Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Zo's Talks About Stem Cell and Clones



My thoughts to follow. I must surrender the computer to Mini-Me now.

51 comments:

conservative brother said...

What Christian qualities does Obama have again? My mind is kind of fuzzy trying to come up with anything. My bad I forgot, liberal Christianity is a cult alternative version to actual Christianity.

uptownsteve said...

CB,

While you're at it maybe you can tell us what Christian qualities the white righties whose butts you gleefully kiss have?

George Bush? LOL!!!!
Karl Rove??
Dick Cheney???
Rush (dope fiend/sex tour/thrice divorced)Limbaugh?
David Vitter?
Larry Craig?
Tom Delay?

I can't wait to hear this!

brotherkomrade said...

CB, could you give us examples of what "actual Christianity" is in a historical, geopolitical, and cultural context?

uptownsteve said...

BK

Don't worry, CB isn't going to answer you.

His specialty is drive-bye farting.

Conservative Black Woman said...

BK & UTS~I will answer a that from the perspective a Conservative Christian black woman because I was challeged by a so-called "Prophetess" on a prior thread. I will give some thought about answering from the prospectives you have listed and get back to ya. But here is how I answered "THE PROPHETESS":

"But to answer your question what is a "true christian". Well I believe that there are five essential doctrines in scripture and a non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah's Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines:
1. The diety of Christ
2. Salvation by grace alone
3. The Gospel
4. The Resurrection
5. There is one God (Monotheism)"


In my humble opinion it isn't about who is or isn't a "true christian" but clearly there are issues on the table that are of concern for followers of Christ. We can't bury our heads in the sand (well, 96% of black christians did)and vote based on emotional. We are supposed to be the salt of the earth but we weren't very "salty" in the last election cycle.

Conservative Black Woman said...

Please excuse all the typos in my prior comment....I'm swamped today.

uptownsteve said...

So how did McCain, Palin et al represent Christian values more than Obama?

Please explain that one.

Palin shooting wolves from a helicopter?

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~Obama is and the libs are more concerned with the life of a wolf than human life. You don't see a problem there? Yes an embryo is a life! The human clones which will now be created for the soul purpose of harvesting cells thanks to PSBO are HUMAN. It's unethical and GODLESS. So there is the difference.

uptownsteve said...

CBW Stem cell research will help us understand and eventually develop cures for many of the most devastating and debiliting diseases and conditions.

I think that Jesus would approve of healing the afflicted.

known2b said...

uptownsteve said...

"I think that Jesus would approve of healing the afflicted."

Yes he would approve of healing, but I do not believe he would approve of killing others to get to that point.

uptownsteve said...

Who is being killed for stem cell research?

I smell some more rightwing bullShit in the air.

Conservative Black Woman said...

UTS~The "righties" myself included have no problem with stem cell research. Stem cell research can be done with adult tissue as well as the embryonic lines which are already in existence. What PSBO has done this week is lift the ban on the use of federal funds to continue research using embryonic lines. That's a problem, because in order to obtain new embryonic line human clones will be created for the express purpose of harvesting stem cells! So these cloned embryos will be killed! Even if, one feels that embryo's aren't human (which is insane) federal funds should not be used to do it. Use private money. I personally don't want the blood of these unborn children on my hands (via my tax dollars)

Laurie and Alan said...

CBW, Ditto, don't use my tax $ for embronic stem cell "research." Adult stem cell is much more promising anyway, and proven!

Uptown, Think on this...in our country the Bald Eagle is federally protected and NOT only the Bald Eagle BUT the eagle's EGG that is in the nest! If anyone tried to remove it or DESTROY the egg they would be prosecuted by the law -because they would be KILLING an eagle that was to be born. How much more important a child is than an eagle, this embryo is a child Uptown,
-a CHILD!

Conservative Black Woman said...

L&A~the Bald Eagle is federally protected and NOT only the Bald Eagle BUT the eagle's EGG that is in the nest! If anyone tried to remove it or DESTROY the egg they would be prosecuted by the law -because they would be KILLING an eagle that was to be born."

Are you kidding me! I didn't know that! Amazing! What a land we live in, huh? The liberal mind...seriously flawed!

Constructive Feedback said...

WhiteBowieSteve:

Here is a reply that I had for a Pro-Stem Cell Black guy. Since we are choosing when "a mass of genetic material" deserves "human rights" - I argue that "masses of genetic material who had a recessive melanin gene" who decided to DELAY their respect for humanity to other "masses of human tissue with dominant melanin gene" chose to NOT afford this mass the same respect.

http://parallelhood.blogspot.com/2009/03/our-ancestors-were-not-enslaved-for-it.html

known2b said...

Laurie and Alan said...

"Uptown, Think on this...in our country the Bald Eagle is federally protected and NOT only the Bald Eagle BUT the eagle's EGG that is in the nest! If anyone tried to remove it or DESTROY the egg they would be prosecuted by the law -because they would be KILLING an eagle that was to be born. How much more important a child is than an eagle, this embryo is a child Uptown,
-a CHILD"

You are so right the only thing is that the human race isn't on the verge of becoming extent. So they (the liberals) do not care about a human life (cloned or fetus) as much as an eagle, or any animal for that matter.

uptownsteve said...

"How much more important a child is than an eagle, this embryo is a child Uptown,"

Then how come you can't claim embryos on your taxes?

You righties kill me.

The only time you care about children is before their actually born!

uptownsteve said...

Porch Simian ala Constructive Feedback

Any comments on the Alabama white boy who slaughtered 10 people Tuesday including an infant?

If he was black, you would be drooling all over your computer right about now.

I often wonder what happened to you in your life to make you so screwed up in the head.

Were you raped in prison?

Conservative Black Woman said...

Really? It wasn't the "righties" who threw DC School children under the bus in favor of teacher unions yesterday. That was your hallowed first African American President!

utpownsteve said...

btw rightards,

The technology to extract embryonic stem cells without destroying the actual embryo has been developed.

known2b said...

uptownsteve said...

"Then how come you can't claim embryos on your taxes?

You righties kill me.

The only time you care about children is before their actually born!"

Typical left wing prattle. I hear stuff like above on a lw message board that I frequent. When you can't make a decent reply you result in a vague attempt at an insult.

JudyBright said...

Right, because we define a "child" by their federal tax status. That's pretty twisted logic.

And I know we're craaazayyy, but we "righties" think that embryos should be protected and allowed to reach their full potential as humans. Performing experiments on people in this early and fragile state hardly protects and honors them, regardless of if some technology has been developed.

uptownsteve said...

"Typical left wing prattle. I hear stuff like above on a lw message board that I frequent. When you can't make a decent reply you result in a vague attempt at an insult."

Decent reply to what?

You clowns are trying compare stem cell research to endangered animal species protection.

What human beings are deliberately killed for embryonic stem cell research???

Huh?

uptownsteve said...

"Really? It wasn't the "righties" who threw DC School children under the bus in favor of teacher unions yesterday. That was your hallowed first African American President!"

How's that CBW?

Conservative Black Woman said...

"btw rightards,

The technology to extract embryonic stem cells without destroying the actual embryo has been developed."

Well, if that's true...YEAH! Can you post a link to the source of that information UTS?

You ask UTS how DC School children were thrown under a bus. PSBO axed the school voucher program which takes away parental choice. These vouchers cost the government approximately $7500 per child. DC spends $15000 per child for kids in public schools and there performance numbers are dismal. Even Michelle Rhee the Chancellor of DC pubic schools is saddened by PSBO decision. Why would he do such a thing...because he is beholden to the corrupt teachers union. Or maybe he did it because he couldn't have those "inner city" kids sitting next to little "Radiance" & "Rosebud". Who knows, maybe he just killed two birds with one stone. PSBO is certainly a piece of work. HOPE-o-crisy at its finest.

uptownsteve said...

"Well, if that's true...YEAH! Can you post a link to the source of that information UTS?"


http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v7/n4/full/nm0401_396.html

uptownsteve said...

CBW

The vouchers program is just a cheap rightwing scheme to privatize or outsource education just as they attempted to do with military ie...Blackwater.

Only a small number of public school students will be able to take advantage of the voucher program and in the cities where there have been voucher programs, like Milwaukee, there has been NO DISCERNABLE DIFFERENCE IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENT!!!!

Conservative Black Woman said...

"The vouchers program is just a cheap rightwing scheme to privatize or outsource education just as they attempted to do with military ie...Blackwater.

Only a small number of public school students will be able to take advantage of the voucher program and in the cities where there have been voucher programs, like Milwaukee, there has been NO DISCERNABLE DIFFERENCE IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE OR ACHIEVEMENT!!!!"


My goodness, now there's a leftie talking point I have never heard before but it is utterly ridiculous.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there is a very real and discernable difference between Sidwell Friends and Anacostia HS. Are you implying that inner city children are so inherently stupid that they don't perform better when given an opportunity? I sure hope not!

Conservative Black Woman said...

Privatization of education is a very good thing. There is no way on God's green earth I would send my daughter to DCPS. I sooner home school.

PSBO and the libs have to be careful to "indoctrinate" as many young minds as possible so that the will grow up "libtarded"!

uptownsteve said...

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there is a very real and discernable difference between Sidwell Friends and Anacostia HS. Are you implying that inner city children are so inherently stupid that they don't perform better when given an opportunity? I sure hope not!"

How many inner city DC got to go to Sidwell Friends CBW?

The DC voucher kids went mainly to charter schools in the city.

A link on the Milwaukee program.

http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/faculty/displayFacultyNews.php?tablename=notify1&id=728

Conservative Black Woman said...

I can't paint all charter schools with the same brush, but if I were in the position of those parents I would not have chosen a charter school. It's a shame that parents who can't afford to privately educate their children have NO CHOICE AT ALL. It's very sad. Thanks for both of the links you have posted. I'll check them out.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

Well, I will say this, the Right is SADLY mistaken if they think THEY define Christianity or even reflect the nature of Christ any more or less than the Left.

Anybody bold enough to challange me on that, feel free.

Eventus Seclorum Magister.

Conservative Black Woman said...

DJBA~I will not challenge whether or not one individual is a Christian or not based on their political affiliation so I wouldn't ever challenge you on that. However, dealing with ideology alone which school of thought(conservative or liberal) are most closely aligned with the teachings of Christ?

uptownsteve said...

DJBA

The righties wave around God and the Flag like political kryptonite yet they (at least their public figures) are the most Ungodly and least patriotic of all.

They claim to love America but obviously hate most Americans.

They $hit on the poor, the weak, the sick and the elderly.

If you ever get a chance look at the comparative sheet of liberals vs conservatives who served this nation in combat.

Heck, liberals like Charlie Rangel, George McGovern, and John Conyers are Silver Star medalists!

DJ Black Adam said...

@CBW:

you wrote: "However, dealing with ideology alone which school of thought(conservative or liberal) are most closely aligned with the teachings of Christ?"

Good question. Off the top of my head, let me give Right, Left and JESUS (or New Testament scriptural authority).

#1. Capital Punishment

Right: Kill the guilty

Left: Give them Life in prison

JESUS: John 8.7 "...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

----

2.Abortion

Right: Don't abort babies

Left: Woman's Choice

JESUS: Matthew 5.21: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment"

----

3. Money

Right: Captialism Rules, every one for themselves...

Left: Take care of the poor, give till it hurts...

JESUS: 1 Tim 6: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows"

---

4. Homosexual Marriage:

Right: marriage is between one man and one woman

Left: marriage should be between two consenting adults of any combination

Jesus: Mark 10.6-9 "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder."

---

5. Medicare - Medicaid

Right: Cut entitlements

Left: Lets expand these programs

JESUS: Matthew 12.15 "But when Jesus knew it, he withdrew himself from thence: and great multitudes followed him, and he healed them all;"

Short list...

JMK said...

Dr. James Thompson, considered the father of ESC Research, has said that, “If you don’t have deep ethical questions about embryonic stem cell research, than you haven’t thought about the matter very deeply.” He went to add, "I personally believe that the future is in the iPS (adult skin) cells." Thomson said this in September, 2008.

The ethics of harvesting embryos is vigorously debatable, what's not is the fact that new research into alternative modalities (ie. iPS cells) makes harvesting embryos unnecessary.

JMK said...

"Right: Captialism Rules, every one for themselves...

"Left: Take care of the poor, give till it hurts...

"JESUS: 1 Tim 6: "For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows" (DJBA)


WoW! The only thing fuzzier than your Biblical interpretations is your grasp of economics.

In FACT, Conservatives across the country GIVE far more than Liberals.

A 20/20 test saw two Salvation Army buckets, one of them in very "Red State" Sioux Falls S.D. and the other in very "Blue State" San Francisco, CA, and the people of Sioux Fallss, though woefully outnumbered donated not only a larger percentage of their per capita incomes, but MORE in real dollars in that test.

Compulsory "giving" (ie. redistribution via taxation) is theft...that is NOT virtuous, any more than me going up to you and putting one of my 47 guns to your head and forcing you to donate your paycheck to a poor box would be "virtuous."

The person/institution doing the compelling is involved in theft, while the person victimized would NOT have engaged in ANY virtuous act, as charity MUST be voluntary in order to be virtuous.

Zabeth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Zabeth said...

Libbers are more charitable than conservatives? Really?

www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/who_really_cares.html

www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/0465008232

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You laughably submitted the following: “A 20/20 test saw two Salvation Army buckets, one of them in very "Red State" Sioux Falls S.D. and the other in very "Blue State" San Francisco, CA, and the people of Sioux Fallss, though woefully outnumbered donated not only a larger percentage of their per capita incomes, but MORE in real dollars in that test.”

Anecdotal Evidence, JMK, I thought you were better than that. Follow along please:

2007 Census Bureau estimate shows Sioux Falls, the size of a small suburb of Chicago to have grown to a population of 151,505 from 2000 numbers of population of 123,975

Whereas, San Francisco, and URBAN Center The City and County of San Francisco is the fourth most populous city in California and the 13th most populous city in the United States, with a 2007 estimated population of 799,183.The second most densely populated major city in the U.S.

So a FAIR comparison, would be of a City of SIMILAR population and of similar area in a blue state. Let’s take BLUE Illinois, a city far away from Chicago, with a similar population: Springfield is the capital of the U.S. state of Illinois and the county seat of Sangamon County with a population of 116,482 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2006).

I’d like to see that comparison, but your ilk won’t do that, because you are intellectually fraudulent in the facts your present, you ignore a HOST of sociological actualites to make such an ascinine and fictious point.

All I can do is shake my head, as it appears, that your statistical analysis is much shakier than my interpretation of scripture or my understanding of economics.

I will add this, Capitalism, as the RIGHT wishes to practice it, is in diametric opposition to the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, simple as that. Further, TAXES are not a “redistribution of wealth” as you all like to forward, it is the price individuals pay to be part of a society and to have the protections that come with that.

We are not a CAPITALIST society at base, we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, you all try to define this country at base by monetary fiscal terminology, which is less than honest.

JMK said...

"Anecdotal Evidence, JMK, I thought you were better than that."


No it's NOT.

That was a study carried out by 20.20 a respected news organization....the results are what they are and they rarely waver from that.

"2007 Census Bureau estimate shows Sioux Falls, the size of a small suburb of Chicago to have grown to a population of 151,505 from 2000 numbers of population of 123,975

"Whereas, San Francisco, and URBAN Center The City and County of San Francisco is the fourth most populous city in California and the 13th most populous city in the United States, with a 2007 estimated population of 799,180. The second most densely populated major city in the U.S." (DJBA)


Yeah, the deck was stacked in YOUR favor!

A much smaller "Red State area" (151,000) to a much larger (799,180) "Blue State area".

State by state it's even clearer;

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

Syndicated columnist George Will took this directly from the fed's own statistics;

* Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

* Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

* Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

* Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

* In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

* People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

After watching UTS get routinely and continually spanked by me, you should know that as much as I lack any sense of humility, tend to be pedantic and even arrogant, I'm rarely wrong.....that's why I'm always able to back up my assertions with facts.

Conservatives do indeed tend to be FAR more charitable than their more left-wing bretheren....sad? Yes, but undeniable as well.

JMK said...

"We are not a CAPITALIST society at base, we are a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, you all try to define this country at base by monetary fiscal terminology, which is less than honest." (DJBA)



I'm losing more respect for your reasoning by the second.

YES, America IS a "Constitutional REPUBLIC", that is, the Consitution was set up to overide the will of the people and save us from a "tyranny of the majority."

We are also a "representative democracy," a fancy term for an undemocratic Constitutional Republic.

America's founders feared government and rightly so.

While they abhored monarchies, they MOST feared the ugly specter of pure democracy, which Ben Franklin called "four wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner."

Economically, America was founded on LIBERTY - individual LIBERTY( self-ownership and the grinding burden of self-responsibility that comes with that ownership) AND private property rights - as alluded by Jefferson, "...life, liberty and the pursuit of property."

It is THAT (private ownership of property) that ultimately insures a disparate and unequal distribution of the wealth, based upon the all too obvious disparate distribution of talents and abilities among men.

Without question a more statist (socialistic) government CAN deliver a more equitable distribution of the wealth, but it does so at the ponderous expense of limiting and greatly reducing wealth creation....leaving the poor in places like Venezuela far worse off than they are in more economically free places like Chile.

JMK said...

"...TAXES are not a “redistribution of wealth” as you all like to forward, it is the price individuals pay to be part of a society and to have the protections that come with that." (DJBA)


Taxes CAN BE redistributionist....they SHOULD NEVER BE.

In a more perfect union, taxes would merely go toward the criminal justice system, the national defense, and some necessary regulation and oversight (again, pretty much a law enforcement allocation).

When taxes go toward providing free things (housing, clothing, food) or for guaranteeing a baseline standard of living for "the poor," that kind of spending rewards the causes of poverty (indolence, sloth, recklessness and irresponsibility) at the expense of productive efforts or the causes of success (thrift, hard-work, entrepreneurial creativity, personal responsibility, etc.).

Taxing consumption via the Fair Tax would certainly alleviate SOME of the abuses inherent in the system, by linking the tax burden to CONSUMPTION rather than PRODUCTIVITY.



Seriously DJ, doesn't it suck having to try and argue against someone like me?

Think about it, the reason for that is that you're almost always on the wrong side of the issues, when you try and do that.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: “That was a study carried out by 20.20 a respected news organization....the results are what they are and they rarely waver from that.”

The study starts by comparing apples to oranges, which already puts into question their “objectivity”, and no matter how “respected” they are by you, they obviously are clearly not trying to be objective.

To compare a city like Sioux Falls, ND to San Francisco, to determine which city give more charitably and to present the conclusion they presented (as you forward) is ludicrous. It ignores so many sociological actualities and differences between the two cities, that no one of any academic integrity would begin to utilize such a study that ignores (conveniently) serious mitigating and agitating factors such as (but not limited to):

Per Capita Poverty rate
Education Status
Religious Affiliations
Military status and / or relation
Crime Statistics
Climate

Your conclusions are less than academic to say the least.

Then you write: “Conservatives do indeed tend to be FAR more charitable than their more left-wing bretheren....sad? Yes, but undeniable as well.”

I would posit, that if you subtract ALL religious giving, you’d come to a very different number. BUT, that’s why your “respected news organization” ignored THAT and OTHER sociological factors to come to your slanted conclusions.

Reductio ad absurdum.

DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

You wrote: “In a more perfect union, taxes would merely go toward the criminal justice system, the national defense, and some necessary regulation and oversight (again, pretty much a law enforcement allocation).”

More perfect, is a matter of perception and subjective. Your neo-libertarian “more perfect” is quite different from my aristocratic elitist “more perfect”.

You wrote: “Seriously DJ, doesn't it suck having to try and argue against someone like me?”

Not at all, I am used to discussing ideas with dogmatic individuals who refuse to acknowledge the absurdity of their positions.

:-)

JMK said...

"The study starts by comparing apples to oranges, which already puts into question their “objectivity”, and no matter how “respected” they are by you, they obviously are clearly not trying to be objective." (DJBA)


Stop arguing, you're going to hurt yourself.

The reason they compared those TWO locales was specifically to GIVE the Blue States an advantage.

The state-by-state giving chart (http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005) had already been made public.

Stossel himself believed there was no way tiny Sioux Falls would outgive huge San Francisco....but they DID, not just per capita, but in straight up dollars.


Moreover, George Will is unquestionably right in that;

* Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

* Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

* Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

* Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

* In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

* People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

JMK said...

You don't make ANY arguments (offer evidence, provide links, etc) DJ.

So the exercise is pretty much one-sided.

An "aristocratic elitist" is, whether you know this, or not, a fancy term for dipshit, DJ.

I'd pick another label if I were you.

My other question was rhetorical DJ, I mean it must suck, since YOU'VE never been able/willing to make an actual argument, which again, requires some evidence and links, etc.

DJ Black Adam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DJ Black Adam said...

@JMK:

"My other question was rhetorical DJ, I mean it must suck, since YOU'VE never been able/willing to make an actual argument, which again, requires some evidence and links, etc."

The fact that you are unable, unwilling or incapable to acknowledge the absurdity of your inane sophomoric dogmatic positions as I have pointed out the statistical and sociological inconsistencies in it, only goes to make clear why I am an aristocratic elitist, that being, because people like you allow me to be an elitist so easily...don't take it personal, you are part of a big crowd of boorish cretins.

JMK said...

“The fact that you are unable, unwilling or incapable to acknowledge the absurdity of your inane sophomoric dogmatic positions as I have pointed out the statistical and sociological inconsistencies in it, only goes to make clear why I am an aristocratic elitist, that being, because people like you allow me to be an elitist so easily...” (DJBA)



You apparently mistakenly took, “ An "aristocratic elitist" is, whether you know this, or not, a fancy term for dipshit, DJ,” as an attack or insult, when it was neither.

I can assure you that it was neither a smack, nor a wise-ass remark.

It’s merely the stone cold truth.

Elitism is the belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources – and there is no more absurd, ridiculous or inane viewpoint than that. It is a viewpoint that is fundamentally anti-American.

I’ve been fortunate. I was educated partly here, partly in Corsica and the Genoese section of Northern Italy, where both sides of my Mother’s family came from. As a result, I can speak English, Italian, German, French and Spanish fairly well. I have a dual B.S. in Biology and Psychology, an M.S. Ed. and a Safety Engineering degree. I work hard and I’ve always worked hard and God willing, hope to do so long as long as my health affords that.

I’ve run a deck-building business with my brother, I repossessed cars from age 19 to 31, I can weld, do light carpentry and framing.

Over the last four years I’ve been in a specialized HazMat Unit of the FDNY (the only fully dedicated Hazardous Materials/anti-terror Unit in the FDNY...it responds citywide) and as a result I’ve had to both teach and take courses both here and abroad. I usually travel with two or more other guys from NY, either from the FDNY or the NYPD.

You remind me of some of the guys from NY who look down on guys from the rest of the country, many belittle and underestimate the Fire Departments elsewhere because they “believe their own press clippings.” Many of these guys believe the FDNY is, if not the only Department to engage in “aggressive interior attack”, at least “the undisputed masters of it.”

I never expect to be “the smartest guy in any room I go to” and as a result, I’ve learned a LOT from guys from other Departments, many from other countries that don’t have the widespread reputation that the FDNY does.

Very few of those guys who see New York as the best and everyone else second-rate seem to get as much out of the classes we attend and a big reason for that, in my view, is their sense of elitism...that we come from “an elite Unit” in an “elite Department,” and thus we know everything.

That’s a terrible attitude and one I’m glad I’ve never shared.

In truth, NO ONE is really “elite,” in that we all have various strengths and weaknesses.

I may have an unusual and very diverse educational background, I also tend to take tests of all kinds very well, but I have to work harder at mechanical aptitude tasks than guys like my brother Jim, who is exceptional in that regard...and he’s a Mechanical Engineer.

I feel bad that you took such obvious offense to a very accurate statement. I also feel bad that you’re having such a rough time making any actual affirmative arguments for what you claim to believe in.

Since I generally argue both sides of an issue in advance, I can understand your frustrations. The facts do not support the Left’s ideology.

Still, it really shouldn’t be that hard to at least try and make an actual argument with links to facts.

Of course, I’ve never been locked into any given ideology. So, if the charts showed that the Misery Indexes during Jimmy Carter’s administration were better than those during Reagan’s tenure, I’d have noted that and come to the conclusion that Keynesian economic policy may, in fact, be superior to Supply Side policies.

Of course, ALL evidence points to the reverse and it does so across the board, on the national level (Carter v Reagan and the Gingrich years v the Pelosi-Reid years) to the local level (the Dinkins years v the Guiliani years in NYC and on to the international level (the world’s freest market-based economy, Hong Kong’s, also has the LOWEST Misery Index – 6.0, while the far richer, though with a more command-style economy, Venezuela, has a much HIGHER Misery Index – 39.6).

A truly bright person would also be intellectually honest and open-minded enough to accept those facts, verify them, on their own and then change their mind, if they’d previously believed differently. A pseudo-elitist, on the other hand, would discount FACTS out of hand and deny reality and continue to believe things that are demonstrably erroneous.

That’s why I make such full arguments with you. I have faith that you’re even smarter than you give yourself credit for and for that reason, you’ll eventually come around.