geoguy

I disagree. Cloning is done today routinely in plants and the science in animalia will move forward regardless of hangups in countries like the USA that are still debating creationism and re-hashing the abortion debates. There is going to be huge demand in a world of educated billions for stem cell research, cloned body parts, etc. When 20 million Chinese want a new liver, 50 million Indians a new heart, entrepreneurs will invest in the research and it won't matter a hoot what protests come from a Bible Fundy in Hicksville, Alabama.

I watched an old Mickey Mouse Cartoon from the 20's and Mickey is sitting in a bar smoking a cigarette and drinking a beer. Perhaps all mice are smokers and therefore have ineficient oxygen intake. Never seen Dumbo smoke so my money is on the mouse kicking the bucket first.

What? Not enough mention of all that great 'progress'? I'll look for the 312 quotes of Bush's 'Mission Accomplished' and 'graet progress' to add balance. Thanks for the pointer. July 1973 Bush: "In the 83 days since I announced the end of major combat operations in Iraq, we have made tremendous progress and Iraq is becoming an example for all to see."

a balanced view of american soldiers: http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-randall210207.htm

This 'I was in the army' (even though he's a fake ) is a bizarre logic. Akin to giving Hitler's SS troops credibility in justifying their actions in WW2 because they participated in the atrocities.

98% of Canadians couldn't name the Prime Minister's wife and an equal amount his religion other that 'probably Protestant'. If he was divorced, fooled around, etc. might raise an eyebrow for a day or two but that's it. Leaders in Canada, France, Norway, etc. are not better leaders or bigger scoundrels than those in the USA because they have a private life. Unfortunately Americans, so rightfully proud of their democratic tradition, have place the President and other politicians back into the 'royalty' category. If the USA didn't have the highest rates of violent crime, teen pregancy, etc. among western nations then it might be said that 'the example' of leaders had some positive moral impact but I'm inclined to believe it's just too much media with too much time to fill on the airwaves.

What's the 'legal' side? There's 180 nations in the world with 180 legal systems. The pros and cons, morality, etc, of human cloning are irrelevent in terms of whether or not it'll become routine in 50 to a hundred years. Some contries might ban it as they do abortion, stem cell research, etc. today and as human autopsy was banned just a hundred years ago.

On Fox today. News of new means to kill Iraqi civilians: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289380,00.html Can't wait for the news media to lap it up: "23 insurgent killed today when the reaper.....' Fortunately the rest of the world sees the real victims...bodies of children ripped apart by American bombs. In the U.S. media it will be talking-head generals talking about how effective this magical new weapon is.

Who exactly is this 'we'? The USA is a large cauldron of chaotic creativity. 5 out of 5 Nobel laureates in the 3 science categories are American. Whether it's M.I.T., Boeing, Microsoft, etc., science and technology thrives in the USA as in no other society. A lot of the controversy in the sciences in America revolves around peripheral philosophic issues such as Creatinism, stem cell research and soon. In the meantime thousands of folks plod along doing nitty-gritty research. whether it's mapping the human genome, nano technology, quantum communications....it all moves forward without the fetters of the 'we' deciding direction. The best of the best in the world teach physics at Berkely, medicine at Harvard and man the labs at Las Alamos. The USA is a science superpower precisely because there is no body governing what's considered 'real' or 'good' science. Nerds, goof balls, whackos and eccentrics have the opportunity to develop everything from Silly Putty to space probes to the outer planets.

It's a positive that the terrorism is being revealed. http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/07/15/marines.iraq.ap/index.html

That's a great observation. More or less similar to presentations by Richard Dawkins. We're physical entities and products of evolution. Our senses are designed to cope with a three dimensional world that is at a macro level best suited to our survival. Often our questions are couched in what seems more expansive terms but they are really just numbers or non-experienced theories. I was at a talk once and the presenter wrote a number on the board representing the number of stars in the universe. At the end of the talk he changed the 10 to the nth power to the next level...making the number of stars and the size of the universe (existence) ten times larger. No one had noticed the purposeful error during the talk even though the room was full of scientists of various disciplines. The point the speaker was making was similar to yours: we can't relate to things outside of our experience and therefore have no basis to ask questions outside of our experiences. What does it matter to our perceptions if the universe is ten times larger or ten times smaller...we can't relate to any answers so how do we know the questions are the important ones? 2001 was a great movie to stimulate the brain cells. It's one of the few movies I preferred over the book. I first saw it at a drive-in theater in Nova Scotia...a moose and her 2 calves kept standing under the screen and the manager would have to shoo them off until they returned.

It's right out of Shakepearean tragedy. The tragic main character (the USA) destroyed by his own hubris. King Lear. Macbeth, the USA, etc. delusional and looking under rocks for answers when ithe answer is in the mirror. On the positive side. Iraq isn't all that significant in the scheme of world geo-politics. Better for the USA to reinforce the humiliation of the Vietnam defeat via Iraq than in a more serious misdadventure. Americans are intelligent and this debacle might keep the gun in the holster next time the nation gets tanked up on nationalistic hysteria. Freedom Fries have given the American jingoistic bowells the runs and they won't be dining on the same propaganda for many years to come. As for the Brits. The motive was quite different. Blair took the gamble that the foreign policy of the UK is best served by maintaining strong relations with the USA. Smile and say 'yes, sir' because one day the UK may need to call upon the Americans for military help. Blair has assured that the Americans will be there in time of need. Blair is like that annoying little suck up sidekick in 1930's movies. Fortunately for the Brits, most of the world differentiates between Blair and the UK. The UK is like like your favorite old uncle you can't get mad at. Unfortunately for the Americans, in contrast, the very image of the USA as a dangerous bully transcends individual leadership.

I agree with Pat Buchanan's assessment. The only solution that 'might' bring about stability is to involve the Iranians and Syrians. Issue there is that the USA has to have detailed and structured talks with the Iranians. Those talks in a structured environment would take away the military card against Iran. The USA can't talk to the Iranians in the morning and bomb them in the afternoon. Iran would likely play Bush like a fish on the line and tease him with tidbits of co-operation. Bush will not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran but attacking Iran while sitting at the table with that regime would make the USA even more of a pariah in the Muslim world than it already is. If the USA doesn't act then Israel will and the Muslim world doesn't differentiate between Israel and the USA. Radical regimes would come to power in Pakistan, possibly Egypt and even after some turmoil in Saudi Arabia. As Pat Buchanan ( a 'real' conservative) adds 'the Bush presidency is a wrecking ball destroying the foreign policy of the United States'.

Many of those contractors are used in security positions. More bizarre some are used to protect Iraq ministries. Think about it. Private foreign security forces used to protect the vital interests of the country instead of Iraqi security forces. As has been pointed out this is a microcosm hiliting how the 'trained' Iraqi forces can not be trusted by the Iraqi puppet government. Imagine the Secretary of State in the USA being guarded by private Peruvian forces...that's exactly what's happening in Iraq.

The USA defeated the Japanese and helped to defeat the German Reich in less time than it has taken the USA to secure the road from the airport in Baghdad to the 'Green zone'. Pathetic. a pathetic impotent bully. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse The world is a much safer place now that the majority of americans, record numbers today, think the Iraq war is a mistake and americans should stop killing Iraqis. A good day.

Turning? It turned 4 years ago. The Iraqinam war was lost with the invasion and occupation. It's been a downward slide into the gutter for the USA ever since. Americans have tortured and killled tens if not hundreds of thousands.

??? what do you mean. Who said the sound barrier couldn't be broken? Not physicists grounded in science. Perhaps those ill-informed and not aware of very basic properties of matter and energy. ??? what do you mean. Who said the sound barrier couldn't be broken? Not physicists grounded in science. Perhaps those ill-informed and not aware of very basic properties of matter and energy. Several aeronautic engineers for some time developed technology to exceed the sound barrier.

Remember: e=mc2 Mass can be converted to energy but the amount of mass is not infinite. Photons that travel at light speed have no mass. Anything with mass may be accelerating but not to the speed of light. "At 99.99999% c, increasing 1 mph would require an inconceivable amount of energy." No, it is quite conceivable and the answer is 'infinite' and thus not doable. Your question is an interesting one. However, it is one of 'what if' but the 'what if' isn't a reflection of reality. Ignorance may be bliss so I don't know if we should thank Einstein or not for General Relativity as it makes much of reality a bummer.

In my city I can walk into the 2 clinics within a couple blocks of my home every day if I want to. the reality is the last time I walked into one was 3 years ago after stepping on a nail and my foot was 'a bit sore'. Doctor said it was smart to come in, gave me a tetanus shot, and sent me on my way but told me to come back at first sign of infection. Didn't have to. Case closed. I don't know folks who run to the doctor because it's free but am not so naive to know there aren't a few who probalbly do this. Better to have a few folks abusing the system rather than some single mother hesitant to take their child in because it costs 50 for a visit. Perhaps the negligent mother has no money or perhaps a millionaire and a miser but that doesn't help the child. The same for those with 'sort of' chest pains, etc. Best to err on the side of taking care of those who need help than the rooting out few who are chronic hypochondiacs. There's probably some truth to 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. Spend $25 on an oil change and eventually save $1500 on a new engine. Get your sore throat looked at and get some treatment before pneumonia sets it. I don't know where the 'balance' is. I just don't want any expectant mother not having regular visits to her doctor, getting an ultra scan if needed, blood tests, etc. and even thinking about costs of having her baby or financial 'what ifs'. Her child will get regulatar visits scheduled to the pediatrician and the mother will receive any help she needs at well clinics to cope with nutrition, stress and so on. If she's a crappy mother then that's all the more reason to be there to help the children and give them a step up in life.

The issue isn't just 'which is better' but which system do you want in your own society. Canadians overwhelminglywant a universal healthcare system as do the citizens of most western countries (except the USA). Folks in western democracies are not 'stupid' and make their choices basedon their own life experiences. I like a public education system, a public library, public fire department, public police department, public military AND a public health care system. There is nothing sacred about it but any politician who preached otherwise in Canada wouldn't receive 2% of the vote. There are elements of private enterprise in the health delivery that would be acceptable to Canadians but not a systen in which some mother had to open her wallet when taking her child to the doctor or an elderly patient had to pay for a heart bypass operation. Americans like their system and that's fine. An infrastruture has been set up in society in which trade offs have been made (as there has been in a universal system). Americans are intelligent and elect leaders through free vote and weigh the pros and cons of making health care an issue but don't demand a change. Their choice. My brother is a prof in Kentucky in the USA and he likes the American system for Americans for a different reason. His reason is that any universal benefits that would be set up in the USA would be gobbled up by large minorities. Basically white middle and working class folks paying for benefits of blacks, hispanics and immigrants. In Canada (and europe) the society can afford to give an expectant mother paid maternity leave and paid time to raise her infant but a similar benefit in the USA would be 'gobbled up' by large minorites. The pot wouldn't be big enough and the system would become one of racial and ethnic tension. Americans start a lot of their criticism with 'why should I have to pay for....' and it would feed into the sentiment of intolerance and racism he sees around him. The way it is now a poor black mother is given the crumbs of the healthcare system and her child will probably perpetuate the same lifestyle. Americans have decided that a level of mediocre health for the poor, mediocre education and the resulting crime, drugs and so on is an acceptable level in society.

Your metaphors are revealing: 'Leaks and locks'...'security'. No need to look at your location and know that you are an American....the United States of Paranoia. the Internet: Leave it alone. It's an amorphous giant tool of creativity that has evolved over the last few years and it's very open and ever changing nature responds in months to the whims of those using it. A short time ago there was no Yahoo, or Google, Youtube, etc. the Internet meets my needs and gets better all the time.

I'm a Canadian but have lived in 2 U.S. states...Nevada for an extended time. The quality of health care was more or less the same. Very good and the differences are probably more to do with experience with individual health care professionals than the system. What I prefer about the Canadian system is the flexibility it gives in life. I've been able to move around, change employment positions, go back to university, take time off for a year, now consult in geology, without even thinking about health care. If I get sick I walk into the nearest clinic and if I need a test, MRI, hospitalbed, operation....it's just a given than it's there. My circumstance in life isn't a variable. Yes, I do pay for the peace of mind in my taxes. In fact I pay more that I would for private care in the US. But, my 80 year-old widow mother is also fully covered and, more importantly, so is the anonymous single mother down the street with 3 kids. She receives top notch prenatal care, as good an obstetric delivery team as anyone else. She will receive a year's paid maternity leave after birth and her children will be scheduled for regular visits to the wellness clinic and pediatrician. She will receive counselling on stress, nutrition and other needs. The bottom line is she and, most importantly her children, will be able to enjoy a quality of life that has dignity. Her children will get quality education, be healthy and contribute in future years to raise the next generation of Canadians. The exception? No. More less the same system, with a few tweaks, practiced throughout the western world except the USA. In Canada even the right wing party falls over itself to distance itself from an American-style health care because Canadians like our sytem. It has flaws but we can fix them. The 'fixing' is to make sure nobody falls through the cracks or is disadvantaged because of health related issues.

Years ago I had a chemistry set and, along with a microscope, was one of my favorite memories of youth. However, chemistry in school will be a bit more structured than what you learn with the set. Get or don't get the set but use part of the summer to go on line or to the library and read up on chemistry fundamentals. If you go into your first class a little ahead of the curve then it won't be as intimidating. Don't skip the chemistry math. It's relatively easy and really helps to understand what's actually going on. It's more fun to do the experiments if you have your equations all down easy. If you live in a larger center go visit the college or university and walk around the science building. Don't be scared to ask someone to show you around a lab or the library. When I was a boy growing up in Montreal my friend and I used to spend lots of time just hanging out at various science departments at Mcgill university and Univeriste de Montreal and got to see do all sorts of neat stuff.

???? quite the sentence. Could you provide some meat on your 'just knowing'....and 'enough to know'. Next time I review a science paper I'll skip over the details and advise the author that 'just knowing' is proof enough. And what's this about 'forces of nature to casually keep in check'? Do you mean a god or some other agent? Forces of nature are dependent on energy and matter and the physics of such. Matter and energy can't be 'exaggerated'. Matter and energy is never out of balance. E =mc2. I assume you mean some stable predictable climate and not forces of Nature.

If you have a few minutes, this is an appropriate talk posted on another science forum: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344 Dawkins on the topic of our senses and what is our 'reality'.