Support NeoGAF

[SoulPlaya]

Again religious persecution in China, what about in America? Is there not any religious persecution in America?!?!

There is? On the same level as China and saudi Arabia?

 

[The Librarian]

Indeed. So why bother with asking people to be organ donors, right? [/obvious bait]

To be polite? It's fucking pointless.

There is? On the same level as China and saudi Arabia?

Obviously not, but let's fix problems at home before we start with other countries.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Please defend spending $3 million in taxes on studying the bear genome.

I didn't know anything about this, so I did a quick google search. Seems reasonable to me.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears

In fact, Congress over the past five years has forked over a total of $4.8 million to study the genetic material of Montana's grizzly bears, according to Katherine Kendall, a research biologist at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Kendall heads the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project, which is aimed at obtaining the first accurate population estimate of grizzlies living in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—eight million acres of land in northwestern Montana that encompasses Glacier National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness Complex.

"This is not pork barrel at all," says Richard Mace, a research biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP). "We have a federal law called the Endangered Species Act and [under this law] the federal government is supposed to help identify and conserve threatened species."

The grizzly has been listed as a threatened species since 1975 and scientists say that it is essential to get a handle on the population to preserve it. But, according to Kendall, until the feds decided to invest in this grizzly bear DNA study, researchers lacked the funds to conduct research at the scale necessary to get a reliable measure.

In 2002 Kendall assembled a scientific panel with representatives from the USGS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and FWP, along with other scientific and environmental organizations to determine the best way to measure the remaining grizzly population of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem. It recommended setting up barbed wire hair-snagging stations to painlessly pluck fur from passing bears that would be used for DNA fingerprinting, a technique employed to distinguish individuals of the same species by the differences in their genetic material. This is the only way to accurately estimate population in such heavily forested terrain, where bears are difficult to spot, says Chris Servheen, a grizzly expert with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

In response, the USGS set aside $250,000 to launch the Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project; the next year, Congress stepped in to provide additional funding, and from 2003 to 2007 appropriated $4.8 million to the effort, Kendall says.

She notes that her team of 250 scientists and researchers set up hair-snag stations at thousands of locations throughout the grizzly habitat, some as far as 30 miles (50 kilometers) from the nearest road. These wire setups do not harm the bears in any way, Servheen says: "It's no more than running a comb through your hair."

The team collected 34,000 samples of bear hair over a 14-week period in 2004, which it sent over the border to the Wildlife Genetics International laboratory in Nelson, British Columbia. By extracting and analyzing DNA in the strands, researchers were able to pinpoint the species (grizzly or black bear), gender, and individual identity of host bears. It took two years to analyze the large swath of samples and another to compile the data and conduct statistical analyses to estimate the size, distribution and genetic structure of the population as well as summarize the findings, which Kendall says she hopes to publish in a science journal by summer. (She refuses to reveal the results prior to publication.)

But numbers are only part of the story. Scientists say they also have to figure out how the population is changing to determine how to protect it. Toward that end, the Montana state government four years ago launched a $250,000 per annum effort to monitor grizzly population trends (separate from, but complementary to Kendall's study on population size), according to Mace, who is in charge of that project.

"There are no answers yet," he says, noting that it is too early to tell whether the population is increasing, decreasing or if it remains unchanged since 2004. But researchers are optimistic they will be able to fashion effective preservation measures once they have a better idea of [to vary] the population size—thanks to Kendall's study—and a solid understanding of trends.

Still, for many Americans who have never seen and probably never will see a grizzly bear, the question remains: Why should one bear population merit millions in taxpayer money?

The reason, grizzly expert Servheen says: the bears are a threatened species. He estimates that only about 1,500 still reside in the 48 contiguous states, compared with some 50,000 before the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century (a 97 percent population decline). The once far-reaching grizzly habitat, which stretched from the Mississippi River to California and ranged north to south from Alaska to Mexico, is today restricted to four western states: Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and Washington. In these states, only two populations—those living in and around Yellowstone National Park and in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem—number more than 50 bears and offer hope for long-term viability, Servheen says.

So is forking over huge chunks of change to protect grizzly bears "unbelievable"—or a joke—as McCain charges?

No way, scientists and environmentalists say. Protecting wildlife is expensive, but grizzlies are priceless, says Louisa Willcox, director of the Wild Bears Project for the National Resources Defense Council. "Grizzly bears are a symbol of our frontier past—of untamed wilderness," she says. "Lewis and Clark saw them eating buffalo carcasses on the American plains."

Not only are grizzlies "treasures of United States history," Servheen says, but they help us understand how effective our conservation efforts are. Despite their ferocious reputation, he notes, grizzlies are exquisitely sensitive to human activity and can only live on the wildest tracts of land. "They are an indicator of the health of ecosystems," he says, and they emblematize "the preservation of wilderness, which is becoming rarer every day."

That darned Endangered Species Act.

 

[Cloudy]

LOL McCain was better? Is MSNBC on drugs?

 

[reilo]

Uh-huh.

Glad to know you have a perfectly valid counter-argument for something that is factual.

Uh-huh. So, without federal funding for bear genome research, would it be done? Why or why not?

Because, in the real world and not in some mythical libertarian utopia, the government has to help the sciences just like they help the arts, because those greedy corporate conglomerates don't like trickle down economics.

That's like being an organ donor, in that you consented. In practice, what this usually means is that the body goes to a medical school's gross anatomy class.

Because the last thing our society needs is less doctors.

 

[JayDubya]

To be polite? It's fucking pointless.

Right. I can see this line of reasoning isn't going to work on you. :lol

In the meantime, I may or may not choose to be an organ donor, but thankfully, that is my choice and some notion of collective need does not override my wishes.

 

[Tamanon]

LOL McCain was better? Is MSNBC on drugs?

It's Pat Buchanan and Michelle Bernard, they're both social conservatives.

 

[reilo]

Right. I can see this line of reasoning isn't going to work on you. :lol

In the meantime, I may or may not choose to be an organ donor, but thankfully, that is my choice and some notion of collective need does not override my wishes.

Who mentioned making organ donations mandatory? That's one hell of a straw man you are arguing with.

 

[SoulPlaya]

To be polite? It's fucking pointless.


Obviously not, but let's fix problems at home before we start with other countries.

Like? I'm not being an asshole, I'm genuienly curious as to what they are.

 

[mj1108]

Fox News is saying some of McCain's answers were better than Obama's? WAT?

EDIT: Fox News is also making a huge deal over Obama's answer on abortion.

 

[The Librarian]

Right. I can see this line of reasoning isn't going to work on you. :lol

In the meantime, I may or may not choose to be an organ donor, but thankfully, that is my choice and some notion of collective need does not override my wishes.

Yes, why don't you keep some organs you aren't using when there is somebody else who might need it at the moment or in the future.

Makes perfect sense.

Like? I'm not being an asshole, I'm genuienly curious as to what they are.

Muslims and atheists for one.

 

[reilo]

You guys are shocked that the pundits are proclaiming McCain the victor? Come the fuck on people. This par of the course.

 

[Diablos]

Fox News is saying some of McCain's answers were better than Obama's? WAT?

Fox News automatically giving praise to the Republicans without even thinking about it? ARE YOU SERIOUS?!

 

[lopaz]

Fox News is saying some of McCain's answers were better than Obama's? WAT?

Fox News

see?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Fox News is saying some of McCain's answers were better than Obama's? WAT?

Um.

Fox News.

You guys are shocked that the pundits are proclaiming McCain the victor? Come the fuck on people. This par of the course.

Seriously. Pundit reaction to this writes itself. I'm just hoping a lot of people watched the actual interviews.

 

[mj1108]

Um.

Fox News.

Yeah I know.

Should see it coming a mile away.

EDIT: CSPAN is taking callers on it, fyi.

 

[Tamanon]

It's funny, "McCain's answers were much shorter, thus he was better"

 

[Byakuya769]

Uh-huh. So, without federal funding for bear genome research, would it be done? Why or why not?

How am I supposed to know that? However, I have spoken with many professors who have had to put research projects on hold due to lack of funds. Also, many scientist.. particularly in biochemistry have found place within Singapore or other nations that offer extensive funds for their research. Those are innovations that we may miss out on for a time.

Supporting scientist through funding is good for us in many ways; educationally, culturally, and economically.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Muslims and atheists for one.

What's happening to them? Remember, we are talking about government sanctioned persecution.

 

[reilo]

It's funny, "McCain's answers were much shorter, thus he was better"

Yeah, who the fuck wants to listen to rationale and logic?

 

[Atrus]

He didn't even explain why research on a bear's DNA was being conducted.

It's just to count bears, analyze their breeding and ensure that they can plan for their ongoing existence in Montana parks. But who cares... it's not like animals ever disappear forever right?

 

[JayDubya]

Glad to know you have a perfectly valid counter-argument for something that is factual.

I'm acknowledging your statement of fact, I'm just waiting for some fucking relevance. I was formerly waiting patiently, but since you're being a dick, instead of "uh-huh" how about "what difference does that make, idiot?"

Because, in the real world and not in some mythical libertarian utopia, the government has to help the sciences just like they help the arts, because those greedy corporate conglomerates don't like trickle down economics.

The government doesn't have to help the goddamn arts. What the fuck?

Are you talking about the National Endowment for the Arts? Yeah, there's a budget cut that needs to happen.

Because the last thing our society needs is less doctors.

JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST, man, what crawled up your urethra and died?

I, too, was making a statement of fact in response to a question and it didn't have much to do with anything. People can donate their bodies if they want to. You read this as "I hate doctors! Grrr!"

 

[reilo]

It's just to count bears, analyze their breeding and ensure that they can plan for their ongoing existence in Montana parks. But who cares... it's not like animals ever disappear forever right?

"It's either us or them, Nation!"

 

[The Librarian]

What's happening to them? Remember, we are talking about government sanctioned persecution.

All I heard was general religious persecution, not specific to government sanctioned ones.

 

[Shiggie]

Fox News is saying some of McCain's answers were better than Obama's? WAT?

EDIT: Fox News is also making a huge deal over Obama's answer on abortion.

What? :lol
Were you born yesterday?

 

[maximum360]

Candy Crowley of CNN: "Obama was more nuanced and McCain was just more direct."

Dana Bash mirrors the same thing.

Their analysis was just terrible.

 

[speculawyer]

I didn't know anything about this, so I did a quick google search. Seems reasonable to me.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=mccains-beef-with-bears

That darned Endangered Species Act.

So basically it was $3 million spent on saving an endangered species . . . the species that happens to be display prominently on my state's flag.

McCain hates bears and distorted the reason of the funding?

 

[Tamanon]

Candy Crowley of CNN: "Obama was more nuanced and McCain was just more direct."

Dana Bash mirrors the same thing.

Their analysis was just terrible.

Nah, I think that's a good way to phrase what it was, Bash also pointed out that Obama was talking to Rick Warren, McCain to the audience.

McCain was certainly more direct in his answers, that doesn't necessarily mean he was better.

 

[JayDubya]

Who mentioned making organ donations mandatory? That's one hell of a straw man you are arguing with.

It's called "drawing a parallel."

Yes, why don't you keep some organs you aren't using when there is somebody else who might need it at the moment or in the future.

Makes perfect sense.

You're welcome to make an argument to convince me to do something I'll probably choose to do anyway, but the crucial part you're not recognizing is that element of consent. Hopefully because you just don't know much about Bioethics yet and haven't had the opportunity to learn.

 

[maximum360]

LOL McCain was better? Is MSNBC on drugs?

I called it.

 

[Crisis]

Oh Lord they let Gergen on.

 

[reilo]

I'm acknowledging your statement of fact, I'm just waiting for some fucking relevance. I was formerly waiting patiently.

The relevance was that there is some good being done with this money - it's not just wasteful spending.

The government doesn't have to help the goddamn arts. What the fuck?

The government doesn't have to do what the goddamn citizens ask of it to do, but they goddamn should.

JESUS TITTYFUCKING CHRIST, man, what crawled up your urethra and died?

I, too, was making a statement of fact in response to a question and it didn't have much to do with anything. People can donate their bodies if they want to. You read this as "I hate doctors! Grrr!"

Then why proclaim that medical science's anatomy class is "gross." From where I was standing it sounded like a strong disapproval of the practice.

 

[SoulPlaya]

All I heard was general religious persecution, not specific to government sanctioned ones.

Well, I think it was implied. When you talk about China's religious persecution, I don't think you're talking about the Chinese people.

 

[Tamanon]

McCain would be awesome if you could submit stories for laws!

 

[Shiggie]

It's called "drawing a parallel."



You're welcome to make an argument to convince me to do something I'll probably choose to do anyway, but the crucial part you're not recognizing is that element of consent. Hopefully because you just don't know much about Bioethics yet and haven't had the opportunity to learn.

no one was arguing that.:lol

 

[speculawyer]

What's happening to them? Remember, we are talking about government sanctioned persecution.

You're not a Christian? Well no job at the department of "Justice" for you!

 

[The Librarian]

Well, I think it was implied. When you talk about China's religious persecution, I don't think you're talking about the Chinese people.

I didn't get that implication. But if that is what they meant, then you're right.

 

[JayDubya]

.

 

[JayDubya]

The relevance was that there is some good being done with this money - it's not just wasteful spending.

Huh? All you were pointing out is that the embryos in question were made in vitro rather than in vivo. I'm just asking why you feel that matters.

Then why proclaim that medical science's anatomy class is "gross." From where I was standing it sounded like a strong disapproval of the practice.

:lol Nice backpedal.

Please tell me the logic in saying "no" to organ donning. And which is better: forcing people to do the right, logical thing, or asking them to?

Um. Asking them? Which was my point.

 

[SoulPlaya]

You're not a Christian? Well no job at the department of "Justice" for you!

Good point, still nothing compared to China or Saudi Arabia, though.

 

[SoulPlaya]

At the very least, it was acknowledged and brough before congress. I doubt that would happen in Saudi Arbia or Iran.

 

[reilo]

Huh? All you were pointing out is that the embryos in question were made in vitro rather than in vivo. I'm just asking why you feel that matters.

Because you said:

Do we have the right to take the organs out of any corpse we want to save lives?

??

:lol Nice backpedal.

How was I back-pedaling? I did read it as you being opposed to dead bodies being donated to anatomy classes.

 

[AniHawk]

How was I back-pedaling? I did read it as you being opposed to dead bodies being donated to anatomy classes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_anatomy

 

[Instigator]

Does Jaydubya take over Gaborn on weekends?

 

[reilo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_anatomy

Now I don't know whether I feel dumber for not knowing what a gross anatomy class was, or smarter after finding out what it was.

My apologies JayDubya, I confused a term to mean something it didn't.

Does Jaydubya take over Gaborn on weekends?

No, Gaborn is just banned.

 

[Lemonz]

Obama: "These people are lying!"

 

[JayDubya]

Because you said

Yes, I did say.

Your comment suggests that it is self-evident that humans made in a lab are fundamentally different from humans made au natural. Plenty of in-vitro fertilization kids probably wouldn't agree with your assertion.

How was I back-pedaling? I did read it as you being opposed to dead bodies being donated to anatomy classes.

Fuck it, I'll bite. I still think you're screwing with me, but you do know that gross means "apparent to the unaided eye," right?

 

[Byakuya769]

No, Gaborn is just banned.

OT all up in the OT, but why did he get banned?

 

[tanod]

I think it was good for both but obviously better for Obama. People interested in McCain got their mindless black and white answers and people interested and unfamiliar about Barack Obama got an opportunity to see his thought process and his personable nature.

It boils down to McCain being a known quantity and Obama not being one yet. That's why McCain has a ceiling at 45 and Obama's support moves up and down.

LOL Buchanan

 

[reilo]

Yes, I did say.

Your comment suggests that it is self-evident that humans made in a lab are fundamentally different from humans made au natural. Plenty of in-vitro fertilization kids probably wouldn't agree with your assertion.

I guess that depends on if you consider that conception. I consider a human ear grown on the back of a rat for transplant use to be fundamentally different. There is a reason that they do multiple fertilizations as the process is not 100% successful.

Fuck it, I'll bite. You do know that gross means "apparent to the unaided eye," right?

See response to Ani's post above.

OT all up in the OT, but why did he get banned?

In a thread where Oregon upheld free speech, he said that he was awaiting for some European to come in and tell him that not all free speech shall be upheld. Needless to say, this European disagreed with his assumption and agreed with Oregon's ruling. Hence, he made himself to look like a prejudicial ass.