I’d like to make a comment on today’s strip–but I’m afraid it would take too much time. Suffice it to say: We apparently value our own citizen’s lives over those of other country’s citizens. But 10000 in 4 years is less of a holocaust than millions over 30 years.
First of all, it’s not 10K in 4 years. John Mcglaughlin stated the current tally of dead Iraqi civilians at more than 160,000. The lowest estimates, as of 2004, were in the mid 30,000’s. As a percentage of Iraq’s population, it would be the same as if at least 3 million American civilians had been killed. Feel free to check me on that – I was never great at math.The stem cell research issue has nothing to do with abortion. Scientists are not using aborted fetuses, they’re using excess blastocysts left over from in vitro fertilization. Blastocysts that would be thrown away anyway. They’re never – never – going to become living, breathing human beings. They’re going to become rotten dead cells sitting at the bottom of a dumpster under banana peels.I don’t know about you, but if I were a blastocyst, I’d sure want them to use my stem cells to save countless lives before I rot. At least I would want that, if I had a brain.UPDATE…And then there were the e-mails like this one (I’ve included my responses below):
“What a fake comparison! The US military did not kill ONE civillian on purpose. Most of the civillians killed were killed by terrorists. The only reason some were ACCIDENTLY killed by allied forces is that the cowardly terrorists hide behind civillians after they set off rockets. They are followed to housing which may or may not contain civillians. Then the allies send a rocket to the house where they hide. Some of the civillians killed are terrorists own families (who ought to run from them). Others are just innocent victims of terrorist cowardice. Sometimes people dressed in civillian clothes carry weapons or run toward our soldiers or Iraq’s and are killed because they are perceived to be threats. Our soldiers have to make split second decisions to kill or be killed. In a few cases, these were innocent people, but again, understandably perceived to be threats. Sometimes the terrorists have even sent children with bombs or grenades toward our military! This is a clever way to kill our military and a child, and blame US! Many of those killed were teens in civillian clothing with weapons. Are these INNOCENT civillians? No. Is this OUR fault? Of course not! Terrorist wars are not like others where civillians are nowhere near.”
I’m sorry, I thought you were complaining about Monday’s cartoon. You seem to be complaining about something else entirely, because Monday’s cartoon said nothing about the US military killing civilians on purpose. The cartoon spoke of innocent civilians killed during the war. It doesn’t matter who killed them, it only matters that they were killed, and people such as yourself think that their deaths were worth it if it’ll save more lives in the long run. That’s all the cartoon said. I have no idea why you’re trying to pretend that I said what I didn’t say, unless you’re doing it because you can’t dispute what I actually did say.
“But terrorists have to be stopped. What would you suggest? That we allow them to get strong and confident, take over Israel, and finally take over our country? (Do you know any history of what happened after we chickened out of the VN war? Would you have wanted to live in Cambodia? Laos? VN?) You liberals never have a solution of your own!!!! All you know how to do is criticize others.”
“Chicken out” of Vietnam, a war we had no business fighting in the first place? How old are you, by the way? Adults don’t usually speak this way about life and death matters. The solution would have been to not invade Iraq, a country that had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda, had never attacked us, and was not about to attack us. The tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who are now dead would still be alive, and because our manpower wouldn’t have been diverted from Afghanistan, we might have actually caught Osama bin Laden.
“Also, your figures are greatly exaggerated. “Tens of thousands” of Iraqi civillians have not been killed. This is a baldfaced lie! Get your figures straight!”
I never state anything as a fact unless I’ve researched it. If you have a problem with the numbers, take it up with the Administration whose invasion caused chaos in Iraq. You can also take it up with the Stars & Stripes (the military paper that reported on the death toll reaching 50,000 – http://tinyurl.com/ejz6s), or with CNN, which reported that 14,000 of those deaths happened just this year (and the year’s only half over) – http://tinyurl.com/mr6pl
You call our presence “occupation”. It’s true that some in the Sunni party wants us out (Of course! They were benefitting from Saddam’s reign and living like kings.) but the people of 3 ethnic groups who got saved from Saddam’s evil death plan do not consider our presence “occupation”. They know that if we leave before the present administration is strengthened, they (and the Israelis) are all dead ducks, just as if Saddam were still ruling.”
The definition of “occupation” (from something called a “Dictionary”):1. Invasion, conquest, and control of a nation or territory by foreign armed forces.2. The military government exercising control over an occupied nation or territory.”If you have a problem with that, don’t bother me with it, take it up with the good folks at Brittanica.
” (By the way, I suppose you have ignored all the news about finding the more than 500 weapons of mass destruction, some with mustard gas, and some with sar — (news which certain people have been trying to suppress for a couple of years.) You liberals all owe the Bush administration an apology. Wasn’t it kind of stupid to assume that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD’s when we KNEW he had them during the gulf war?”
No, I didn’t ignore it. I did something called “paying attention,” which you may want to take a stab at some time. Those 500 “weapons of mass destruction” were pre Gulf War weapons that were useless, and that were disposed of exactly as we instructed Hussein to do in 1991 – by burying them deep in the desert. You’ve been suckered by Rick Santorum, who was so desperate to hold on to his Senate seat that he fabricated this WMD find. The Defense Department denied that these 500 shells were the WMD we were looking for, and went on to say that they could never be launched because they were already degraded and useless prior to our invasion.By the way, that’s the second time you’ve spewed “liberal,” as if it’s something bad. Do you even know what “liberal” means? Are you aware that our Constitution is a liberal document written by our liberal Founding Fathers, based on the liberal principles of the liberal Enlightenment? Anyone who believes in that Constitution – and in the separation of powers, separation of church and state, and Bill of Rights protections it enumerates – is a Liberal.
The second fallacy of your fake comparison is that there is absolutely no proof that stem cells from embryos (which are tiny baby humans!) are superior to stem cells from the placenta (which is the tube connecting mother and baby when the baby is in the womb.) The placenta cells can be harvested without killing anyone!!!!! (This is because the placenta is discarded after the birth) So there is no need to kill a baby human!!!!! There should be no argument about this! It is absolutely not necessary to kill baby humans! And these are truly innocent, unlike some of the “civilians”. Carol Barnes
Again, your arguments would be taken more seriously if you were actually talking about something the cartoon said, rather than making up strawman arguments (look that up) to knock down. The cartoon doesn’t say embryonic stem cells are the only way, or even the best way. The cartoon is about the argument against embryonic stem cell research contrasted with the argument rationalizing the death of tens of thousands of civilians. The cartoon is about hypocrisy, and none of the red herring issues you’ve raised disputes what the cartoon actually said.And by the way, there is no proof that placentas provide stem cells that are as useful as those found in embryos. That’s not for you or I to say, that’s something only the scientists can determine – if only people such as yourself would allow them to do their work in peace. And NOBODY IS KILLING A BABY HUMAN. These are excess blastocysts that are going to be thrown away. Not a single one of them is ever going to be allowed to grow into a human, unless hundreds of thousands of Carols across the country volunteer to be inseminated with them and give birth to them….Have you done that, Carol?
View Comments (28)
Enjoyed a lot! Zapp- computer love tupac ft biggie running tabs 2002 chrysler sebring how to change oil X-posure swimwear vegas hotels Friends globe travel Soup games life assurance quote in scotland Play bingo with paypal leather wing chairs new or used
Keep up the good work »
You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it Datenbank wrter scrabble Moving companies in washington2c dc Mature dudes shemales 2006 tax advice for pastors rosacea acne bad skin acne treatment Slyvinia circuit breaker missouri Writers and editors war tax protest + 1968 + pynchon 2000 isuzu shift motor Cam no registration sex web Sony handycam dcr ip1k micromv digital camcorder rosacea cure Cruise control voyeur neighbor galleries Cisco systems vpn pocket pc Extra holidays time share What is a farmers loan
Darrin Bell:What qualifies you to make statements about science, politics, or the environment?
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.
What qualifies you to make statements about science, politics, or the environment?
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.
Darrin: I don't know about you, but if I were a blastocyst, I'd sure want them to use my stem cells to save countless lives before I rot.
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.
Er, also? Ms. Barnes? As long as you're playing Guest Medical Expert, you might want to note that "the tube connecting mother and baby when the baby is in the womb" is in fact the umbilical cord. The placenta - which is connected to the fetus by the umbilical cord - isn't a tube, it's a membrane.
Thanks. That's all. Carry on.
Most countries create some sort of an excuse before going to war - Nazis staged a border incident with Poland, US staged Gulf of Tonkin incident before expanding Viet Nam, etc. I think the WMD issues was seen as the best way to "sell" the war. Remember, wasn't just the Bush and Blair administrations. Same intel was put forth by the French. And Putin (former head of the KGB-derivative - if he was mistaken...) I also think Bush et al really believed what they said and that they had a justification that would receive public support. Remember, not only did coalition forces deploy with chem gear, Iraqi forces, esp. around Baghdad, also did. Remember the news reports some months back - Iraqi generals in charge of the military districts were at a loss at how to proceed with operations because Saddam was counting on use of chemical & bio weapons, but the generals knew they'd let the capability degrade into nonexistence and no one wanted to tell Saddam or his two psycho sons. Saddam thought (as he'd been led to believe by his military and scientists) that he had a WMD arsenal.
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.
Hey, Darrin, why do you bother answering these Neanderthals? Your time is way too valuable to waste it arguing with fools. Plus you are using reason and logic, unknown concepts to them. You might as well be speaking Chinese.
"'a country that had no WMD, no ties to Al Qaeda,'
Ummm...none?? zero??? nada??? zilch??
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?