Designer babies - the first step towards destruction

In yet another example of things that can be done, but shouldn't, I offer the recent revelation that babies can now be made to order. Or at least one fertility clinic is touting that as its sales pitch.

Some may question the predictability and efficiency of the claims of this fertility clinic, but I don't think that matters. The question is not can it be done now or not, but if it should be done at all. I stand firmly against the idea. It's an abomination at every turn.

Basically what is being offered is the ability to choose the hair and eye color of an unborn child. Now that the cat is out of the bag, the next logical step is someone offering to guarantee the genetic purity of a child. Or that they can ensure that the child is superior to other kids in various criteria.

Sound familiar? It sounds exactly like the misbegotten warped and repugnant ideals of the Nazi Party.

As we have moved forward with out ability to alter genes and manipulate stem cells we have moved closer to giving some fool the potential to try to create a 'master race'. The fact that we don't understand all the things we can manipulate, nor their long-term repercussions on humanity has not hindered some scientist from trying anyway. The line between science fiction and outright insanity is getting more blurred by the day.

If we can pre-select the eyes and hair of a child, why not their color? Or their height? Maybe give them a better aptitude for learning, or art. Hell, why not design the child to be a fantastic scientist or business leader. Of course this will cost money. So only a very narrow group of people in the world will have this option. Until one day the Government (any government) decides to help out the poorer part of its nation.

Yep, then we get government sanctioned changes. Of course they might also slip in a tendency to be less intelligent, or more servile, or weaker. Not like the common person will ever understand enough to know if it's being done. Not like governments have never experimented on the populace (various Nazi experiments on Jews in WWII and the Tuskegee Experiments in the U.S. as just 2 examples of this in the last 60 years).

But this is all fiction, I'm just being extreme. Just like being able to pick the eye color of your kids was, until someone found a way to do it.

Yet there is another side to this dilemma. We don't know what the hell we are doing. Yes someone can figure out a way to change this or that. But we don't know why nature doesn't make that same choice.

Perhaps in giving the masses red hair (as an example) we are also dropping the ability to fight off a strain of the flu, or some other disease that right now affects no one. Suddenly a minor bacteria that has existed as long as we have becomes a life threatening foe to the prolonged existence of humanity.

Maybe we will activate recessive genes we have yet to identify and understand, that cause these manipulated beings to die of heart attacks or brain aneurysms by the time they hit 30. Or that they become infertile after age 25. Or that their kids will have these problems.

Let's go further into the science fiction that does not exist today, yet. Why not mass produce these kids to create armies. Something like a cross between the clones in Star Wars and the troops of Soldier. Unfeeling, barely human, super creatures that have one purpose - and that no one cares about because they aren't human. Until the day they care. Or something goes wrong.

All of these options are probable. In fact they all might happen together, or one after another. And worse things are equally possible. Why not remove the ability of any race you dislike from being able to procreate. Why not eliminate any child not up to the standards of the day. Don't consider that you could be destroying, or preventing, a genius like George Washington Carver, Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking because of their looks, weaknesses or ethnic backgrounds.

Yes it all sounds like a bad dream. I'm just ranting about nothing. It will never happen. Just like no one ever tried to make human clones - oh wait, they have. Well, its not like we have ever made a drug that turns out to be deadly to the user because we did not know what could happen down the road - oh wait, we have. Well at least mankind has never created anything that was supposed to be beneficial that has been turned into a weapon of mass destruction - need I say it again, we have.

The only difference between sci-fi and reality is time and effort. Given the stakes of determining the progeny of the human race, effort is not a question.

This is not something we should do. This is something that must be banned. No matter how innocent it seems today, the result in the future will only harbor pain to us all. And I say again

"Just because we can do a thing, does not mean we must."

The 500th post at VASS - Our future demands understanding our past

I took some time in thinking about what I might discuss in the 500th post for VASS. There is the American Presidential race in general, the candidates - Senator McCain and Senator Obama, race relations, the recent apology by the House of Representatives for slavery and Jim Crow, the lack of a similar apology out of the Senate, domestic drilling, energy and its cost, inflation, the economy, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and of course fanatical groups like Al Quida and Iran. Obviously there is no lack of issues that are current and important to discuss.

But because this is the 500th post, and because one of the most important issues facing America has been and continues to be race relations I decided to go there. Considering the fact that CNN recently wanted to discuss their view on what it is to be Black In America, and that there has been no fanfare accompanying the actions of the House, I felt the issue of an apology would be fair game.

But I don't think anyone can really dispute the apology. The wording of the House Resolution 194 is very clear and consice. But there is another part that goes with it. Reparations.

Like the elephant in the room, everyone is afraid to discuss this issue. Most don't even know the history of it. Especially those that dispute reparations. So I am reposting a portion of an early post I made that deals directly with this question. It is not the only reason or explaination of reparations to be found on my blogs, but it does clarify the history.

And here you are:

Reparations is what is being directly referred to when the term 40 acres and a mule is brought up. As mentioned in the goals of Blackout, it is directly part of the compensation for unpaid labor by African slaves from 1619 to 1865. More fully it is linked to General Sherman and War Department, Special Order No. 15 –

"The islands of Charleston south, the abandoned rice fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering St. Johns River, Florida, are reserved and set apart for the settlement of [N]egroes now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States."

Additional reference to First Freedmen’s Bureau Act, which stated

“…shall have authority to set apart for use of loyal refugees and freedmen such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise; and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid there shall be assigned not more than 40 acres of such land...”

While the order by General Sherman did in fact provide for land, the above mentioned First Freedmen’s Bureau Act was shot down by Congress, this was later rescinded by President Jackson, even though it was argued that

"...In my opinion this order of General Sherman is as binding as a statute."

Reparations have been discussed and proposed to Congress since that time for roughly 138 years, and has not been resolved yet.

Starting in 1989, U.S. Representative John Conyers Jr. began annually introducing legislation calling for a study of the lasting effects of slavery and possible reparations. Why some would ask? What benefit could it bring?

Well there is NO question that America was built largely due to the efforts of slaves. The U.S. was an agriculture based economy and the cash crops of cotton, tobacco, staples such as corn and rice, were grown in the south with slave labor.
Estimates of the value of the unpaid labor and/or the above mentioned land has been placed from $9.7trillion to $24trillion, with other estimates slightly lower and many higher. Such estimates only confirm the absolute value and impact slave labor had on the formation of this nation. The foundation of this nation, upon which all other advances and achievements have been accomplished, is based in that fact.

After the slaves were freed, which happened with the 13th Amendment and not the Emancipation Proclamation [you can see President Lincolns' thoughts on this matter in my post to a comment at History in America comments], Jim Crow and other equally repressive laws and actions hindered Black African Americans. Incidents have occurred even in the 20th century and include the Tuskegee syphilis experiments in the 1930s, the destruction of Tulsa’s Black neighborhoods in 1921 and the loss of life and property when the all-Black town of Rosewood was destroyed by a white mob in 1923. The need to have a civil rights movement clearly states that there was massive widespread and constant repression of Black African Americans over many decades at the least.

Even with the many individuals and groups who have actively supported reparations, including Mr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and U.S. Representative John Conyers Jr., there still has been no action. Yet reparations have been made to Japanese Americans and Native American Indians, at least to some degree. Remorse has been expressed by the Government to both groups. Yet the United States Government has never apologized nor acknowledged the wrongs done with slavery and its actions/attitudes in the over a century since that time. [Now corrected, a portion of the Government has taken some non-binding action towards an apology on July 28, 2008]

It seems incredible that any government or institution could overlook such actions, I think. The world could not abide a lack of reparations for the Holocaust, yet the unknown numbers of Black African Americans that died (as damaged goods lost in transport for sale, or by slave owners as useless property, or from acts of cruelty) for centuries is something that can't even be discussed. I have a major problem with that.

Why reparations? In my mind it is simple... the nation has never healed, and never will until admission of its actions up to and including the civil rights movement is made. Monetary repayment is due, made perhaps in other manners besides direct cash payments [perhaps a fixed tax credit that is used over a lifetime and transferable to offspring until used], but denial of the fact of how this nation came to be is no excuse. We will never get beyond the nations largest and most subtle activity which is the division of Americans based on race, if we cannot come to terms with the past.

Senator Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor discussing America

Well the first part of 4 videos on Bill O’Reilly and Senator Hillary Clinton is now done. It’s taking forever to get all the videos downloaded to YouTube.

Here is the first part of their conversation



Now here are my thoughts:

One of my biggest problems with what bill O’Reilly didn’t ask, in any point of the interview, is why Senator Clinton lied to the American public. I am directly referring to her lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, and her lie about being a key figure in the Ireland Peace talks. In both cases her every utterance was a fabrication intended to puff up her abilities, create an impression of experience, and gain voters that do not follow the political news as much as someone like myself. And in each case her lies were refuted by first-hand witnesses of high regard.

Another point that I thought should have been brought up was the fact that Senator Clinton has been more than happy to take advantage of the Rev. Wright media barrage leveled against Senator Obama. Yet she was given a pass on a far more serious issue. That being her association with a known criminal, Norman Hsu, and her campaign’s acceptance of $1 million that was stolen – which her campaign tried very hard to not give back. If an association with a pastor that has no political power, and is not up for election, is significant how is it not important that she received stolen monies and harbored a fugitive?

I know that these 2 items are constants in my conversations about Senator Clinton’s nomination run. But I find them critical indicators of what kind of President we can expect her to be. And in both cases we do not see an equivalent, relevant action or situation among any of the other Presidential candidates.

But directly pertaining to the video are the following:

First is the “sudden” decision to appear on The O’Reilly Factor. There has been an open invitation to all the Democratic candidates to appear on the program since November 2007 as I recall. They all denied to appear, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich (which might have been on Hannity & Colmes I’m not sure).

But with Senator Obama currently reeling from the major news media motivated (led by Fox News) Rev. Wright debacle, and Clinton emphasizing the racial aspects of the Democratic nomination since November, she decides to make the move. Remember that she contacted O’Reilly. If this is not an example of counting polls and being calculating I don’t know what is. And it’s completely in line with her past actions (ie the Hot Coffee bruhha) of jumping into headlines for the sake of self-promotion.

But since Rev. Wright is a personally important issue for Bill O’Reilly, which I continue to feel has minimal importance to the actual issues a President should be voted for, this was the first question. And Senator Clinton was allowed to not be asked why some of her prior pastors made similar comments to some of those that Rev. Wright has made. Or why she has not had a pastor or church since Bill Clinton left the Presidency. That kind of makes her opinion on being in a church (the same one for 20 years) moot.

She also mentions that she does not believe the US could be behind AIDS. While I do agree, I am not 100% on this. And no reasoning American should be. Why? Because America has done a similar thing in the past. Tuskegee Experiments. 2 words that no White pundit or politician wants to utter.

The fact is that America harmed African American men, and the Black community, for 4 decades. That’s the equivalent of my lifetime. The end of this human experimentation, something that is universally denounced among nations across the globe, was a mere 30ish years ago. And if America could do this in my lifetime once, potentially affecting the fathers and grandfathers, uncles and/or brothers of you my readers, why would they not do it again? Some of those involved in running this ‘experiment’ are still alive and could influence policy. Were it not for the whistle-blowing on this, America would never have known. What prevents the Government form doing this secretly again, and this time keeping quiet because of the devastation? America dropped the 2nd H-bomb on Nagasaki after seeing the horror of Hiroshima, partly because the Japanese were ‘nips’. Thus how can anyone say that AIDS was 100% not possible in a nation that has shown what it can do to those not exactly like the majority?

For Senator Clinton, this is 100% impossible. And you know it must be true because she loves to make speeches in front of African Americans on Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday. Though she does nothing to denounce the racially motivated and incendiary comments of her husband. I wonder what influence he has on her views of Black Americans and why she hasn’t distanced herself from him?

[By the way, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that ‘surprise’ Senator Obama is seen as sharing the views of Rev. Wright – at least in part. But pundits are amazed as everyone, regardless of political party, agrees that there is no evidence in his voting record, actions, or conversations. Yet it is the major news media that has plastered nothing but Rev. Wright for 3 weeks now. That wouldn’t influence voters, could it?]

Moving on we come to oil and energy. In particular the fact that Senator Clinton has jumped on the bandwagon created by Senator McCain. Shocking that she would approve of a plan someone else made that has polled well. Suspending the 18 cents federal gas tax is popular, and hypocritical.

Senator Clinton has shot down drilling in ANWAR, which would have at least lessened the current problem had we done this years ago. In addition Senator Clinton is anti-nuclear power (voting against it 7 times). Considering that she is against these alternatives, and promoting ethanol - which is less effective than gasoline, increases the cost of food globally, and potentially is polluting the Gulf of Mexico not to mention unavailable in about 45 states in the nation – one has to wonder how committed she is to fixing the energy crisis.

Of course this was a wonderful time for her to jump on the “oil companies are bad” stump polispeak. One of the mantras of ultra-liberals all big business is bad. They make too much money and need to be penalized. So much for the American dream.

Senator Clinton does not mention the fact that the profits of oil companies fuels this economy. From jobs, retirement funds, mutual funds, the stock market, and the value of the dollar oil companies are a big part of a stable economy. Take away their money and you hurt America directly. But that’s something anyone who has run a business might understand – Clinton has never run anything.

That say nothing of her thinly-veiled intent to socialize business in America. If she were to take money from, or cap profit of, oil companies what industry is next? And what level is the limit? It’s a slippery slope that ends with businesses essentially being employees of the government – that’s called socialism and in its most extreme communism.

Lastly in this segment we go to healthcare. Universal Healthcare is again her big issue. Senator Clinton failed to get this passed the last time she was around the Oval Office and this is her mulligan try. In her explanation to Bill O’Reilly Senator Clinton has left out a key component of her plan. Everyone pays for Universal Healthcare, it’s free to no one. And if you don’t pay you will be penalized. Thus it is very realistic that those who need the most help will not only still be unable to afford it, but that they will owe money because of the penalty for not having healthcare insurance. Nice plan, huh.

Another question that was not addressed well is her response about running this program. She avoided the fact that already California and New York States are in debt some $20 billion mostly due to healthcare costs (minus a hefty 20% discount for fraud which is more than believed actual). This is inefficiency of the Government as much as increased costs. And Senator Clinton had no answer.

The Government cannot run the Post Office efficiently – and it’s cost goes up routinely without an increase in performance. The Veterans Administration is so bad it would be laughable were it not so sad. Name a DMV that you think is either efficient or inexpensive. And let us not forget that the Government routinely buys hammers and nails for in excess of $500 each (and I do mean each nail) and has not run a profit in decades. [By the way, the profit that was claimed by the Clinton Administration was a lie of fuzzy math the Government employs. What was done was that the Clinton Administration valued the growth in the stock market, averaged it, and projected it forward 5 years. Based on that math the Government was in a surplus by the end of the 5 year figures, and they spent money based on being even at the end of 5 years. Of course the bursting of the bubble led to the “sudden” deficit that happened instantly as Gore lost the election. Try to run your business like that.]

So given these everyday facts, and that Senator Clinton promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs yet provided a net loss of 30,000 since being elected Senator, do you think she can manage costs? Do you think a(nother) Government run program will be cost effective?

Yes Senator Clinton spoke well. Yes she kept composed under the pressure that Bill O’Reilly provided. But if you listen to what she said, understand the environment in which she said them, and facts she avoided mentioning you might come up with a loss. American needs a President that is cool under pressure. But we also need a President that has a plan that IMPROVES the nation in more areas than not. This first part of the interview does not encourage me to believe Senator Clinton has that plan.

Do you agree?