When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
4 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bbartlog
16 years ago
biofuels … like a stampede … “gold rush” … “bubble,” … “biofool” investors … too much money … go bust
Well, there’s a nice bit of fearmongering. Are they secrectly agitating for a government energy program? Because from where I sit, the biofuel investments (and other alternative energy investment, like coal/syngas, solar and so on) look like the actions of a healthy capital market. Which does mean there will be a lot of investment that doesn’t pan out, and that the vast majority of companies will go bankrupt. That’s how the system is supposed to work. Look at the history of railroads, automobiles, aircraft, and computers and you see the same pattern repeating. And it works just fine.
bbartlog asked: “Are they secrectly agitating for a government energy program?”
Could be, as the author is writing in Smithsonian Magazine.
But he also critizes the idiocy of government subsidies.
P.S. I forgot to link the article and have done so now.
Gregory Dittman
16 years ago
The reason why Clinton is now for the surge is because a recent polling places her at 6th place against Republicans. That means if she were to run against the top 5 Republicans, she would lose to all of them. Obama and Edwards are both listed at beating the Republicans, but not beating Hillary. So basically the polls are saying the best people to beat the Republicans will lose in the primaries, yet the winner of the primary, Clinton, would lose in the general election. This must be driving the Democratic candidates crazy because they are all poll driven.
ChrisG
16 years ago
On Stem Cells.
Since the birth of my first child, I have gained a lot of insight into the “embryonic stem cell†industry. When our son was born in 2004, we had the option to save his cord blood as it contained his embryonic stem cells. It would “only†cost us several thousand dollars. I declined but asked the doctor why, with thousands of babies born every day, we could not simply use the cord blood for research instead of slaughtering children.
I was told the “science†centers do not care about new stem cells. They only want to remove the ethical constraints on their pet projects. With billions of viable stem cells in every delivery ward, these centers would not take any. No law prevented them from doing so and in no way would that endanger ANY lives.
But, as much as the “elites†say it is not about money, sadly, money (federal grants) is all it is about.
Now, like so many other issues, it is found we did not need to cave to the shrill leftists (thus preventing the destruction of more infant lives). These leftists whined, screamed and shouted us “evil conservatives†were “killing†people by not allowing ethical constraints to be removed from science. We found out not only adult stem cells worked FAR better, but the only thing embryonic stems cells created were tumors.
What will these unethical scientists do now (note: not ALL scientists, just this one, vocal group)? Will they ignore the research as they have the proven research on adult stem cells or will they accept the fact that we do not need to destroy innocent embryonic human life given that research indicates nothing good will come from it and there is a better, ethical way.
biofuels … like a stampede … “gold rush” … “bubble,” … “biofool” investors … too much money … go bust
Well, there’s a nice bit of fearmongering. Are they secrectly agitating for a government energy program? Because from where I sit, the biofuel investments (and other alternative energy investment, like coal/syngas, solar and so on) look like the actions of a healthy capital market. Which does mean there will be a lot of investment that doesn’t pan out, and that the vast majority of companies will go bankrupt. That’s how the system is supposed to work. Look at the history of railroads, automobiles, aircraft, and computers and you see the same pattern repeating. And it works just fine.
bbartlog asked: “Are they secrectly agitating for a government energy program?”
Could be, as the author is writing in Smithsonian Magazine.
But he also critizes the idiocy of government subsidies.
P.S. I forgot to link the article and have done so now.
The reason why Clinton is now for the surge is because a recent polling places her at 6th place against Republicans. That means if she were to run against the top 5 Republicans, she would lose to all of them. Obama and Edwards are both listed at beating the Republicans, but not beating Hillary. So basically the polls are saying the best people to beat the Republicans will lose in the primaries, yet the winner of the primary, Clinton, would lose in the general election. This must be driving the Democratic candidates crazy because they are all poll driven.
On Stem Cells.
Since the birth of my first child, I have gained a lot of insight into the “embryonic stem cell†industry. When our son was born in 2004, we had the option to save his cord blood as it contained his embryonic stem cells. It would “only†cost us several thousand dollars. I declined but asked the doctor why, with thousands of babies born every day, we could not simply use the cord blood for research instead of slaughtering children.
I was told the “science†centers do not care about new stem cells. They only want to remove the ethical constraints on their pet projects. With billions of viable stem cells in every delivery ward, these centers would not take any. No law prevented them from doing so and in no way would that endanger ANY lives.
But, as much as the “elites†say it is not about money, sadly, money (federal grants) is all it is about.
Now, like so many other issues, it is found we did not need to cave to the shrill leftists (thus preventing the destruction of more infant lives). These leftists whined, screamed and shouted us “evil conservatives†were “killing†people by not allowing ethical constraints to be removed from science. We found out not only adult stem cells worked FAR better, but the only thing embryonic stems cells created were tumors.
What will these unethical scientists do now (note: not ALL scientists, just this one, vocal group)? Will they ignore the research as they have the proven research on adult stem cells or will they accept the fact that we do not need to destroy innocent embryonic human life given that research indicates nothing good will come from it and there is a better, ethical way.