Just got my Bill Maher tickets

[TennNC]

What does that have to do with any thing?

Germany shouldn't have been seen as a threat because they held the olympics?

That is insane!

Fine. Why attack the innocuous reference and ignore the fact that they're our largest trading partner?

 

[KB5252]

Fine. Why attack the innocuous reference and ignore the fact that they're our largest trading partner?

While building up their military at an alarming rate. I don't know of any real threat to them at this point, so why the build up?

 

[TennNC]

So you want all of the tax dollars to go to social programs...

That is a false assumption.

I'm calling a spade a spade. I've stated I support military spending, especially on the people who defend us. I don't support corporate welfare.

Some on here are okay with wasting money on defense spending but not okay with wasting it on medical research that could drastically improve (and in some cases save) lives, like that of my father-in-law -- a Naval Academy Grad, US Marine, Vietnam Vet and ardent supporter of the US military -- who has Parkinson's.

Do I need to justify myself to you anymore?

 

[allvol123]

TennNC,

I think we would get better results in pursuing cures or treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc...if it were a completely private affair. With government money comes restrictions, red tap, etc...to jump through.

 

[TennNC]

1) the leverage we gain in the working system is worth every dime we could spend on said system.

call it whatever you will, but it harkens back to the day when only we had nukes.

2) Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply at all to the third world holes and non-governmental entities we're dealing with in the modern world of national defense.

3) Your boy Cllinton gutted the military and intelligence services more than anyone in history, yet didn't scrap SDI, wonder what's up with that?

1) That's contingent on whether we ever get an NMD system to work, and who knows what the world will be like then? What's clear is it hasn't been necessary in the past 25 years since such efforts to create one began.

2) My post said that anyone but third world holes knows that it's a major mistake and loss for them to shoot one our way. And right now, none of those third world holes can shoot a nuclear missile on US soil.

3) My boy? A boy I voted against in '96 (the first time I was old enough to vote)? I reported on defense legislation on Capitol Hill during his last term - I'm well aware that he didn't scrap SDI. That's where I formed my opinion on this matter. "What's up with that" is most likely that he was being backed by the companies benefiting from SDI funding. Just my guess.

Also, not attacking or being defensive on this one, but when you say Clinton gutted the military, at least in terms of BRAC, I believe those were planned and well underway before Clinton ever took office. Just want to clarify.

 

[TennNC]

TennNC,

I think we would get better results in pursuing cures or treatments for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, etc...if it were a completely private affair. With government money comes restrictions, red tap, etc...to jump through.

Okay - I'm completely open to that idea. Seriously. Turning the sarcasm/attacking off here.

I want to believe in private funding to research, test and develop cures for disease. What evidence is there that this has ever worked?

I'm no expert on this, so I defer to others who are. But my impression is that most breakthrough medical research has come through publicly funded educational institutions, government organizations, or (ironically) the military.

 

[allvol123]

I'm no expert on this, so I defer to others who are. But my impression is that most breakthrough medical research has come through publicly funded educational institutions, government organizations, or (ironically) the military.

I would say this is correct because it has been the only way, for the most part that it has been handled.

I read an article a few years ago in The Wall Street Journal on the new phenomena of non-profit Bio-tech firms. Essentially, these are people that changed from just raising money for a specific charity to raising the money, buying facilities, and hiring researchers to do what they wanted done. Wish I knew how to find it. I'd say the sister of Susan G. Komen watches and directs the dollars she raises for breast cancer research much better than any governemnt office would.

 

[volinbham]

Okay - I'm completely open to that idea. Seriously. Turning the sarcasm/attacking off here.

I want to believe in private funding to research, test and develop cures for disease. What evidence is there that this has ever worked?

I'm no expert on this, so I defer to others who are. But my impression is that most breakthrough medical research has come through publicly funded educational institutions, government organizations, or (ironically) the military.

Probably more a half and half. Much research is done at universities under federal grants but there is a major disincentive to commercializing much of this research. There is quite a bit of sponsored (by industry) research that is done in conjunction with federal funding. Finally, the R&D budgets of Big Pharma are huge.

It's a pretty good system.

As for embryonic stem cell research, the issue for many is the ethics. IIRC, there was no funding for ESCR prior to W. He authorized some. Many critics argue that we should exhaust other stem cell sources before resorting to an ethically questionable source. Further, the argument questions whether government should fund the ethically questionable source. The government does fund other stem cell research.

 

[TennNC]

While building up their military at an alarming rate. I don't know of any real threat to them at this point, so why the build up?

Good question.

The only thing I know to do in such situations where I have no first-hand evidence is put myself in their shoes.

China was a world power for centuries, got knocked down for a long time, and desperately wants to get back to the top. They're a proud bunch. They want to be included amongst the big boys, and probably want to be the world's superpower too. It's probably similar to the buildup of the US military during the last 100 years or so. We built up our military and nuclear stockpiles so we could become the world's biggest superpower, even if we only dropped the bomb a couple of times (63 or so years ago).

By having nukes and a stronger military, China probably believes they get more respect and attention from us and other world powers.

 

[allvol123]

It's a pretty good system.

It is? Compared to what? You can be sure these researchers toiling away in universities wouldn't make the same or more progress working inside a company? Big Pharma would not pony up for research if funding was cut off? Research is their supply line to future profits.

 

[TennNC]

Allvol123 and bham, thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I understand there are ethical dilemmas for people, and I also understand change doesn't happen overnight. But when I see my father-in-law not be able to write or eat or stand up straight, my only thought is, "Let's do all we can now and not hold back any potential progress for him and millions of others who could benefit from new discoveries." Just sharing my perspective.

 

[BigPapaVol]

1) That's contingent on whether we ever get an NMD system to work, and who knows what the world will be like then? What's clear is it hasn't been necessary in the past 25 years since such efforts to create one began.

2) My post said that anyone but third world holes knows that it's a major mistake and loss for them to shoot one our way. And right now, none of those third world holes can shoot a nuclear missile on US soil.

3) My boy? A boy I voted against in '96 (the first time I was old enough to vote)? I reported on defense legislation on Capitol Hill during his last term - I'm well aware that he didn't scrap SDI. That's where I formed my opinion on this matter. "What's up with that" is most likely that he was being backed by the companies benefiting from SDI funding. Just my guess.

Also, not attacking or being defensive on this one, but when you say Clinton gutted the military, at least in terms of BRAC, I believe those were planned and well underway before Clinton ever took office. Just want to clarify.

The last 25 years is no indicator of what might come - even tomorrow.

None of them can TODAY. We're building the system for the guys who can today AND those who might tomorrow.

I assumed you were a Clinton supporter. Frankly, I think Clinton was a good president as long as there was a Republican congress to preclude his inner socialist breaking out. He was probably the most centrist we've had in my lifetime. That said, I believe he kept SDI around because he understands the strategic ramifications of a working system and also understood the steps necessary to get there are probably closer than the GAP realizes.

Some drawdown had begun from the wartime footing in Desert Storm, but nothing near the magnitude eventually undertaken by the Clinton admin. The intelligence drawdown was also 100% Clinton's crowd and we're paying for it today. The erosion of our intelligence capabilities started the very day that the Berlin Wall fell, but the massive cuts are a Clinton legacy.

 

[volinbham]

It is? Compared to what? You can be sure these researchers toiling away in universities wouldn't make the same or more progress working inside a company? Big Pharma would not pony up for research if funding was cut off? Research is their supply line to future profits.

It essentially leverages the educational mission of universities to generate useful intellectual property.

The risk/reward is already so bad for this type of research that big companies wouldn't have the incentive to invest in some of the basic research that is performed in universities and national laboratories.

Many other countries do not invest in basic research the way we do and as a result rely on others for these discoveries.

 

[KB5252]

Probably more a half and half. Much research is done at universities under federal grants but there is a major disincentive to commercializing much of this research. There is quite a bit of sponsored (by industry) research that is done in conjunction with federal funding. Finally, the R&D budgets of Big Pharma are huge.

It's a pretty good system.

As for embryonic stem cell research, the issue for many is the ethics. IIRC, there was no funding for ESCR prior to W. He authorized some. Many critics argue that we should exhaust other stem cell sources before resorting to an ethically questionable source. Further, the argument questions whether government should fund the ethically questionable source. The government does fund other stem cell research.

That is an issue but to my understanding embryonic stem cells have not been able to produce the breakthroughs that have been achieved through other sources. I read this somewhere and do not know much more about it. If this is true does anyone know why?

 

[volinbham]

Allvol123 and bham, thanks for the thoughtful responses.

I understand there are ethical dilemmas for people, and I also understand change doesn't happen overnight. But when I see my father-in-law not be able to write or eat or stand up straight, my only thought is, "Let's do all we can now and not hold back any potential progress for him and millions of others who could benefit from new discoveries." Just sharing my perspective.

Understood - it's a deep issue. I can't find the quote but one of the fathers of ESCR said something to the effect of "if you don't see the ethical issues with this you aren't paying attention". (paraphrased)

 

[KB5252]

Good question.

The only thing I know to do in such situations where I have no first-hand evidence is put myself in their shoes.

China was a world power for centuries, got knocked down for a long time, and desperately wants to get back to the top. They're a proud bunch. They want to be included amongst the big boys, and probably want to be the world's superpower too. It's probably similar to the buildup of the US military during the last 100 years or so. We built up our military and nuclear stockpiles so we could become the world's biggest superpower, even if we only dropped the bomb a couple of times (63 or so years ago).

By having nukes and a stronger military, China probably believes they get more respect and attention from us and other world powers.

That is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is they want to be THE world superpower and the only road there leads through us.

 

[volinbham]

That is an issue but to my understanding embryonic stem cells have not been able to produce the breakthroughs that have been achieved through other sources. I read this somewhere and do not know much more about it. If this is true does anyone know why?

Probably not enough research done. Most I've seen suggests embryonic has more potential.

The lack of funding however has resulted in new techniques to harvest embryonic with out creating then destroying an embryo. I think such techniques address the core ethical issue.

 

[KB5252]

Probably not enough research done. Most I've seen suggests embryonic has more potential.

The lack of funding however has resulted in new techniques to harvest embryonic with out creating then destroying an embryo. I think such techniques address the core ethical issue.

I was under the impression that many in Europe were well underway using embryonic stem cells.

 

[BigPapaVol]

That is the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is they want to be THE world superpower and the only road there leads through us.

I think this is just old school style rhetoric and is not some realistic national goal that can truly be ascribed to anyone.

Realistically, the Chinese have to feed their people and figure out how to make their limited water work for 1.5 bn people.

 

[allvol123]

It essentially leverages the educational mission of universities to generate useful intellectual property.

The risk/reward is already so bad for this type of research that big companies wouldn't have the incentive to invest in some of the basic research that is performed in universities and national laboratories.

Many other countries do not invest in basic research the way we do and as a result rely on others for these discoveries.

You receive grant money VBH?

 

[volinbham]

You receive grant money VBH?

Nope - my salary is hard funded by the university :dance2:

 

[allvol123]

Oh well. I think you're one of the most level headed posters on here..even when I disagree with you. Thought there might be a conflict of interest in your opinion on this matter. I still disagree with you.

 

[volinbham]

Oh well. I think you're one of the most level headed posters on here..even when I disagree with you. Thought there might be a conflict of interest in your opinion on this matter. I still disagree with you.

:hi:


Anyone that disagrees with me has a conflict of interest...

 

[BigPapaVol]

:hi:


Anyone that disagrees with me has a conflict of interest...

does no interest count as a conflict?

 

[allvol123]

:birgits_giggle: