Here's the better quote, which is probably more accurate: I think the stem cells probably do do somethin (just reading up on them myself), but scientists know its too soon to tell for sure. Correlation does not prove causation; thats why you do more experimenting.
they are rats. who the hell knows what made em walk again. No, as I said, I think stem cells did help, but making a leap like that is wayyy too soon, especially making a jump from a rat to a human being.
You asked me a question, and I was clarifying it's meaning. Didn't necessarily have to do with the core of stem cell research, but to some degree it does. It really wasn't till 1830 that congress gave an sort of corporate subsidy out, and that was highly contentious within the court. The history of it being rather looked down upon, both by the court, and the people...it is relevant to this issue. Unfortunately it is business (ie certain corporations) that has done more to destroy our constitution that help it. Ultimately these individuals were a factor in creating our first civil war, and thus changing the general constitutional perspective of our government there-on. The history of our Constitution and it's tale through practice is absolutely important to this issue.... But the problems is they aren't all the time, therefore the very law we rely on is subject to bias. While I don't want the right to be bias, I absolutely don't trust a loaded left court.
You have to admit it shows the possibility of great advances in medicine, the possibility of being able heal nerve based injuries and diseases that right now have no cures. Its the best system we have, judges are most qualified. Only asshats want loaded courts, normal people want them as balanced as possible. Checks and balances are what are system is based on, we get the best goverment when goverment checks itself, or shitty goverment(like now) when one group has too much power.
If that's directed at me, I wholeheartedly agree. Stem Cells seem to be magic. I simply have a problem with federal funding of the research. Let some private company do it - take the risks and get the reward.
Yep. I think NASA being a federal agency has dramatically slowed down pace of space exploration. Everytime someone dies, the whole agency shuts down for 2 years. I am totally for privatizing NASA and letting the free market take control over space exploration, making a colony on the moon, mars or wherever. NASA is a relic. I love the current space things going on. The x-plane, The virgin guy with his space flights, etc. I bet more progress will be made in the next few years than has taken place in decades.
LOL. Ok i see the reasoning behind not wanting corporate welfare, handouts, etc. But we're talking about science here.. science that has the potential to save millions of lives and dramatically improve quality of living.
Alot of things have great possibilities, but often when government gets too involved competition in the industry is destroyed or impeded. I understand the intend to focus on results, but I believe the private science industry has it's own pragmatic routes to results as well....I'd much rather stay that route. A good example is the space industry. While the private industry can put a person in space for millions, it still takes the government billions to do so. I just hasten to the thought of having deep-hands in the science industry via the government. I like the court system better than any other part of the federal government. They have upheld things ten time more than congress. But when they change things, it's almost permanent. I'd say a better senate would make things ten times better in all manners. I'd like the 17 amendment repealed...go back to federalism, where the courts would most likely not be so bias.
I fail to see the point here. If a company finds some new way to do something in space (or make something on the moon or mars or whatever), don't you think they are gonna put it out there, license it or whatever? I'm not saying that whatever company lands on mars first owns it. LOL. Just saying if that's the direction they want to go, do it. Playing football with NASA, which has really done very little in 20 years, has gotten us nowhere. If the crappy ISS is the high of government achievement; then that's really a problem Read this story: http://www.energybulletin.net/192.html And tell me why this is not at least being looked at? If its doable, let's do it. Unmanned rovers to mars giving us pretty pictures is nice, but it ain't doing anything for anyone.
Our government was instituted to give us freedom, not to impose values on us, even if those values were/are life. As far as the constitution goes (as it should) you should be able to screw-up your life in any manner or make it better, just as long as you respect another persons individuals right to that chose as well. Telling me that you want me to pay for something (when I'm not desirous of the method) is telling me you don't respect my individual rights....atleast that's how I interpet it. And I know that your an individual rights advocate; so I assume underneath all your beliefs you still to some level understand that while it may be more beneficial, it's not cohesive with the concept of individual rights. That is to say, that while it's a lot better to fund science than to go into wars, there still are reasons not to support either.
Rick do you believe in taxes at all? What kind of government do you think we should have? Who should be paying for it?
The space industry is highly regulated. Some good reasons, some stupid reasons. I believe it's due to the obvious reason that private industry if given some reasonble leeway could easily make NASA look obselete. Devils in the detail. That's a long trip for energy. Wonder what the margin would be?
*shrugs* if its privately funded; if the margin is there, someone will make it happen. That's my point. If its federally funded you have all these no-nothings saying "hmmm - wonder if it'll work" then they move onto something else. I've also read other stories where sunlight directed at the moon could be redirected towards either for some sort of 24 hour solar energy. That seems a little more hokey; but isn't it worth it? Little downside, tons of upside. That's a good business decision. Not a good political one that you have to explain to people who would stare at you with a blank look.
Indirect taxation via tariffs. Uniformly low. This was the government prior to 1913. The percentage of government involvement into the common man was so unnoticable that it could hardly be seen. It funded just enough for a defense and general federal operation. The rest of the government was left to the states. Is that 100% free individuals...to some point no, but the growth of government was highly restricted. Although I would support (as a matter of pragmatic survival) the constitutional amendment to impose income tax when a national emergency occurs and only with high majority of representatives give that authorization. In this world, I have to gauge the most practical threat against man, and that's either unimpeded government growth or insane dictators or idealogies. I'm called a 'moderate libertarian conservative'. Small government...reasonable military...reasonable foreign policy...domestic freedom within reason (no sheep fuckin)....no public schools...no undeclared wars from congress...no social programs on the federal level (states can do whatever their constitutions say are okay)....family values (it's a bit odd my view)....courts enforce the laws not create them...and the borders are enforced via workforce laws and indentification uniformly.
Business is full of pragmatic people. Most government think like Einstein (whom leaned to a realist vision) and wanted to explore things down to their essence rather than to ask if there's an immediate result that can be obtained. I like both perspectives to some point, and I wish the business industry would always invest in R&D even if the results weren't immediate. They do to some point.
Interesting views... I like it. But given what we currently have as a government, and the way business currently works, I don't believe we can rely on business to look out for our best interest when it comes to science/health. There's no money in curing people, the money is in recurring treatments.
Well, your somewhat libertarianish...I think you have what I call a 'rebel' view ie your seeking different views by playing the devils advocate. I tend to do that as well, but your foreign policy is on the verge of almost being extremely left...a hard perspective in my eyes. Small 'l' libertarians have different views on foreign policy...I find myself divided inbetween a conservative view and a more paleoconservative view. Interesting how you look at this. Corporations aren't all good or bad...although I'd say that I trust business ten times more than I do government. Alteast I have chose with them...for the most part. Curious...all the aids/cancer/etc government funding....what exactly came from that? Actually, the money that insurance agencies would save is immeasurable. Trillions for cancer. I'd say some people are invested in the systems we have in place, while others aren't. Ask the FDA why it cost a billion dollars (and five years minimum) to get through their red tape to make a drug official. They literally push out competition in the drug industry by making it only a corporate thing. What small business do you know that has a billion dollars to get drugs through the FDA?
I have a lot of conflicting views; but hey this is a very complicated world/society we live in. You're right.. i don't trust the government either, which leaves us in a bad spot. The businesses are out to get maximum profits while the government just really doesn't care.... so that leaves who with our best interest in mind? Really nobody...