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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (682904)	5/20/2005 1:35:39 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Kenneth the whole point of the matter was that it was a human embryo. Damn Kenny it wouldn't have been a news item otherwise. They have cloned entire animals. ...and yes, after extracting the stem cells the embryo dies. Now, this is simply what I have heard. Although, it seems to be correct. If I am wrong...well, there is a first time for everything! ;) Perhaps I am incorrect Kenneth and I heard it all wrong. Please post your information. I received mine on the Bloomberg radio this morning so I am not positive.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (682904)	5/20/2005 6:27:10 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

A cloned embryo is made from a single cell -- often a skin cell -- taken from the person or animal to be cloned, which is then fused to an egg from a donor. In the latest experiments, the team started with 185 eggs donated by 18 women. The women underwent a month-long series of hormone shots followed by the extraction of about a dozen ripened eggs from their ovaries. None of the women was paid. washingtonpost.com Virtually all other human embryonic stem cell lines to date have been grown for at least a while on mouse cells, which secrete a cocktail of hormones that support the growth of finicky stem cells. By growing the stem cells on a bed of human support cells instead of mouse cells, the team does not have to worry that animal viruses or other contaminants may prevent transplantation of the stem cells, or tissue grown from them, into patients -- the ultimate goal.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (682904)	5/20/2005 6:33:56 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

Judy Norsigian of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective, who supports stem cell research but has warned against therapeutic cloning's potential to exploit egg donors, said she was relieved that the process would need fewer eggs but still had concerns because the ovarian stimulation used to mass-produce the eggs can lead to complications. "Young women would still be providing eggs to treat men, children and older women. We need to make sure that those women aren't put at unnecessary risk," she said. Others voiced greater concerns. "You're placing the woman at risk to create an embryo that has a 100 percent risk of death, to attempt to treat patients who themselves will face significant risks," said Richard Doerflinger, deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "To say something was initially impossible but is now possible is not enough," Doerflinger said. "We have to make moral decisions about whether we should do this." washingtonpost.com

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (682904)	5/20/2005 6:47:02 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Good news on the economic front: There seem to be lots of jobs available out there. Here's an ad on Craigslist.org: Are you sharp and socially conscious with the sales skills to match? Work part-time from 6-9 pm (at least 4 weeknights each week), fundraising for the DNC and other political/cultural non-profits. 8 hour weekend shifts are also available. If you're looking for something a little more activist, try this opportunity: Looking for California girls/College girls/Models/Actresses/Dancers who would be interested to participate by kicking a guy in the groin in a video production for a comedy website. The website features "Jackass" type stunts, skits and scenerios [sic]. Perhaps this answers the question: What's next for MoveOn.org?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (682904)	5/20/2005 6:50:01 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	Respond to of 769667

A bluff is an attempt to divert and delay reality. But if you look long enough at the Democratic opposition to Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown and John Bolton, it is impossible not to notice contradictions that undermine the Democratic Party's most basic sense of self. On the Owen and Brown nominations especially, the Democratic faith system falters badly. Yes, we know Priscilla Owen has ruled "in favor of corporations" and Judge Brown went the wrong way in a lead-paint decision and both are a threat to "privacy" concerns. And for latter-day Democrats all this matters. But I don't see how the Democrats get around at least some voters noticing that obliterating both Priscilla Owen and Janice Brown bears false witness to the party's foundational achievements. Above all else, from FDR onward, the Democratic Party leveled the American playing fields. We can argue the details and methods for getting there, but it's a done deal. Whether Title IX, women in the professions or blacks in formerly all-white industrial unions, this is the party's legacy, its crown jewel. But if a smart white woman from good-ole'-boy Texas and a smart conservative black woman from California pose an unacceptable threat to national equilibrium, then years of Democratic moral claims on behalf of "all" women and minorities were hooey. There never was any intention to let conservative women or blacks advance into positions of public authority, not then or now. Harvard's left-wing faculty tried to blow up Larry Summers for no more than raising the subject. With that event still warm, the non-activist American voters who pay attention to this stuff--and who the Democrats need to win in 2008--are asked to watch the religious left send Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown to the stake--as an act of moral principle. Well, some voters may believe women should advance on merit and others with the aid of affirmative action. But female Republicans can't achieve the nation's second-highest bench on either basis. What route is left for women other than prehistoric political obeisance? Voters have a lot of reason to be cynical these days, but there may be a limit. The Bolton case is simpler. If George Bush had given up on the U.N., he'd have nominated a place-holder, not this linebacker. Talk to reformers inside the U.N., and they will tell you that its lifer bureaucracy is hopeless and destructive of the U.N.'s purposes. Mark Malloch Brown, Kofi Annan's chief of staff, said in our offices that rather than a nice, placid soul from the Upper East Side, he preferred a John Bolton who had the ear of the U.S. President, without which the U.N. cannot succeed in its reforms, notably stiffening its peacekeeping function. So what is the Bolton crucible about? In part it is about the lack of a program-based opposition strategy to which all the party's factions agree. Absent that, all that binds them is anger--over 2000 and 2004, but especially Florida. As described almost daily in print or pixels, the Bush wins were somehow false--a function of "social conservatives," "the extreme right," "the religious right" and sketchy voter machinations.