Cloning an Almost-Human?

In a fascinating article on Slate, there is a report that scientists are almost ready to clone a woolly mammoth:

Last week in Nature, scientists reported major progress in sequencing the genome of woolly mammoths. They reconstructed it from two fossilized hair samples. One was 20,000 years old; the other was 65,000 years old. Now, according to Nicholas Wade of the New York Times, biologists are discussing "how to modify the DNA in an elephant's egg so that after each round of changes it would progressively resemble the DNA in a mammoth egg. The final-stage egg could then be brought to term in an elephant mother."

But that's not all:

The full genome of the Neanderthal, an ancient human species probably driven to extinction by the first modern humans that entered Europe some 45,000 years ago, is expected to be recovered shortly. If the mammoth can be resurrected, the same would be technically possible for Neanderthals.

That sort of brings the Geico commercials to life, doesn't it? But, this again brings us to the Jurassic Park question: It's not whether we could do this, but whether we should do it. Should we? As interesting as it would be, I think not.

My objections have very little to do with messing with the human procreation mechanism or human DNA, as the Catholic bishop states in the article, although that is an ethically risky proposition. The monsters that nature creates on her own through the horrible genetic defects that sometimes occur could scarcely be called human just by appearances. If we didn't know that they were born of human parents, we would have to do DNA tests to be sure. No, my objections have to do with the social ramifications.

While we could certainly learn a lot about Neanderthals, and probably humans, by creating new ones through cloning, what would that mean for them? What would that mean for us? Would this create a new social class? Would they be considered human or animal? How would we treat them? Would our treatment be ethical?

No, this brings up too many ethical quandaries that humanity is not ready to deal with, much less resolve. Better to just leave well enough alone and not open that can of worms.

Prop. 8 and the Rights of the People

The gay marriage issue keeps resurfacing. It seems that one side sees it as a "civil rights" issue, and the other sees is as a "freedom of religion" issue. I think they are all confused.

According to the Cornell University Law School, "A civil right is an enforceable right or privilege, which if interfered with by another gives rise to an action for injury." Further: "Discrimination occurs when the civil rights of an individual are denied or interfered with because of their membership in a particular group or class." According to that definition, both sides of the argument could assert a violation of civil rights.

On the one hand, homosexuals say that they are being denied the security and legal benefits that legal marriage affords them. Certainly, such a legal situation could be obtained through a civil union, or some other such contract. Why do they insist that the definition of traditional marriage (between a man and a woman) be changed to include them? Why could they not be satisfied with a civil union? Could there be other reasons? Are they really out to destroy the traditional family unit, which has worked as the basis of successful societies for countless ages?

On the other hand, traditionalists assert that a change in the definition of marriage could endanger the very foundation of marriage and family. Perhaps so, but so could polygamy, which has been practiced in various times and cultures throughout the world and its history. (And, I see polygamy as the next great controversial religio-sexual civil right.) It all depends on how it is practiced. Any associations that involve mutual respect and dignity will breed same and create a society where respect and dignity are valued, but those that are based on lust and sex will only serve to feed the basest instincts of the human animal.

The real issue that traditionalists have with same-sex marriage is the assertion that any disagreement with them, even when based on religion, is a violation of civil rights. Many people have already been sued in courts of law for refusing products and services to same-sex couples because they believe their lifestyles to be immoral and objectionable. Likewise, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, uncounted numbers of blacks were refused products and services based on skin color, sometimes on religious bases. Similarly, forcing one to support, tolerate or condone a lifestyle that they find immoral and objectionable is also patently unfair.

So, to me, the question comes down to whose rights take precedence: those of the religious or those of the homosexual. While it is not an easy decision to make from an objective standpoint, it becomes easier when one considers that the Bill of Rights expressly protects freedom of religion, but does not even approach freedom of sexual preference. Apparently, this was something that the Founding Fathers sought to protect, whereas sexual preference was not even a consideration. Why? Because even the most nonreligious of our Founders could see that homosexuality is against the proper functioning of nature and does not contribute to the strength of the humanity or to the general well-being of society, whereas, religious observance, including mutual respect and the dignity of the family, strengthens individuals, and society as whole.

While I certainly see a need for civil unions that include homosexual as well as heterosexual couples, (and perhaps even polygamous unions) , I also support the sanctity of marriage and its limitation to exclusively heterosexual unions.

How's Your Bank Account? Your Pantry?

There is an interesting article, with a terrific little lesson in economics, on Human Events. The writer, Terry Easton, economics professor, predicts a global depression in 2010. I can't agree with him more. The election of liberal socialist Barack Obama will result in more government meddling in the markets, as well as higher taxes, and people and banks will be increasingly nervous about investing or spending money. This will decrease economic activity all over the world, resulting in a global recession, and then, as things get worse, depression.

And, watch, they will repeatedly blame the present Republican administration for the whole mess, and ignore all the anti-freemarket things what the liberal Democrats have done. They will declare the demise of capitalism, refusing to acknowledge that capitalism created the most powerful and prosperous country in the history of the world, and they ruined it.

The biggest problem with this is globalism. The way to revive a comatose economy is to pump more money into it from the outside. But, if the entire world is in a depression, then there's no where for an infusion of investment money to come from. Then, we just have to wait for people be willing to take chances. If we're lucky, then people will realize that capitalism works, and we'll have a return to some intelligent economic and political policies.

So, in the near term, things don't look so good. I suggest a year's supply of food and money (and ammo) on hand to get through it, and an unlimited supply of faith and patience.

The Hypocrisy of the "Tolerance" Movement

(With apologies to Maurine Jensen Proctor and Meridian Magazine for the title.)
I don't care what anybody else does in the privacy of their own bedroom, and I really don't want to hear about it, but I also don't want anybody else telling me that I should tolerate or support whatever they want to do.

The unrest after the passage of California's Proposition 8 is a clear example of the hypocrisy of the those who say we should be tolerant of differences. Here are some examples of what they are doing:

http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081110hate.html

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/lineuponline/081117battle.html

http://www.ldsmag.com/familyleadernetwork/081114tolerance.html

A part of me wants to pray that these protesters are struck by lightning for even touching the fence around the temple grounds, more so for defacing and vandalizing it. But, The Lord doesn't work that way, and I must remind myself that He is allowing them to ripen in their iniquity so that their future punishment will be just and appropriate.

In the meantime, in addition to going about our lives and doing all the good that we can, I wonder what we can do about these protesting the freedoms that we so cherish in the United States of America.

However, it also brings to mind the words of Alexander Pope, from his Essay on Man:

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.

Breast Cancer Deception Month

Yes, it was in October, so I'm a little late, but in commemoration of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I would like to bring to light some facts:

According to the National Center for Health Statistics (Final Data for 2003, dated April 19, 2006) more women die from heart disease, stroke and lung cancer than from breast cancer. In fact, over eight times as many women die from heart disease than die from breast cancer (348,994 vs. 41,620). (Current data is available at the CDC's web site, and shows a similar margin.)

So, again, the question is: Why is there so much emphasis on breast cancer, when other things are much greater threats? Is there a Heart Disease Awareness Month? Are there marketing campaigns to find a cure for heart disease? Are they truly working to save lives, or just sell products? And, why just a Veteran's Day when so many died to protect freedom? Why are our priorities to screwed up?

We Need A New Candidate

Already looking toward another presidential campaign, I've decided I want a conservative candidate cut from the same cloth as Ronald Reagan. His presidency was admirable and his policies successful. Perhaps his best statement was: "Government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." We need a candidate who will cut taxes, reduce the size, power, and influence of government, and lead our military with an iron hand and ample wisdom.

Although his administration was a time of increasing government debt, I believe that wise use of public funds and reduced taxes can allow us to reduce the size of government and the deficit while stimulating the economy. Also beneficial would be some action on real tax reform--moving to a true flat tax (no exemptions, deductions, credits, shelters or loopholes) or the Fairtax. And although his policies on immigration amnesty were unpleasant, and the "War on Drugs" has been of questionable success, the highlight of Reagan's career was the fall of communism, which was a victory for freedom and free markets.

I had the privilege of casting my first vote for Reagan's re-election in 1984, and although his second term wasn't as good as his first, he was an honest man who understood the role of government and what the founder fathers had in mind. I miss him.

The Passing of Michael Crichton

It was announced today that Michael Crichton, famous author, director, producer and thinker died Tuesday of cancer at the age of 66. The world has lost one of its great minds. He blended an appropriate amount of thought, intelligence and humor into his works, and made profound points while keeping us well-entertained. I wish I could have met him, but I was glad to experience some of his works. I wish all the best for his family.

Gotta Give 'Em Credit

As dissatisfied as I am with the election situation, I've got to admit that the major candidates have been very classy about the whole thing. While both of them addressed the other by name to highlight certain differences regarding the issues, they never stooped to calling names or dirty politics.

Then, after it was all over, President Bush called to congratulate Obama, and pledged his cooperation in the transition (which is better than what Clinton did). Then Obama called McCain to ask for help in leading the country, to which McCain agreed.

So, even after all is said and done, they seem to agree that cooperation is better than contention, and they actually seem to have the best interests of the nation at heart ("seem" to...). Maybe it won't be so bad after all.

P.S. And, besides, Obama promised his girls a puppy to take to the White House with them. If he likes dogs, I suppose he can't be entirely evil.

The End of the World As We Know It

It has been a most depressing election day: first, I realize that there really are no decent candidates to choose from, even in the Constitution Party, and then Obama wins.

So, here are my predictions for the next four years:

• terrorist attacks will rise, and happen again on American soil
• the economy will not improve, but get even worse
• taxes will go up
• more restrictive laws will be passed
• our standing in the world will not improve
• more scandal in Washington, D.C.
• we will have less freedom
• less overall happiness as a nation
• crime will rise

In short, socialism.

The people of this nation have proven that they care more about a pretty face, pleasant words,and entitlements than they do their own freedom. What idiotic fools.

And finally, now that a black man has been elected president, I don't want to hear anything more about this nation being racist. No reparations for slavery, no affirmative action, no more anything having to do with racism. If you don't like they way America is, then go back to Africa.

Signed,

An Angry White Man