Personal observations.


Blogroll
Sharing Our Spaces
Oklahoma Observer
CarTalk
Esther's Photos
Where's Esther
ec-432
OKBID.ORG
Oklahoma Economics

 
NewScientist.com announced yesterday a success in developing a method of obtaining stem cells without ethical problems. "Cloning Without Controversy," blasted the teaser box ad. "'Virgin birth' method promises ethical stem cells," the headline claimed.

Do they really believe they have found a method that will be embraced by those opposed to other methods? If so, they are blinded by their own rational thought. Opposition to cloning or fetal stem cell harvesting has never been about reason, but about respect for natural or supernatural processes and an unwillingness to manipulate such processes. Opponents detest the meddling in human reproduction, but science continues to make the argument more opaque.

My guess is that many will still see this "virgin birth" method as meddling and just as offensive as previous methods. Their arguments don't have to make sense. The very choice of using such a loaded term as "virgin birth" will irritate many. Some will argue that human life still begins with the beginnings of division. With this parthenogenesis method we have no point of conception as we normally think of it, but that won't stop people from arguing that a life has begun.

Even if the arguments continue, we benefit from the conversation. This is exactly how a population of diverse viewpoints must work toward a consensus or at least an acceptable compromise.


posted by Unknown at 11:41 AM

 
I just discovered that Esther Dyson has joined the blogging world with Release 4.

Like me, she is feeling her way through the new habits that blogging requires. A blog is hardly a blog if new posts arrive infrequently. It is also part of the genre that links be used freely. So far I have found it hard to establish new habits in both of these areas. I love linking out, but it takes an effort to spot where links are meaningful and find the proper link to use.

The frequency of posting is, of course, a challenge of time investment. As this is a personal blog rather than business I find the required tasks of my job and the ever-present real-world interactions of family and friends crowd the formation and expression of ideas. I hope to use this personal blog to form these habits, though, and enhance my offering in my professional space.

posted by Unknown at 11:57 AM

 
Justification was available for military action in Iraq. It simply wasn't the justification being used. It would have been far better had our country led an effort to bring international war crime charges against Saddam Hussein. The facts about his heinous record are fairly clear. I have no experience in law and certainly none in international law so maybe I am being naive to think that the case is so air tight.

We entered Iraq on an argument that was almost entirely imminent threat. We argued that he had weapons of mass destruction in violation of U.N. resolutions and that he must be disarmed. In so doing we invited countries that were less threatened and more entwined to resist our effort to remove Saddam. Whether he had these weapons or not, some of his closest neighbors, those who should feel the most threatened by his heavy arms, were resistant to our will.

Maybe an argument of justice would have fallen on deaf ears as well, but unilateral action would have been slightly more justified on that basis than on imminent threat.

Our own federation is based on the need to find consensus at the federal level (Congress and the federal courts) before intervention takes place across states. If we want to move the world of nations toward a relationship where rogue leaders can't escape justice forever then we must follow our own principles. We must respect the art of consensus. Instead of relying on sanctions the past decade we should have been building support for regime change on the basis of violation of international law. If we could gather a true coalition, at least a stronger coalition built on real agreement rather than threat, then we would have entered the military action with an honesty of purpose.

We really needed to say up front that we wanted this action because Saddam's methods offend us, violates even the most basic human rights, threatens various neighbors as well as regional peace, and disrupts efforts for any kind of lasting peace in the Middle East. We should have admitted failure in use of sanctions (although they and weapons inspections were the only things keeping his threat in place, sanctions had a terrible cost in human suffering) and made every effort to bring a worldwide condemnation on his violent and repressive methods while controlling his level of threat through a robust weapons inspection.

Force is obviously a legitimate option at some point, but unless it is supported by a consensus of the community it becomes vigilantism. I'm afraid that what we have just accomplished was vigilantism. What is left to be seen is whether we are the frontier marshall that willingly relinquishes control when civilized law and order catches up to us, or whether we, ourselves, become the vigilante that savors the exercise of our power and justifies the use of it whenever it serves our desires.

posted by Unknown at 11:29 AM