packsaddle

"packsaddle, Maybe this is why the Bush Administration objected to the process. Maybe they knew it was false." Brent, if you locate a clear statement by the administration explaining their decision, I would like to read it. But the premise you state in the second sentence of your post is incorrect. Aside from AJC articles, have you actually read the Nature articles, the original literature? In case the answer is 'no', I will respond. Yes, embryos were destroyed during the development of the technique claimed by ACT. ACT is privately funded. They are allowed to do this. Actually they can do pretty much anything they want. There's nothing much you can do about it. The administration has considered this and decided not to oppose private industrial research on human embryos. Like that? Assuming ACT's newly-developed technique works, however, the technique will allow development of embryonic stem cell lines WITHOUT destruction of embryos. Lanza is correct in his assertion. OK, just in case you didn't understand that, here's what they did (in a 'nutshell'). ACT sacrificed some number of embryos in the 8-10 cell stage by separating one or more cells to develop stem cell lines. Each of the single, separated, pluripotent cells was cultured to allow it to replicate. These replicated pluripotent cells were then used to establish embryonic stem cell lines. Assuming their claim is correct, this is a large advance and here is why. IVF already sometimes employs a technique in which a single cell is removed from the embryo at the 8-10 cell stage. At present this separated cell is used to diagnose the genetic or other status of the embryo and, as I pointed out in the other thread, the intended recipient has the choice to reject embryos that are thusly shown to be defective. However, if the new ACT technique is applied during this routine IVF procedure, that single pluripotent cell can be allowed to replicate, thus supplying a larger number of copies of itself, all of them pluripotent. These would then be used, employing the ACT technique, to develop the embryonic stem cell line. The only risk to the actual embryo is the routine IVF procedure that is already in practice. The ACT technique would only apply to the pluripotent cells replicated after a single cell was removed during that routine IVF procedure. I'm sorry, this is as simple as I can make it. But the fact that ACT destroyed embryos during the development of the technique is irrelevant. Lanza is right. As an aside, IVF already involves the destruction of human embryos during that process. It happens routinely at a variety of steps in the process. As a society, we have already given the nod to this and it happens many times in many fertility clinics already. That genie will not go back in the bottle easily. The only persons who can continue to oppose this research on moral grounds, if the ACT technique is implemented, would be the few Catholics who are completely true to their faith, perhaps a few others. But to anticipate one other line of opposition, I offer this. It is possible that persons will object to the ACT technique because it did involve destruction of embryos during its development. That is their choice. However, the administration has already crossed that line. The administration approved federal funding for research on the existing embryonic stem cell lines ('grandfathering' them in, so-to-speak). And because those lines were established at the expense of embryos destroyed in the process, there can be no rational objection to the new technique on the basis that its development involved destruction of embryos. The only way to 'moral purity' now would be to terminate federal funding for ALL embryonic stem cell research, including that which was previously approved. Think that will happen? I'd like to see them try. Edited part: typos, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

FireKat, I appreciate what I think your intent is regarding giving up. For me it is a matter of economy of time. I have a certain amount of time to invest in this unit. After beating my head against the council wall for what seems to be a huge number of hours, I have decided that my time investment will produce a better return if it is invested in the unit itself. So far, I think the results indicate this wsa a good decision.

This is an issue that has been very vexing for this unit in the past. I have given up trying to make the council aware of the problem or trying to communicate to them some reasonable solutions. I sincerely believe they do not care. The way we apply this, once the card (sheet) is signed as complete by an approved counselor, it is a done deal. However, where I know for a fact that the boy has not actually met the requirements, I have a casual conversation with him about everything he has learned, including the importance of honestly meeting requirements. Every boy who has ever had this conversation has agreed that they were actually cheated out of the experience they wanted and needed. And most of them have worked, badge on sash, to complete the requirements after the fact. None of this is required, they do it because they choose to, because they know it is the right thing to do. And I am proud of them. I do wish that the camp would not make this a problem.

Thinking about the various ways boys attain rank, some more prepared than others, I note that most of them think that the rank itself is what was important, not the skills and experience and knowledge that got them there. In this case, scouting has much in common with more formal education. Getting there seems to be OK regardless of how they do it. This has resulted in a rude awakening for many once they arrive in my classrooms, for example. This thread is about that preparedness. It has been a long-standing joke that the most important fundamental question that students in many of the fields of liberal arts need to master is: "Would you like fries with your order?" But the joke is no joke and today it extends to other fields as well. My personal observations are backed by formal studies and this concern is one reason why I compared (in the parent thread) the political decisions on certain areas of research to Sputnik. In case the symbolism was too obscure: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/education/02college.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1157196245-lB1vD+ZfIkXcX5aFP+Xd7Q In short, our best and brightest are less and less prepared to master the studies and knowledge on which our nation's long-term prosperity and security depend. The full Stanford report is embargoed until 12 September but one for Georgia can be found here:

SA, it is also a great book, "Rocket Boys", the autobiographical book on which the movie was based. Homer is still writing books, by the way. Beav nailed it regarding the reference to Sputnik. After WW2, when the best of American and German science had coalesced in this country, it was not only a surprise when the Russians put that satellite up first, but an embarrassment to have it orbiting over us, even transmitting a radio signal that did nothing but poke the stick in our eye even harder. We were complacent and arrogant. Sputnik woke us up and stimulated this country to seriously promote science and math at every level in our schools. My generation gained from it. But education is something that anyone can benefit from - or neglect. And when I visit third world countries and encounter people at truly remote locations, people that have better educational preparation than many of our college freshmen, I wonder what happened. So far, I can't find sole culpability in the NEA or the political system. No, I think the public has taken an anti-intellectual turn and education is no longer as highly valued as it once was - complacency and arrogance, perhaps. But that's OK. This country is still on top of the world for higher education at least. I survey our graduate students and I see a majority from: India, China, other Asian countries. This is in the sciences and engineering. Only a blessed few of our own can compete successfully for entry at that level. If we're lucky some of that foreign talent will remain here instead of taking it all back home. In the global economy, those individuals and organizations that are less able to compete will be removed through the natural selective process. And every little bit of our intellectual capital that we send (or drive) overseas (read, stem cell research) will just hasten the process. It is sad that persons in need may have to wait longer for research that might produce therapies and cures. But the hypocrisy of the decisions that produce that result is just a shaper point on that stick in our national eye.

Heh, heh, Fuzzy, I'm afraid you're out of the picture as far as my wife is concerned, she just wants to make sure the remains are identified positively. I'm worth a whole lot more dead than alive. But thanks for the concern...I do wear the gear and helmet...I don't want to be a premature organ donor. Anyway, she'll just torpedo the whole thing buying new carpet or something and I'll eventually get too doggone old to do more than just dream. Don't say it! Back to the public discussion topic, 'children' who are over 18, as much as many parents would like to deny, are consenting adults. Most of them are already well-informed in these topics from their schooling on the streets. In fact, the boys entering this unit at age 11, almost every one of them, enter with an impressive array of vocabulary and ideas on these topics. Much of what they think they know is completely false. Wouldn't it be better for them to at least get it right? I have asked this before, what issue or problem is it whose understanding or solution is enhanced by ignorance? I would be interested in knowing what any of you think.

So far, leaders haven't been reimbursed for fuel unless they are hauling the trailer. If a trip is a long one, we try to take the church bus (we pay the gas when we do this). For summer camp the leaders don't have to pay the camp fee. I wouldn't mind seeing some fuel reimbursement but I have to admit...one reason I was able to rationalize buying the monster was to use it for the troop, so I guess this is the price. No complaints here. Anyway, I've never deducted anything from my taxes although if there was some way to deduct for the hours.....

Trevorum, you dog. You put me in the position of having to defend the Vatican! Actually the Catholic Church is being perfectly consistent here. They oppose every aspect of this technology, including IVF. And the stated reason is grounded in scripture, to the effect that reproduction must be the product of the union of a man and a woman in a loving relationship. Someone please correct me if I got that wrong. "In summary, the Catholic Church condemns as gravely evil acts, both IVF in and of itself, and stem cell research performed on IVF embryos." Hey, if IVF is evil the rest is moot. http://catholicinsight.com/online/church/vatican/article_475.shtml The hypocrisy that I think you are attempting to highlight is that which shrugs at IVF and then, for no good reason, objects to stem cell research that does nothing more than IVF does in the first place. If THAT is your point, I agree.

Discuss human reproductive biology in school? Discuss current social issues in school? Heaven forbid! Oops, who needs heaven to forbid that, plenty of volunteers right here. Trevorum, "But what business is it of the government really? And exactly what are the objections to plural marriage? Ive never received satisfactory answers to either question." Since no-one else will give it a try - None of their business, and none that I can think of outside the legal entanglements (as long as everyone is a consenting adult).

Heh, heh, I can always depend on Brent. At the time I was returning home from work with a company truck and several other employees (Nuclear Industry), two of whom were black. Needless so say, we didn't stop to vent our views. I'm sure my black friends will be surprised to learn that they were in support of the Klan. But I suppose that's the way good ol' Neil would see it too. As for Lee, we hashed that one over a while back, Trevorum and I. Just take a peek at that old thread for my response.

Friendly, courteous, helpful, kind, cheerful...just a few things that come to mind here. As has been stated already, so many opportunities for good choices were missed in this case. And violence is never warranted for something like this. My personal view is that the Confederate flag in every manifestation is the symbol of a failed effort to violently destroy our country by a bunch of traitors. Here in the South, mine is a minority opinion. But the strongest image I have for it was driving past a Klan rally back in the '70s and seeing that flag displayed prominently as robed individuals stopped traffic trying to gain a larger membership. The Klan and similar groups adopted it as one of their symbols and the so-called 'heritage' group remained silent as if in approval. Interestingly, this was first brought to my attention by Neil Boortz (whom I often enjoy) during his derision of the 'flaggots' as he calls them. Great fun, but as the Klan and similar groups waved the Confederate flag, the silence by more moderate persons was, as Neil argues, acquiescence to the adoption of the flag as a symbol of prejudice and hate. Those who view it in those terms are, in this respect, correct.

Nice one Fuzzy, I wonder how many people actually remember the Burma Shave signs. The five on the side thing....gives me the willies just pondering it. But to answer Brent, some wives don't object, it takes the pressure off them. Just last night I showed my wife a photo of my new illicit love, the one that I want to run off with next summer...a Honda Gold Wing Aspencade. Her comment, "Just make sure your dental records are complete." There is also a lot to be said for solitude.

Hunt, your logic is impeccable. Regarding incest, here the Ptolemy Dynasty comes to mind. We like to ascribe its social unacceptability to genetics but I think there is something else to it as well. Functionally, polygamy is, and always has been, rampant. Keeping lovers, mistresses, and their male counterparts is still common. I wonder why those of us who object to certain social practices seem to be more tolerant when those practices are simply kept out of sight...and only apparent in our minds.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Hunt, I have read every one of the posts in this thread and this has truly been a busy day for this thread. I thank those who have provided such lively reading. But I'm with you and the dolls, ahem, action figures. You reminded me of a neighbor family we had over 20 years ago. Their religion put the sabbath on Saturday (OK, that when it's supposed to happen, I know), didn't allow them to celebrate Thanksgiving, birthdays, Halloween, and at Christmas they didn't exchange gifts. They told me the denomination but I have forgotten over the years. The thing that reminded me was that they would allow their two boys to play with toy guns and trucks and things, but not action figures. 'Idols', 'Graven Images', they said. I was almost tempted to limit my children from playing with them....nah! We have the freedom to adopt strange and interesting belief systems. But it is wrong if our beliefs lead us to make decisions that limit other individuals' rights and access. Perhaps someday studies will show the biological basis for sexual preference, or the lack of biological basis. But I suspect that even in the face of good objective evidence (of which there is little at present) many of us will continue to hold to our prejudices. I, for one, would like to see the evidence when it is eventually produced. And although I think there is a biological basis, if experimental evidence shows otherwise I am willing to change my view. The last thing I want is to be wrong about this and to stay that way after being shown it. FYI, I write with my right hand, eat with my left, and switch to either side as needed when using 'hand-neutral' tools. Son is leftie, daughter is rightie. Son works hard to cultivate his latent evil tendencies, daughter merely summons them. Gotta love 'em.

Beav, I too sympathize and I sincerely hope we will find a cure or a way to help you and many of my friends in similar situations. Disease does not care about political views. I wish politics would likewise stay out of the way of medical or other scientific research. Brent, I disagreed with Clinton on that bill. And you are correct to note the long history of technological advances in reproductive and molecular biology. I also opposed other attempts to limit or regulate those other aspects of reproductive biology and molecular genetics. Fortunately, most of those other attempts failed. However, you are misrepresenting this issue regarding Bush's funding for stem cell research. The research would have been funded with little notice if not for the ethical objections you are concerned with. Bush's limited federal funding merely continued what already was begun and halted federal support for further development. But you are correct, the business world IS pouring funding into this research. So is the state of California and the governments of numerous countries. In addition to the original post, I just read in 'The Economist' that China is planning to move into the R&D arena, now that they have taken a leading role in manufacturing. Where we have been the world leader in so many scientific advances, the global economy is spreading the opportunities elsewhere. The Bush veto will provide some assistance for this process. But you are correct, and I have agreed, these technologies will happen, the developments will become available, and every aspect of your ethical concerns will happen anyway. As Gern and I have noted, however, every aspect of those ethical concerns also apply to IVF. And you still have not answered Gerns question. Gern might note that it would not be the first time you refused to answer the hard question. I suppose that, given my tendency to promote market solutions, I should agree with the logic of the current situation. If a majority of the American people want to limit federal funding for this research, then they should get that result. And since the American people voted for leaders who have made this decision, I suppose we got what we asked for. Fair enough. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Heh, heh, Dan I remind you and everyone else that a gay marriage is the ONLY marriage in which BOTH partners can have children. Gay women that is. A quick visit to a sperm bank and, viola!, two pregnancies. This male dominated forum should check their prejudices at the door, all of us. But your ending premise is correct, or to put in the words of Paul (Population Bomb) Ehrlich, people can be made in vast quantities by unskilled labor who enjoy their work.

On this day, back in 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. presented his famous, 'I Have a Dream' speech in Washington, DC. I hope everyone remembers that although there has been progress, it is still a dream that many seek.

OK, some clarification by the legal eagles, please. If a couple is married in MA, and take a driving trip to FL, and one gets sick (or something similar) on the way down. They end up in a clinic in south GA. Will this legal marriage be recognized by the state GA? Also, I think the original thread topic has become lost along the way. My church supports gay marriage and is a welcoming congregation. The CO of this unit supports it and is also welcoming. And in the immediate area, there are several other churches that support it, not sure about those outside the area. So when religion is split on the subject of gay rights, and tide seems to be in favor of those who are welcoming, this issue seems to finally be one of who has the most votes, and not some clear religious doctrine. Any thoughts?

Brent, something you wrote caught my attention: "Allowing gay marriage is tinkering with the DNA of our society. The consequences may not be truly known for years." Please clarify. Are you actually thinking about DNA and the genome of the population, or are you using some kind of metaphor? Some details please.

Brent, During the process of in-vivo fertilization, at the 8 to 10-cell stage, a cell (blastomere) is sometimes removed from the embryo for preimplantation genetic diagnosis. (I can only surmise that the recipient would likely decline this embryo if it was shown to be defective...makes sense, doesn't it?) Oops, that would be an abortion, wouldn't it? Along with all those other frozen, unused embryos that eventually are discarded with the trash - why is there no hue and cry to stop IVF? Answer: hypocrisy. (but that's another thread) Anyway, this process is already happening and has been happening for the last 10 or so years. No regulation, out of control, too late. The new advance can use THE SAME CELL that is removed for preimplantation genetic diagnosis...to begin a stem cell line. If you can figure out how this increases the harm to the embryo, over the risk that's already there in the established process, I would like to know. This completely blows the stated objection (sacrifice of an embryo) out of the water. So what is your explanation for why the administration still stands in the way of federal funding for the research? As for your other question regarding miracles: In case you missed that lecture, science doesn't engage in miracles. But in case you are thinking about the advances that stem cell research might provide in medical care, they can't happen without the research. Duh! I do suggest, however, that you and all others who similarly feel very strongly about this issue should decline, in the future, all medical procedures that were derived from stem cell research. Things should pretty much take care of themselves after that.

Not sure what the reference is to a really awful car. I must have missed something. Brent, actually you asked me, "Are you arguing he should have been allowed to remain in Scouting?" I hadn't argued about him at all. No need. He was caught in criminal conduct. And I already told you I thought criminals should not be leaders. What car do you drive? Anyway, to answer your second question, if I see ANYONE with kiddie porn on their computer, I call law enforcement. Is this really so complicated? However, this has never happened and I think it is unlikely to happen. So, would you report someone if you know they cheat on their taxes? I'm not sure why you're going off on this. You say you don't expect ME to turn them in. So why are you ranting to me about it. YOU can't do anything about it. You don't expect ME to do anything about it. Nothing is going to be done about it. You say gay leaders should leave. OK, that's your rant. But it's obviously up to them, not me, not you, and they aren't leaving. And BSA does allow it by virtue (pun intended) of their don't-ask-don't-tell policy. Sputter all you want, there's nothing you can do about it. And that's my point (and you should agree), it is a failed policy. It doesn't work.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

He was a criminal. I thought that Merlyn had already informed you of that. Sorry. I think criminals should not be leaders. Seems obvious. As for the parts of the law and oath that usually are NOT invoked in this issue, these leaders are trustworthy. At least they have been with me. Is there something on the application that asks for the applicant's sexual preference? No? Then how would being gay make them untrustworthy? I suggest that you satisfy your urges by attempting to remove someone in your sphere of influence on the basis of 'untrustworthy'. Find someone who cheats on his wife, or his taxes. See if you can get them removed for that infraction. But apply your standard evenly and across the board, not selectively, only to those you don't like for some other reason. Enjoy. Are you going to ignore 'helpful' or 'friendly' or the others? Just wondering. I'll be interested in monitoring your success.

Innoculated already, Brent. Fairly painless too. The stem cell issue is one that does indeed draw attention to the risks of subordinating intellect to ideology. You're right, in the global market we will eventually realize everything that so many have feared regarding reproductive biology. The patents will just go offshore with the jobs and some brain drain as well. And the research will continue anyway(translation: the affected embryos will also merely move offshore). Those who are afraid of the outcome of this research and support its limitation in the US will not succeed at all, but merely will cause the research to move to a place outside our control. This is beside the point, though. Before now, it was possible that the objections to stem cell research were, indeed, based on the familiar concerns that we all read. But now, there has been a breakthrough that answers the supposed objections and concerns of the opposition, solves the fundamental (no pun intended) problem. Embryos would not be harmed and the cells used would be those taken anyway for other tests. And then..... It is clear that the opposition wasn't based on what they said it was, but on something else. What the something else is, they haven't explained - now that the original objection has been swept aside. I am not worried about the research. As I said, it will happen anyway, perhaps offshore, perhaps later. I am merely bringing the event to the attention of the forum. We are, after all, getting what we asked for. Or do you have a problem with that?

I try to judge people on the basis of their individual merit and not as a class. The individuals I am aware of who happen to be gay leaders - are good leaders and pose absolutely no risk to the boys. The rules say absolutely nothing about responsibility to turn in other persons if they have not committed a crime. I comply with the regs, others can choose to or not. The official membership police can take whatever action they want, or more likely not. That said, BSA is obviously not serious about the gay leader issue, they just keep one faction of BSA happy by booting someone once in a while if that person is 'outed' in some way, but as long as the appearance is right (don't ask, don't tell), they're OK with it. It is a logical inevitability for their policy. Like I said, tough luck. Yesterday's news.

OK, I will be direct. To Yellowhammer and those of similar thought processes: Gays are already in scouting. I know this as a fact in a real-life situation. In this case, at least, they will not leave. They pose no risk whatsoever to the boys. Your arguments are yesterday's news. Tough luck.