GeorgiaDon

I heard that story this morning, on Good Morning America, and was really surprised. I have a couple of patents on plant natural products, but my experience was that you can patent an application of a natural product but not the natural product itself (since it was "invented" by Nature). I recall that in the early days of the Human Genome project Craig Ventor's company (and maybe others) were patenting every bit of DNA sequence, but I thought the courts had thrown out those patents as nothing had actually been invented. It seems I was mistaken about that, as apparently about 20% of the genes in the human genome have been patented. The story today (http://www.genomeweb.com/dxpgx/aclu-files-suit-against-myriad-over-brca-patents) is about a lawsuit filed against Myriad Genetics, who hold the patent on two major genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) involved in breast cancer. They market a test to determine if a patient has any of several known mutations that increase risk of breast (and also ovarian) cancer. The test is very expensive ($3,000); from a technical perspective I'm sure I could generate the same data for a lot less than that, but that wouldn't include research and development costs. The problem seems to be that Myriad is using the patent to prevent anyone else from developing a different, competing test. With only one test available there is no way to get a "second opinion" on your cancer risk. They are also allegedly stifling research on the two genes. As an example of the consequence of that, the existing data applies almost entirely to Caucasian women, so no-one knows how good the test results are for any other ethnic group. You could be "cleared" of risk by the test, but that result wouldn't mean much if the mutations that are common in, say, Asian women are different from the specific mutations covered in the test. I think it's outrageous that anyone could hold a patent on a gene. I have no problem with patenting a diagnostic test, or a treatment to fix a mutation that causes a defective protein, but gene itself and the basic information about the nucleotide sequence can't be invented and it shouldn't be the property of any individual or company. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

You seem to imply that US law should be dictated by what is acceptable to Catholic theology. Should the sale/use of condoms or other birth control devices also be illegal? Every other religion out there would also likely welcome the use of the legal system to force everybody to follow (if not actually believe in) their religious precepts. I don't think that's what America is about. Everyone is free to follow their own religious convictions, as long as they don't contradict secular law. Bill said the law of the land is that abortion is not murder. That is in fact correct. You said you answer to a higher power. That is your right. You certainly have every right to try to persuade others to also follow your "higher power". You don't have the right to impose your beliefs on anyone but yourself. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Although the ruling may be technically correct, I think the state legislature should pass a law to require a warrant for that kind of surveillance. Although it's true the police could follow you around, or even use a helicopter to follow your movements on private property, that would be hugely expensive and almost certainly wouldn't be done without a very good reason. On the other hand sticking a tracking device on a car is easy, so easy people will certainly be temped to abuse it. Suppose a police officer suspects their spouse is fooling around. Out comes the tracking device, then "what were you doing at the no-tell motel for 2 hours?". Judges almost never refuse warrants if there is probable cause; I think it's entirely reasonable that the police should have to show cause before subjecting anyone to that kind of surveillance, be it by tracking device or just following them around for extended periods. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Am I mistaken in believing that Christianity (as laid out in the New Testament) built upon, and developed from the monotheistic religion described in the Old Testament? Are you disputing that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share the same root in the monotheistic religion of Abraham? As for the rest, I'd be interested in your opinion. I really can't see any credible argument that "made in God's image" has anything to do with physical bodies. No-one would argue that someone who had lost an arm or a leg was less human because they were missing a piece of their physical body, that would be absurd. Surely what makes us human is the mind, our consciousness and as a result our ability to think, feel emotion, wonder? Can a fertilized egg, or a blastocyst, or an embryo question the meaning of it's existence? Certainly an embryo is an incipient human, and so should be treated with respect. I just don't see how it deserves greater respect than the woman it happens to be in. Back to the original topic of this thread, I don't agree that it is an ethical decision to force a victim of rape or incest, against her will and at significant risk of long-term physical or psychological damage, to continue to carry and nurture a potential human against her will. All that being said, when my daughter got pregnant at 16, she decided to have the baby and my wife and I never once questioned her decision. As a result I have a granddaughter I adore. However that child was not the product of violence, and we were able and willing to provide a great deal of emotional and financial support, so my daughter finished high school, and has now graduated from university and is married to a fine fellow who has legally adopted my granddaughter. Not everyone who finds themselves unexpectedly pregnant has such a supportive situation. I don't think I have any right to tell them what they must do, or must not do. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The uniqueness of the unborn child, for a long time (fertilized egg, blastocyst stage, embryo, arguably even the fetus) is derived almost entirely from the assortment of alleles received from the parents. Is this sufficient to make us "unique human beings"? Surely this collection of alleles only defines some boundaries on the possibilities of what that fertilized egg may eventually become, under the influence of environment. It's obvious (to me anyway) that much of the objection to abortion is religiously based, and is particularly associated with the religions that developed from the Old Testament (Judaism, Christianity, Islam). I suspect that at some fundamental level the issue is that "Man" was made in "God's image", so killing a human is on some level equivalent to killing "God". But is "God" just a random selection of alleles? That kind of thinking has, more in the past than now, been used to justify elevating some "human races" (especially European Caucasian) above others, deeming them "closer to God's image" based on the presence/absence of alleles with the phenotype of light vs dark skin pigmentation. Hopefully no-one here believes that any more. But if "God's image" can't be defined as a collection of alleles, what does it mean? Surely being "like God" means being self-aware, able to love (or hate), aware of our mortality, able to question our place in world, the meaning of our existence? These are the attributes that make us human, not the physical nature of our bodies. The things that make us human are properties that emerge over time, as we develop and grow. They are not properties of a blastocyst, or an embryo. If someone believes that just the potential to eventually become self-aware, to acquire all the other attributes that make us functional, are sufficient to define a fertilized egg as fully human, then surely that someone should also agree that they have a responsibility to ensure provision of all the things that potential human would need to develop all of their potential. That would include food, shelter, health care, and education at the minimum. Strangely, I've found that many people who ardently (almost violently) oppose abortion feel no obligation to provide anything for the child once it is born. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If "conservative" means "government that interferes as little as possible in the activities of consenting adults", it makes perfect sense. If "conservative" means "I'm going to demand that everybody else follows my religious principles", I agree it is a confusing situation. Personally, I think it is a step in the right direction. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The purpose of the experiment was to establish the technology to insert genes into the dog genome and actually have them be expressed. In the old days people would use a gene for an enzyme not present in dogs, for example a gene for a plant enzyme. Of course, to see if the gene is expressed as a functional enzyme, you'd have to extract the dog, which usually would be the end of the dog. These days you can use red (or green, or yellow) fluorescent protein; to see if the gene is inserted correctly and expresses a functional protein, you just shine a blacklight on the dog and see if it glows. No need for the messy dog-in-a-blender assay. Why is this possibly useful? For human medicine, dogs are in some ways more similar to humans than mice are, so they may be a better experimental system to test things out in. For example, dogs have a vomiting reflex and rodents don't. For the dogs, it could well be possible to use the technology (of inserting functional genes) to correct some well-known genetic defects in many breeds, for example hip displasia. You'd get a healthier dog and a cool party trick at the same time. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Busted! From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8003799.stm): A court in Sweden has jailed four men behind The Pirate Bay (TPB), the world's most high-profile file-sharing website, in a landmark case. Frederik Neij, Gottfrid Svartholm Warg, Carl Lundstrom and Peter Sunde were found guilty of breaking copyright law and were sentenced to a year in jail. They were also ordered to pay $4.5m (£3m) in damages. _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's because, in some people's view, the proper posture is to lean slightly backward while pushing the hips slightly forward, so as to facilitate the rest of the world sucking our big bad American dicks. Kind of like the spectacularly successful foreign plicy of the previous administration. If you're going to show respect to foreign leaders, then how can you expect them to figure out their proper place in the world? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

The CBC is reporting that the Afghan government has passed a law that enforces Taliban-favored restrictions on women: "The new Afghan family law would reportedly make it illegal for women to refuse their husbands sex, leave the house without their permission or have custody of children." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/04/01/harper-interview.html I haven't seen this reported in the American press yet, although I haven't looked extensively. However a quick Google search revealed pages of Canadian and European news sources and various blogs covering it, but nothing in the US news outlets. I wonder why? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

This I agree with. However, even if the defense budget were scaled back to be in line with what Canada or European countries that don't engage in such adventurism spend per capita, the cost would not be trivial. How would that fee be any different from a "tax", except that you would have to pay your lifetime tax all in one shot. Since no-one except children of the very wealthy would be likely to $50,000 plus (admittedly a WAG, but not an improbable figure) on hand the day they turn 18, wouldn't that amount to involuntary conscription of everyone except a few who had the good luck to be born into wealthy families? How is forced servitude, with the only alternative leaving the "protected area" (the entire US, so effectively being stripped of your citizenship) not a much worse intrusion on your freedom than paying your "fee" off a bit each year (i.e. an annual tax)? Similarly, it seems unworkable to me to have the judicial system only be available to those individuals who choose to pay a user fee. So if a crime is committed against you, the police will not investigate, and prosecutors will not prosecute the offender, unless you paid up in advance? Or if you "opt out" of the system, would that entitle you to act as judge, jury, and executioner yourself if you believe you have been wronged? If someone decides not to pay a user fee for access to the sewer system/treatment plant, would the city pour cement down their toilets to block access? If then that person decides that instead they'll just use the river as a latrine, doesn't that put everyone else who uses that water at greatly increased risk of disease? I get the argument about toll roads, although having to stop every couple of miles to pay a toll seems hugely inefficient to me compared to paying that toll when I buy gas, through gas taxes. The cost could well be about the same, without the need to stop and wait through a line of gas-wasting idling cars at a toll booth every 5 minutes (as I experienced not long ago trying to take the loop around Houston). I do get the principle of freedom to choose you are advocating, and I can imagine some circumstances where that could work, but I guess I also lack the imagination to see how it could possibly work in the real world in many other cases. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, how do you suggest dealing with a situation where people may not want something, or wish to pay for something, but they still derive a benefit from it. A person may not wish to pay for the military, but situations can readily be imagined where the military is needed to protect the country/society that person lives in. Imagine what would follow if the US military were to be completely disbanded, for example; how long would it take before some other country decided to help themselves to our resources and assets? On the other hand, if financial support for the military were to be completely voluntary, how would it be possible to protect only those people/institutions who had previously contributed to the existence of the military? What possible process would allow some people to be protected, and others left to their own devices to defend themselves against an invading army? Also how would you thereafter deny the non-supporters access to all the aspects of US society that had to be defended, and that they refused to support defending? If you couldn't separate supporters from non-supporters in this manner, if non-supporters would benefit from the military as much as supporters, what possible incentive would anybody have to pay taxes to support the military (or anything else)? How would your system work? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK, so you're talking about an abstract principle. I can see where you're coming from, although I'm not in complete agreement. However, lets imagine a real world scenario. That poor adult skydiver with the fractured femur and pelvis and subdural hematoma has been life-flighted, unconcious, into your trauma center. He is actually insured up the wazoo, as he is a responsible adult and pays a HEFTY amount in insurance every month. However you have no way of knowing that, as his wallet is in his gear bag back at the DZ. You have, in fact, no knowledge about his financial health, but you do know that if you don't begin treatment immediately he will die or suffer irreversible brain damage from the hemotoma. Do you really think he should be allowed to die, because his insurance status is unknown when he arrives at the hospital? How long will you leave him on the table while you try to track down his insurance or bank account balance? Or will you treat him, save his life, and sort the insurance/payment out later? We'll put aside for the moment the possibility that, if you don't treat him and he dies/is disabled as a result, and it turns out he was in fact insured, you'll be hearing from some lawyers pretty soon. It's my understanding that when a patient's life is in danger, EMS personnel will stabilize and transport as quickly as possible, which means they often do not spend time to track down wallets/purses/gear bags, and so critically injured patients often arrive at the hospital without ID. If I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me, but I believe the scenario I described is very plausable. Abstract principle meets real world, and the clock is ticking. What will you do? Oh, and thanks for the discussion and making your perspective clear. I may not agree, but I do like hearing other points of view. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If you were drowning, and I was in a position to throw you a life preserver, I'd do that. I wouldn't just turn my back and say "I don't know if it's best for you that you don't drown". If you ask me to pay for your kids toys, I'd tell you to get stuffed. I'm capable of nuance like that. I like to think most people are. I suspect you are too, in fact I'd bet money on it. Does the word "society" have any meaning, or are we just "islands" of selfishness with no interests in common? Doesn't your own profession extort money from me? I've been married for 26 years, I have no plans to change that, so why should I pay for courthouses/judges/clerks etc so other people can end their marriages? I help pay for those things, despite hoping that I will never need them myself, because the efficient operation of a system of laws, contracts, etc is necessary to maintain an orderly and efficiently operating society. I benefit on some level from those services because I benefit from living in a somewhat orderly society, so I pay my share without complaint (well, almost without complaint). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Fair enough. As I said I've been mistaken/changed my mind on issues. You make a good point about people receiving benefits paid for by others. However, while we can probably all agree that we shouldn't have to pay for someone else's nose job, I think it's a different situation (or at least more complicated) when it comes to life-saving emergency or trauma care, which is highly "socialized". I started another thread on that, and I'm really curious about your opinion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Several current and recent posts regarding health care have made me wonder what people what people think about the current American policy towards emergency health care. (Obviously this poll is directed towards Americans, but others are welcome to add their comments of course). At present, if someone shows up at or is brought to an emergency or trauma center, they must be treated to save their lives. Some proportion of these patients cannot or do not pay for this treatment. As a result, others are forced to pay more, either in taxes or through higher insurance premiums (as insurance plans are billed more than they otherwise would have to be to make up the loss the hospital takes on the non-payers). Poll option (1) is to continue this policy as is. Poll option (2) is to require proof of ability to pay before treatment, and patients unable to prove this would not be treated, even if that means that they die. This would of necessity also include patients who are incapacitated and for one reason or another don't have their wallet/insurance cards on them when they are brought in. Perhaps prudent people would have their policy information tattooed on conspicuous locations on their body; several tattoos would be advisable as some locations would be subject to road rash or other obscuring injuries. Option (3) would be to treat everybody, but make it harder to get out of paying, or perhaps allow taking of a kidney or cornea or something (presumably not a heart) in exchange. It seems to me that the current approach isn't working very well. Some people are being tapped to pay for care for others, who in some cases can get away without paying anything. That creates an incentive for people to not buy insurance. Emergency wards and trauma centers are stretched thin, and many are closing. Here in Georgia the state legislature just passed a law imposing "superspeeder" fines to raise money for trauma centers; if you're stopped for doing over 85 mph on an interstate or 75 mph on a 2-lane state highway, you get an additional $200 fine. This is supposed to bring in $25-30 million/yr, but it seems to me if people do slow down a bit the revenue could be less, and not very predictable or dependable. Anyway I think the issue is important, and even more so for skydivers, as we can all think of situations where it would suck to have no trauma centers to go to, or to have to be transported an excessively long distance to get life-saving care. So how do we put life-saving care on a sound financial footing? One way would be to deny care to those who can't pay, but personally I don't like that option. Some people who could pay will arrive unconcious and without a wallet, and then would be left to die (hence my facious comment about tattooing). Also I don't think medical professionals would be happy about having dead/dying people piling up outside the hospital doors. However I suspect some SC posters wouldn' have a problem with exactly that. If you vote for option (1) or even (3), I'm curious if anyone has a constructive suggestion about what could be done. My suggestion, which I know is not without problems, would be to fund the centers on a state-by-state basis with a sales tax on all goods/services. The tax would likely be small (

Perhaps you'd prefer a return to the days when all policy deliberations were done in secret, with no chance to respond until the policy is set in stone? The way you guys fly off the handle every time an idea you don't like is just brought up for discussion, instead of rationally stating why you think it's a bad idea (or better yet, suggesting a better alternative), it makes me think maybe Dick Cheney had the right idea holding secret discussions with energy company executives and then cramming his energy policy down our throats. No, I'd still prefer to have these things discussed in public, at least then there may be a chance for constructive comment in venues that may influence the final decision (Speakers Corner doesn't count in that regard unfortunately). (Random thought: maybe more politicians should be skydivers? We'd probably all be better off if that was the case.) The policy under discussion says nothing of the sort. It does say that some portion of the employer's share of the insurance premiums would be treated as income, and be subject to taxes. No-one has suggested that the benefits paid under the insurance (i.e. the value of the medical bills paid) would be subject to taxation. Lawrocket, you're a really smart guy and usually bring interesting discussion to the table, you've changed my mind on some topics on occasion. So I wonder why you'd misinterpret this one so badly. Could it be that you are so opposed to "socialized healthcare" that you're seeing the bogeymen that you want to see? For my part, I don't like the proposal, although it does have a certain logic. I am very concerned that it will erode the little incentive that remains for employers to offer health insurance benefits. That could result in even more people without insurance. I am also concerned that the same reasoning would lead to employer contributions to retirement plans and other benefits also being counted as taxable income. Last year one of my city commisioners tried to get the city to drop health insurance for all employees, on the grounds that some employees have family coverage (which costs the city more) and some have coverage only for themselves (which costs less of course), so in effect some employees are paid more than others for the same job. He argued that everyone in the same job should be paid the same, and they could go and buy private insurance for themselves or their families if they wish. Of course that would strip people of the opportunity to participate in a group plan, which is usually more affordable than individual policies, and as many city employees already work 2 or even 3 jobs to make ends meet as the city pays so little (if that's your only job, most people qualify for food stamps), private insurance would be out of reach for many. Still there is a certain Scrooge-like logic, and if employer-supplemented benefits were to be treated as income that logic would be reinforced. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with you. As I wrote some posts ago, this long after the fact race- and gender-based handouts are actually corrosive (in my opinion). No-one benefits when the genuine achievements of hard-working women and minorities can be dismissed on the (mistaken) grounds that they had their success unfairly handed to them. It's even more destructive when people can excuse (to themselves and to others) their own lack of success by claiming they weren't allowed a chance to succeed because women and minorities are handed first place in line, instead of placing the blame where it really belongs, which is often their own lack of effort or ability. Also I'm just disgusted by the Jackson/Sharpton race-baiting always-the-victim "the Man is keeping us down" crap. It's sad, really, as they were such leaders during the civil rights struggle, but they've become a drag on American society by refusing to acknowledge the progress that has been made. I think Bill Cosby has a much healthier take on things. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We haven't had a terrorist attack on the US since 9/11/2001. Should we disband Homeland "Security" and send them all off to get real jobs? What could possibly go wrong with that plan? Maybe not the greatest example, but you should get the point. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Back when I started looking for a permanent job, I discovered that I was essentialy unemployable in my native Canada because of affirmative action. At the time I was 34 years old, with a Master's degree, PhD, two years of postdoctoral experience, and 12 published research papers, which in ordinary times would have at least made me competitive for a teaching/research position at a university. However, both Ontario and British Columbia (the two biggest potential job sources) had elected NDP governments that brought in very strong affirmantive action programs. At one point Ontario universities and colleges were not allowed to even accept applications from white male candidates if any qualified women/visible minorities had applied for the position, until 50% of their faculty were non-white-male. In addition, the Canadian federal government started a program that gave universities a 5-year grant to cover salary and a research expenses for new female faculty, so understandably universities were only interested in hiring women. Female faculty could be a freebee for the university for the first 5 years whereas they would have to eat the cost of new male faculty. What did I do? I spent 4 more years in post-doc land, published a lot of papers, moved into a new research area, and eventually got a faculty job in the States. It took more time than I had anticipated, but I've got a great job (most of the time) working with people I really like, while living in a place with a better climate than 98% of Canada (including year-round skydiving). It turned out OK for me, I just had to work harder for it. Friends (male) from my grad school days either did the same (and some have since gone back to Canada to take positions at universities), or they turned to industry or government jobs, but none are starving. Despite that, I still think there is a place for affirmative action, in certain very limited situations. Some inequities are so culturally entrenched they need a kick to get them reset. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Just so there's no confusion on this point, I'm talking about the situation in 1965, not today. I don't think affirmative action is appropriate today, indeed it's likely to be destructive in some ways, including some you've noted. That we have gotten to this point is, I think, due in part to past efforts to reverse some of the damage that had been done by our shameful history. However two generations ago, more needed to be done to break down the institutionalized barriers to non-whites than just whitewash history and pretend that everybody suddenly had equal opportunity. The fact that one group of people still had 95% of the wealth, owned 95% of the businesses, etc shouldn't have been dismissed with "This world was never a perfect place, and I'm afraid it will never be." The fact that human enterprises can not be perfect is no excuse to not even try. I think a better analogy to the ones you presented would be the police tracking down some kidnappers, arresting them and hauling them off to jail, and leaving the kidnapping victim behind duct-taped to a chair and with a hood over his head. After all the job of the police is to arrest bad guys, and they did that. Surely the victim will work himself loose and find his way home in time on his own. If not, well too bad. Life's not fair, and it never will be. If the police have to rescue every kidnapping victim where's the end, next you'll be wanting them to pull stuck kittens out of trees! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'd also agree that I'd prefer that society could be color/gender blind and operate as a strict meritocracy. However the problem I have with "I don't think I'd ever support racial discrimination as a tool or remedy for past injustices of any sort" is that it leaves the victims of that discrimination so far behind it'll take many many generations to catch up. Where's the fairness in saying, "well now that one side has all the marbles maybe now we'll start to play fair? Oops, look, you still lose!" There isn't any totally "fair" way to address the situation, but I think just saying "sucks to be you, maybe one day we'll let a few of your kind into the good jobs/schools doesn't cut it either. As I said in and earlier post, though, I think set-asides/affirmative action should have been only a temporary measure, and I think that by now they may do more harm than good. I personally do think they were needed at one time, though. What sort of remedy would you support as a remedy for past injustices? Again, just curious. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I know a bit about the water situation in California, and I certainly don't have any magic solution to that particular issue. I do have to say though that these issues don't come out of the blue, everybody can see them coming even decades in advance but they become a crisis because no-one does anything until it is a crisis. Here in Georgia water is also a limited resource, believe it or not, and Georgia, Alabama, and Florida have been battling in court for decades over water from the Chatahoochee River. In the meantime Atlanta has been allowed to grow without any consideration whatsoever about where the water will come from, and for decades the city has taken a larger and larger share of the river to meet its needs. Then we get a drought, as we have had for the past 3 years, and suddenly downstream communities are left high and dry. Florida and Alabama go to court to try to get Georgia to stop hogging all the water, and Georgia politicians start bleating about water being taken from good God-fearing Georgians to "save some endangered clams" down in the Gulf. Well, the "endangered clams" (mussels, actually), are just indicator species that the entire esturine ecosystem is shutting down because of the lack of fresh water inflow. So what, you may ask? Well, that ecosystem is critical to the oyster fishery, the shrimp fishery, and also many commercial fish species that use the estuary for breeding. So Georgia politicians don't want to sacrifice future tax revenues, not to mention aggravating voters and donors, by restricting building permits, and Georgia taxpayers think they have a God-given right to water their lawns five time a week, and as a result coastal fisheries collapse and thousands of fishermen (fisherpersons?) see their livelihood disappear. Then to top it off people complain that they can't buy honest-to-goodness Gulf shrimp anymore, all they can find in the stores is imported from Chile or wherever. Guess what, it's all "human needs". The crisis comes about because no-one is willing to face facts, that resources are limited, their availability may change over time, and we really need to plan for the future. In the initial issue under discussion, no-one in the article that the OP posted said that solar facilities should not be built. All that was stated (that I read anyway) was that maybe we shouldn't destroy especially critical habitat, that was paid for in part by conservation groups because of its unique resources. Why not take a reasonable amount of care to put such facilities in places where they don't unintentionally, because of lack of foresight and planning, have a more negative impact than they need to? As far as your insect laying waste to the citrus crop example is concerned, such an insect does exist already, the Mediterranian fruit fly (commonly called the Med fly). The USDA has a program to develop effective, low-non-target impact methods to control the flies, which includes collaborating with European scientists to study the biology of the fly in its native habitat, where it isn't a problem because it is controlled by native predators and diseases. It was specifically this program that Palin mocked as an example of wasteful government spending. The problem with aerial spraying is that it often also destroys the beneficial insect populations too, such as honeybees and predators that control yet other potentially harmful insects like (for example) citrus scale or stinkbugs. Again, a little foresight, in this case being prepared with intelligent, effective control measures for a pest that we can be sure will become a big issue, (as it is already a big pest elsewhere and it disperses very effectively), could save us big problems down the road. But, as in all too many cases, foresight is sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. Then, when the shit does hit the fan, it becomes "won't someone think of the children" (or farmworkers, or whoever). Out of curiosity, what plans had been made for the day when there was no more water left to take from the San Joaquin River? Was it assumed that there would never at any time in the future be a drought, or was there a "buffer" left so that even in a drought, with less water flow, farms would still be assured of an adequate water supply? Or did people do like they have done here, look at a small sample of years with unusually high rainfall (or water flow), make plans based only on that, build until every available drop was sucked out of the river, and then be suprised when water availability changes (due to drought or conflicting demands for the water)? I'm asking just because if they planned prudently and then were sandbagged by political events I'd be inclined to be more sympathetic (which is worth squat I know). And to make it clear, I am sympathetic; most of the people being affected were probably not yet even born when the relevent decisions were being made. It does suck to have to eat someone else's shit sandwich. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for posting this thoughtful and thought-provoking article. I know that some proponents of African aid, such as Jeffry Sacks, have long strongly favored direct investment in local communities, for example in the form of small seed loans directly to would-be entrepeneurs and in public health infrastructure such as clean water sources, in place of large handouts to government officials. My own work is somewhat directed towards developing strategies to mitigate disease transmission, which would be especially useful in Africa because they are disproportionately afflicted with disease. For example, over 90% of the >200 million cases of malaria every year occur in Africa. It's difficult to compete with developed market economies if you're also carrying that kind of burden. On the other hand, I'm convinced that the long-term solution to the disease issue is economic development. The southern US used to have a huge problem with malaria, really into the 1930's. According to Andrew Spielman, former Harvard mosquito guru writing in his popular science book "Mosquito!", the biggest factor in ridding the US of malaria was the rural electrification program. Bringing electricity to rural areas changed people's behavior by making radio and later television available, and also air conditioning. As a result, people stayed indoors in the evening instead of sitting out on the porch where mosquitoes could bite them, and the air conditioning made it necessary to put glass in windows (as a side effect keeping mosquitoes out) whereas previously people would open the windows to catch any available breeze in the stiflingly hot and humid summer nights. Similarly, people in the south used to be heavily infested with hookworms, which could stifle physical and mental development because they cause anemia. The worms infect people largely by burrowing in through the feet, and the main reason they all but disappeared in people is because people started wearing shoes, including children going to school. However shoes cost money, and can be seen as a dispensible luxury by the very poor. In both cases economic development (government subsidized in the case of the rural electrification program) indirectly, but in hindsight inevitably, lead to dramatic improvements in public health. The same, I am sure, will hold true in Africa and elsewhere. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, do you deny that non-whites in the southern US were disadvantaged in education and employment under Jim Crow laws? Once those laws were abolished, what if anything do you think would have been appropriate to do to address the impact of Jim Crow laws on non-whites? Oh, and please don't barf on me when you answer. I'm just curious how far your "discrimination is always wrong" values go. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)