Epic Thoughts

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. (Bertrand Russell)

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood.
Leviticus 17:14 For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof:

The Bible makes it clear that life of the flesh is in the blood. So the question of whether or not something is alive according to the Bible, is whether or not it contains blood. The embryos from which human embryonic stem cells are derived are typically four to five days old. Blood does not exist in an embryo until about 18 days after conception, therefore there is no blood in the embryo nor in the stem cells derived from them. And since, according to the Biblical definition, "the life of the flesh is in the blood," there is no life, therefore there is no murder.

Avian Bird Flu or Chicken Dance?
Our government seems intent on scaring the public and spending billions of dollars on a epidemic that most likely will never happen.

Does it really kill 50% of the people who get it? The claim is that the avian bird flu kills 50% of the people that contract it. This would be true if everyone who got it reported it to the authorities. But does everyone who gets it report it to the authorities? Keep in mind that in poorer countries, if someone simply has flu symptoms, they aren't likely to consult a doctor. They will simply never know if that had regular flu or bird flu. Therefore, if there are people who get bird flu but aren't severely affected by it, it's likely they will not be in included in the mortality rate statistics. If only those who are severely affected report to a doctor, then it should be expected (and should be reported) that the 50% mortality rate is artificially high. Remember, the rate is composed of those who got sick enough to go to a doctor and ignores those who didn't go to a doctor.

Will it mutate into a human version? Maybe, maybe not. There are two basic ways for it to mutate into a form that it can be passed easily between humans.

1) A person contracts both regular flu and bird flu allowing the two to combine. This is actually reasonably likely. But if it happens, then the resulting virus will most likely have the mortality rate and characteristics of regular human flu strains - something we deal with every year.

2) Mutate on it own. This is the bad news, because the resulting virus would probably maintain its high mortality rate. The good news is that while this is possible, it is very unlikely.

Can we make a vaccine now that will help in case a human version does spread?
If the virus mutates according to scenario (1) above, then we probably don't need a special vaccine. If it mutates according to scenario (2) above, then the virus will probably be so different from the current strain that any vaccine made now would probably be next to useless.

What should we do to prepare? The wisest way to prepare is to update the vaccine labs so that there is a shorter turn-around time between when a virus is discovered and when its vaccine becomes available. The good news is the technology already exists to do this. The bad news is that instead of doing this, we're wasting the money stockpiling a vaccine that most likely will never get used.

This reaffirms what I stated: Many people have been exposed, but only a few have gone to the doctor, therefore the 50% mortality rate is artificially high.

What if 10,000 people died in the U.S. from Bird Flu? Would that be cause for panic? What about three times that amount, 30,0000?
Well, the fact is 36,000 die in the U.S. from plain old regular flu. We already have a flu epidemic. From the Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Iraq War
I said long before the war that Saddam wasn't likely to have weapons of mass destruction. I also said that we were definitely going to invade. It seemed clear that the administration had an agenda and was intent on carrying it out.

First of, there was no hard evidence for WMD. The evidence presented consisted of unnamed sources and photos of trucks and plants. Iraq was one of the most industrialized countries in the Middle East. Trucks and plants were vital to their economy. When they showed photos of trucks driving around and claimed this "proved" WMD, I knew something smelled fishy.

Second, the UN weapons inspectors had found no evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq.

Third, and more importantly, Saddam had never rebuilt his military. If he had any ambitions to use or sell WMD, then he had to know there would be a major retaliation for doing so. Clearly he was not making preparations for this. Saddam may be evil, but he isn't stupid. And what's the fun of having WMD if you can't use them. This in itself should have raised serious doubts as to his possession of WMD.

Saddam was a terrible leader, but the world is full of terrible leaders. And there is no credible evidence linking Saddam to 9-11 or terrorism directed at the U.S. Our own government acknowledges that. While there were certainly some terrorists in Iraq, there are also terrorists here in the U.S. and every other major country.

Update August 21, 2006
When President Bush was asked what the Iraq had to do with the 9-11 attacks, Bush answered, "Nothing, except for it's part of -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack." (www.whitehouse.gov)

I am a veteran and have no qualms about using military force. In fact, I believe that sometimes a country is morally obligated to use its military. But I also believe that if you are going to use your military, then you should have a reasonable expectation of improving the situation. I still can't comprehend how anyone thought that invading Iraq was going to improve the problem or help in the war on terrorism. If we do succeed in creating a true democracy in Iraq, then how long will it be before they adopt an anti U.S. position? If we prevent this by installing a puppet government, then Iraq and the rest of the Middle East will resent us for it. It's a no win situation. If you don't believe this, remember, already 45% of the Iraqi people believe it is all right to injure and kill Americans.

And now Iraq is just a terrorist training ground. Our own military reports that terrorists are coming in from all over the middle east and learning how to make and implement more effective and destructive terrorist weapons. Where do you think these terrorists will go when the war is over? (besides the old folks home)

Why did we destroy the Iraqi military and police forces?
I can at least understand the reasoning for taking out the military. I don't agree with it, but I can at least understand it. Certainly some of the military leaders had to be replaced. But keep the military and put Iraqis who are going to cooperate with the new government in charge. The average soldier will be loyal to who ever is in charge - as long as they see them as legitimate. But dismantle the police? Why? This made no sense at all. These two actions virtually guaranteed major chaos and a long-term commitment by the U.S. How could anyone have thought the result of these actions would lead to anything but this?

But in any event, we are there. Should would do an immediate pull out? Unfortunately, the Pottery Barn rule is in effect. We can't go into a country, destroy its security and infrastructure and then just say, "eh, changed my mind, see ya." We now have a moral obligation to at least get the government up and running and security in place.

Take two sheets of paper. On one write down the good thing this war has done for us. On the other write the bad things.

Jason McElwain is the autistic high school senior who gained national attention by performing a modern-day Rudy. He served as his varsity basketball team's manager until the last game when he finally got his chance to play. He then went on to score 20 points, all the while cheered on by fans from both sides (see the video). President Bush then used him for the perfect photo-op prop. But at the same time, Bush's current proposal for the fiscal year 2007 budget will COMPLETELY CUT THE FUNDING for the National Children's Study which was to study the causes of autism, the very medical condition that afflicts Jason. This is not a reduction of funds, but a 100% cutting of funding.

This may all ring of déjà vu, since back in 2002 Bush held another photo-op to showcase after-school programs at a Delaware Boys and Girls Club. He then tried to cut funding for that VERY SAME after-school program. Luckily, public outcry saved the funding.

In 2004, he posed for a photo-op with the youthful members of the National Civilian Community Corps (NCCC), proclaiming,

"David is in charge of a lot of important programs, one of which is AmeriCorps. I'm a strong believer in AmeriCorps. I want to thank the -- (applause) -- where are my AmeriCorps buddies? There they are. (Applause.)" (www.whitehouse.gov) Note: NCCC is an AmeriCorps program that works on environmental and disaster relief programs. But Bush's 2007 budget will COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the NCCC program whose members he posed with and praised. So much for Bush's support of national service programs (Does anyone recall hearing that in a few speeches?)

Bush in a January 2003 radio address, "One year ago this month, our country set a bold new course in public education. With the No Child Left Behind Act, America began a promising era in our public schools, an era of local control, high standards, and accountability that will produce better results for America's students." (www.whitehouse.gov) In November 2004, " I'm running to make sure every child can learn, and keep the high standards in our public schools so no child is left behind in America." (www.whitehouse.gov) He then went on to underfund No Child Left Behind by $10 billion.

Bush in September 2003, "We are a changing economy. And therefore, we must constantly educate workers to be able to fill the jobs of the 21st century. And so, therefore, I went to Congress and asked for increased funding for Pell Grants for higher education scholarships." (www.whitehouse.gov) All the while, he was planning severe decreases in the Pell Grant program with his 2004 budget. Wasn't there a Sesame Street episode that explained the difference between "increase" and "decrease"?

Bush in 2004 on Wiretapping: "Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution."
(www.whitehouse.gov)

2006-03-05 Know thy enemy
Americans are up in arms about an Arab country operating our ports. Yet, the same people can't understand why Arab countries don't want the American military operating their security. One of the primary rules of war is to "know your enemy." This also includes understanding your enemy. You don't have to agree with them, but you had better understand their feelings, ideals, and motives. There has been a major inability of the U.S. policy makers through the years to understand the Arab people. I used to work with a man who felt the need to assist everyone around him. If you were having trouble doing something, he would step in start showing you how to do it. And people would get pissed! He was basically a good-hearted person, but he couldn't understand that just because someone could use your help, that didn't mean they wanted it or would even appreciate it. That's where we stand now in Iraq. The Iraqi people need U.S. help, but they don't want it. Recent polls show that the vast majority of the Iraqi people want U.S. troops out now. This shouldn't surprise anyone. If Iraqi troops were here in the U.S. providing security, Americans would feel pretty much the same way. Think about that a second. How long would Americans tolerate a foreign occupying force? Even if that force were here to help. But this leaves us in an awkward position. If we leave, total chaos will almost certainly ensue. If we stay, the resentment will likely increase. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. Again, taking the time to understand the Iraqi people before going in might have led to a different strategy.

2006-02-26 Can't change course if you're asleep at the wheel
The news of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) takeover of the management of American ports has finally broke. I heard this on Coast to Coast AM long ago and looked up the info on the web. It was all there. President Bush says he didn't know about it. WHAT??? Glad to know he's on the job. But of course he's sure that it not a security risk, even though he didn't even know about it. This means he's either lying or incompetent. Personally I hope he's just lying. A lying president will eventually be found out. An incompetent president will get us in wars that even if we win, they only make the situation worse, an incompetent President will cause death and suffering by appointing unqualified people to head critical government agencies, etc. But he's not alone. Donald Rumsfeld, our Secretary of Defense, says he didn't know about it either. No matter how bad things got, Pres. Bush would say stay the course. Now I understand. How can you change course when you are asleep at the wheel?

Now I don't know if the UAE port deal is a bad idea or not. Six billion dollars seems like a lot of money to put into a terrorist operation when there are much cheaper ways to do it. But clearly, this deal raises enough questions that the 45-day review was warranted. And surely, a security-conscious president and Secretary of Defense should have been aware of it.

2006-02-23 What's with American news?
The news of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) takeover of the management of American ports has finally broke. I heard this on Coast to Coast AM long ago and looked up the info on the web. It was all there. Coast to Coast is not a major news source. It's a show about aliens, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc. I kept expecting the mainstream news to announce it in their headlines. But nothing till AFTER the deal. Now even President Bush says he didn't even know about it. WHAT??? Glad to know he's on the job. But of course he's sure that it not a security risk, even though he didn't even know about it. This means he's either lying or incompetent. Personally I hope he's just lying. A lying president will eventually be found out. An incompetent president will get us in wars that even if we win, they only make the situation worse, will cause death and suffering by appointing unqualified people to head critical government agencies, etc. But that's not what I'm ranting about. As Americans, we live in a news hole. Our neighbors down south are in the midst of major unrest and revolution, but the average American doesn't have a clue. Today CNN reported about a boy who was missing in a carjacked vehicle for all of ten minutes. That makes national headlines. Yet 100,000 children under age 5 die every year in Sudan. Most of these deaths are preventable. That's over 270 a day. Surely at least one of these children warranted a mention in today's news.

2005-12-29 Intelligent Design and the Classroom
The recent Dover case brought this issue to the attention of the American public. The judge ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) was religion and therefore didn't belong in the classroom. It appears that the judge based this on documents, such as the Wedge Document, and statements by school board members and other ID proponents. These made it clear that they were promoting ID in order to promote Christianity. However, IMHO, Intelligent Design should be ruled on according to what it is, not according to the motives of those promoting it. ID, in itself, does not promote a particular religion and therefore is not a direct violation of the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof¼", although many others would strongly disagree with my opinion on this.

The other main objection to Intelligent Design is that it is not science. I agree that it clearly is NOT science under the definition of science as accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists in all fields of science across the world, because it invokes supernatural beings (even the alien version of ID requires the aliens to have supernatural powers). Even Michael Behe, one of ID's main supporters, testified in the trial that ID did not meet the criteria for science. Based on this alone, not long ago I would have said ID does not belong in the science classroom. But after discussing the results of this case with others, I became acutely aware that a large percentage of the population doesn't understand the difference between science and non-science and why scientists make the distinction.

Science is about what can be done naturally. Things that are done supernaturally are for other fields of study. Many complain that this automatically excludes alternate explanations. But, scientists want to be able to do things with what they learn. If you are making a new vaccine, you can’t say “Psst, hey God, come here a second. I need you to do that miracle thing you do to make cells.” What good is it if you have to call on God every time you need to perform an experiment or make a new batch of drugs. That in a nutshell is why scientists as a group are so opposed to supernatural explanations. They have no practical value, even if true.

For this reason, I think Intelligent Design should be taught in the science class. But, not just the quick little blurb and advertisement for the ID book as proposed by the Dover School Board. They should devote enough time to put it under full scientific scrutiny and use it as an example of the difference between science and non-science is, and why this distinction is important.

2005-12-23 Sounded like a good strategy¼
A friend of mine said he thought the Democrats should all register as Republicans for the primaries and then choose the dumbest, most idiotic Republican candidate they could to run for president in 2008. I told they him "I think they tried that for 2000, and it backfired!"

2005-12-10 Christmas and the Government
There's a lot of fuss about the government's use of the word Christmas this time each year. After all, what's the harm? Well, it's all fine and good for the government to endorse a particular religious belief when it's yours. But what happens when it's not? The original colonies had laws prohibiting the practice of certain religious beliefs. Anne Hutchinson was banished for preaching that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Roger Williams was also banished for his religious beliefs. The Massachusetts Colony enacted laws making religious heresy punishable by death. Punishments for being a Quaker included cutting off of your ears and having your tongue bored through with a hot iron. These may sound extreme, but they were the result of a Christian government trying to promote their religious beliefs. Even practicing the wrong Christian denomination was punishable by death in some places.

The government endorsement of religious beliefs is a dangerous road to follow. There's a fine line between endorsing one religious belief and banning another. The best way to ensure the continuing right of you and your children to practice your religion is to keep the government out of it, because once the government ball gets rolling, it can be hard to stop. And with the wide range of religious diversity and beliefs, even among Christians, that we enjoy in this nation, chances are the religious beliefs the government leaders eventually endorse won't be your own.

Our founding fathers were keenly aware of this issue and wanted to ensure that each individual had the right to practice religion as they desired. They recognized that the only way to protect the individual's religious rights was to keep the government out of it. They even thought it was important enough to address this issue in the very first amendment to our constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

Celebrate your beliefs, and protect your right to do so by not allowing the government to get started in the business of sponsoring and promoting particular religious beliefs. Leave that to the people, so that the individual can decide how to practice their religion. Look around the world. How many of the religion-based countries would you want to live in? Our forefathers sought to keep religion a private right of the people for a reason.

So what's the harm in government endorsement of religious displays? They'll never ban my beliefs, right? Remember the saying, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Take a look at the government's past record. Practicing the wrong version of Christianity was punishable by death in some colonies. The celebration of Christmas itself was even banned in places. Do you really want the government deciding for you which religious beliefs should and should not be publicly recognized? Keep religion out of the hands of the government and in the hands of the people.

2005-12-06 Novel way to wage war
When I read that Castro was giving aid to Venezuela to bolster their relations, I thought "why didn't we think of that?" Now Venezuela's leader Chavez is offering help to the American poor by providing cheap heating oil. What's wrong with these people? Don't they know how to treat their enemies? Then I remembered a story about how natives would embarrass their enemies by throwing a lavish party for them in their honor. The recipient would have to "retaliate" with an equally lavish party for his enemy or suffer humiliation in the eyes of his people. Now there's a novel way to wage war. Now, if we just figure how to make it trendy¼

2005-12-03 Face Transplant
The lady in France, who face was chewed off by her dog, received a partial face transplant from a donor who was brain dead from hanging herself.
Does this mean that it's no longer okay to call her "dog face," but it is okay to call her "hang face"?

2005-12-01 "Nukular, nuclar,"
Heard Pres. Bush give a speech a few days ago. He kept stumbling on the word "nuclear." "Nukular, nuclar," etc.

I guess he learned his lesson, because the next speech I heard, he avoided the word altogether. Anybody else find this frightening. Yesterday, he couldn't even pronounce "nuclear bomb." Today he's got his finger on one.

Do we live on a planet that was
specially created for life?

Does the size relationship between the Sun and Moon make the Earth unique for scientific exploration?
Is the Earth located in the “sweet” spot of the galaxy?

Are these claims valid or pseudoscientific nonsense?

These claims and others are explored in the
"The Privileged Planet"

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]

Epic Thoughts

The random ramblings of an idiot.

Contents

Want YOUR Opinion Known?

What did you think about this article?

Rate This Article [click here]

Publish YOUR Article [click here]

Epic Thoughts

The random ramblings of an idiot.

Contents

Want YOUR Opinion Known?

What did you think about this article?

Rate This
Article
[click here]

Publish
YOUR
Article
[click here]