Science moves on:
In the five years since President Bush authorized and at the same time restricted research on human embryonic stem cells, a marked shift has taken place in some scientists’ views of how the research is likely to benefit medicine. Many no longer see cell therapy as the first goal of the research, parting company with those whose near-term expectations for cell therapy remain high.
Also in the Guide The Race for the U.S. House Governors’ Races Instead, these researchers envisage a longer-term program in which human embryonic cells would be a research tool to study the mechanisms of disease. From this, they say, many therapeutic benefits may emerge, like new drugs, which would probably be available at least as soon as any cell therapy treatment.
You can almost hear the hysterics now: “They want to murder babies to study diseases!”
The Other Steve
Anybody catch the Mike Wallace interview with Iran’s President last night?
C-Span is supposedly re-airing it tonight at 8pm eastern.
Just curious, cause I see the rightwing websites are spinning it as Mike Wallace interviewing Hitler. Or 60 Minutes shows they are on the side of terrorists, etc.
Punchy
It’s a very disturbing trend in science that research must culminate in a very tangible, visible product, procedure, or treatment. Basic science–that which uncovers the mechanisms/mathematics of action–does not play well with those privately funding it, as it does not provide the all-important profit to said investors.
This is why gov’t money is so important–it allows for researchers to study basic science untethered to the need/requirement that the end product/treatment bring about a return on investment. This is why stem cell researchers KNOW it provides for clues to disease, but only TALK ABOUT it’s more visible and tangible possibilities–to get the funding.
If the US gov’t ever did actually fund this science, you’d see scientists suddenly become much more balanced and cautious about their short-term predilections on the results of stem cell research–if effect, they will stop using hyperbole to sell the science to the investors, and unhooked from private funds, suddenly become more honest (read: realistic) about stem cell science possiblities.
For what it’s worth, I think totipotent stem cell research holds a vast amount of promise; I think the hyperbole that comes into play nowadays involves the timeline scientists tout (“just a few years away!”…nope)…which, of course, is all that matters to the financiers…
Ryan S.
Off Topic.. but not really. I feel the need to link to this today.
Bad Numbers
bud
No, I can’t. That sound has been drowned out by the chorus of “Bush is preventing research!”
I personally have no issues with SC reasearch. In fact, I have contributed my own cold hard cash to an organization which actually does it. OTOH, I have an aunt and uncle who are very religious. I disagree with their theology, but I love them dearly. They think that SC research encourages abortion by providing some ethical cover and monetary ncouragement.Again, I don’t agree.
But…
I think of all the stupid government programs that I disagree with, and I would love to stop funding, and it’s hard for me to disagree with their contention that they don’t want their tax dollars supporting such research.
And that’s all that Bush has done. HE HASN”T STOPPED SC RESEARCH despite all the loud claims to the contrary. He disallowed tax dollars, taken from your pocket and mine, and especially from my aunt and uncle, from being used to support it.
All of the loud noises, on both sides of the issue, are simply cheap politics.
Pb
Of course they want to murder babies… they’re the al-Qaeda party, aren’t they? Wasn’t Osama bin Laden on the Democratic ticket or something, campaigning for Universal Jihad
foron all Americans? Sheesh.Punchy
No offense, but this is incredibly ignorant from a scientific view. He has not allowed tax dollars to fund a very new, very green science field. THIS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF SIGNIFICANT MONEY for this type of research. Few to none investors throw good money as such an embryonic (pun intended) research field (see my post above) b/c it doesn’t usually turn profits.
What if I was against space exploration? What if I demanded that Bush stop funding Shuttle launches? Do you think investors would step up and pay for the launches and the space station??? Hell no…no profits! It’s the same reason few will pony up on ESCs…too new, too unproven (profit-wise) field of science.
So by not funding it (and insultingly pointing to these few “ESC lines” they’ve “allowed”–which if you did ANY cell research, you would know that they’re no good anymore (just look at their passage numbers!!!)) with gov’t money, they’ve effectively stalled it. So don’t come in here screaming “all the loud noises” until you’ve written a grant or worked in basic science and understand the nuiances behind science funding.
Barbar
How dare taxpayer money be spent on something that some people don’t support. What I like about Bush is that he funded the Iraq war solely on donations from war supporters.
RSA
This represents the part of the article that jumped out at me. As Punchy argues, there’s more than one way to “stop” research; putting onerous burdens on the people doing the work is certainly effective. (I’ve avoided getting involved with classified government work over the past decade or so for this reason.) What’s unusual here, I think, is the reversal of the usual constraints on government-funded research: ordinarily you want private research to benefit from government research, for any number of reasons; in the case of stem cell research that seems to be explicitly disallowed. Imagine this being a general rule for NSF or NIH–you might as well not bother thinking about practical implications of research.
Darrell
According to John Edwards, if John Kerry had been elected President, people like Christopher Reeves would be able to get up and walk if Kerry was permitted to pursue federal funding of stem cell research like he wanted. Why does Bush insist on keeping these people in wheelchairs? Seems cruel to me.
ThymeZone
Not at all. He has, yet again, given aid and comfort to the enemies of progress and science.
And he’s given aid and comfort to the assholes who would protect cells in a test tube one day, and defend the bombing of children in their sleep, the next, and then attack you if you dare question their moral integrity.
Can you say “Darrell?”
Anything that gives aid and comfort to the likes of Darrell is just evil. It’s dirty, and dishonest, and now it’s running your damned government.
Darrell
I see John Cole is parrotting the bullshit that Bush “restricted” research on stem cells. Appears that unwillingness to spend taxpayer dollars = “restricting”. How would there ever be any technological innovation without the direction and funding of the federal government? Please don’t pose a libertarian while spouting this kind of nonsense
RSA
Uh, no. This interpretation is according to Bill “medical diagnosis by video–lowest prices” Frist. Edwards didn’t put a timeline on his prediction that stem cell research could lead to treatments for people with Reeves’s condition. If you think that research is a dead-end, you should probably tell some real scientists so they can stop wasting their time. Oh, right, you have the President to do that.
Andrew
But how do they taste?
ThymeZone
Bill Frist, whose family just made a $21b deal to protect you from socialized medicine?
DougJ
Better that than these hysterics
We’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York. And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we’re going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House. Wheee!
Darrell
I never suggested it was “dead end”, but it’s not wildly exaggerated miracle cure many on your side have suggested it would be either. This is not an issue of “restricting” research. If big pharma and bio-research companies think it’s so promising, then they can pay for the research and development themselves.
Pb
By replying to Darrell, you’re emboldening the terrorists. But that’s just what you wanted, isn’t it, you baby-murdering al-Qaeda terrorists!
ThymeZone
It isn’t? What percentage of funding is involved?
Are you suggesting that the government should not lead the way in basic medical research funding? Is that your contribution to healthcare? “Leave it to Big Pharma?”
Citizens can sleep well at night knowing that the big companies who are trying to outdo each other to market hardon pills on tv are taking care of the basic medical research that is needed to save lives and restore sight and limbs.
Thanks Darrell, you’re just the cat’s pajamas.
Pb
Or these hysterics:
(from The Best of Pb, Volume 3)
VidaLoca
Darrell,
The problem with this is that once the corporations have paid for the R&D they feel entitled (and are legally allowed) to patent the results in order to monetize them, thus denying the research to the broader community that might benefit from it.
Steve
Government investment in R&D is the reason why we lead the world. If we don’t want to lead, someone else will, but it’s going to suck when they get to keep all the profits.
Punchy
Yes, and Lockheed-Martin and JPL can pay for their own shuttle launches, their own space stations, and their own moon colony. All private funding. That’s just perfectly realistic. Gov’t shouldn’t be funding anything, ever.
I think construction companies should pay for interstate highways. I think lightbulb manufactures should pay for all the traffic lights in America. And private companies should pay to stockpile bird-flu vaccines…b/c, ya know, get gov’t out of research and development.
Here’s hoping that General Dynamics can fund all the R&D, construction, and transport of ICBMs…I hope Electric Boat funds–by itself–all new nuclear-powered sub research….God I love capitialism…it ALWAYS ends up helping the consumer, in EVERY case!
DougJ
Research is worse than a dead end. What if we discover something the terrorists could use to kill us with? What if that’s what stem cells end up as — another more deadly form of biological weapons? The jury is still out on a lot of this. Wouldn’t it be safer to wait unti we know more? From what I’ve heard, stem cells are only a theory, a potentially dangerous one that could undermine our security.
Darrell
First of all, there is federal funding of stem cell research. Just no federal funding on reseach of embryonic stem cells. Second, the “problem” you state holds true for a whole host of private R&D efforts involving AIDS drugs, cancer treatments, heart disease research, and much more. If a company develops a useful drug based on this research, they are entitled to patent it. This is a good thing, as it encourages research.
Third, and more controversial imo, is that a number of federal grants for research permit the private company to still patent their research rather than put it into the public domain, despite the fact that taxpayers paid the tab for that research.
Aaron Adams
Big Pharma doesan’t want cures, they want lifelong treatments. It’s a matter of incentives. Stem cells are just another economic tool to them.
Darrell
I believe most Western european countries spend a significantly larger percentage of their government spending on such govt. research, yet they are facing an exodus of drug researchers who flock to the US (ask Tim F, who married one of them).
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Comnsider the space program — no private corporation would have taken on that effort in the early 1960’s because the risks were too high and the profit picture was too unclear.
Even today, while you hear of more private entities getting into space exploration, you don’t see much in the way of results.
Darrell
I would never argue that government spending on research has never produced benefits. It’s just not the most efficient way to go about it in most cases. After all, what incentives do they have to make the best decisions?.. it’s not their money their spending, it’s taxpayers’ money
DougJ
The space program? Doesn’t Darrell believe the moon landing was faked?
Darrell
You know, for a group of self righteous aholes calling themselves the ‘reality based’ community, you’re not very nuanced or reality based at all. The debate isn’t whether or not the government should be funding “anything” you fucking moron, the debate is over what they should be in the business of funding and how much.
ThymeZone
That’s right, Darrell. It would work better if the grants paid the companies to do the research so that other companies could profit from the results. More companies would line up for that.
But more importantly …. why do you care about stem cells?
You don’t even blink at blowing up children and burning their faces off. Do you just pretend to care about things, for political reasons? Or what?
Darrell
You know Doug, occassionally you write some funny stuff, but most of the time, your nonstop snark gets old. It’s not funny, and not particularly clever.
ThymeZone
So, take a position, you troll cowardly fuck.
What research should the government fund? How much?
Why? Lay it out. Let people see your positions.
What are you afraid of?
Darrell
The only person guiltier of thread crapping is ppg. Why do you nimrods insist on venting your mental illness so often?
ThymeZone
Compared, say, to the shit you write?
Like when you defend the bombing of kids in their sleep and burning off an eight-year-old’s face in front of his mother? Now that’s funny stuff, eh?
The Other Steve
Great. I don’t want any of my fucking tax dollars going to the War in Iraq.
Why is this always a one way street with wingnuts?
Darrell
Like I said, you venting your mental illness on these threads is no different than walking into a house or a place of business and wiping your ass on their towels while pissing on their floor.
Pb
DougJ does write some funny stuff. Darrell does too, sometimes. The difference is, with DougJ, the humor is pretty obviously intentional.
The Other Steve
One other thing, bud.
By taking the Government out of funding of Stem Cell research, your aunt and uncle have also taken Government out of the Debate over what is appropriate research.
Nice move, they just undermined themselves.
ThymeZone
You’re a liar. You sat here for a week and defended the bombing and burnig of children for political purposes.
Thanks to you, Israel has shot itself in the crotch and accomplished exactly nothing after all that carnage. And you were rooting for them every step of the way.
Steve
Why do you consider the percentage to be the relevant measure? Namibia could put 100% of their GDP into government research, but they’d still be Namibia.
There is nothing Namibia could do to make itself the world leader in anything other than midwiving celebrity babies. On the other hand, we have an economy that can make us the world leader in any sort of emerging technology we choose, but if not, someone else will surely step up.
ThymeZone
So, when will get a statement of your position, again?
AFter the tantrum?
US Patriot
I’m sure all the Africans dying of AIDS in lieu of receipt of generic drugs will agree with this one. After all, if those drugs had never been developed no one could’ve helped someone in their predicament, anywhere, no matter where they lived or how much money they had at their disposal.
Without the private research leading to the patents, they never would’ve known how pointless and tragic their deaths could have been.
Darrell
The government is very much funding stem cell research.
The Other Steve
But it does hit the mark so often.
I mean, we all know based upon reading you and scs that if Jerry Falwell said the moon landing was fake, you’d be all over here saying we should acknowledge it as a legitimate issue of debate.
The Other Steve
Not according to your President.
ThymeZone
But that research is driven by political agendas, right?
Just like the killing and burning of children that you advocate?
As long as there’s a good political motive, it’s okay.
Darrell
Hence, my choice of words referring to larger percentage of government spending of “Western European” nations. I believe the combined economies of Western Europe are reasonably close to ours.
Darrell
Have you noticed that most of the simpletons here are on the left side of the aisle. Just thought I’d point that out.
Tsulagi
Yep, science moves on, and a lot of it is moving out of this country now that we have a monkey at the controls of the train.
Other countries not infected with the stupid virus have been pushing stem cell research. In China where Robertson said it was okay to kill (abortion) babies, they’ve caught up to pre-moronarch levels of SC research achievement and passed in many ways.
While not as public, it’s also good to know the administration has also brought their vision and magic to particle physics. Funding in that area has dropped off the map. That too is being outsourced. Europe with the completion of their Large Hadron Collider next year will become the center of high energy physics research. No need to pour money down that rat hole, Bushy and the boys already know God’s finger is behind all those particle thingies. They’re thmart.
Now if we could only get Sam Brownback as the next president to carry on and advance George’s vision. We could really free up research dollars. Gain additional ones by closing down NASA. We could then finally fund vital research into Intelligent Design to prove that Adam and Eve’s neighbors 6,000 years ago were the Flintstones.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Yes, I’m not arguing that private research ought to be curtailed, or that the results of private research should not be patentable. I’m arguing for more federal funding of research, the results of which should not be patented…
because you’re right, this is quite problematical. I don’t know the extent to which it goes on but I’ve heard of it and it doesn’t sound legit to me.
And why is there no federal funding on research of embryonic stem cells? Does Bush’s right-wing fundamentalist religious base have anything to do with it?
Inquiring minds want to know…
Darrell
I think that is such a well thought out and intelligent argument
US Patriot
I disagree. The moon landing was clearly not faked. It occurred a significant length of time ago, and if convincing evidence of its artificiality were to emerge, it would surely have done so by now.
Even if Jerry Falwell, Darrell and scs were to come out and argue that the moon landing was a legitimate item of debate, that would not make it so. I would hope that they would not do so, as such an action would take their minds firmly out of reality. However, hopefully this entire line of reasoning is merely an effort to insult them. I trust serious circles of debate will not discuss this topic in the foreseeable future.
US Patriot
I’m glad you agree. Clearly, this shows that when one is shown the erroneous extent to which their arguments can be extended, changing minds IS possible.
Thank you, Darrell.
ThymeZone
Did you just fly in here from Mars?
Of course we are insulting them. They are an insult to intelligence, to decency, to America, to justice, to freedom, to everything good. And they trashtalk anyone who dares to disagree with them.
Should we be offering to buy them lunch?
Punchy
Then lay it out, shithead. What should they fund, and why, and what shouldn’t they? Oh wait…that’s too difficult. It’s too partisan. The gov’t SHOULD FUND space research but not stem cells? Why? Please explain.
Ancient Purple
Shorter Darrell: Reducing my taxes is more important than you getting quality health care.
Darrell
All I know is that if John Kerry had been elected President and allowed to pursue federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, people like Christopher Reeve would be rising up out of their wheelchairs and walking. John Edwards told us so. I still don’t understand why Bush insists on keeping those people in their wheelchairs.
Because if the federal government is investing in one area of research, but not in another area of research which is closely related, no innovation can take place in that closely related area because the federal govt is not directly involved.
Darrell
Perhaps the government should tax more and spend more to fund more research on wireless telecommunications, operating systems for PC’s, spyware, and ‘holistic’ medical treatments too.. as “more” government spending is what’s best.
The Other Steve
This is a fascinating argument to be made by someone who is also a defender of Republican spending policies.
There is a balance.
A lot of technology used today in commercial products came from research done in the defense industry. Aluminum composites, carbon fibre, titanium, electronics, computers, machining tools, etc.
That titanium plate and spoon you can buy at REI for camping was made possible because of research into working with titanium funded by the government.
On the other hand, when the Government funding is so lucrative that companies abandon the consumer market in favor of it… now that’s a bad thing. This is what happened in the 1960s-1980s as a result of increased government spending on military, and why we lost our automobile market, high-tech electronics, etc.
ThymeZone
What percentage of this research is federally funded?
Why?
Do you think it is more reasonable to tax the users of medicines than to tax all the people to fund research? Because leaving the funding to private sources does just that. It makes sick people pay for the research.
That’s what you want, right? Sick people to pay more, so that you can pay less?
Darrell
TOS, you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Seriously. I have been harshly critical of Republican spending policies on this thread.
Darrell
Not on “this thread”, but these (BJ) threads.
DougJ
Maybe the moon landing was fake. Maybe it wasn’t. But shouldn’t we at least admit that, as with global warming and evolution there is a legitimate debate about whether or not it was faked? The trouble is that the real moon landing extremists and the fake moon landing extremist alienate those in the middle, which includes most voters.
ThymeZone
Which is relevant to medical research …. how?
Are you saying that medical science should be just another for-profit engine of commerce?
That’s why we have the most expensive medical care on earth. But not the best, or the most available to citizens. That’s why we have three brands of hardon pills for you, but reduced funding for stem cell research.
That’s why the Frist family got $21b richer last month.
ThymeZone
And on yet the third hand, we now have a government that pulls back funding for technology that would detect explosives in luggage, while at the same time trying to remind you every day to be scared of terrorism.
US Patriot
No. This caters to the extremism of the deranged.
You seem to fit into that category quite well, DougJ. This person named scs is asking about you on the other thread. I think it would be therapeutic for the both of you if you discussed things with her directly.
The Other Steve
Well I could cut my federal tax burden by $5k/year tomorrow if we’d stop sinking $400 billion a year into Iraq.
Pb
Duh. If they had actually spent the last five years developing technology to detect these explosives, then what would they have to scare us with today?
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Then John Edwards is talking out of his ass. It isn’t the first time a Democratic politician has done this. It won’t be the last. They are, after all, politicians.
My granny knows more about SCR than John Edwards.
However, what John Edwards gets right — and he’s able to get it right because even though he’s not a scientist, he’s able to de-couple scientific research from religious mysticism — is that by refusing federal funding for embryonic SCR we insure that somebody else (S. Korea and Britain to name two somebodies that I can think of off the top of my head) are going to eat our lunch in this area.
Two other tangential consequences: talented researchers in the field go elsewhere to do their work. Worse yet, talented researchers in other fields come to realize that mysticism has trumped science in the US, and they too go elsewhere to do their work. And “elsewhere”, realizing the benefits of building up their research pool, is only too happy to take them on board.
Darrell
That would be the same federal government you trust to make the right decisions in which areas of medical research to fund.
John S.
Sigmund Freud’s corpse just got a hard on for his favorite case study on projection, Darrell.
Darrell
If you read what was said back in the late 80’s and early 90’s, (mostly Dem) politicians were telling us how we should have the federal government spend more like the Japanese govt, to prevent the Japanese takeover of the HDTV market. The Japanese, directed by their government, went down the path of analog screens while our private companies went down the digital path. How’d that turn out? And what can we learn from that bit of history?
scs
I also saw an interesting article in the NYT about the role of infections in obesity. In that article, I read that only about one cell in 10 in or on a person belongs to the human body- the rest belongs to bacteria, parasites, viruses, etc. Weird huh?
VidaLoca
Darrell
No, you’re right on this one. The private sector is all over research in this field, because they see the short-term profitability.
Nah. Now that Linux has been perfected we’re good to go.
Problem solved :)
In one sense of the word “spyware” the govt. is already on this. In the other sense … please.
Holistic medicine? My sense is it’s a “booming” cottage industry.
For a better example, what about federally funded research into renewable energy?
ThymeZone
Wrong, you mindless cretin.
The government I would trust would lay out goals and designate funds for research … and then keep it’s nose out of the medical business.
But no (and the whole fucking point is) they can’t. They have to play religio-politics with the thing.
Which is why we are talking about it, and of course, why you are on the wrong side of it, like everything else.
John S.
Sources? Examples? Evidence?
I won’t hold my breath.
Parker
Just to correct common misconceptions that run through the comments:
Somewhat ironically, I think, embryonic stem cell research FIRST received federal funding during this administration, which “became the first to make federal funds available for this research, yet only on embryonic stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed.”
Also, there is no federal prohibition on embryonic stem cell research – this is all about money and funding, and not legality. Any private entity can do it and/or fund it to the extent they are able – they just won’t get money from the feds for new stem cell lines derived from embryos.
“In politics, whatever they are talking about, they are talking about money.”
Carry on…
Darrell
I can feel the moonbat love. Tell us halfwit, by deciding which medical research programs to fund, and which not to fund, how then would that in any way be considered “keeping it’s nose” out of the medical business?
ThymeZone
So let’s see, your idea would be to put the money out there in a big bowl and let the labcoats just take it and do whatever they want to do?
Or, do you want the government totally out of the medical research funding business?
Because, you know, these are both such really good ideas.
Darrell
The results of all that government spending on research for renewable energy has so far (correct me if I’m wrong) resulted mainlyin higher gasoline prices thanks to ethanol processed into our gasoline.. and the decision to line the pockets of the politically influential ADM corporation which supplies the ethanol. Now please tell us the benefits of this are of govt research.
Darrell
Yes, that’s exactly the idea which I’ve been advocating. It’s difficult to have a rational discussion with you whackjobs when you so often willfully misrepresent and outright lie about my positions… several times already in this thread alone
Pb
Incidentally I just built a new computer from parts–it’s a totally spiffy and modern Athlon 64–and, as I’ve been doing since before Windows 95 came out, I installed Linux on it, Gentoo Linux in this case. I had a ton of ‘fun’ getting it built and stable over the weekend (disabling ACPI (?!) amongst other things), but now that it is, it’s totally awesome.
One thing I find amusing, some binary-only programs (or open source but yet not presently 64-bit clean programs) and plugins I use (like flash, certain video codecs, and OpenOffice) are 32-bit only, but it runs these as well, by having a separate set of binary packages and 32-bit libraries for them. It reminds me of Windows going 32-bit, but yet still having tons of old 16-bit legacy baggage lying around. However, in this case, the performance is great, and the baggage is minimal.
Linux isn’t perfect, and it isn’t for everyone, but it’s definitely for me, and I can do way more with it than I could were I stuck with Windows!
ThymeZone
That’s right, crude oil has doubled in cost and we are paying 60% of what everyone else in the world is paying for gasoline, but ethanol is the big problem.
ThymeZone
Well then maybe you can listen for once.
If you want a “rational discussion,” you could start by saying “Here is my position, and the reasons for it, A, B, and C. What is your thinking?”
Instead of flying in here and firing off the insults to anyone who has ever disagreed with you before you even get started.
Whaddya think?
Darrell
So because our gasoline is not as excessively taxed as other nations (the reason for the lower gasoline costs here relative to other countries), then we should ignore other factors which cause higher gas prices.. especially when there’s so much money being funnelled to a politically tied-in company like ADM as a result of this government research.
I’ll ask again, what are the accomplishments of all the govt money spent researching renewable energy sources? I’d honestly like to know.
ThymeZone
Try Google.
Pb
Personally I’m waiting for fusion to become a viable technology, in 2040 or whatever. Hopefully by then, I won’t be waiting until 2080…
Darrell
You are once again willfully misrespresenting what I’ve written. Re-read the thread. I started off posting a story illustrating the wildly exagerrated miracle cure claims made by many of the advocates of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, followed by a post objecting to the characterization of the Bush admin “restricting” research, when they are doing no such thing. I most certainly did not ‘fly in here firing off insults’. Quite an accusation coming from the ahole who calls me a “child murderer”
VidaLoca
I’d say badly for the Japanese, because there sure are a growing number of HD-TV’s around. Where are they being made, by the way? Uh-oh.
Are any of the HD-TVs that carry “our” private companies’ trademarks actually made in “our” country? Were public funds used to support that research? (you’re not making that argument but I’d probably support you if you were).
Look, I take your larger point here
that government does not always make the most efficient (or even always correct) decisions in its allocations of funds. You can use the space program to support that argument — the last moon landing was, what, over 30 years ago? So what was all that moon stuff about?
However, it’s hard to prove that a funding decision resulted in an efficient, versus an inefficient, allocation of funds without the benefit of hindsight (unless you want to argue a priori that all gov’t funding of research is by definition inefficient, which you aren’t). And your original point w/r/t embryonic stem cell research had nothing to do with efficiency and everything to do with politics.
ThymeZone
I’m not talking about this thread. I’m talking about your shitty attitude.
If you really want “reasonable discussion” maybe you should act like a person who is looking for reasonable discussion, instead of acting like a person who is out to stick a finger in the eye of every liberal.
It’s just a suggestion.
Pb
Yeah, what’d we ever get from that, anyhow? And don’t even get me started on that ‘ARPANET’ boondoggle…
VidaLoca
When you want to execute a command you just … type it on the command line.
So clean. So simple. Why didn’t anybody think of this years ago?
ThymeZone
Well, I’m an old Unix guy, now a Windows guy.
Here’s my report after 25 years of working on this crap:
It’s all crap. All software is mostly crap. We love the good things it does so much that we overlook the crap, the shitty code, the programmer-centric interface models, the bugs and the deficiencies and the look and feel that obviously nobody tested on real people …. so much that we pay through the nose for the crap and then start shopping around for replacement crap as soon as we can.
We accept a level of shoddy workmanship and poor design that we’d accept in no other product. We put up with total quakcery from the “professionals” and the “engineers” who are neither engineers, nor professional, because they are the priests who know the magic incantations.
Other than that, it’s all wonderful, really. Windows, Unix, linux … all of it. Just fucking wonderful.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
I’m not sure the gas prices are higher as a result of the ethanol, though they may be higher as a result of anti-pollution regs in which ethanol plays a part. In either case I’d think you’d want to look at supply/demand and refinery capacity as drivers of the price.
As to your larger point, yes, big boondoggle for ADM. My original point about renewable energy was made more with solar power in mind.
Bender
Are you implying that John Kerry was lying in 2004 when he repeatedly said Bush had “banned” stem cell research?
Well, I never (monocle falls into champagne glass)!
Darrell
No, they pay low wages overseas in those other countries and all the profits come here. I’m not sure why that is such a definitive negative. My point is, government is not accountable for mistakes like a private company.. a company which could lose money, jobs and face bankrupcty as a result of bad or inefficient investment decisions. The government OTOH, just keeps on spending.. because after all, they are spending other people’s money, aren’t they?
As a general ‘rule’, when there is insufficient capital in the private marketplace to take on a project the public wants, as in space research in the early days, the government can at times, through clumsily and inefficiently, it can arrive at a costly solution which is arguably beneficial. I believe one of the key roles of govt is national security, so I expect private companies to get involved in those areas of research only to the extent that they meet the needs of their client, the US federal govt.
I do not believe that medical research should in any way a key role of our govt. Furthermore, pharma and biotech companies are now extremely well capitalized, filthy rich actually, so I don’t see the “not enough captital in the private market” issue as justification for more govt spending in that area.
Darrell
Have there been products developed as a result of government research, which offer cost effective solar power? Who is using them? I honestly don’t know.. but I haven’t heard of any such breakthrough.
Perry Como
All I know is if George W. Bush had been elected and allowed to control our military, we wouldn’t be in the business of nation building. George W. Bush told us so.
ThymeZone
Cost effectiveness does not flow from basic research.
Opportunity flows from the research. The opportunity may lead to economies of scale which result in cost efficiency. That’s the way it usually works, eh?
So your first hybrid car powertrain might cost you a billion dollars. But your five millionth one might cost you $3k to manufacture. Whether you get from the first one to the five millionth one has more to do with capitalism and commerce than it does to do with research.
But without the research …. nothing. Most of this kind of progress doesn’t come from prayer.
Darrell
Expensive govt programs resulting in private companies running with and profiting from the research funded by taxpayers. Sounds like we need more of this!
Darrell
Any examples of such products resulting from all the money spent on govt research of renewable energy sources?
ThymeZone
Try Google. When did we become your research assistants?
Pb
VidaLoca,
Hey, it works for me! Although I remember back in college, my roommate wanted to try out Linux, and every once in a while he’d ask me how to do something. I’d try to tell him how I’d do it, but 9 times out of 10, he’d say “nevermind, I figured it out”, and what he invariably did was some intuitive GUI analog of what I was talking about, that I often never even knew about. So, as the Perl hackers say… There’s More Than One Way To Do It!
ThymeZone,
Ah yes, the “Every OS Sucks” take on things. It’s true, by the way, but not all crap is created equal; similarly:
ThymeZone
Possibly. But you appear to be deaf to the idea that leaving medical research, and medical practice, for that matter, up to for-profit business models is not working.
When health and medicine just become the keys to profit centers, then whatever you fear from government pales by comparison to what you can fear from an institution even more evil than government: The corporation.
This is not the United States of Corporations. The Constitution doesn’t start with “We the corporations ….”
It’s about people, and medicine is about medicine, not profit.
That’s why it’s a bad thing that Bill Frist’s family made a $21b sale last month, and 45 million Americans have no health insurance.
ThymeZone
Nope. All software sucks. OSes are just software to me. More and more so as time goes on.
Pb
ThymeZone,
Err. Thanks for making that meaningless distinction clear, then. Anyhow, I agree, OSes are manifestly software. I should know, seeing as how I spent some of my weekend compiling Gentoo packages on AMD64, including the linux kernel (a few times, with a few different kernels…), the system libraries, the C compiler itself, etc., etc….
VidaLoca
Darrell,
I don’t disagree with this — gov’t makes crappy decisions all the time, and the reasons are often directly traceable to the fact that it does have (what it believes to be) an infinite pool of money available. It would be more surprising if gov’t didn’t make inefficient funding decisions, that if it did do so.
But look at the yardstick you’re using to make your argument: “inefficient investment decisons”. What if important social benefits can accrue from investment decisons that don’t meet that standard? Should the investments be foregone? Is market efficiency (inevitably short-term, low-risk market efficiency) your only yardstick?
Couldn’t have said it better myself, though I could have said it less grudgingly :)
Hmm. “only to the extent that they meet the needs of their client”, on a cost-plus contract? I expect there’ll be a pony waiting for me when I get home… There is almost no risk, there is huge short-term gain, why wouldn’t the private sector be all over national security like a cheap suit? On the other hand, take away the guaranteed gain, increase the short-term risk, and the private sector disappears from the national security picture. Under those assumptions, the government steps back in and you have the Manhattan Project.
But if you leave it up to Big Pharma you’re going to get yet another blue pill for a better boner because that’s what will generate the most profit the fastest. That’s all they care about. If you have a needs model that short-term profitability does not address, you either forego the needs or you seek another model.
ThymeZone
Now there is a campaign slogan I’d like to see somebody run on.
“Vote for Darrell! Get the Government Out of Medical Research and Leave it to the Makers of Viagra and Lamisil.”
Stop that damnable research on cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Put taxpayer money where it can do the most good: In Baghdad.
VidaLoca
I’ll go way out on a limb here and stipulate “probably not” — because the petroleum industry holds state power in this country and until that changes you wont see products which offer solar power (cost effective or otherwise) being developed as a result of gov’t research.
Now in a way this suports your larger point — we’re agreed that gov’t funding for research can be inefficient (because of the infinite pool of money), I’m arguing that it’s also inefficient because of politics.
For the time being research into solar power will be done privately or not at all. The question is, is this a good thing? With time running out on the supply of cheap oil, I would argue not.
ThymeZone
Welcome to Medicine in Darrell’s Futureworld
ThymeZone
Rare photo of Darrell discovered alongside Digger the Dermatophyte
I must say, Darrell, you are better looking than I thought.
Darrell
What you fail to acknowledge is that big Pharma cares about ANY drug which will make them money.. and there is a HUGE demand for the treatement of a multitude of cancers, heart disease, AIDS, diabetes, and other ailments which are not effectively treated now. Whereas, in the Viagra category, there are already two well-established competitors.
The reciting of the leftist talking point, and it is a well worn leftist talking point that “without-the-federal-government-paying-for-reasearch-all-we’ll-get-is-more-Viagra-drugs” is too ridiculous to respond to. Many of you lefties are socialists, or near-socialist, who put an incredible amount of faith in government to solve all our problems. In the case of medical research, you are actually advocating that taxpayers fund more government research in government selected areas, which will likely end up lining the pockets of big Pharma, while paid for by Joe Taxpayer. Think about it.
Darrell
The petroleum industry holds some political sway, but nothing approaching “state power”. That is some wild ass conspiracy mongering to suggest that the oil industry uses some sort of power grip to hold back solar power research. Furthermore, because of high gas prices, oil companies face a voting public who will not be kind to politicians caught doing special favors for the oil industry.
ThymeZone
I think we might as well give it up. Clearly Darrell is of the opinion that an oligarchy of corporations and boards of directors is good for America, and can be trusted with the future of medicine.
Count me as among those who do not trust corporations to govern medicine. I trust doctors and patients and sensible government regulation which sets standards and leaves line decisions to the ….. doctors and patients.
We now live in the America of medicine by corporation, and it is an unmitigated disaster for more and more people and more and more families. Americans pay more for healthcare and get less. Corporations are making care decisions over doctors. Businesses make huge profits while glam treatments and drugs are pushed out to a public that is viewed as a marketing opportunity.
The Frist family gets rich beyond your wildest imagination, while the family down the street goes without decent care because dad got laid off and mom’s job doesn’t offer health insurance.
Bill Fri$t writes Darrell’s talking points. Excuse me if I look just a little further down the road for my information on this subject.
Darrell
Well, I believe the govt is still paying for research as well as subsidizing purchasers (through tax credits) to invest in solar energy sources.
With “time running out” and tons of money to be made for the winners, why do you think private industry wouldn’t be all over the possibility of alternative energy sources? I think your entire mindset assumes only government can solve problems. Or that govt is ‘best’ for doing that sort of thing. With the government’s track record, I don’t understand how you can hold such a position.
ThymeZone
Who would expect you to? You’re the guy who managed to turn a stem cell thread into a referendum on solar energy.
WTF?
Darrell
But medicine is a business. Doctors and nurses are in the ‘business’ of medicine. And while doctors and patients may agree that taking a pill to lose 50lbs or cure hepatitis would be a good thing.. somebody (ie. greedy heartless corporation) needs to develop such a pill, and all your incoherent ranting doesn’t change that reality
VidaLoca
Darrell,
I don’t think I failed to acknowledge that — my point about viagra was that any business cares about any product that will make them money — but they care MORE about the product that will make them the MOST money the FASTEST. Market’s oversaturated with boner pills? Fine, let’s have viagra for women (and about goddam time too, I say…)
Don’t get me wrong, I can see the social benefits here… but if there actually are more pressing problems out there than dysfunctional boners and beavers, they won’t get addressed as rapidly as they should be under your model, unless they are also the more profitable.
VidaLoca
Uh-oh. Dick Cheney just called, he sounded concerned.
Darrell
My apologies, as I didn’t realize there was any reasonable doubt that there are huge profits to be made for those who come up with better cancer treatments, diabetes drugs, AIDS drugs, or heart disease medication.
Darrell
Dick Cheney is in the pocket of Halliburton and big oil. Every good leftist knows that. I think Cheney and big oil tycoons sit in a White House meeting room once a month to count their money. What do you think?
ThymeZone
Medicine is about science and healing first and foremost.
When business decisions trump medical decisions, then we are fucked, just as we are fucked when political decisions trump medical decisions.
That’s why it’s essential to get Republicans away from this issue before they Fri$t it up any worse than they already have.
Government and medicine by corporation will bankrupt the country and leave us with even more people screwed out of access to health care than we have now.
Everything bad about the present system, which is a lot, is going to get steadily worse until the assholes that think medicine is all about being a profit oppotunity are shown the door.
ThymeZone
Irrelevant. Medicine cannot be governed by a profit motive that takes precedence over science and other imperatives of … medicine. Medicine is about caring for sick people, not about creating wealth for stockholders.
Perry Como
Bwahahahahahaha.
Darrell
Business decisons trump just about every decision we make. And medicine is first and foremost a business, as we would have very few doctors and nurses if they were paid only $25k year. Business. New drugs would cease to be developed or introduced if there were no “business” incentives for those heartless corporations. So many of you leftists live in a fantasy world detached from reality.
Darrell
Read the article. Congress is having to live by a big-oil giveaway program contract put into place by Clinton in the 90’s
VidaLoca
I just got done reading “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush” by Kevin Phillips. He’s not a leftist, in fact he was the main author of Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” in 1968.
A couple of money quotes:
Finally on your conspiracy point:
source
ThymeZone
No, it is not.
The American business of medicine is first and foremost a business.
Medicine is about the healing arts and sciences.
The fact that you don’t get that disqualifies you from this discussion completely.
Pb
ThymeZone,
A doctrine that’s also known as ‘economic fascism’. No, really, Darrell, go look it up for once.
Anyhow, I think Chris Rock said it best…
Darrell
Any evidence to suggest that oil companies have, on a large scale, medium scale or even small scale, been able to supress research efforts on alternative energy? Because if you have no such evidence to present, then you are in fact pushing unhinged conspiracy theories with no factual basis in reality, aren’t you?
ThymeZone
Not much that I know of. But oddly, you wouldn’t think that they would be publicizing those stories, eh? If they had done, I mean.
So who knows?
So the onus is on you to prove that they haven’t done it.
So go ahead, prove it.
Darrell
As much as you want it not to be true it is. Doctors make a lot of money because they are in ‘business’. If you want to say they are in the business of ‘healing arts’, I’m fine with that too, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are in business.
Are grocery stores and farmers in business?.. or are they merely in the ‘nourishment sciences’? god you’re an idiot
Darrell
The problem with this mentality is the conspiratorial delusions of the omnipotent power of “they”. If “they” are getting all the money from treatment, then another corporation who is not in on the “they” gravy train has every incentive to come up with a better treatment or a cure to get his piece of the pie, isn’t that right?
ThymeZone
No, it is not.
VidaLoca
And Phillips documents it. He also covers another leftist favorite, the geopolitics of petroleum diplomacy in the mideast, in “American Dynasty” and his newer work “American Theocracy”. Following from a Time magazine review of the latter:
source
ThymeZone
Farmers are farmers first. If they aren’t then their farms will fail, and the business is irrelevant.
Try farming with an MBA and no knowledge of farming.
Try practicing medicine with an MBA.
Medicine is about healing and science. The fact that some elements of the thing are businesses does not translate into “medicine is business.”
No, it is not. It’s medicine.
When it become business, you sir are fucked. Which is basically where you are headed now, thanks to greedy and stupid assholes who think everything can be managed with a net present value calculator.
Darrell
Let’s examine his assertions, since independent thought is not a hallmark of the left. If we are, as Philips suggests, trying to control middle east oil, why after Gulf War I didn’t we simply tell those Kuwaitis “we saved your asses from Saddam’s butcher’s and now these oil fields are ours”? Who could have stopped us? Why don’t we take control of the Iraqi oil fields for that matter? Does Philips or mindless followers of his theories ever bother to ask those questions? Of course not.
Whackjob conspiracy theories spiced with just enough facts to lure in the lemmings. Hey it’s a free country and you can believe whatever unhinged whackjob theory makes “perfect sense” to you.
Darrell
But that’s true of ANY field of business. You could say the exact same thing about computer programmers, electricians, engineers, etc. any job or business. You need to know what you’re doing.
You aren’t very bright, are you ppg?
Darrell
Nothing in the excerpt you provided “documented” that Cheney is in the pocket of big oil. That you think it does, demonstrates what a weak thinker you are.
VidaLoca
Gotta say it: you win on this one
They’re into the research.
Notably, without much help from the Bush administration.
Perry Como
So the influence of the oil industry crosses party lines.
:shrug:
You assume I like Clinton.
Darrell
Your “Bwahahah” link was allegedly a refutation of my observation
I think this statement is still very true, and nothing you linked to demonstrates otherwise. That Congress is having to live up to a contractual obligation committed to in the 90’s doesn’t mean jack shit.. so what was your point then?
Darrell
Again, try and think for yourself. That a few programs were cut doesn’t demonstrate diddly.. but that is what you present as your ‘evidence’. The important question is – is the total spending for research and tax credits for renewable energy up, or is the total down? In any given year or years, some programs may be cut and others added. You do understand that, right?
VidaLoca
Darrell,
We had supply deals with the Kuwaitis that essentially had those fields locked up. There’d be no reason to do what you’re suggesting unless the supply were threatened — in other words, why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free.
No, the excerpt was more in reference to the geopolitics point I made previously. His discussion of Cheney is in the book (IIRC “American Dynasty”). It sort of goes without saying that the whole book is not on line, and since I don’t have a copy with me at the moment blockquoting it is out of the question.
My point of bringing the whole thing up in the first place was to argue that if you are interested in a fairly serious, documented, and non-hysterical presentation of the ties between Bush, Cheney, and the petroleum industry, those two books would be a place to start. This, w/r/t Chapter 5 of “American Dynasty” (from the link upthread):
On the other hand, if you’re not interested, fourty blockquotes wouldn’t change that any.
John S.
Darrell assumes that if you disagree with him you are a:
– Democrat
– Liberal
– Clinton-lover
– Terrorist sympathizer
– Moonbat
– Kook
– Dishonest
– Stupid
– Inferior
The only assumption I make about someone who disagrees with Darrell is that they are sane.
Darrell
But for that statement to be valid, we would be getting “free” or almost free oil from them now, right? How’s that working out?
Perry Como
That the oil industry holds more than “some” sway in politics. Our entire economy is based on oil. Energy is the most important issue our country (and every other country, actually) is going to face in the 21st century. Even more important than terrorism.
VidaLoca
R&D is down (see the 3rd slide), but not the way I expected. It’s low but constant across the Reagan, both Bushes, and Clinton admins.
Significantly higher under Carter.
VidaLoca
Um, you are familiar with this metaphor, right? Generally it’s meant in the context of “why marry a woman you’re already sleeping with?” In this case I meant, what would be the point of invading and seizing the oil fields (which Saddam had just finished failing to do, with disasterous consequences) at tremendous financial and political cost when we were getting the oil out of the fields anyhow.
Darrell
From those slides, R&D spending on renewable energy is up under the Bush admin from what it was under Clinton, but lower than the spending under Carter. Kind of illustrates my point, don’t you think?.. that you can’t present an article which talks about a few programs being cancelled, and then draw larger conclusions from those isolated examples as you did.
Darrell
We had already ‘paid’ to capture the Kuwaiti oil fields at that time. They were in our control. Now we have to pay for our oil. If it was all about control of oil as you suggest, we could have easily maintained control of those oil fields.. and the Kuwaitis did owe us big time for saving them from Saddam.
Darrell
That link you provided only shows that Congress is contractually obligated to live up to an agreement signed in the 90’s. The oil industry holds no more than ‘some’ sway in politics, if that much, as voters, the ones who put and keep the politicians in office, are increasingly hostile to any politician caught giving special favors to oil companies.. thanks to high oil prices.
Living up to a contractual obligation signed years earlier in no way qualifies as a ‘special favor’ to the oil company, any more than paying your mortgage payment is a ‘special favor’ to your bank.
Darrell
yeah, at $70/barrel versus next to nothing if we had maintained control over the Kuwaiti oil fields.. That is what we would have done had it been all about control of the oil, which is what you suggested earlier.
VidaLoca
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you but you seem to be suggesting that we might, after having organized the “Coalition of the Willing” to drive Saddam out of Kuwait and terminate his attempt to seize the Kuwait oilfields, turn around and seize them ourselves — just because there we were, there they were, and well, you know, we could.
Doesn’t that seem a little … reckless?
Perry Como
Who was Cheney meeting with while formulating national energy policy in 2001?
Darrell
Let’s see, because Cheney met with actual oil industry companies to hear their suggestions and concerns (as well as others) that is “proof” of big oil’s heavy sway with Cheney, right? And the Bush admin met with * Gasp * teachers before formulating educational policy. Isn’t that something?
Explain for us Perry, if the oil companies had such “sway” with Cheney, tell us what ‘sweetheart’ giveaway deals they were able to extract from this national energy policy?
Darrell
Wouldn’t it be reckless to invade the middle east just to control the oil as you are suggesting we’re doing now? We fought Gulf War I to repel Saddam out of Kuwait because he was a dangerous nutball. We did not fight that war to ‘control the oil’ as you have suggested.. or otherwise we could have easily taken control of the Kuwaiti oil fields. We are not taking over Iraqi oil fields either. Both examples shoot holes in your whackjob theory that we took military action in the middle east only, or mainly, to ‘control the oil’. We’re fighting the current war in Afghanistan and Iraq out of terrorist national security concerns, not to control the oil.
VidaLoca
Phillips suggests that the biggest sweetheart deal was the Iraq invasion. And, you can have all the caveats you want with that one; since no transcript of the meeting(s) have ever been released all he’s got is a circumstantial case in any event, and I don’t recall the elements of the circumstantial case he makes.
Perry Como
During Cheney’s meeting about national energy policy the folks reviewed a map of Iraq’s oil fields. Since Cheney’s meeting, which direction have oil prices gone? What industry is enjoying record profits? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
The Other Steve
I heard the high gas prices were all Clinton’s fault for letting the gas prices fall down below a dollar back in ’98.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Yes. Reckless is one good word for it.
Nutball he was, but his economy by the late 80’s / early 90’s was in bad shape from the ’80-’88 war with Iraq. He went after our oil (which unfortunately happened to be under Kuwait’s sand) in the hope of putting his economy back together again (Phillips also claims he was pissed at the Kuwaitis because they were drilling diagonal wells from their side of the border to poach in the oil fields on his side).
We had control of the Kuwaiti oil fields before the war. We still controlled them after the war.
source
After the nationalization, KOC apparently acquired a major position in BP:
this was evidently too much for the Brits, Kuwait ended up with only a 10% interest:
source
BP is us. Or the Brits. Or the Brits and us; it’s been more or less that way since the early part of the 20th century.
The Kuwaitis get our dollars for their oil. They turn around and use the dollars to buy our bonds. As long as this cycle is not interrupted, everyone is making money and everyone stays happy. The problem with Kuwait is that it’s running out of oil — but that’s not a problem in Iraq, which has a lot more (#1-#2 reserves in the world currently) oil to begin with, and hasn’t been pumping it out of the ground as aggressively over the last 10-15 years because they’ve had their hands full of other things.
Well, maybe the insurgency is (although that seems to have died down more recently I will grant you), but if they aren’t then who is?
A year ago I would have said that the government of Iraq is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the government of the US. Now, I don’t know if you can say that Iraq has a government in any meaningful sense of the word. To the extent that they have a government, does that government have any economic, foreign, domestic or military policy that is not dictated by the United States? If so, what? If your country is occupied by the army of another country, and you have no means at your disposal to reverse that situation, what sovereign policy do you have left?
Insofar as Iraq is pumping oil, who’s getting it? That’s who’s controlling the Iraqi oil fields.
Darrell
Well that confirms it then. Cause and effect
Darrell
Vida, can you walk me through the moonbat logic, because I’m not seeing it. After reading your cite, I don’t see how we still controlled the Kuwaiti oil, when Gulf oil a private US company who was only a partner, was kicked out way back in 1975.
or this
BP, I’m embarrassed to have to point out to you, stands for British Petroleum, headquartered in London, and it’s most definitely not ‘us’. My what convoluted web leftists have to weave….
Iraqi oil is being sold on the world market. So I guess then the ‘entire world’ is controlling the Iraqi oil fields then, huh?
Darrell
You know, when you subscribe to leftist moonbat theories like “we invaded the middle east to control the oil” or “Bush/Cheney can control world oil prices” as some of you have asserted, it makes you look really unhinged. How ironic that you consider yourselves ‘reality based’.
Perry Como
No, I’m not even going to bother arguing this point with you, because the influence of the oil industry and its product on our government policies is obvious. Denying it means you are an idiot or a hack. Perhaps both.
Perry Como
Unhinged is thinking that our foreign policy is driven by something other than energy interests. Why exactly are we in the Middle East? No, not terrorism. Go further back than that. What interests do we have in the Middle East? Hummus? Sand? Oh, right. Oil.
Idiot.
Darrell
I want you loons to put on your tinfoil hats and take that message to the voters this fall. Please do it. You’ll be speaking truth to power.
“It’s all about oil!”
Darrell
I love it when you leftist whackjobs give insights into just how extreme you really are. We’re not in the middle east to fight terrorism, we’re there to control the oil.
Perry Como
Answer the question Darrell. Why have we been involved in the Middle East for decades?
Luckily your party has fucked things up so royally that $70/barrel oil has created enough interest to look into non-oil solutions to our energy needs. Hopefully we can come up with something so we can pull out of that region of the world.
Perry Como
Discussing foreign policy with you is like discussing differential equations with a cat.
VidaLoca
Darrell,
And who controls the world oil market? At he moment (and this is subject to change) it essentially (and roughly speaking) comes down he US and the Brits on the receiving end, OPEC on the delivery end. In other words we and the Brits are on the same team (divide the resources between the repsective nations’ companies) and have been for years. That was my point about Kuwait — it’s both historically and currently a part of the western oil patch; the western companies hold the contracts on that oil
If you’ve got tankers in large numbers loading in Iraq, or Kuwait, and going to China for example, that would be different — but I’d still argue that it’s only a difference of degree because our hand (“our” in the sense of western oil companies and governments) is on the faucet.
Also different would be if oil producers start selling their oil for Euros not dollars. But you don’t see that happening in the mideast — except beginning in Iran. And what you also see in Iran is the beginning of deals being struck to supply their oil not to the US but to China and India.
And I know that you’re not a big Juan Cole fan but he argues here that the situation I’m describing is in fact changing, which means that resource wars such as the one you’re hypothesizing may be the wave of the future:
VidaLoca
Darrell,
Hm. It just might work. Even more interesting would be to get control of a house of Congress and subpoena up the minutes of Cheney’s meeting with the oil execs in 2001.
Darrell
The Jews? ..you tell me
Perry Como
Darrell, please tell us about the US fighting Middle Eastern terrorists for the last 100 years.
Darrell
I’m sure how to respond to such leftist idiocy. Do you seriously consider yourself a rational person? Are you aware that EVERY country which does not produce adequate oil to meet domestic needs must import it. Not JUST the US and the UK as you claim, but also Japan, China, France, Germany, Italy and on and on and on. Where do you loons come up with your ‘facts’? The US and the Brits are the only ones on the receiving end? Jeezus, that’s not a very intelligent or informed assessement, to say the least
Darrell
We are presently fighting terrorists in the middle east out of national security concerns. Period. We are not fighting to “control the oil” as you whackjobs assert. And no Perry, George Bush does not control world oil prices, no matter how much you believe it to be true.
Perry Como
Have we been fighting terrorists in the Middle East for the past 100 years? What is there in the Middle East that has caused us to be involved with their affairs? Hmmm… I wodner. What could it be? Perhaps you can tell us Darrell.
You are 100% correct, Darrell. Your analysis of what interests the US has in the Middle East is stunning. We built bases in Saudi Arabia to fight the terrorists. Strong. Smart.
The futures market controls the price of oil. And the surest way to make sure oil prices remain low is to start wars in the Middle East. Smart. Strong.
VidaLoca
Simply put, “we do”. We’ve got those oil fields locked up in proprietary contracts. Yes of course every country that does not produce adequate oil to meet domestic needs needs to import it — and the beauty for us in that fact is:
1. We control the supply (which is different from saying “we set the price” — the latter is not true, of course. But those oil fields are locked up by Chevron, Exxon, Aramco, BP, Shell).
2. Oil is denominated in dollars, in other words any oil purchaser has to have dollars to buy the oil. This puts any purchaser at a disadvantage relative to us since we have lots of dollars. If the oil states should one day decide that they’re going to denominate their output in another currency however (e.g. Euros) the advantage goes to anyone holding lots of Euros. Worse yet, the oil states now are not holding the excess dollars which they are currently using to buy our bonds.
The world runs on oil. Whoever controls the oil essentially controls the world.
Darrell
Military bases in the heart of middle eastern terrorist activity was a bad idea? I get so confused listening to liberals
Darrell
Patently false statement rooted in leftist ignorance
Perry Como
Someone had to protect all of that precious sand.
I think confusion is your default state.
Darrell
We do? Since when is Hugo Chavez taking orders from us on how much oil supply he can supply to the world market? Do we control how much oil Iran supplies the world market? Oil producing countries control the supply. No some sinister US/UK conspiracy you moron. Do you see now that you’re not very bright or well informed? Has it dawned on you yet?
VidaLoca
Most of the foregoing discussion has been about mideast oil (specifically Kuwait and Iraq); you’re quite right that Chavez is a loose cannon with ideas of his own about oil development in Venezuela. Hence our great frustration that he was not overthrown in the two previous coup attempts against his gov’t.
Not as much as we’d like to and that’s a problem because Iran has a large share of the world’s dwindling supply of oil under its sand. The consequences of that are discussed at some length in the Juan Cole link I posted upthread.
Perry Como
VidaLoca Says:
Only a moonbat would believe there is oil in the Middle East. I hope you tin foil hat wearing liberals keep spouting your nonsense about the Middle East having oil so Americans can see how unhinged you really are. Do you see how clueless you are? Oil in the Middle East? Do you get it yet?
Perry Como
I’m sure that Allen had no idea that the term macaque was racist. It’s not like his mother was a French immigrant that lived in Tunisia.
Perry Como
Whoops, wrong thread.
Person of Choler
For a minute, go back to the article that started the blizzard of ad hominem snark that usually blankets this place.
Here is a short translation: Turns out that the much ballyhooed medical miracles to be worked by embryonic stem cell research ain’t gonna happen and the folks doing this research need to take another tack to stay in business.
Meanwhile, the lefties will continue to whoop for keeping up the research because it pi&&es off the Religious Right.
Sojourner
I agree completely. I don’t want my tax dollars supporting Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice. So stop using my tax dollars to pay their salaries.
Paul L.
‘Ethical’ stem cell lines created
Company Touts Stem-Cell Breakthrough