Politics? No more than any other taxpayer, and I claim no moral authority in that area. Science or environment? Hard science degrees and years doing funded and commercial research in both neuropharmacology and chemistry. I’m not about to list my CV. Believe me or don’t.

Darrin Bell: By the way, I studied all of the above for years at a major university.
I’m not going to ask for your transcripts, but anyone can say they have “studied” science at a major university by taking an “Introduction to science for nonscientists” survey course.

Darrin Bell: Even if I hadn’t, being a citizen - and more fundamentally, being a human being - qualifies me to express my opinion on whatever I choose to.

Hey, we’re in total agreement. I firmly believe you have a right to an opinion. I also agree with you an believe that you have a right to express your opinion. I’m a big fan of the bill of rights. And while it is not expressed in the constitution, I think that it is your right to have an opinion that is poorly formed, poorly researched, illogical, and even offensive. Where we may differ is that I believe that those who are in the public eye, like actors, musicians, and cartoonists, have a greater moral obligation in researching, forming, qualifying and expressing their opinions because your sphere of influence far outstrips your authority.

Darrin Bell: That said, I research the topics I raise in Candorville, and you’d be hard-pressed to find any authorities in the field (who aren’t on the payroll of the Family Research Council) who agree with you.
I’m glad you feel you are doing your due diligence. I would love to see your sources. I would hope that they are not only ones that reinforce your already held beliefs. I also fear that you lack the background to interpret the results accurately.

Darrin Bell: Embryonic stem cells are about the promise of future treatments and cures.
What is this promise based upon? It surely isn’t the track record of embryonic stem cell research to date. To date, embryonic stem cells have not cured anything in anyone. There is a promise that working in my basement I may come up with an inter-dimensional quantum energy source. Just not a very good one.

Darrin Bell: Adult stem cell research hasn’t cured anything. It has produced treatments,
Ah, semantics. True. Treatments for about the past thirty years or so. More than fifty of them. Embryonic stem cells? They have produced a lot of teratomas. Not much else, but that promise we keep hearing about.

Darrin Bell: but almost all specialists in the field believe embryonic stem cell research holds far greater promise. Frankly it’s idiotic to argue against the widely-expected potential curative benefits of scientific research by pointing to the current limited benefits of existing therapies.

And again there is the promise argument.

Far be it from me to argue against medical scientific research. I did it for a living. Usually it’s a good idea to base new research on areas where there has been success in the past.
The reason biological scientists like using stem cells is this: as cells in the blastocyst are not yet differentiated, they are easier to make into whatever you like them to be. It is scientific expedience.

Darrin Bell: Getting out of town during outbreaks was already a proven method of avoiding polio in 1952. Thankfully that didn’t stop Jonas Salk from trying to inject a dead polio virus into people’s arms.
An interesting, yet inaccurate analogy. If people had been using vaccines successfully for thirty years, and Salk abandoned that and tried something different it would be more applicable. But only if he failed spectularly at every attempt yet continued to preach about the “promise” of “potential cures” while ignoring, denying, or downplaying the treatments that have been in use for several decades.

By the way, I studied all of the above for years at a major university. Even if I hadn’t, being a citizen - and more fundamentally, being a human being - qualifies me to express my opinion on whatever I choose to. That said, I research the topics I raise in Candorville, and you’d be hard-pressed to find any authorities in the field (who aren’t on the payroll of the Family Research Council) who agree with you.

Embryonic stem cells are about the promise of future treatments and cures. Adult stem cell research hasn’t cured anything. It has produced treatments, but almost all specialists in the field believe embryonic stem cell research holds far greater promise. Frankly it’s idiotic to argue against the widely-expected potential curative benefits of scientific research by pointing to the current limited benefits of existing therapies. Getting out of town during outbreaks was already a proven method of avoiding polio in 1952. Thankfully that didn’t stop Jonas Salk from trying to inject a dead polio virus into people’s arms.

This statement would carry more weight if a blastocysts, or embryonic stem cell research, had saved even a single life.

The assumption is that embryonic stem cells have produced a single cure for anything, or that they ever will. Adult stem cells have produced many cures, but so far embryonic stem cells have not shown any of the promise of adult stem cells. I can think of half a dozen treatments involving adult stem cells. Can’t think of a single one involving embryonic stem cells.

This is the problem when actors, journalists, or cartoonists use thier position in the public eye to influence policy. By and large they have never done scientific research, are not trained in the scientific method or in the science involved in the positions that they take. Yet because they can act, or sing, or scribble a cartoon, they think that they are somehow qualified to make statements about science, politics, or the environment.

Thanks. That’s all. Carry on.

The issue of “lies” obscures what I see were the larger, theoretical issues for the invasion - would the overthrow of Iraq lead to a democratic state, an in-region opposition, not only to the despotic regimes but also to the jihadists? Would the establishment of a non-fundamentalist, non despotic government inspire grass-roots change throughout the region, diametrically opposed to the aims of the jihadists? Would the government be a more effective counter to the Khomenist regime in Iran? Lots of “what ifs” - all which would have been extremely difficult to “sell” as a justification for war - hence the “sure thing” - WMDs.

Not quite. Satellite photos showed trucks being loaded with something and taken across the Syrian border. A former Iraqi Air Force general has stated that he saw weapons bearing WMD indentifiers being placed on those trucks. And one of the millions of Iraqi intelligence documents that have released indicated that those trucks were carrying WMDs.”

Dann, you’re not going to argue that satellite photos of “something” being trucked into Syria is the same thing as evidence, are you? Without evidence, this former Iraqi Air Force general’s statement is another uncorroborated and inconclusive “curveball.” This is the first I’ve heard of the one in a million document about WMD being trucked into Syria. If you have a link, I’d appreciate it. We should also share the link with the White House — they’d probably want to tell the American people that the reason we allowed them to invade Iraq turned out to be legitimate after all.

“And then there is the Kay and Duelfer reports that clearly indicate that Saddam had been hiding a network of clandestine labs as well as production equipment.

Labs and equipment are not the same thing as existing WMD that can be launched by drones to destroy the East Coast and London within 45 minutes (pardon me for mixing together Bush and Blair’s fear-mongering claims). The American people would have been far more reluctant to green light this invasion if they thought we were going after test tubes rather than active munitions.

Let’s not forget about Saddam’s agreement to cooperate with Al Qaida. His donation of funds to other terrorist groups is also well documented.

None of which had anything to do with 9/11. And we don’t have much evidence of any agreement to cooperate with Al Qaida. We have more evidence that the Bush family has ties to Al Qaida through relatives of Osama bin Laden (Bush Sr. was meeting with one of them on 9/11, and the White House assured Bin Laden’s family safe passage out of the U.S. immediately after 9/11).

“And then there are the claims that Saddam let terrorists use his Salam Pax military base to train. The base was equipped with a Boeing aircraft for “training purposes”.

Which are, again, “claims.” What we have are mountains of claims, most of which have been debunked, and no actual evidence. That state of affairs was hardly justification for invading and occupying a sovereign nation that never attacked us.

“Ignore the lingering smoke and the warm charcoal if you will, but a house did indeed once exist where you are now standing.”

What?