Video: South Korea Clones "Glow In The Dark" Cats

I am struck by the recollection that only recently the news was made that you just can't clone a calico cat. That being said, it would seem that once again our poor benighted felines are doing their part in the advancement of cloning science. Check this video for more:

The reasoning behind this act was that it was meant as a proof-of-concept for the breeding of cats, which are supposedly genetically quite similar to humans, with specific genetic disorders unique to human beings. This would qualify, then, as quite the genetic-science breakthrough.

Yes, it's unfortunate that animals need to be used for such research, but there reaches a point where you can only study genetic functions in a functioning genetic machine -- that is, an animal. Here's to hoping that the Green-Peaces and Animal Liberation Fronts of the world don't stop this vital and fundamentally important work.

HMO's Spent $227 Million in Support of SCHIP

From the examiner.com article of Oct 5, 2007: "Timothy P. Carney: Does SCHIP insure kids or subsidize savvy HMOs?"

Supporters reject the argument that SCHIP is a Trojan horse for socialized medicine, pointing out that the program is usually administered by private insurers. In short, states put “poor” children on private HMOs and let the taxpayers pick up the tab.

For the HMOs, what could be better than a customer who is spending someone else’s money? If Congress spends more money on SCHIP and states are scrambling to enroll more families, then HMOs get even more of these customers.

And so while Democrats are dragging children to the White House for photo ops, as if the children are the primary constituency of this bill, federal lobbying records tell a different tale.

Lobbying records from the first half of 2007 show that the health care industry spent more than $227 million lobbying Washington. Congressional Quarterly Healthbeat News reported last month: “What’s behind health care lobbyists’ spending frenzy? Most signs point to ... SCHIP.”

Sure enough, the biggest lobbyists in the industry all support the Democratic bill. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the trade association for HMOs, supports the bill, as do its biggest members, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturing Association (PhRMA), one of Washington’s most powerful lobbyists, is also behind the bill. So is the American Medical Association.

So, here's one point that needs going back over:Supporters reject the argument that SCHIP is a Trojan horse for socialized medicine, pointing out that the program is usually administered by private insurers.

Technically this is true. Private companies being paid by the government is, in fact, a characteristic of Corporatism -- a term which is synonymous with "Fascism". Either way, however, the end result is the furthered corrosion of the purchaser/consumer bond -- already painfully tenuous in this nation -- between the person who buys the healthcare and the person who benefits from it.

It is almost tautological: when you separate the consumption from the cost, the cost skyrockets.

Corrupting Free Society, One Child At A Time

For every sequence of events, there is always more than one perspective which can be had. Another way of putting that is to say that the truth has three 'sides': your side, his side, and fact. Today, I hope to take you on a little journey through the mind of someone who hates President Bush, but loves his vetoing of the SCHIP renewal bill.

I know, I know -- it's hard to understand. How could someone want to make the children suffer, like that? How could I be such a heartless bastard? Am I truly so selfish that I'd rather have a few extra dollars than see the nation's poverty-stricken children have quality healthcare?

In a single word: No. No, I'm not that heartless -- no I'm not that greedy, and no, I don't want to see the poor suffer. And yet, I still stand against the new SCHIP bill. I understand that for the majority of you reading this, this must seem somewhat confusing, if true -- so either I'm a liar or I'm mislead. Right? It occurs to me that I'm getting somewhat ahead of myself here, so perhaps I ought to do a little bit of explanation as to what this whole SCHIP thing is really about. Take, for example, this piece from Sunday, Oct. 7^th, 2007, found in the New York Times:

Democrats believe they have Republicans — short on campaign cash, contending with a spurt of retirements and quarreling — on the run over the legislation, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly as Election Day looms a year from now.

[...]

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is taking on eight Republicans in competitive districts with a series of automated calls and radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state.

Beginning Monday, a coalition of liberal and labor groups will start a $1 million advertising effort, with a national advertisement to run on cable channels and local advertisements aimed at specific lawmakers. The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.” It says Mr. Bush puts excessive war spending over health care at home.

“The president’s ‘yes men’ in Congress need to stand up to Bush and stand up for families who work hard but simply can’t afford insurance,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Americans United for Change, one group leading the effort.

There's so much here that there's really no way to account for it all, up front. But let's begin with a few tiny points:

1: "The national commercial shows a series of children beginning with a baby girl and states, “George Bush just vetoed Abby.”"

Am I, honestly, the only person left in the world whom is disgusted by the continued exploitation of those who can't possibly understand what they're being used for, simply for cheap promotionals like this? Look, we get it: You kissed the baby; you're a good, caring guy. You can stop now.

2: "radio advertisements that remind listeners that their lawmaker gets taxpayer-paid health care while opposing the expansion of the program administered by each state."

Talk about talking out the side of your face. So, we are to believe, because our government employees are receiving healthcare from their employer (the government), they are bad people for denying public assistance to non government employees?

3: "Party leaders say the willingness of so many House Republicans to stick with Mr. Bush in the face of bipartisan backing for a $35 billion expansion of the program to provide insurance for poor children will prove costly"

Once again, we are told that SCHIP only benefits the poor children of the nation. And yes, primarily, this is true. But the existence of SCHIP isn't what's up for debate here: Bush himself wants SCHIP renewed.The White House is stressing that Bush wants the CHIP program renewed and wants to increase its current level by $5 billion over five years, but Bush wants it to target poor children. The compromise includes some children in levels above the poverty line.

By way of explanation of what possible madness could be going through the nation's Idiot-in-Chief's head, that he could demand that SCHIP "target poor children", please consider: SCHIP in its current form provides insurance for those who have an income of up to 200% the federal poverty line. The expanded/renewed form will take that number to 400%; for the 'prototypical' family of 4 (2 parents, 2 children), that's an income of ~$82,600 -- For a single-parent single-child household, that number is ~$54,760. (All from the same, most recently linked, source. See Table 2.) All this number-crunching, however, is meaningless without something to compare it against. The best number to do so, the most revealing, is the median average income of the United States. That number, as of 2004, was $44,334 -- as reported by the US Census.

Now, ask yourself, people: Is the average home in America poor and in need of government handouts in order to get "quality care"? As a corollary, if it is, is a simple handout going to fix that problem? As a secondary corollary: If things are that bad, can we afford for the government to be the agency we rely upon?

By way of insight, I provide this reference to a previous article, "The Tyranny of Compassion":

Foreign aid was first put into practice almost sixty years ago, under the Truman Administration, in 1948. What has been the result of essentially six decades of attempted monetary aid in Africa? Practically the entire continent remains in squalor. Why, precisely, is this? How is it even possible? The general sentiment on this issue falls into two lines:

• One: We just haven't spent enough; if only we rich Westerners would be willing to sacrifice a little more in the name of compassion, we could turn that continent around tomorrow!
• Two: We are suppressing the entrepeneurial spirit and creating reliance, thus destroying prosperity and hope for a better future.

Which of these is correct? Well, six decades have taught us that there is no amount which will be the magic bullet to cure Africa's economic woes.

Now, all of this has been somewhat heavy-handed. And I can understand if you haven't followed through to the end here, but for those of you whom have, I have just one last query/insight/thought: It is said that the measure of what power we ought allow into the hands of government is to consider what the worst person possible would do with it. To those of you whom think things like SCHIP are so necessary that a little over-spending or universal healthcare under the radar concerns are simply silly, I profer this: the "Christian Right" is poising itself to exploit government compassion efforts as a tool for its takeover of American society. Considering that private agencies -- such as charities like the Christian Children's Fund -- could be established to provide for the nation's children, I ask you: is it really worth the risk of expanding SCHIP like this, if it opens the door for a fundamentalist theocracy in America?

I, for one, do not welcome our new religious overlords.

Without Critical Thinking; Breath Is Just A Clock, Ticking.

I'm going to talk about three things today, and they're going to seem somewhat unconnected. Rest assured, however, that they in fact are connected. Those three things are the FDA's rejection of another over-the-counter category of drugs; Mr. -- never "President"; I never voted for him -- Bush's vetoing the proposed renewal of SCHIP, a program he supports the existence of; and the current plans by the White House to invade Iran with 'surgical airstrikes'. Just how they're connected is something I'll attempt to explain below.

Some of this seems, to me anyhow, that it should be simple enough to understand -- but obviously I'm wrong there, as this connection doesn't appear to be spoken of anywhere else, really. So forgive me if it seems like I'm talking down to you, my reader. I assure you I wish it were otherwise.

We'll start off with what is likely the least controversial topic: the fact that the FDA has recently declared it recommends no level of dosage for the use of cough medicines for children under the age of two. From ABC News:

They are widely available in drugstores across the country -- over-the-counter cold and cough remedies, with fruity flavors specifically marketed for kids.

But, there's a growing consensus that these medicines may not always be safe — and for young children, aren't worth the risks.
Related Stories

In a report released last week, safety experts within the Food and Drug Administration said they would recommend NO level of dosage for children under the age of two, "due to the lack of evidence of efficacy and safety concerns."

[...]

Even more amazing, the industry itself — while insisting its medicines are safe — now agrees they should not be given to very young children.

"Parents should not use these products for children under 2," says Linda Suydam, president of the Consumers Healthcare Products Association.

Suydam says the real problem is "misuse" and "overdose." The labels on most boxes suggest that parents "consult with a doctor" about the appropriate dosage for children under the age of 2. The FDA review called that warning "confusing," and said it appeared to be contributing to "medication errors, which can result in fatal overdoses."

There are two elements here I find somewhat objectionable: 1) It takes the FDA warning people before it becomes 'newsworthy'. 2) The article clearly makes it seem that without the FDA, parents couldn't figure this out for themselves.

Since when was it acceptable to state that using a manufactured synthetic in a manner other than how it appears on the label, unless a government agency tells us not to? How, exactly, is "consult a physician before using this" confusing? Have we grown so wool-headed now that this is what consists of doing our own research responsibly?

It should come as no surprise, then, that the general public opinion -- and hence the political climate -- supports the massive expansion of the SCHIP program. According to Wikipedia, In 2006, the median annual household income according to the US Census Bureau was determined to be $48,201.^[3]. The SCHIP renewal would have the program extended to households of 4 or less earning up to $83,000.00. For larger families, the limit goes higher. If the median income household is now in need of government assistance, then the nation has more serious problems than anyone is willing to admit, and a simple "Children's Health Insurance Program" isn't the solution. But even so, we are faced with events such as this to drive the support for this massive irresponsibility:

USA TODAY's David Jackson reports that President Bush's critics fired more shots this morning at Bush's plans to veto an expansion of a health insurance program for children.

SEIU, the public employees union, sponsored a rally in which children dragged little red wagons to the White House filled with petitions urging Bush to sign the legislation. (Jackson says the event had more reporters than children.)

During a rally at McPherson Square, three blocks from the White House, about 15 children chanted: "care for kids, care for kids."

Really. Children are your political mouthpieces? I'm willing to hear out disagreement on this topic; I will disagree, but differences of opinion can and do exist, and I recognize that. But when the oldest person in your little showpiece is twelve, I'm sorry -- you've just started in on child abuse. It's reprehensible, irresponsible, and disgusting. Nobody would put up with this sort of behavior if it was in support of "The War", now would they? What makes this any different? That it involves the kids? Well, think again: "It's For The Children! ... And Other Lies My Government Told Me." And the media would further have us believe that Bush is against the program at all. While I despise the man, this sort of sloppy journalism does no one any favors. Consider:

President Bush says he will sign emergency legislation to keep the government running past the start of the new fiscal year on Monday, and has criticized Congress for failing to pass spending bills.

In his weekly radio address Saturday, Mr. Bush said it is "disappointing" the Democratic Party-led Congress has not passed any of the 12 annual spending bills funding his Cabinet departments.

The emergency legislation will fund the Iraq war and a popular government-run child health insurance program.

The U.S. Senate voted on Thursday to add $35 billion to the health insurance program, but President Bush says he will veto the measure.

In his radio address, Mr. Bush accused congressional leaders of putting forth an "irresponsible plan that would dramatically expand the program beyond its original intent."

The truth ought to stand up for itself, and not need manipulation to make itself what it is. Unless, of course, those supporting what he's vetoing are trying to conceal that they want this new extension of the program to extend to almost double the median income of the nation. Curious, that.

Overlooked in all of this, however, is what this furor over SCHIP is concealing: The United States of America is about to begin open military hostilities with Iran. That's called WAR, folks. I'll reiterate:

The United States Of America Is About To Enter Into War With Iran.

You'd think that was simply paranoia, or conspiracy trash talking. But it simply isn't anymore. Final item for you to consider today:

THE WHITE HOUSE is planning "surgical" strikes in Iran to cripple agents the United States says support Iraqi insurgents fighting American soldiers, a new report says.

The plan coincides with a change in the administration's rhetoric against Iran - redefining the source of tension from nuclear weapon development to Tehran's support of America's enemies, Seymour Hersh writes in this week's New Yorker magazine.

"Now the emphasis is on 'surgical' strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities and elsewhere, which, the administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq," he writes. "What had been presented primarily as a counterproliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism."

Now, if you're still reading this and not thoroughly irate over your pet topic, we might be able to go into why I believe these three topics are, in fact, directly connected. I said I would, right? And here's the truth of it: We have allowed all of this to slip underneath our radar, as it were, for no other reason than that we have come to allow other people to do our thinking and researching for us. Consider: at what level is the average person taught the process of critical thinking, in the public -- or most private -- education systems? What grade were you in when you were taught classical logic, classical rhetorical technique, and the like? If you're like most Americans -- you were never taught them at all. You probably still think, like most people, that 'rhetoric' is a 'dirty word'. It isn't. And that's what all of these things share in common, then: the average joe American doesn't realize that he's being manipulated into the opinions he has by the resources available to him, because he does not question them. That's why the average newsblog or newspaper (let alone televised news broadcast) is targeted to a less-than 9^th-grade audience (or so I've read...). By way of comparison, this article is written at between a tenth and eleventh grade reading level. Now, all elements of rational ignorance aside, we must scrutinize the information we are fed, for such obvious gaps as I have shown above.

Otherwise, none of this will ever change. And given the list of "mainstream" political candidates for the upcoming Presidential election, does anyone think that we're doing well on this front?

Video: Interview with Craig Venter, advocate of Human Genetic Engineering and Synthetic Life

This man is the quintessential libertarian transhumanist success story: listen to him talk and you'll hear that as he advocates advances in genetic understanding, he's also published his own mapped genome, what many people consider highly private. And yet, he also talks in terms of how private activities are far more effective than government endeavors. Watch and see for yourself.

Video: Death "Raises Questions" About Gene Therapy

Not too long ago, a woman died tragically and unexpectedly. Her name was Jolee Mohr. A detailed report can also be found here. In short, she died of a fungal infection that became developed, acutely, the day after she received her second injection of a gene-therapy trial viral vector for rheumatoid arthritis. This death is tragic. But given that it was a trial, and that the company involved is doing everything in its power to act responsibly, do we really need to "question" Gene Therapy, or is this just luddist activism encompassing one family's tragic loss? Watch this video, and form your own opinions.

Video: Fixing Health Care

The following video footage is an interview by the Wall Street Journal of the CEO of Kaiser Permanente. The topic is, of course, how to 'fix' America's health-care system. There's a not-so-subtle point I wish to make to the viewer; please notice where the CEO indicates that "the buyers [of insurance] -- that's the corporations -- need to start demanding quality of care". I humbly suggest that the well-known mechanism of quality degradation as a function of degrees of fiscal separation from the consumer just might have something to do with how we got here. There's more to this vid than just that, though -- so, watch.

When Satire Fails You -- Or; Because Poking Fun of The Government Is a Patriotic Duty.

Not everything can be gloom-and-doom. Since satire has been a powerful tool since at the very least the days of the Modest Proposal, which was itself modeled after the style of the ancient greeks, it is always useful to remember to poke fun at our 'illustrious leaders'.

It is with this thought in mind that I bring you these three items, each drawn from the top online news items of today, September the 24th, 2007.

Forbes.com brings us, "The Biggest FDA Reform In A Decade":

You wouldn't know it from the lack of fanfare, but the Food and Drug Administration is getting its biggest overhaul in a decade in a dramatic coda to Merck's withdrawal of the blockbuster painkiller Vioxx three years ago.

A bill to give the FDA more power passed both houses of Congress with only a handful of no votes, and the president is expected to sign it into law. Because the bill is attached to the re-authorization of an important part of the FDA's funding, a veto is unlikely. If the law doesn't pass soon, FDA head Andrew Von Eschenbach is going to have to start informing staffers that their jobs are no longer funded.

The bill represents a victory for advocates of higher standards for making sure that drug side effects are known and promptly dealt with. Before Vioxx was yanked, some of the changes being made would be unimaginable. Until now the claims drug companies like Merck (nyse: MRK - news - people ) and Pfizer (nyse: PFE - news - people ) made about their medicines were, to a degree, negotiated. Labeling discussions between Merck and the FDA dragged on, and as a result, the agency will now be able to dictate what claims companies can make with much more force.

Now, hidden in this massive "reform" -- how a 'reform' can increase an agency's powers is news (pun intended?) to me -- also grants the FDA further ability to regulate the claims of unregulated herbals and nutritional supplements. But that's another story.

To shed a little more light on why this is ironic, consider the following, from boston.com:

Federal advisers who met last week to consider whether to restrict doses of popular antianemia drugs were themselves under scrutiny during the hearing. The Food and Drug Administration is considering a top-to-bottom reshaping of how it picks and uses the outside scientists who serve on the agency's advisory panels.

Yes, that's right, ladies and gentlemen. The FDA has now exceeded the absurdity of Monty Python (check the 'subtitles'): Those who are reforming the reformation of the reforming process, have been reformed.


Brought to us by thegate.nationaljournal.com is, "Bush & Congress Face Off Over Appropriations & SCHIP":

Bush admitted that the last Congress didn't get all its spending bills passed on time and that the CR helped keep the government running while it finished the bills. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill -- but all the previous spending bills were sent up from a GOP-controlled Congress.

The remainder of the article discussed the increase of expenditure -- and of course Bush has made news by his warning the Democratic congress to "not overspend" -- when Bush's expansion of domestic spending under a GOP controlled congress has outpaced any presidency since LBJ.

You know, I was going to attempt a satirical retort to these items... but upon reflection, it seems they've really rather taken care of it themselves, haven't they? Meanwhile, our government is literally spending the nation into bankruptcy to the point where the Comptroller General of the United States -- that is, the Federal Government's Accountant -- an appointed office is campaigning the country trying to create awareness -- and nobody's doing anything about it. And is that registering in the news? Apparently not. Yet Mr. Bush has the gall to utter "Democrats, Control Your Spending!"

You're doing a heckuva job, Bushie.

Video: Anybody Remember the "TB Guy"?

Whilst digging around for material, as I am wont to do, I came across this little tidbit, and could not help but think the blogger's equivalent of "Remember the Alamo!!": Remember that guy who was the first to be quarantined by the CDC in the US since 1963? Yeah, well, turns out his tuberculosis wasn't "end-of-the-world OMGZORZ" after all. And he's "Free At Last!" Anybody want to guess how long it will take before he sues the federal government and has his case thrown out due to State's Secrets?

Video: Human-Animal Embryos Approved In England

The religious right considers human-animal embryos "morally repugnant and totally unnecessary". As an avid supporter of the propagation of human understanding, I cannot agree: despite all the hype, such embryos seem the most likely to produce embryonic stem-cells with the least probability of rejection by the intended recipient of stem-cell therapies. While I can understand the logic of such religion-induced bio-luddism, I cannot stand idly by and allow it rule. The following video, then, gives me at least a tiny bit of hope on the issue:

Video: Nanotech to Make Junk-Food Good For You?

We've all heard it before: junk-food is bad for you. But apparently, nanotech has something to say about that now, as well.

How Much Would It Cost To Become Transhuman?

Most Transhumanists look to the future as the time of enhanced human experience. It's symptomatic of the transhumanist condition; we're all futurists. To our minds, who wouldn't want the shiny new metal arm with the strength of a hundred men, or to be able to quote Neo and utter the infamous line, "I know Kung-Fu!" thanks to a brain-computer interface implant. And this is, of course, the primary criticism of our 'cause.' So, from time to time, it behooves us to recall that improvements to the human condition are already within today's technological reach. And more-over -- they're within the reach of Joe Everyman.

This piece is in many ways a follow-up to a previous article, "The Organic Transhumanist":

As it turns out, it is possible to induce savantism using transcranial magnetic stimulation:

The Medtronic was originally developed as a tool for brain surgery: by stimulating or slowing down specific regions of the brain, it allowed doctors to monitor the effects of surgery in real time. But it also produced, they noted, strange and unexpected effects on patients' mental functions: one minute they would lose the ability to speak, another minute they would speak easily but would make odd linguistic errors and so on. A number of researchers started to look into the possibilities, but one in particular intrigued Snyder: that people undergoing transcranial magnetic stimulation, or TMS, could suddenly exhibit savant intelligence -- those isolated pockets of geniuslike mental ability that most often appear in autistic people.

(More on this here).

There's much more on piece, covering nootropics and transcranial magnetic stimulation in general, but what was distinctly absent was, of course, resources which purported to show the availability of these mechanisms.

Today, I will correct this error.

Another blog, "MindHacks", was in many ways instrumental to accomplishing this goal: it turns out that there are two, closely related, movements to produce my favorite of favorites: open-source (Author's Note: Open Source is Made of Win.) 'hacks' ... of our minds. I know, I know -- who would have ever guessed that a blog entitled "MindHacks" would discuss how to hack our minds? The very idea is just out of left field, yes? Okay... </sarcasm>. Those two 'movements' are the Open EEG group and the Open rTMS group. The Open rTMS has a link to a site that offers TMS devices, depending on the desired level of complexity, for between 65 to 220 dollars, with 5.00 shipping. U