Comment history

Moral evolution

I would just say that we who claim the apex of creation - evolved to that position or otherwise having ascended to it - are capable of determining right and wrong independent of any great sky-god spirit/totem/whatever. Not having a thower of lightening bolts to keep us in line does not affect our ability to find where that line is.

January 27, 2007 at 3:19 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


I say again:

Proponents of ID appear to suffer a profound fear, peculiar to the small-minded. They fear that, without the over-arching protection of an agency (God) upon which to hang responsibility for their own creation and upon whose glory to hitch their destiny-wagon, they will have to fall back on their own inadequate devices to determine right from wrong. Surely, being mere humans (although claiming the apex of creation), we cannot possibly have any way to determine right from wrong without the omniscient guidance of a God - "Great Sky-Father" - who himself exhibits the manners and ethics of a spoiled child.

December 11, 2006 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Distorted history

I've read a lot of Cal Thomas' columns. He's a little like Bill O'Reilly - after the speed wears off.

I'll send him a quarter if someone else will - then he can call somebody who has a clue.

-Schuyler DuQuesne

August 13, 2006 at 2:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Unconventional war

I'm late.

I'm late.

For a very important date.

-Schuyler DuQuesne

August 5, 2006 at 9:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Attention deficit

No, Arminius, I don't actually think there was a REAL "rush to war." It took several months to get sufficiently wound up to actually start an invasion.

And, I believe there were probably sufficient WMDs to justify an invasion. There still may be WMDs hidden somewhere in Iraq - they just haven't been found. The problem with searching, inspecting and verifying in a place like Iraq is that you just about have to make everybody stand still while you poke and prod through every square meter of the country - otherwise things get moved around to where you're not looking. It's a pretty sure bet that there were operational mobile bio-agent reactors that were never found - and there were likely several thousand nerve agent artillery warheads. But, in typical fashion, the inspectors (dedicated and committed though they were) had to follow "protocols and procedures" and wait for the Iraqis to open gates and unlock doors.

By the time of the invasion, though, whatever WMDs there were had been buried deep or moved somewhere save - yes, probably Syria - because even Iraqi military field commanders thought that they were going to get the order to use them at any minute. Everybody thought somebody else's command had the big weapons.

I have no idea how loose the Clinton administration was with intelligence data - pretty loose, I imagine, since I never saw any real foreign policy there. I suspect any intelligence organization in place lone enough to be effective has also been compromised by the day-to-day exigencies of political survival. The lies I refer to are the obvious ones - rumors of African uranium and "what they COULD do" with those aluminum tubes.

Also, I never had any real interest in the UN's resolutions - all posturing and no action. "We go get blue helmets - then you in big trouble."

Back to the "rush to war." That was something Congress did when they fell over each other voting to give Bush the requisite authority, "just in case."

I still say that, if you're going to take over a country, you have to be prepared to run it, and so far I see no evidence of that.

July 29, 2006 at 11:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Unfair burden

A golf course is such a hideous misuse of land and other resources, I don't understand why there's even any discussion.

July 29, 2006 at 11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Attention deficit

More and more people believe the WMD story because it's simple, doesn't involve too many big words, and gets repeated a lot. Just about anyone will start to believe just about anything if the message is kept simple enough and repeated often enough.

If Bush had said, "Let's kick Saddam out of Iraq and get them started on setting up a democratic form of government," I'd have been all for that.

Personally, I'm over any outrage I originally had about the lies regarding WMDs. I'm still more than a little miffed at the total lack of planning and awareness that accompanied the whole affair, though.

I don't think the U.S. is the only offender, but by the early 21st century, it should be a no-brainer that, when you take over a country, you have to run it. When you run a country, you have to have some understanding of the people and their culture.

If nothing else, we could learn JUST A LITTLE from history. What happened in Eastern Europe when the Soviets left? All the ethnic and nationalistic conflicts that had been forcibly prohibited boiled over - in a big way. What's happening between the factions in Iraq now that the U.S. military removed the old regime and didn't immediately enforce a new one? Duh.

And another thing - I'm also fed up with all the outrage over the invasion to begin with. It was obvious for months ahead of time that we were going to invade Iraq. What did everybody think, anyway? If China lined up a couple of carrier task forces off the California coast and massed a hundred thousand troops in Vancouver and Tijuana, I don't think anybody would say, "They're probably just doing some training - their legislature hasn't voted to attack."

Here's the thing - the U.S. (don't even try that "coalition" crap with me) has taken the dictator out of the backward muslim country, but hasn't figured out that you can't get the backward muslim country weaned of it's need for a dictator. They like the idea of voting, but they like the idea of a strong leader telling them what to do even more. Otherwise they'd be demonstrating more adherence to a rule of law than to whatever mullah has a bullhorn.

July 29, 2006 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stem cell debate

Research on all types of materials and by all means will proceed, whether or not it's funded or approved by the government.

Do we want to have some standards, or do we want to play catch-up with foreign research? Do we want valid data, or do we want to have to reverse engineer clandestine work?

Stem cell research needs to be brought out into the light and fully supported and it needs to be done now. Science cannot long survive if its practitioners have to be constantly looking over their shoulders for villagers with torches.

-Schuyler DuQuesne

July 24, 2006 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Ethical question

I have GOT to start getting up earlier.

1) A brain-dead individual on a respirator is not a "being" any longer - it is an artificially-sustained meat puppet awaiting the decision to either refrigerate or embalm. Not to harvest its useable tissues and organs is a waste.

2) Life begins at 50, I'm pretty sure.

3) Zygotes may only be the means by which successful gametes produce more gametes.

I thank you. Leslie thanks you.

-Schuyler DuQuesne

July 21, 2006 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Sign problem

Maybe some of these places are under wrinkles in the master map at the county engineer's office - sort of like what happened to Lake Woebegone...

-Schuyler DuQuesne

July 21, 2006 at 8:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )