First time caller, long time listener

File under : Apolitical Blues

I suppose I'm busy. (And by "busy" I mean "swamped". By "suppose" I mean "have been beaten over the head by the fact that".) Which really, is no excuse for not blogging. But it is a reason. There is a difference. Most of my reactionary blogging is sports related, and after the fun of June, we have entered the dog-days of summer. Maybe the trade deadline will spice things up.

But there has been quite a bit in the news lately, so let's move on with a few pointed observations...

I'll always remember where I was when W gave his ridiculous speech outlawing the use of government funding for the creation of new Embryonic stem cell lines. (A brew pub in Chicago) Now that the public and their elected representatives have had five years to think this over and learn more about the issues, there appears to be a prevailing majority who find it morally acceptable to use frozen embryos (which would otherwise be discarded) from IVF clinics for the purpose of research. So of course, W says no.

Now...

Enough columnists have pointed out the odd juxtaposition of being against using discarded embryos for research, but being in favor of the continuing war that's going on...

And I don't need to point out the irony of our waging war on theocracies that don't represent the will of the people...

Let's hit the science of reproduction, and the absurdity of W's embryo adoption policy...

There are reasons IVF clinics make extra embryos. Sometimes an individual or couple have genetic reasons for their inability to conceive (or fear of attempting said conception). Embryos can be tested for these genetic abnormalities and ones that appear normal are implanted. Even in this case, where predictably healthy embryos are implanted, doctors will almost always implant multiple embryos. Why? Because the odds of an embryo becoming a living, breathing human being aren't very good. This goes for embryos made the old-fashioned way, too. It's an uphill battle. Miscarriages happen all the time to women who don't even know that they're pregnant. So even if W finds people willing to adopt these freezer occupants, most of them will be destroyed anyways. Why not try to create something good? This doesn't even touch on the fact that most people would be reluctant to give their embryos up for adoption. For the same reasons that most people don't cash in as sperm or egg donors. Shouldn't the fate of these bundles of cells lie in the hands of their ancestors? It's not an abortion issue, or a cloning issue or a playing god issue. But of course, common sense and logic don't seem to play into this administration's policies.

Let's take the Middle East, for example...

I know that W can't think of a single mistake that he's made as president. But do you think he at least occasionally has a Bart Simpson moment where he ponders "I can't help but think that I might be partially responsible for this"? Well, no, probably not. Granted, we're not going to make the Arabs and Israelis get along, but there seem to be fairly obvious points that are being missed. My main concern is the policy of forcing "Western-Style" democracy on these fragile countries.

Our system, for better and/or for worse is heavily reliant on political parties. (Canada has proven that this can work with more than two) But reasonably, there was quite a bit of shuffling of parties in our own history, not falling into the current two parties for nearly a hundred years (you can look it up). So obviously, there's going to be some unrest at the beginning.

Say for example, your country has three major ethnic groups that don't get along too well. And maybe the minority group has considerably fewer resources than the other two. How do you think representative democracy is going to work for them?

Or let's say that you have a more homogeneous population. Well, I would imagine that if within that population, there was already a group that was well funded and organized, that they might have the upper hand in the initial stage of elections.

And of course, if your funded organized party also serves as the military for the country, then even if they don't win the election, the winning group might be hard pressed to control that party. And we all know how well democracy works when the government doesn't control the military. Right?

I speak of course, of Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. Three countries where democratic elections were obviously going to have issues. Of course the terrorist groups are in power. They already had the money. (Presumably, next they get the women, but that's another story) I'm a scientist. I don't claim to have worked out a solution to this issue. But in countries where religion and politics and the media and the military have long been under one thumb, it's absurd to think that lifting that thumb will provide an instant wave of western logic to the people who live there.

But I'm not the decider.