Have you read all three? I've never read Atlas Shrugged. I am sure it is good, but I'm just not a huge fan of fiction.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
btw, I'd take "Atlas Shrugged" to the proverbial desert island well before "For The New Intellectual" or "The Virtue of Selfishness" ... so that is another point that, when thought too much about, may speak to the contention between us on the individual vs. community debate.

I was only referring to an extreme example to make a point. Naturally, they are not comparable in extremity. As much as people say you can't legislate morality. They do it all the time. I personally have beliefs that prevent me from supporting ESC line development by the methods that are now unsupported by the gov't. When I said generating life for it to be destroyed, I was referring to the generation of viable embryos in vitro in order to use them purely for research. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't know if the research should be outlawed, but I don't want my taxes paying for it. I think the promise of adult-derived lines is where we should be concentrating on our efforts. That eliminates all controversy entirely. The papers I've read on the topic show great promise. Forgive my exaggeration. I couldn't think of many other gross abuses of humanity in scientific research.

Personally, I'd rather the embryos were never made (to be ultimately incinerated) in the first place. Once they are however, I have few qualms with their use.
In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Wow, closest to a Godwin's Law response I've had on the sift... not that your example was inappropriate.

I don't really understand the belief that science should have no constrictions. If it should not, then the research done on the Jews in WWII would be acceptable which of course it is not. This is of course an extreme example, but symbolically applicable to our discussion nonetheless. There is a line to be drawn, I just draw it shorter than many scientists. Tools available to humanity are not always right to use. I don't like the idea of creating human life in order to destroy it. That disturbs me and I can't see the worth when we are inches from reversing the epigenetic changes that occur when cells differentiate. Just as high gas prices drive a demand for alternate energy sources, saying no to ESCs can drive the research of adult derived stem cell technology.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
MY understanding is that two things ruffle feathers:

1)no cell lines derived from extra sperm-plus-egg after in vitro fertilization ("no you may not use this for experiments, its precious... now off to the incinerator with it"),

and

2)arbitrary limits on what scientists can do based on a moral feeling, determined independent of the usual methods employed to protect populations or otherwise limit research, and which lead to a somewhat illogical end; telling scientists its not moral to add chemicals to human stem cells moments after they've added them to a dish of any other animal's stem cells can seem odd... they're both a couple of dishes with cells in them... neither is going to ever bark or say hi.

And slippery-sloping it, as some do, to saying things like "if we let them do this they'll have cyborgs modeled with Arnold's stem cells" is bogus, precisely because according to them scientists can do the same thing by reversing adult cells into pluripotency. Anyhow, placing restrictions on a tool like the use of a human cell line for moral reasons is strange to me,... and I'm more curious how far the pendulum will swing when it swings back the other direction.



In reply to this comment by Doc_M:
You can probably guess by now that I am not an abortions supporter for most reasons, so naturally, I don't support production of new embryonic stem cell lines by that method. I think that the advances of adult-derived stem cells are FAR more valuable than any other research of its type. I have friends who study embryonic lines and those who study adult derived lines. I have to confess that that the adult derived lines seem to produce more results and more promising futures than the embryonic lines ironically.

I support a ban on embryonic stem cell line generation simply because there is a significant chance that it is wrong. We don't need them. We have shown that we don't need them. Let's work on something we know to be worth what is spent. I feel similarly about animals; use them only when absolutely needed, and though that is often, use them minimally.
And BTW, Net, 3.2 million is nothing. Talk to me in billions. My lab alone (of thousands) is budgeted a million a year, though lately we haven't been spending that much.

Yeah. I noticed this too when I first submitted this vid, and I am confused as to how that could be. WTF ???

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
... anyone else getting three videos for "2 hot girls in a shower" for the related videos at the bottom of the comment page? ... what up with that?

bravo.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

The mortgage crisis is a direct result of deregulation of that industry; it has crippled our economy. And because the government now won't let these businesses fail we're now bailing out companies that had all the freedom they asked for.

The reality is that businesses are successful when they make money for their shareholders. There is no incentive for private health companies to provide preventative medicine, or provide healthcare to poor people or people who are already sick or injured; its much more lucrative to outwit a person who is hospitalized by not paying everything in the agreement unless called-out on it. There is no incentive for energy companies to do anything more than what is legally required in order to provide power for those who can pay, and no sane reason for them to discourage excess use of power. ...

I was about to continue, but you get where I'm going with this. Money allows choices, like where and how well you live, eat, shop, ... Right now money also impacts how well your kids can be educated (and how much they can then earn) and how good your healthcare can be (and how healthy you are again impacts your financial status). I fail to see the increase in freedom to be had by letting the market leave good people uneducated and sick, unless 'freedom' to you is anarchy.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
americans don't need government run healthcare, energy, education assistance, or job training--we need freedom. with freedom, we will have all this and more.

The mortgage crisis is a direct result of deregulation of that industry; it has crippled our economy. And because the government now won't let these businesses fail we're now bailing out companies that had all the freedom they asked for.

The reality is that businesses are successful when they make money for their shareholders. There is no incentive for private health companies to provide preventative medicine, or provide healthcare to poor people or people who are already sick or injured; its much more lucrative to outwit a person who is hospitalized by not paying everything in the agreement unless called-out on it. There is no incentive for energy companies to do anything more than what is legally required in order to provide power for those who can pay, and no sane reason for them to discourage excess use of power. ...

I was about to continue, but you get where I'm going with this. Money allows choices, like where and how well you live, eat, shop, ... Right now money also impacts how well your kids can be educated (and how much they can then earn) and how good your healthcare can be (and how healthy you are again impacts your financial status). I fail to see the increase in freedom to be had by letting the market leave good people uneducated and sick, unless 'freedom' to you is anarchy.

1. The mortgage crisis was caused by irresponsible individuals who signed contracts they could not fulfill, and was made worse by our current inflationary monetary policy. Nobody made the people who make $30,000 a year take out a $300,0000 loan. The banks involved should go out of business, or suffer huge financial losses--that is the risk they take in the free market.

2. If there is a demand for preventative medicine in the free market, you can bet there will be someone willing to make a profit off supplying it. For example, it is true that a heart surgeon profits when someone has a heart attack, but that doesn't stop another business profiting off preventing heart attacks--in direction completion with the surgeon. This competition in the free market would eventually lead to lower prices for heart surgery. One problem with our healthcare system is that prices are artificially high as a result of government regulation.

3. The free market rewards hard work and ingeunity, and punishes laziness and poor decision making. What is a better recipe for production and creation of wealth? It is these two things, and these two things alone that can create a better standard of living not just for the wealthy, but for an entire society.

I suppose you're right.

Mostly was thinking how nutso everyone went over Jamie Lynn Spears' teenage pregnancy, and I'm thinking "daughter of VP" is probably higher social status than the Spears family.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
In reply to this comment by NetRunner:
... kind of example this sets for the first family, and...

Aren't they, like, the 'second' family... potentially?

Not anymore (for now).


In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
they're dead, Jim, they're all *dead

Thank you very much, that was excellent.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Larry Flynt wrote a wonderful, heartfelt opinion piece upon the death of his... friend,... Jerry Falwell.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-flynt20may20,0,2751741.story?coll=la-home-commentary

... a highlight, summing up his Supreme Court victory over Falwell;

'The justices held that a parody of a public figure was protected under the 1st Amendment even if it was outrageous, even if it was "doubtless gross and repugnant," as they put it, and even if it was designed to inflict emotional distress. In a unanimous decision — written by, of all people, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist — the court reasoned that if it supported Falwell's lower-court victory, no one would ever have to prove something was false and libelous to win a judgment. All anyone would have to prove is that "he upset me" or "she made me feel bad." The lawsuits would be endless, and that would be the end of free speech.'


I also recall a Larry Flint interview where he noted that part of his late-life friendship with Jerry Falwell was driven by Jerry's appreciation of having someone who didn't agree with him, and wouldn't just tell him what he wanted to hear.

In one or two sentences, what is conservatism to you?

The Individual is the most important figure in a free society. The Individual has rights that are inherited simply by being human (or bestowed by a Creator if you choose to worship one).

The State has no rights, only powers, which are strictly limited by the Constitution. The State exists to protect our rights and the rights of our neighbors and ensure, as best it can, equality of opportunity and justice for all. The State governs with the consent of the People; when it fails, we reserve the right to throw it out and start over.


"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." --Thomas Jefferson

nice comments!

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I guess I can put this in *science, now that I've dragged some nerdy language out on the comment board,

That's the problem, unless we get republicans back in congress, they are going to run Obama too. He voted with his party 93% of the time. I'll admit that McCain isn't much better since he mistakes stubbornness for principal. But Peloci pushed Obama around when he was a senator and I can see her doing the same if he's elected president.

I feel like I'm trying to choose the lesser of two evils this election season. But my biggest issue with Obama is his double talk, I have no idea what he's going to do because he talks out of both sides of his mouth. He needs to find his issues and stick to them.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Confession; my car has one bumper sticker on it, and its Obama'08.

He's a smart man. There's a small possibility he could become a Nixon, but a much greater chance he'll work to get congress to bullshit around just a little less.

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:
Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I really hope the American public can see how unstable he is before November.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:


He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.

Aww that stinks. Well I'm glad you DID learn something from the vid though. I saw it in a different light, but I'm just used to being around cats. WB btw

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I don't... girlfriend is allergic

In reply to this comment by Obsidianfire:
I've seen it on a daily basis. I have a cat.

I've seen it on a daily basis. I have a cat.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
I'd never before seen a vertebrate animal's eyes adjust with attention and excitement so intensely. All the muscles throughout the cats body load up in preparation for the kill, including the eyes. As a biology and physiology buff I thought it was rather remarkable. Anyhow... I guess the large hadron collider should be pretty cool, too... eventually...


In reply to this comment by Obsidianfire:
I downvoted on your cat videos because the sift is already overflowing with them. It's clogging up the rest of the sift. This is Videosift not Videocat. I'm just tired of seeing it. It's an easy way to make a top 15 and I think that's sad when we have other videos on here talking about Large Hadron Colliders and studies about how and why we sleep. You know, intelligent things. I don't like that the videos that let people think aren't getting very many votes and the videos that dumb people down are getting a ton. It's my opinion, so I downvote. That's the point of downvoting. If it were out of spite, I'd be downvoting ALL videos wouldn't I? It's nothing against you, and I know how it feels to have your video downvoted, but I've just had enough of it. So I'm being less passive and more aggressive. I do have the right to do that here, that's the point of the sift. If people don't agree then so be it. But that's what I feel and I'm not going with the crowd here.
http://www.videosift.com/faq-en.php#voting


>> ^legacy0100:
>> ^Obsidianfire:
5 minutes of a cat sitting in a corner "wary?" No more damn cat videos!

^I respect people's different opinions and taste. But I think ObsidianFire is downvoting my recent cat videos just out of spite. You've got problems with cat videos being sifted here? Alright then, nothing I can do about that. But that's still YOUR problem.
If you didn't want to see cat videos, don't watch it. It's clearly labeled 'catsanddogs', thumbnail has cat images on it, and the title & tags clearly say the word 'CAT'. Why watch something you know you're not gonna enjoy and bitch about it later? Whose fault is that?

Thanks for the article, it was a good read. I really hope the American public can see how unstable he is before November.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?em&ex=1214107200&en=98dbf7f8bae1fe38&ei=5087%0A

In reply to this comment by gorgonheap:


He advocates energy independence but pretends this can occur without more domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.

Of course maybe that's the defining mark of a true politician, being able to speak to one side while the other hears a different message.