is it just me?

Am I the only person in the country who wonders if the widely noted report in Newsweek magazine, regarding the desecration of the Qua'ran might have a bit of truth to it, and that the subsequent retraction was bogus? I mean, really, the acts that were described did'nt seem unlikely, in light of what we have heard about the goings on at the various interment facilities, (not to mention fraternity houses). (I have no way of knowing the answer to this, it simply seems that these reports spring from something besides a fertile imagination). Given the photographic evidence of other incidents, and the abundance of other reports of this type, it is not a significant leap to imagine that such an "atrocity" actually took place. It is not unlike some of the tactics employed by our own domestic police forces during the peak of the civil rights movement, and honestly, it would not be something that would be strongly objectionable in our legal culture. In this day and age, I do not believe that it is out of the question that a government, (and I separate that term from "an administration"), might bring some pressure to bear on a news agency when there are compelling reasons to do so, to retract an otherwise true story when the publication of the story has significant ramifications to the wartime efforts of that government.

I am just wondering, that all.

Framing the Debate

I was watching one of the sunday morning news shows, and the topic of stem cell research came up. This, among others, is one of the partisan, divisive issues that serve as fodder for the "...am not....am so..." shouting matches that substitute for honest discourse these days.

On one side of the issue are the science minded folks, on the other are those with moral concerns over the issue. Both sides present a good argument for thier own convictions, then stand piously watching while the other side attempts to negate any points that the other side may or may not have made. On todays program, in my judgement, the debate went with nobody.
It was, (as is so often the case), an example of one side playing badmitton while the other side plays tennis. The games look a lot alike, but are different and unique, and really can't be compared, and it is hopeless to have one side playing one game and declaring victory while the other side plays the other game and also declares itself the winner. In this case, victory is the intellectual high ground.

I have an opinion on this issue, but I will hold it back for the moment, because it is, like the "debate" going on today, practically irrelevant. The fact of this matter is that stem cell research, cloning, and the development of applications of this technology is already here, it is happening right now, even as I type and (either of) you read it. The issue is how will we deal with it?

One one level, how will we deal with this a culture and as a political and economic entity? The issue of the morality of the whole enterprise is a cultural one. How do we, as a people, view creation, and most likely destruction, of new life for the purpose of benefitting one who is already alive?

Another side of this is the political dimension. The field is so new that I really cannot speculate as to how that might shape up, but I will say that is this ever becomes a national defense matter, then it will be full speed ahead on development and deployment, and damn all the other considerations, which will be cast aside for what is usually called the greater good.

Then we have economics, another somewhat monolithic perspective. If this line of inquiry is developed into viable products, and marketed, will our nation be left on the sidelines? In such a circumstance, see the paragraph above. To serve the greater good, all other considerations will become toast.

Finally, where do we, as individuals stand on this? It is one thing to consider this in the abstract, but when the issue becomes very personal, where do we stand? I ask myself, if a spouse, sibling, child, parent, or even I develop some disease or affliction, or suffer a debillitating injury, would I or would I not use, (or deny the use of) a medicine or therapy from Korea, Canada, or wherever?

The unstated question here is where is the well known line that we should not cross? Many people are talking about this but little is widely known. The use of embryonic cells is what is in the news today, and that, by definition is life being harvested (destroyed) for the good of another. But is that really necessary? As a lay person in this field, I do not know enough to make a judgement on that question. As a citizen, I have already formed an opinion on whether we should or not. Are we using embryonic cells because that is the only way this can be done, or because it is easiest and it is possible by what we know today? I want to know more before I carve out a stance here, but I am at the mercy of those who are the keepers of this knowledge, and, I fear, the agenda's that they hold.