Rush Limbaugh Accuses Michael J. Fox of Faking Parkinsons Symptoms

[ParanoiA]

Just to clear some things up:

 

(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.

 

That's the first line of the amendment. To me, SCNT sounds at the very least like the "attempt" to clone a human being. But here's the definition of this sentence:

 

6. As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

 

(1) “Blastocyst” means a small mass of cells that results from cell division, caused either by fertilization or somatic cell nuclear transfer, that has not been implanted in a uterus.

 

(2) “Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

 

So, the actual first line of the Amendment 2 ballot initiative actually is:

 

(1) No person may implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.

 

So, cloning and growing a human to full term is just fine, as long as it doesn't require or take place in a uterus.

 

That's using the language defined by the Amendment 2 initiative itself.

 

Cloning a human is perfectly fine under this Amendment. It's all in how you do it. This is the kind of shady smoke screen techniques used by politicians and activists to fool people into legalizing things they never intended to legalize.

 

Thanks Michael...for helping to dupe the public again.

[ParanoiA]

Something else about Amendment 2, that has been batted around a little late in the game.

 

From http://www.2tricky.org/exploitive.htm

Amendment 2 also includes a legal loophole that would shield cloning researchers from responsibility when women are injured or die while selling their eggs. Amendment 2 makes it illegal to "discourage" or "create disincentives" for cloning human life. And that could certainly include filing wrongful-death lawsuits.

 

It is true that Amendment 2 makes it illegal to "discourage" or "create disincentives" for this research.

 

7. The provisions of this section and of all state and local laws, regulations, rules, charters, ordinances, and other governmental actions shall be construed in favor of the conduct of stem cell research and the provision of stem cell therapies and cures. No state or local law, regulation, rule, charter, ordinance, or other governmental action shall (i) prevent, restrict, obstruct, or discourage any stem cell research or stem cell therapies and cures that are permitted by this section to be conducted or provided, or (ii) create disincentives for any person to engage in or otherwise associate with such research or therapies and cures.

 

Now, I'm no lawyer, so I don't see how this affects patient's or relatives' rights to sue for wrongful death or complications from selling eggs and so forth. But I have heard alot about this part of the debate the last few days, and apparently this makes it harder to get compensation for malpractice during these risky procedures.

 

It also is common to pump women full of hormones and fertility drugs so their ovaries will release multiple eggs rather than one at a time. Women can die as a result of their ovaries being over-stimulated.

 

As far as I know, that's already legal though. But I'm not sure. Either way, Michael J Fox isn't the poor saint the liberal guilt trip machine wants you to believe.

[bascule]

Talent conceeds!

 

And Amendment 2 is currently on the up and up with 88% of precincts reporting.

 

Hooray!

[ParanoiA]

Amendment 2 is still on top with 97% reporting. It kept flip flopping like John Kerry last night - one minute it was winning, next it was losing. I was afraid some republican heavy district was going to trash it last minute.

 

So, here's the good news in Missouri:

 

Amendment 2 is passed

Amendment 3 is defeated ( a smoker's tax to provide money for kids )

Minimum wage is increased ( I believe to $6.50 / hour from $5.15/hour.)

No taxes for veteran resources ( something about tax exemption for veteran related stuff )

 

Bad news in Missouri:

 

No libertarians were elected ( it's a conspiracy )

Lying, cheating, rich hypocritical democrats got elected

[bascule]

Lying, cheating, rich hypocritical democrats got elected

 

As opposed to lying, cheating, rich hypocritical Republicans?

[Sisyphus]

How exactly does "rich" fit in with that sentence?

[ParanoiA]

How exactly does "rich" fit in with that sentence?

 

 

Well, let's see...McCaskill spent $8.4 million to get a $165,000 a year job. Her husband is a millionaire developer though most of her millions come from her own merit.

[Pangloss]

McCaskill spent $8.4 million to get a $165,000 a year job.

 

... that she has to win again in two years!

 

(chuckle) I don't think I've ever heard anyone put it quite that way before. Cute.

[Phi for All]

... that she has to win again in two years!

... and retain office for 51 years to make a profit on salary.

[swansont]

Well, let's see...McCaskill spent $8.4 million to get a $165,000 a year job.

 

How much of it was her money?

[bascule]

... that she has to win again in two years!

 

Psst, Senators have 6-year terms

[ParanoiA]

... that she has to win again in two years!

 

(chuckle) I don't think I've ever heard anyone put it quite that way before. Cute.

 

I have to direct the credit for that to LivinLiberal. We were talking about the blatant, obvious corruption in politics and he made the point that the simple fact that far more money is spent getting the job than what the job pays - that ought to tell you something...

[AL]

As in, "silly liberals, if you melt ice in water, the water levels go down! Morons!" And while that is true, nobody is saying it isn't. The problem is with Antarctica (which is a continent, not an iceburg, Rush), and Greenland.

Slightly OT, but is that really true? It's certainly true that if you melted submerged ice it would lower the water level, but normal ice floats on the surface with a good chunk of its volume above the water level. When that melts, it might raise the water level.

 

I guess I could check in my kitchen with a glass of water, but I'm too lazy....

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Slightly OT, but is that really true? It's certainly true that if you melted submerged ice it would lower the water level, but normal ice floats on the surface with a good chunk of its volume above the water level. When that melts, it might raise the water level.

 

I guess I could check in my kitchen with a glass of water, but I'm too lazy....

 

The water level would not change at all.

[bascule]

Slightly OT, but is that really true? It's certainly true that if you melted submerged ice it would lower the water level, but normal ice floats on the surface with a good chunk of its volume above the water level. When that melts, it might raise the water level.

 

I guess you don't understand the basic principles of buoyancy, or that ice is less dense than water.

[bascule]

The problem is with Antarctica (which is a continent, not an iceburg, Rush), and Greenland.

 

The biggest problem is with glaciers

[AL]

I guess you don't understand the basic principles of buoyancy, or that ice is less dense than water.

EDIT: Hold on, I'll calculate it right now to see if Rush is right like you say, or if Cap'N is right. (After dinner, gimme an hour).

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

EDIT: Hold on, I'll calculate it right now to see if Rush is right like you say, or if Cap'N is right. (After dinner, gimme an hour).

 

Buoyancy says that an object displaces exactly its weight in water. An ice cube of water would displace its weight in water, and an ice cube is water.

[AL]

Buoyancy says that an object displaces exactly its weight in water. An ice cube of water would displace its weight in water, and an ice cube is water.

Ah, thank you. I'm slow today after 8 hours in the lab.

 

Still, I'm curious why bascule would say I don't understand buoyancy or know the density of ice vs. water, when it's precisely those two things which lead me to suspect that Rush was wrong or at least not obviously correct when (or if) he said the water level gets lower. Knowing buoyancy makes this statement at least not as obvious as it is made out to be, and of course, incorrect when everything's considered. Bascule, you think the water level gets lower?

[ecoli]

well, when it comes to a glass of water, if you take a cup with a lot of ice and water, than when the ice melts, the level gets lower. But, I'm assuming this is because there is so much ice, that some of it gets pushed down and is completely submerged, so it displaces more than it was floating at the top. Right?

[bascule]

Bascule, you think the water level gets lower?

 

Absolutely not, and that was my point

[AL]

Absolutely not, and that was my point

Huh? Well, OK. Your initial response to me doesn't really make any sense in light of all this, but whatever. I just wanted to make the point that the claim of lower water levels was suspect, and I did.

[bascule]

Huh? Well, OK. Your initial response to me doesn't really make any sense in light of all this, but whatever. I just wanted to make the point that the claim of lower water levels was suspect, and I did.

 

The real problem with melting sea ice is the surface albedo of sea ice compared to seawater... something like 90% to 10% respectively.

 

Melting sea ice forms part of a feedback loop in this respect: the more sea ice melts, the more heat the seawater absorbs, and the more earth's albedo shifts