Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Amy J who wrote (208838)	10/27/2004 4:02:20 AM
From: brushwud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575760

I don't want to talk about stem cell research because that's a sensitive topic for Steve Harris that I will respect. You brought up Prop. 71 which is about stem cell research, so please don't be so disingenuous. If this $3 billion investment is such a sure thing, maybe Intel should be doing it. They're continually trying to find a way to diversify out of their virtual monopoly in microprocessors because growth has slowed and they spent almost that much in the last Q just buying up their own stock. What I've realized about Prop. 71 is that its supporters wanted to use the initiative process to mount a constitutional challenge to the federal government's current position by amending the California constitution to allow embryonic stem cell research and throw the whole thing into the U. S. Supreme Court. But that takes a 2/3 majority--the same as a bond issue--so they've mated a constitutional amendment with a 30-year bond issue which would allow them to raid California's scarce general fund for their own benefit. If they can win (which is highly doubtful) it's the political equivalent of winning the California lottery (which also took a 2/3 majority and which I also voted against). You're an Arnold fan gal, so you've fallen for it even though you profess to oppose increasing government debt. With respect to steve harris (who can take care of himself, I'm sure), there's a great article in the November Harper's magazine about the litigation over so-called partial birth abortion. Opponents of abortion as legalized by Roe v. Wade are trying at least to limit the scope. Up to about three months, fetuses are soft and can basically be vacuumed out, but after that point, the fetus's bones being to solidify, so one has to be carved up like a chicken in order to be removed, and tearing of tissue by bone fragments becomes an issue. The hightech innovation of dilation & extraction (D & X) allows the fetus to be spooned out by forceps just like a full-term baby, but typically, the head gets hung up on the cervix. The innovative technique is to suck the brains out so the head collapses and can be removed. But sometimes the fetus pops out anyway, so the surgeon holds the five-month-old fetus (with wiggling fingers and toes) in one hand and operates the device to suck out the brains with the other hand in order to complete the abortion. Opponents of this technique argue that when the surgeon is holding the live fetus in one hand, he has performed a live birth and the baby has been fully "born" and they're opposed to having its brains sucked out at that point. Evidently you think that's cool and groovy because the mother might go nuts if her baby's brains aren't sucked out according to plan. Ironically, the legal issue hinges on whether a case can be made that another technique such as the carved-chicken approach exists so that Roe v. Wade is not violated. We can argue about what should or shouldn't get researched, but if you step back I believe you would concur that we need to invest as much RND as the top competitor does. I'm not sure what you mean by "the top competitor". Research is great and I'll bet at least a hundred U. S. universities are doing a lot. But I don't agree that California, which couldn't even balance its budget last year, should go even further into debt to advance speculative research so Christopher Reeve can stand up and walk again.