Just had a memory skip across the gray matter last night while I was hosing dirt and oil off a truck.
The time is the mid to late 90's (the date is not really that important). The place is Montgomery College, in the cafeteria. There's a performer singing cover tunes while playing a guitar, and the students are paying about as much attention to him as they do the college's radio station (little more than a glorified PA system that is run by students and piped into the cafeteria).
Suddenly, a door on the far side of the cafeteria bursts open. The students closest react, and a student comes charging into the cafeteria. As he makes his way through (jogging), the reaction from the first students spread. Minor reactions spread into a commotion, as students realize what they are witnessing.
The student jogging through the cafeteria wears a red bandanna, looking (facially, anyway) like a bandit from an old western, well-worn size 10 sneakers, and nothing else.
As he passes in front of the performer, who was singing "Tears in Heaven" by Eric Clapton, the performer pauses in his singing and playing for a second, taking in what has interrupted his "show". He blinks, shakes his head, and continues from where he paused his singing.
The streaker leaves the cafeteria through the Student Activities office, to his girlfriend's car, poised to make an escape. His friends laugh at what has just transpired, one nearly falling off his seat, and one friend, while not laughing as uproariously, nonetheless has a sadistic, self-satisfied grin on his face.
A short time later, the streaker's friends are let in on the secret, as the streaker returns, fully clothed, and is taken by campus police for questioning.
The streaker (to protect his identity, we'll call him Dan) was actually put up to his stunt. And I was the one who put him up to it. I wasn't the one who spurred activities like this. I simply wasn't the type to encourage behavior like this.
So I explained:
Shortly before the "done in a flash" event, Dan was sitting with his girlfriend, myself, and a couple of other friends, just hanging out in the Student Activities area. It had been observed that things were kinda dead in the cafeteria, and someone had made the suggestion to do something about it. This degenerated into Dan saying that he would streak the cafeteria, if he was paid for it.
My brain started hatching a plan.
Dan and I had been friends. We still were, as of this event (and, truth be told, after it), friends, but not quite as good of friends as we had been. He had done something. It was important enough to alter our friendship, but not important enough to leave the impression on me so that I would remember it now.
Anyway, Dan also owed me 5 bucks.
In a moment of sadism, I offered him the opportunity to wipe out that minor debt (and a bag of Doritos) if he would streak the cafeteria. He agreed, and I knew that he would want to take credit for it (much like a criminal leaving taunting clues for a cop). I decided to encourage him to do something that he would bury himself for because he had committed some minor wrong to me, and, let's be honest, I did it for poops and giggles.
And damn it all if Dan didn't perform almost exactly as expected. To his credit, he didn't rat me out, convincing the campus police he decided to do it on his own.
If it had been a little colder, it would have been a little more satisfying, but revenge for whatever the wrong was was served that day, and all it cost me was a bag of Doritos (the money had already been more or less written off by me).
And I and my friends learned what a truly sadistic, twisted individual I can be.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Hollywood and the rationality of a 5-year-old...
So, I am shopping in Weis market, and use the automated check-out. Squirt, my 5-year-old son goes down to bag the groceries. I had to re-bag them, but, what are you gonna do? He was pleased with himself that he could help. Anyway, while I was re-bagging the groceries, my son looks at the Redbox (great thing for movies, as long as you don't procrastinate in returning videos), and spots the indicator for the movie "Milk" (he reads better than the other kids in his class).
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
His eyes get wide, and he excitedly says, "Daddy! There's a movie about milk! That's so cool!"
What, I think. I look at the Redbox kiosk, and spot what Squirt did. There, amongst all the mini-posters for the latest movies, is a plain red card that has the title "Milk", and the primary actors (don't know why there wasn't a mini-poster, but...) written in high contrast, back-lit white.
I grin slightly, and explain to my son that the movie was about a man whose name was Harvey Milk. I explained that he was a political figure in California who was killed by a political rival. When my son asked why that would happen, I explained that the why was less important than the fact that a person had been murdered.
A lot of people would wonder how I could speak to my 5-year-old child about such things, but my kids (Sprout, my daughter, is 7 years old) both already have an awareness of things such as life, death, and murder.
I blame religion. We teach kids at a young age about the 10 commandments, which means that young kids need to know what "covet", "murder", "steal", and "honor" mean. Blast it all if that doesn't mean that kids end up having questions about some things that too many adults who try to raise kids with no religion want to pretend little kids shouldn't hear about.
But I digress.
My son was slightly disappointed that "Milk" was not a movie about what we call in our home "moo juice", and accepted that the movie was about a person named Milk.
It also allowed me to make a point that might have been missed by many non-parents. You find a chance to make a point, even if it is not one that you would think is "logical". I explained to my son that the thing to remember was that Mr. Milk's murder by Dan White was important. It was not necessary to go into what Mr. Milk stood for, because that was secondary to the taking of the life of a human who had done nothing wrong under the law.
Through my kids, I am trying to make them understand that it is more important to put aside distinctions and see others simply as people, and not their "identity".
It's a message that bears repeating, on days other than Martin Luther King's birthday.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Irresponsible "science"
The president yesterday signed an executive order undoing an order signed by his predecessor, banning the use of federal monies to fund embryonic stem cell research.
Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.
To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.
Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.
But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.
Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.
In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.
How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.
Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.
But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.
If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?
As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.
Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.
His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).
So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:
When does life begin?
Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.
The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.
Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.
Each of us, at one point, were embryos.
We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".
Embryonic stem-cell research has been able to continue, just lacking the funding of the federal government. In the years since George W. Bush banned the use of federal funds, research has continued, both in the United States, and overseas.
To date there have been no therapies developed by used embryonic stem cells, yet adult stem cells have produced treatments for many conditions.
Yet there is celebration that the embryonic research will not be funded by the people (several hundred millions dollars have been privately raised and spent in the 7 1/2 years since President Bush banned federal funding), as though the additional money will create cures that were non-existent before. The cells don't care about the money involved in research, nor do they care where the money came from. The funding ultimately means nothing to the research.
But to those who have to pay for the funding now, it means quite a bit.
Not all Americans think that the destruction of human embryos will yield the results that such informed individuals as Michael J. Fox do. Setting the ethical considerations aside for a moment, I can only help but wonder if there has been a whole lot of thought put into what the development of a treatment might mean.
In Barcelona, a Columbian woman had her trachea, which had collapsed due to tuberculosis, replaced with one that had been grown by using a prepared (cells that could have caused an immune reaction, i.e. organ rejection had been stripped off) donor's tracheal segment, and treated with the patient's own stem-cells (harvested from her bone marrow) to aid in growing the replacement in a lab. She has shown no signs of rejection, mainly because of the application of her own stem cells.
How exactly can one use something developed using stem cells not their own (embryonic) and not expect some degree of rejection? While I'm certain some scientist somewhere has an idea about that, but there is no practical information to show that there would not be rejection of a treatment developed with embryonic cells. The reason this is a concern is that the embryonic cells contain DNA that does not match the patient. The DNA sequence of the embryonic stem cells is unique unto itself, showing compatibility with the DNA of its progenitors (mother and father), but separate from any other DNA sequence in the world.
Organ transplants take place all the time. Sometimes they take with minimal rejection, sometimes the body rejects transplanted organs all together. But rejection is something that needs to be considered, and as far as I have heard, embryonic stem cell research CAN lead to cures for all kinds of maladies, but has not been used TO cure anything, and I doubt that much consideration has been given to the potential of rejection, with research going instead to finding the "cures" that scientists are sure are there.
But this is very poor science. The conclusion is that these cures are hiding in embryonic stem cells, and all the scientists need is a few more dollars to break though whatever barrier stops them, but there is nothing to indicate that such can be accomplished, other than the preconceived conclusions. The research could very well lead to data that indicates embryonic stem cells cannot be used for what scientists and celebrities KNOW is there.
If that is the case, will the research stop, or will money be wasted, while proven treatments using non-embryonic stem cells sit with no further expansion or exploration of what could be?
As for the ethical concerns, it goes back to the presidential campaign.
Candidate B.O. was asked, "when does life begin?" His response is that the answer was "beyond his pay grade". It seems that he has decided he can determine that now, and I would love to see him asked this question now.
His decision to free up federal funds (which are few and far between these days thanks to the bailouts) for embryonic research seems to indicate that he KNOWS that life does not begin at conception, otherwise he would not be willing to allow federal money to be used to research that would destroy lives (since an embryo is post-conception).
So the question MUST be asked, not only of the president, but of those who support the idea of embryonic stem cell research:
When does life begin?
Unless that question can be definitively answered by science, in a way that does not apply some standard that is different than recognizing what is alive in another situation, then the destruction of human embryos in the name of science MUST be halted, lest the science have the taint of irresponsibility about it.
The ends cannot justify the means when the means involves innocent human lives, if we are to stand where we are and condemn the kind of vivisection that took place in Nazi "research" labs.
Take the time to apply responsible science before taking the "next step" and deciding that embryos are nothing more than "just" cells.
Each of us, at one point, were embryos.
We owe it to future generations to remember that, and not destroy them in the selfish pursuit of "the greater good".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)