anyplace else is time bomb for future generations. Those to me are the facts that need to be dealt with.

And what is with all this DU being spread around the world in munitions, and in the very metal of our military hardware and travel crafts? I don’t trust it, I don’t trust it, and neither should our soldiers.

Bayviking said: “For the superrich who spend a pitance of their income on living expenses a national sales tax would exclude them from virtually all taxation, without going offshore. “

Bingo! Give that man a cigar - and the ability to travel to Cuba to receive it.

CF, proportional representation is in the House of Representatives. The Senate is designed to balance the power of populous states with the concerns of more sparsely-populated states, such that we have a check and a balance even within the Legislative branch of government.

I could support the extension of legislative representatives to D.C. by way of adding Representatives to the State of Maryland, to represent the District, but not full statehood, and not with Senators. I think ideally D.C. residents should be able to vote and act as if D.C. were a part of Maryland, generally.

That is, in fact, exactly what happened to those military votes. I thought it was crummy myself, but the Dems were trying to squash ballots that were not dated correctly (or at all) and that were improperly sent out by GOP party officials.

So throwing out votes on a technicality in some demographics is more equal than others, on the Democrat animal farm? Is there a portrait of Napoleon the Pig up on your wall?

You must live somewhere nice.

I live in a racially diverse island of niceness surrounded by troubled Asian neighborhoods to the north (where they’re apparently still fighting the Vietnam war, quite seriously in fact), white trailer parks to the northeast, and a black public housing project to the south. The people standing in line with me waiting to vote were from most walks of life, from upper-middle-class to the very poor; but the process was quick, largely because the typical cadre of senior citizen volunteers were complemented what appeared to be college students whose volunteer efforts where not just civic-minded, but also rather efficient.

I will admit though: we had paper ballots, so there were no “machines” to break down. Perhaps the odd pencil, but the sharpeners held out. ;)

I cannot discern if you are even disagreeing with me or if you’re just trying to be disagreeable.

And your tone here is not “condescending”? Is that hypocrisy I smell?

Do you think that the American voting system should not be improved?

Last I heard it was the Democrats who were throwing up roadblocks to such improvement, all worried that if any electronic involvement came into play at all, that some masterful Republican hacker would take over the world. Politics via science fiction, in the depths of its pathos.

And all one has to do is dare mention that billions of dollars exchange hands every day on such technologies as SSH and SSL, and all of a sudden we play the “condescending” card. Are you huffing and puffing as you write that too? Waxing sanctimonious?

Do you dispute the fact that for lots of people it’s impossible to make time to vote without jeopardizing their livelihood?

I think the “fact” is blown a bit out of proportion. Most business-driven bosses out there, even at their most ruthless and capitalistic, would just charge the time absent for voting against their paid time off (portions or fractions of sick days, personal days, etc.) Some would just give the time freely, and a tiny sliver of the pie chart would be somewhat close to the people-eating reptilian monsters you portray.

Or do you simply think that it’s fun to mock people from your “I hate both parties equally!” sniper’s nest?

I think it’s better than fun. It’s logically correct, common sense, and morally sound.

David,

Twins have protections as citizens and human beings.

And clones could not? How so? Do they have some sort of an “I am a slave” gene that cannot be engineered out of them? And is this Aasimov talking here, or real science?

Clones on the other hand can be, and likely will be, an occurance for the wealthy and powerful only, given that the pricing for a clone will be astronomical and insurance is not about to cover getting a clone.

So the basis for outlawing anything is that the wealthy can afford it and the poooooooooooor (sob, sob) cannot. Okay, and when do you propose banning the Lexus? Or the facelift? Or visits to Spago?

Will you be the one to inform Theresa “Shove It” Ketchup that she will not be allowed to own a big house anymore, because the poor (sob, sob) cannot afford a similar one? Will you be wearing kevlar when you do so?

Ciggy- That is what I thought about the Senate as well, until I learned about its background and its theoretical justifications. As founderes like Madison, Wilson and Hamilton understood and argued at the convention, the federal government is contructed to represent the people and not the states, so the people should all be equally represented in the national government (Just think about this- if the national government votes to increase taxes or levy a draft- it is gonna affect each person regardless of what state they live in- shouldnt they all have the same say in those decisions?).

We have a federal government of enumerated powers- and within those enumerated powers, the government represents the people and not the states. The states retain a large ammount of authority- all the powers not delegated- but that does not mean they should have any say in how the national goverment runs things within its enumerated field.

After much reflection, I recognized that rather than giving protection to state interests, what the Senate does is simply over-represent those in the small states. Thus we get grain subsedies ect. After all, why 140,000 people in Wyoming have more say about whether we go to war than 140,000 in northern california (that is not the right number, I am just using any old random number)? It just doenst make sense- and contrary to popular opinion, many of our founderse realized this fact (like Madison- who is well known as the “father of the constitution”). Unfortunately the small states representatives did not want to give up that much power from under the articles of confederation, so the unfortunate compromise happend- and here we are today.

Misha,

why 140,000 people in Wyoming have more say about whether we go to war than 140,000 in northern california (that is not the right number, I am just using any old random number)?

They don’t in the House, although they do in the Senate. That’s a compromise that was struck between the founders you mention, and some who were a little more concerned about their states getting trampled by whichever state manages to outbreed them.

And there does have to be balance. If it’s all proportional in all areas, on a per-capita basis, then voters in New York could make a law that everyone born in Montana has to give up their daughters as sex slaves to people in New York. People in Montana would be unable to vote that down.

so the unfortunate compromise happend

I don’t think it’s unfortunate. It’s yet one more thing that helps prevent American democracy from being “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner”.

Ciggy- that is a frivolous argument. First, it would violate the 13th ammendment. Second, to think that people in different states are like warring nations that would try to ban together to enslave the people from the small state is just plain silly. The federal government represents the people and not the states- as a result the senate is an unfortunate historical anomoly. I will be writing a law review article on this topic this year- please give it a read and maybe you will change your mind :)

It’s pretty obvious why the District of Columbia shouldn’t be allowed federal representation—it’s a single city and one explicitly designed to be the seat of the federal goverment. That’s exactly why the city was created—a place isolated from the interests of the states. Giving it greater influence than it already has would enable it to levarage that influence in ways unfair to those further from the seat of power. The potential for abuse is great, and those who don’t like it should move across the river.

I agree that cloning is not some kind of a threat. There will inevitably be abuses but like Ciggy said we can implement systems to deter and prosecute criminal abuse like we do for everything else.

The main premise in the argument against cloning is speculative fear and paranoia, which is fine just not as legislation. The other premise is of course that religious stuff about a soul, which isn’t an argument, so I don’t pay much attention to it.

I also have no ethical dilemma regarding clones without nervous systems, though I think the idea unsound simply because it is so wasteful. It would be much easier to “program” and grow the required organ(s) as needed in pigs or some such compatible vessel. And obviously you just can’t order one when your heart or liver fails. You have to plan ahead. So you need a line of liver pigs and a line of heart pigs and hope that when organ failure happens, you have a properly developed vessel available. (Which is all just to illustrate that this is useless speculation.)

Who knows really? And that’s the point. Let’s treat it as innocent until proven guilty.

Joseph, when the founding fathers sat down to invent a new form of government instead of a new form of reproduction for the human species, they quite correctly assumed the worst and and built a system of checks and balances to try to prevent some of the horrors that were possible.

Treat it as innocent until proven guilty is fine for criminal law, but, my god, man, have you never read about the continental congress and constitutional convention? Have you never read the book “Frankenstein”.

They all have the same premise in common. Anticipate the worst and and plan to deal with the worst before it happens or comes into being, not after. The ethical question, “What if every nation has nuclear weapons” has been around since ancient Greece as a standard for ethical behavior. We did heed that caution and built in protections to prevent other nations from acquiring it. But, the best laid plans often go awry.

And you suggest we should not plan or worry about the consequences of cloning until there is no stopping the consequences. I suspect you have not put a lot of thought into this subject - but, then, that is what WB is for. Forces us all to think and rethink our positions. I am a flip flopper, and have had a couple of my opinions changed here. It is healthy in my view and leads to maturity, wisdom, knowledge as opposed to simply informed opinion.

Informed opinion is grossly overrated. One has to ask “Informed by whom” and “does the opinion hold water”?

Oh, Martin, you really are a conservative. Bringing back those old rationales of the horse and buggy days about distance from the seat of government and how voices in close geographic distance to government are louder voices due to their short horse ride distance to the halls of congress.

How quaint!

Misha said (jokingly I hope) “Second, to think that people in different states are like warring nations that would try to ban together to enslave the people from the small state is just plain silly.”

Does the Civil War not ring a bell, Misha? Are you arguing because it happened once, it can’t happen again? Think about it in terms of the even divide of our nations people today and the vitriolic positions being taken and our candidates determination to exacerbate the divide to distinguish themselves as candidates of a better cut in order to win.

Yes, it could happen again, and all too easily. We may be seeing the groundwork set for it to happen again as we speak. There are various forms of slavery. The plantations may be gone, but the low wage low standards of living are still present and could easily become pervasive for all those save the corporate owners.

Joseph, when the founding fathers sat down to invent a new form of government instead of a new form of reproduction for the human species, they quite correctly assumed the worst and and built a system of checks and balances to try to prevent some of the horrors that were possible.

But monarchy was a proven horror at the time.

The ethical question, “What if every nation has nuclear weapons” has been around since ancient Greece as a standard for ethical behavior. We did heed that caution and built in protections to prevent other nations from acquiring it.

Yes, because nuclear weapons are a proven horror.

None of the scenarios you describe regarding cloning qualifies as a “horror” to me. Some may be underhanded and criminal but not a threat to our society and species.

Cloning and genetic engineering of humans are not genies. The process will be relatively slow by its very nature. A “genie” would be something like self-replicating nanotechnology - something that can, in theory, escape containment, proliferate uncontrolled and radically effect a species or ecosystem. I’m more worried about proper use of antibiotics than I am about cloning.

David- if that is really so, the method of representation in our nation wont change a thing. If the majority of this country TRUELY wanted to enslave the minority- they would do it the old-fashion way- with guns.

Ciggy, I am sorry if I came across as condescending - I was not. I honestly don’t know if you disagree with me half the time. You reply to my comments usually with (a) a comment of your own that doesn’t contradict my comment, and (b) an insult or a statement mocking me. Are we arguing? I don’t know!

-Cf

Misha, there is absolutely NOTHING “frivolous” about the danger of democracy becoming analogous to two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner. Nothing at all. If you discard checks and balances against mob rule, prepare to live with the consequences thereof.

It deeply disturbs me that someone with so much advanced legal training could think of checks and balances to be so trivial and “frivolous”.

Martin,

Giving it greater influence than it already has would enable it to levarage that influence in ways unfair to those further from the seat of power. The potential for abuse is great, and those who don’t like it should move across the river.

I think there’s no danger in giving the District of Columbia Representatives for the House, to be considered peers of their neighbors in Maryland for voting administration purposes. I wouldn’t go so far as “statehood” though. That would indeed be ripe for severe corruption.

David,

but, my god, man, have you never read about the continental congress and constitutional convention? Have you never read the book “Frankenstein”.

My my my, David, do you always base your political ideology on irrational fears based in science fiction?

Anticipate the worst and and plan to deal with the worst before it happens or comes into being, not after.

The worst that could happen with cloning is the same as the worst that could happen with natural reproduction. Just as someone might try to secretly clone up armies of automatized soldiers or sexual slaves, so too could individuals try to secretly raise children in such dastardly ways. If you have no faith that regulatory systems could ever catch an underground cloning operation, then why are you so confident that there isn’t an underground operation of abusive child rearing going on right under our noses? And if the possibility for such bad things to happen, means that the practice altogether should be banned, then you might as well ban the practice of natural breeding while you’re at it. “Somebody might abuse his child, therefore, let NO ONE ever breed. Ever.”

That is, if you were consistent in the application of your hysterical fears.

Yes, it [a civil war] could happen again, and all too easily. We may be seeing the groundwork set for it to happen again as we speak. There are various forms of slavery. The plantations may be gone, but the low wage low standards of living are still present and could easily become pervasive for all those save the corporate owners.

While I agree that a civil war could easily happen again, I think the basis of the conflict would not be a matter of low wage people trying to seize higher wages by force, but rather a sense of conflicting ideologies and a fundamental rift in the notion of what is good for a nation. Today it’s called “Red State, Blue State”, which currently vies for electoral power. But if the agreement over election results breaks down (as it nearly did in 2000), then that conflict for power could very well INDEED turn violent.

It would be ironic if we were all worried about civil war erupting in Iraq, and it ends up happening here first.

Or it may be possible to simply subdivide into two separate nations in a peaceful manner. “Red States of America” would be an independant nation with a Constitution rewritten more appealing to Red State ideology, and “Blue States of America” converting the Constitution to their own leanings. In the Blue States, the 2nd Amendment gets wiped out. In the Red States, probably the 16th Amendment is a goner. BSA would have direct representation by popular vote, public health care, all the agenda items of today’s Democrats pass without resistance or even question. RSA cuts taxes, cuts taxes some more, and cuts taxes yet some more. Initially, there would have to be a splitting of the national debt between them. ;)

One small issue with that, though, is that the two resulting nations wouldn’t be geographically contiguous. But then, with air travel, and an agreement of reciprocal travel visa passage among the two nations, that might not be so restrictive.

If it does go violent, though, Blue States wouldn’t stand much of a chance. With all those gun bans, they wouldn’t have much of a militia to speak of.

Ciggy said, “My my my, David, do you always base your political ideology on irrational fears based in science fiction?”

Interesting way to avoid the question and issue. Fact remains, antibiotics use is growing as the largest public health threat facing Americans today. Nothing science fiction about it. If we don’t anticipate the worst and plan for it, we invite the worst to happen. There are a host of examples. Blind faith is just that.

Misha said, “If the majority of this country TRUELY wanted to enslave the minority- they would do it the old-fashion way- with guns.”

No, they wouldn’t. It would not serve their ends.

Joseph, I find dehumanizing the race be creating a marketplace for disposable humans easily replaced through cloning (armies for example) is a horror. You obviously disagree. Some of the greatest horrors in human history and in current affairs today result from dehumanization. The Pygmies in the Congo being a current event, and Hitler’s approach toward the Jews, physically and mentally handicapped being historical.

Cloning bears the potential for disposably human beings. If that is not a horror, I don’t know what the word means.

Ciggy- I am not saying that checks and balances are unneeded, i am saying that the check and balance that the Senate is supposed to serve, it does not serve. thats all.

David,

Interesting way to avoid the question and issue.

I addressed the question and you ignored the fact that I did.

Fact remains, antibiotics use is growing as the largest public health threat facing Americans today.

What? You make the leap from talking about cloning to antibiotics use? Is it just ADHD, or do you truly confuse the two topics?

Joseph, I find dehumanizing the race be creating a marketplace for disposable humans easily replaced through cloning (armies for example) is a horror.

So now you’re anti-abortion? Or is it that you’re inconsistent in your idea of a woman’s right to do with “her body” as she sees fit? I say, if you buy the ticket, you take the ride. We’ve bought the ticket by considering fetal offspring to be the body part and property of the woman in question, and if SHE gives consent for the use of that tissue in research, voila, we’re consistent. Now, you’re introducing a demand that we agonize over that? Why?

Ciggy, your response “My my my, David, do you always base your political ideology on irrational fears based in science fiction?”

Neither answers the question nor addresses the issue. You should be a dancer, your sidestep is great.

“What? You make the leap from talking about cloning to antibiotics use?”

If you don’t see the relevance between the issues, anything else I can say about it will not be understood anyway.

Nope! Pro Womans Choice. I don’t define the Fetus as a human being until it has a well developed brain and central nervous system capable of processing experience in some way other than reflex and test animals which we routinely maim and kill for information feedback.

David, you are quite simply not being honest about what I wrote. You focus on one statement I made, presenting it out of the context of the rest of the post, and pretend that I didn’t address the issue of cloning, while in fact, I did.

It’s plain for any casual, objective observer to see that I did. I’m not quite sure whom you think you’re fooling by claiming otherwise.

I don’t define the Fetus as a human being until it has a well developed brain

This conflicts with your demand that clones without developed human brains be treated as humans with full rights. Do you not understand the extent to which you contradict yourself?

Are some undeveloped brains more equal than others on your Animal Farm?

Ciggy, I never took a stand on cloning body parts without a brain. I simply stated that such huge issues need to be thoroughly thought out and the consequences anticipated.

Does that one statement you made not count? Do you retract it? It was the one statement I chose to take issue with. Besides, I have lost now of what you are referring to. It may appear to you to have been a dishonest response. I assure it did not seem that way to me when I wrote it. I don’t consciously make dishonest responses.

As far as cloning goes, I would like to see the world leaders adopt a position of allowing cloning and stem cell resreach study to continue; however, the purpose of any result should be for replacing non vital body parts. In this way, we could extend good health life, but keep intact our dignity of aging gracefully.

Now, the question of re-inventing America. What a concept. However, the first step is to ask ourselves where do we want to go. Just like 35-40 years ago, our parents were asked to look into the future and see what we can become. Well, since that time our society has learned to speak out peacefully against the issues they believe in, change from a manufactured based economy into a service oriented economy, and still managed to rebuild our armed forces into a true world leader.

Now America, we are faced with the same set of questions. How we vote and make our government bend to the will of the people depends on how you view your politics, for the only difference between a die-hard democrat and a die-hard republican is the Democrats dress up and want to play like Kings and Queens and Republicans dress up and think that they are Kings and Queens. Thank god for Independent voters. Atleast, there our some of us left that know how to think American style.

First, we need to do a constitutional admendment of the serious kind. Article 2 of the constitution deals with the electoral college and has but one flay. That flay is that the winner takes all approach to the presidentail candidate. I understand why our forefathers added this to the consitution, but I do not believe that they invisioned mass media when they wrote this into the constitution. However, while today’s and tomorrows technology allow every voter the opportunity to voice their opinion, our current voting system has not kept up. It is time for America to level the playing field of politics and force our Presidentail candidates into caring about every state by dividing the individual states electoral votes so they represent the true will of the people. Thus, I recommend amending Article 2 to change all to direct representation.

Other quick changes America needs to address are how responsible do we as a society hold them for some of the problems they create, such as Walmart. The need to hold the energy companies liable for not looking out for the best interest of their stockholders and customers. And the individual citizen for their unwillingness to accept the fact that knowledge rules and common sense takes a backseat to NO ONE!

David,

I never took a stand on cloning body parts without a brain. I simply stated that such huge issues need to be thoroughly thought out and the consequences anticipated.

We already have, during the abortion debate. No need to trod over the same well-worn path, YET AGAIN. If we are a sane and consistent and logical society (yet to be determined), then our nation’s stance of legalizing abortion at times when the brain isn’t functioning, should also hold to legalizing the cloning of body parts that DON’T amount to producing, and then killing, a functioning brain. End of agonization. End of soul-searching. It’s done. If we had a shred of reason in us, we’d be able to move on rather than rehash and hand-wring, yet again.

Does that one statement you made not count? Do you retract it? It was the one statement I chose to take issue with. Besides, I have lost now of what you are referring to.

I’ll scroll up to the text that evaded you.

You said:

but, my god, man, have you never read about the continental congress and constitutional convention? Have you never read the book “Frankenstein”.

To which I said:

My my my, David, do you always base your political ideology on irrational fears based in science fiction?

Now are you saying “Frankenstein” is not science fiction? Who is being dishonest, here?

I don’t “retract” a damn thing.

Ciggy, if you read Frankenstein as simply a science fiction, you missed Shelley’s whole purpose in writing it. The story begs the question of: If one can do a thing, does that mean one should do a thing. A theme reiterated in Frank Herbert’s Dune series.

Shelley (sp?) was asking whether innovation and technology should be goals in and of themselves producing whatever benefits or monsters should result from these processes, or, should they be constrained to necessity and advantage in order to avoid the horrors that unbridled and unmastered power can wreak on the human species and the planet itself?

Science fiction? Yes. But, science fiction which is oft used in philosophy courses examining the underlying assumptions, and consequences thereof, of human thought and activity.

While the abortion debate has some similarities with the cloning debate, Shelley’s Frankenstein highlights some of the tremendous differences. Differences you seem not to recognize.

Just because science fiction has a message and a moral to its story, doesn’t make it any less a science fiction.

And if one can do a thing, then one should knee-jerk neither toward allowing it nor toward banning it. One must contemplate the implications of the action. We don’t need science fiction to tell us that.

With that being said, the abortion debate ALREADY contemplated the question of what essentially a human being ***IS***. If you double-back and reverse that conclusion, saying it doesn’t work for cloning, then abortion itself must be revisited. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

I’ll give the dilemma in clearer terms: is a human still a human being when the brain function is absent? Or is it not? I’m not sure why you think the question is so cloudy or impossible to navigate, or what language can make the issue any easier to grasp.

Ciggy
Hi, I’ll give you one more dilemma to add to your thoughts. Is a human still alive if there is no brain function (current medical standard of life and death)? If you say yes, than the whole agrument of living plays into the equation. If you say no, than the start of life begins at the point where the brain starts functioning on its own, independent from the mother. For some folks though don’t we all wonder if the person ever does?

I persist in the brain function standard when it comes to pulling life support, if that’s what you mean. They won’t even know what “hit” them.

Pro-choice (prior to brain function).

Pro-clone body part harvesting (when there is no brain function).

Pro-euthanasia (when there is no longer any brain function).

And extreme lefties call me a “right-winger” LOL.

Logical consistency is bound to piss off both “wings”, because neither of them can abide it.

Why do you think they keep battling over the same questions? Could it be both of them are WRONG?

In my view they are both wrong, which is why I post in this section, not the left-leaning one or the right-leaning one.

The partisans can never leave us “none of the above” types alone though. Like born-again Christians, they have an overwhelming zeal to convert, fearing hellfire from their cult leader if they don’t.

Nervous system and brain function capable of discerning pain and pleasure and experiencing life through the senses is my standard Ciggy. That is why I am opposed to partial birth abortion except when birth threatens the life of the mother, in which case, I believe the decision has to be made between the Dr., the mother and the family if the mother is incapacitated, but have no problem with abortion in the first trimester. After the first trimester, I think there is gray area, but, when it comes to liberties and gray areas, I say err on the side of citizen’s rights - let the mother and Dr. decide.

Cloning functional human beings if permitted, will always be a very expensive procedure. It is not just mixing a few cells in a solution and throwing it in an incubator for a few days. Does a clone have a blood family? Does the host have any obligation at all emotionally, psychologically, or legally to the child clone while growing up? Does the host have parental rights or responsibilities under the law as natural born children and parents have?

With all of us shedding DNA wherever we go, how do we craft clone theft laws? What if I want a specific person’s DNA for my child and they refuse to give permission? Can I hire a private dick to get a DNA sample and clone my own genes with that of another’s to improve upon my progeny? What about black markets in DNA?

There is nothing intrinsic wrong with a clone. The emotional, psychological, social, and legal ramifications of cloning however are tremendous and need to be carefully expolored and prepared for before cloning should ever be considered a viable option for legalization.

Only the dead will see an end to black markets, as can be seen today in file-sharing of MP3s and MPGs to get around having to pay the cost of a CD or a DVD.

In applying the theoretical golden rule, I try to imagine what I would think of an attempt to “steal” a trace of my DNA for cloning purposes, and I think I would indeed see it as an intellectual property violation. They took material arranged after a pattern which is my intrinsic “trademark”, for their personal use, without my permission. I would seek redress in the civil courts for compensation. Then again… I would also be highly flattered! :P

The gut may proclaim that it feels good to ban any and every product or service which at any given time is expensive enough to only be available to the rich. My view on the privileges of the rich is that if their lives are enhanced in ways that do no harm to others, by use of their money, then it’s perfectly moral to allow it. And from a practical standpoint, I think our police have better matters to attend to than to go around making sure nobody has any secret Lexus cars in their garage, or any banned bling-bling in their drawer.

Ciggy, where is you imagination? You said, “Then again… I would also be highly flattered! ” You may also serve 20 years for a crime you didn’t commit. Or find your entire assets wiped out. Both could happen by a clone unregistered and unknown to authorities. I doubt very much the “Clone Defense” in the absence of any evidence of the existence of a clone, would carry much weight with a jury or bankruptcy court.

Cloning could easily become terrorists weapon of choice. C’mon, I know you can project the possibilities better than just being flattered.

Okay, that’s a much more compelling argument to consider: that criminal investigations would be thrown off by cloning if it became widespread. Let’s think about that a bit, shall we?

The notion of a duplicate copy of DNA always foiling criminal investigations, if it were true, would be sufficient reason to ban the birthing of twins. But apparently that’s not the case. In cases where the suspect is a twin, closer attention must be paid to the evidence of a circumstantial nature, and of each twin’s alibi.

I think so long as the identity of each clone is recorded and known about by the authorities, there should be no fundamental reason not to allow it.

And as you yourself argue, it would be an expensive procedure, so the “masses” would not be doing this. The numbers of clones to keep track of in databases like CODIS, would not be huge.

Terrorists cloning… what, exactly? Armies of terrorists? They have easy access to cheap cannon fodder in the non-cloned masses of the Turd World. Their money is better spent on super-elite hackers, explosives experts, and WMDs—“better”, that is, from their perspective.

Ciggy, I apologize but I am so tired of this discussion, because you seem unwilling to think about it objectively. Getting you to see the obvious is like pulling teeth. Twins are known to be twins from birth, through schools and friends, family, jobs etc.

Criminals or terrorists with stolen DNA are not going to take out an ad telling the world they are impostering another’s identity. Hence a jury has no reason to believe you didn’t commit the crime, you “Clone Defense” fails utterly, and you do 20 years for a crime you didn’t commit. I rest my case and the thread of this discussion.

A terrorist would have to wait at least about 15 years after stealing DNA before being able to launch their clone army on crime sprees in America. Meanwhile the individuals from whom they stole the DNA will have aged those 15 years, thus making the non-DNA profiles of the criminals even less similar between donor and clone, and even less difficult to sort out forensically than among twins.

And whether the U.S. bans cloning or not, if terrorists consider its use to be valuable in fighting us, our bans will not prevent them from using it, so a ban would limit only our use of it, not theirs.

Just because I don’t see the doom and gloom that you do, with cloning, doesn’t mean I’m not being objective. If anything I am moreso, because I am also willing to weigh in the counter-balancing factors in consideration of the safety of the technology, while you force yourself to be blind to them.

But if you wish to stop discussing it, that’s also fine with me.