Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Tracy, have you always been precocious? :-)

On your closing, does caffeine count? If so, I'll not be able to carry out your wish.

 

Tracy Phillips said:

 

Yes, in the extreme.
In combination with an uninhibited, impulsive personality.
Rarely a dull moment.

These personality traits (defects) have caused my wonderful parents much grief over the years.

About the closing....my remaining drugs of choice are nicotine and caffiene. I need the caffiene to wake me up enough to smoke more Kools.

Kools are the govt's drug of choice, along with every type of booze. We subsidize the stuff ya' know, so we can grow more, collect more taxes, and subsidize the stuff some more.

Drug policy at it's finest.
Thank you for smoking.
You keep this feeble economy going.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Tracy,

I'm hoping all threads are still open threads since we seldom behave and stay on topic anyway. Good thing we're all capable of reading and understanding without excessive rules. I want to share some exciting news!

I’ve been sittin’ on it for several reasons. I needed the good news about Roy to feel like talking very much and I know it would be better to wait and let you guys have the chance to hear this from people who know how to write and make the news sensible, but I just can’t wait. So bear with me and in about a week it should hit the news BIG TIME so you’ll get all the details I mess up or leave out. In the meantime you will be among the very first outside the scientific community to hear this most wonderful news!

Scientists can make ES (embryonic stem) cells without an egg! No blastocysts, no embryos, nothing that needs to offend anyone’s ethics or cause any controversy! Remember that an ES cell differs from other stem cells (adult, placental…) in that they aren’t preprogrammed to be something and can be coaxed into becoming anything. From YOUR SKIN CELL scientists can make an ES cell line individualized to YOU – all of your genes and chromosomes, alive as long as you’ve been alive, material for treating YOU the individual. You may have the same disease as someone else but because you are unique your treatment and cure can be as individualized as you are. From my skin cell they make an entirely new ES cell line that is uniquely me. Honestly folks – just from our skin cells!

Boy, I know you deserve to be hearing this news from someone who can say it better with the great impact it deserves.

This levels out the whole playing field! There is NO ethical debate. All scientists can easily create ES cell lines and go forward coaxing same into treatments and cures, organs for transplants. Oh, happy days!

This has happened so fast. In the world of science where discoveries sometimes move slower than molasses there aren’t words to tell you how quickly this has come about!

Right now they are referring to these cells as I P S. Say it as a word, not letters. Stands for: Induced Pluripotent Stem cell.

I laughed at some of the things I was told on the phone. Like, those regulatory commissions who have made life pure hell – what will they have to regulate? Looks like there will be many unemployed regulators! And will the neo-cons be smart enough to figure out they can’t any longer use this as a way to pull strings or play to the unborn issues? And mostly, when I heard the words, “It is soo much fun to be doing science!”

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Linda, incredible news. It all makes sense to me with my limited knowledge. Now, for the opposition which will be forthcoming; this will be decried as allowing cloning. Guaranteed.

Tracy, I've the same two DOCs as you on a daily basis. Instead of Kools, my nicotine delivery system is a very nice aromatic pipe tobacco in general; and when that's not available, a pack of something just to get the nicotine levels adjusted so I can function, and get another 12 oz of pipe tobacco.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Will they have no need of explaining WHY they now have a new objection? Haven't they all along been touting the advantages of adult, placenta, cord stem cells as the way to go in lieu of destroying a "life"? No, they probably won't. They do no wrong and nothing to apologize for or explain. IOKIYAR. And, no matter how shallow their objections, they will benefit from the medical advances. It's a really good world!

Will cloning happen? Yes, already has before these pluripotent cells could be induced without involvement of an egg. There are unethical, crooked, evil people in our world -- maybe in every field. You know I don't choose to be that cynical but do suspect in the areas where the most money would be possible they are probably represented.

I know what 99.9 percent of scientists want and hope for. Cures, treatments, good for mankind. And they carefully follow any imposed regulations to get there. Those who will do evil don't let regulations get in their way.

The scientist who will be in the news next week is a Japanese man doing his work at Harvard. (Can't remember his name, should have written it down, had a lot of vowels.) He gets to be first to publish and to hold patent rights. He gave colleagues a two-week advance of his manuscript. Chad will also publish similar work, but not first. Now his goal is to be first with a treatment from the work as he has moved along to the next step!

Anyway you cut this, it is exceptional news for health advances! Also proof that good work overcomes and perseveres the obstacles put in its way!

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

There is a small group that has protested any stem cell research regardless of source on the basis of cloning. This has been drowned out in the din arising from those protesting ESC research, and promoting adult stem cells, et al. This has been of interest to me, as there has been, besides the loss of a "life", objections raised on a cloning basis, which seemed ridiculous to me, as the cells from the other sources would need to be replicated (cloned) for sufficient tissue, etc. to be generated.

I need to take a look at the current Kansas statutes in this area to determine whether KU, KSU, WSU, whomever could do research in this field or if the statutes already prohibit it.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Notice that I'm using what I understand to be the scientific definition for the word "cloning". Paraphrased, this is the creation of genetically identical tissue from an original source, such that what is created is identical to that from which the genetic information is drawn. I'm not discussing the somatic cell transfer (or whatever it's called, this is again from my memory) which is objectionable to so many.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Most objectors have been concentrating heavily on the "unborn" aspect of stem cell research. And laws (restrictions) which have been enacted often have wording to protect against destroying "life" in any way.

These few that have "protested any stem cell research regardless of source on the basis of cloning," do they know what they are protesting? I predict many of those few have fear without understanding.

The more you think about this the more mind boggling it becomes, huh? When lawmakers attempt to restrict this research they are going to come against many a brick wall! Not that I don't have full confidence they can mess up much, I just hope someone among them is able to think beyond the fear without understanding.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Linda, bear with me; I'm ignorant of much that has gone on in this field and related fields.

Where I see the argument raised concerning cloning comes from the following thought process, to wit: if stem cells of the appropriate type may come from existing tissue sources, without the need for somatic nuclear transfer to begin creation of an embryo; if the stem cells which are created by the process on which you posted the generalities are undifferentiated, then theoretically, it would be possible to create an entire cloned human from the skin tissue, e.g., that is the foundation for the process. This would be, IMO, the foundation for the protest. BTW, I could see this as providing more arguments on the destroying "life" side, but from a different perspective.

I've no issue with the process you set out in any way. I would hope most will not. I'm old enough to realize that some will.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Tracy, before I further screw this thread from its original intent I do want to tell you I admire your innovative spirit! You are not just a trend setter, but sooo much more!

Now, off topic AGAIN.

Vaughn, I have a question I hope I can ask in a way you will understand. I'm not wanting to make any judgment on illegal immigration, just to ask a question that is bothering me.

Why do we Americans mix the two topics of being in our country legally or illegally with the being licensed to drive?

I've driven across the border into Canada and showed a passport (because I had one even tho it wasn't yet a requirement). I answered their few questions about where I was staying, purpose of my trip, how long I would be inside the country... NEVER did anyone ask to see a driver's license even tho I was sitting behind the wheel of a car and planning to drive into Canada. The two issues were separate!

In Ireland I didn't drive but Wayne did. We showed passports at customs entering the country and satisfied whatever to enter legally but that never involved whether we were or weren't legal to drive. We then went to the car rental counter and showed a Kansas issued driver's license and proof of insurance without being asked if we were in the country legally. Again, two separate issues.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

I'll give it a whirl here Linda.

In your first example, you were entering the country legally as a visitor. A presumption (rebuttable) existed that you had met whatever requirements imposed by the political subdivision of the U.S. in which you reside to be a lawful driver, or else you would not be driving the vehicle. This had nothing to do with your ability to enter Canada lawfully.

In the second example, again, you and Wayne entered the country lawfully. The car rental agency (located at the airport, I speculate) presumed (again, subject to rebuttal) that you had passed through Customs (to use my language), and thus all it was worried about was whether you and Wayne had the appropriate indicia of being able to lawfully drive in your country of origin, and, I suspect, carried appropriate insurance.

Truly, two separate issues. To me, the question which is somewhat analogous to the one you raised is whether, regardless of the admitted lawful entry into Canada/Ireland, you, Wayne or both could have applied for and received a driver's license in either or both countries during your stay therein. I suspect the answer would be "no". It seems to me that in the U.S., and I speculate in other countries, the possession of a driver's license issued by the appropriate level of government is perceived as an indicia of lawful residence within the country, or any political subdivision thereof by many, whether officials or "ordinary" people. The big fuss over the plans put forth in several states, then, surrounds this perception.

In the U.S., at least, possession of a valid driver's license is a condition precedent to obtaining automobile insurance. This is the basis for the argument that those here illegally should be issued driver's licenses so that their vehicles might be insured in the event of accidents. Given the perception I put forth about one in possession of a driver's license, then in the eyes of many, the possession of same gives some "color of law" to the presence of an individual within the country, whether the person entered lawfully or unlawfully.

If the U.S. issued a "national photo i.d.", then perhaps the perception created by possession of a driver's license or other state-issued photo i.d.would not exist. I'd speculate that no driver's license application would be accepted without the national i.d. National i.d. cards raise many issues which involve privacy among other things, and is something to which I'm generally opposed at this time. By default, a dl or photo i.d. issued by a state serves to some extent the purpose a national i.d. card would serve in our society.

Thus, while there are two separate issues here, these are interrelated, for the reasons I set forth, and why there is opposition to "illegal aliens" being able to obtain a driver's license/state issued photo i.d. card. Factually, the illegal aliens who are here on more or less a permanent basis are going to buy a car and drive it to work, etc., whether they are insured or not and whether they are licensed or not. The states that have attempted to allow issuance of driver's licenses to illegals have done so to allow these people to obtain insurance, so that if they injure others through their negligent operation of the motor vehicle, at least some of the expenses incurred by the injured party will be borne by the insurance company, and not the state (as the "insurer" of last resort).

Sorry the response is so long and convoluted, Linda. Requests for clarification will be honored, of course.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I agree with your post of 1:52 Vaughn. Some will always find fault - one any and all subjects we could mention. And cloning would be a logical position for protest and objection. Absent the destroying life they will turn to cloning as the big bad scare to be avoided at all cost! I still contend that limiting this research because of that cloning an entire human being fear would be a tricky wicket and only put roadblocks in the way of the ethical scientists. The unethical won't bother with laws or regulations.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Do Americans honor the driver's license of someone from Mexico, Ireland, Canada as being legal to drive inside our country? Couldn't that someone have said they were visiting and stayed instead with the license they obtained legally in their country and still has a few years until expiration?

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Short answer to both questions you pose is "yes". There are issues here, though. In Kansas, one who is here more than 60 days (unless a student or in the military or on some sort of job assignment) is to apply for and receive a Kansas driver's license. Also, when one is driving an owned vehicle with a Kansas license plate and is stopped by the police for a minor infraction, e.g., that person is in violation of another statute that requires the owner of a vehicle licensed in Kansas to have a Kansas dl. Many states have similar laws; Indiana (the one with which I'm familiar) allows a military member or a student to obtain a "non resident" license plate for his/her vehicle, all of which started with 95 A "back in the day". Kansas has no such provision to my knowledge.

Also, the person with the foreign dl, etc., will have a bit of a problem obtaining insurance on his/her auto if it is tagged in Kansas and there is no Kansas dl; doable, but essentially involves some lack of disclosure to happen.

BTW, if the individual with the foreign dl "overstays", that person is within the country unlawfully.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

The barring of illegals from driver's licenses, while initially presented as a way to keep terrorists from obtaining state issued photo ids, dls or not, is IMHO another attempt to shift the burden of immigration law enforcement from the federal government to the states at the cost of the states. It seems to me the idea is that if the states bar the illegals from obtaining a dl, then they won't be able to remain here, as they won't be able to go to work for those unlawfully employing them. I think we all perceive that this hasn't worked.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

It sure hasn't! But your last post shed light on why it has been so controversial. I wasn't seeing the forest for the trees AGAIN. It's too complicated a problem for my pea brain. All too often I think I've seen a solution and turn around to hear what problems that perceived solution causes. I don't think this can be left to the states to make a patchwork quilt but must have some federal guidelines. I'm often for less federal but his time I think it's needed.

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Linda, the whole thing is complex, regardless of how facially simple it seems. BTW, the use of the state issued photo id (driver's license or otherwise) being required to board an airplane (does anyone know if this is required on AMTRACK? inter-city buses?) has resulted, in one sense, in these becoming a kind of de facto national i.d. card.

 

Wendy said:

 

Vaughn,

to add a little bit to your statement about out of country driver's licenses.

Kansas accepts them as a form of ID. They do not, however, accept them as an actual license (ie for purposes of renting a car) unless they are A) in English and/or B) accompanied with an international driving permit (which closely resembles an american drivers license). Many countries, like Germany for example, their drivers licenses more resemble passports, and MANY do not have Photo's on their ID's! (How they can then verify the person is who they claim to be I do not know - but I have seen many foreign licenses and can tell you this is how they are) Besides which, if it isn't in English, how can you even be sure they are showing you a drivers license and not their Y membership? :) Not to argue with you, but just wanted to add some clarification... Also, many foreign countries do not have auto insurance that transfers to other countries. In fact Linda, you may want to verify, any time you travel outside the US, that your car insurance will cover you in whatever country you will be driving in, because they may not... FYI...

 

Vaughn Tolle said:

 

Wendy, thanks for the additional information. Some of it is very new to me, and is good to know.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

Last time I rode Amtrak and subways and buses, etc. was a trip back east in 2004. We flew to Boston, took Amtrak down to Washington DC, rode buses and subways in both those destinations. We bought our Amtrak tickets online from Wichita. We boarded without being asked for anything (not even our ticket!), we carried our own luggage on and I think the four of us could have been carrying enough for quite an explosion if we'd wanted. Sometime after boarding we were asked for our tickets (ONLY!). We had two sleeper rooms so that gave us access to the car in front of the sleeper car for sitting, eating the included meals and refreshments. The Amtrak station on BOTH ends was also a subway station so was underground in both cities. We traveled overnight down the eastern seaboard through many cities and no one ever asked who we were or for proof. When we arrived Washington DC the Amtrak station was a few short blocks from the White House, many monuments, etc. In both cities the airport(s) were on the subway system so people with luggage was very common. No one slows down for anything when using thoe cities subway systems! You'll get caught in the closing door if you don't move in and out quickly.

 

lindainks55 said:

 

I'm not much of a traveler since planes have become so uncomfortable and the two trips to Ireland were real treats five and three years ago. We did have a letter from our insurance agent and had verified our coverage would be adequate for car rental in Ireland. We're such fuddy duddies we always prepare and leave little as a surprise. We even notified our credit card company and our bank there would be charges from a foreign country, etc.

 

Wendy said:

 

Linda,
Always better to be safe than sorry, and you certainly wouldn't want to wind up stranded in a foreign country without access to any money :) I wish we would travel more prepared, but we tend to fly by the seat of our pants...