According to Representative Joe Pitts (R-Pa), "it is unethical to tinker with human life," he said in reference to human cloning. This was sparked by the recent news that scientists in Korea had managed to clone humans, forming embryonic blastocysts from which stem cells could be extracted.
Now I'm not saying I'm in favor of human cloning, but his comment raises numerous gray-area questions. After all, what consists of 'tinkering with human life'? What about other forms of medical research, such as human drug testing, or experimental surgical techniques? In attempting such high-risk procedures such as removing the extra head from that child in the Dominican Republic, it would be difficult to come up with a term other than 'tinkering,' given that the surgery had never been performed before on a patient like her, in addition to the fact the child didn't survive, which is no better an outcome than had the procedure never been attempted.
What about human testing of new drugs? How is that not tinkering? Oh, that's right, those people receive monetary compensation, so the almighty dollar makes everything OK. Besides I'm sure our representatives aren't complaining about the human tinkering that went on to result in their Viagra prescriptions!
Oddly, two of the scientists in Korea said they were the target of violence, even though they were engaging in research for disease treatment and not in reproductive cloning. It seems to me that if there were to be an acceptable use of cloning, it would be reproductive cloning, perhaps for couples who couldn't have kids. Such embryos wouldn't be destroyed, but allowed to mature, then nurtured and loved. Why is there such vehemence against that?
I think those who make these sweeping statements should evaluate their own ideas before embracing or decrying any new research.

It was reported that Google, the online search engine, is hampering free speech. Non-profit group Oceana bought ads out on Google linking clickers to websites denouncing Royal Caribbean because of its problems with pollution, which Google pulled later, sayind they didn't want ads defaming the cruise line.
Google is a privately held company. It is their right to exclude ads they don't want. How is this inhibiting freedom of speech? Google is not campaigning against Oceana, trying to get a cease-and-desist order out on them. Google does not receive federal funds, obligating it to comply with First Amendment rights. It is not a school, forming the minds of the future leaders of the world. It is a private website company, with full discretion over how they want to run their business.
If, for example, someone submits something to my website, BurningTiger, that I don't want on there, I have full editorial discretion to not put up. I'm not violating anyone's rights. They can putit up somewhere else.
Oceana has its own website promoting their interests. If they want Google to display their website, why not design their website and pay the search engines so that it pops up higher in search results? Do they really believe that simply buying an ad entitles an entity to anything they want? Remember that freedom of speech rights apply to Google too, giving them the discretion to say what they want on their website, and judging from the ridicuous opinions so proliferate today, some things are better left unsaid.

Finally, Barbie and Ken, childhood's most obnoxious couple, are splitting up! It's about freakin' time. That bitch has been using the boy long enough. Who do you think has been paying for all the fancy dream houses, Barbie cars, jewelry, hair and outfits? Poor Ken! And do you think he ever got a piece of ass? Of course not! Despite all the perverted positions and whatnot we used place those two in when we were kids, the poor boy never got a nut. He doesn't have any! She's the ultimate cocktease, leading him on when she knew perfectly well he wasn't getting anywhere. Now we know where women learn that stuff - it's designed into their toys!
Now supposedly she's off to have a wild affair with Blaine the Australian surfer dude. Typical female. Here's some advice Blaine: RUN!
Where's Ken gonna go now? Probably off to come out of the closet and have that long sought-after affair with G.I Joe. Of course, don't ask, don't tell, Joe! But I guess we all suspected it of Ken all along. Besides, being with that bitch is enough to drive anyone over the fence!

Reuter's reports that France's ban on religious items in schools may also result in compulsory attendance to sex education classes (which some students find offensive) and comply with class programs in history focusing on the Holocaust (which some students, and others, deny happened).
My problem is not the specifics of these attitudes. In fact I applaud the students having such deeply held beliefs and passions, whatever they are. My question is: why can't American students have some damn beliefs? Who decides what they're going to believe? Television and the ACLU. And by "beliefs" I don't mean kids whining over other kids not understanding them because they're gay or black or whatever. Boo freakin' hoo. What do kids worry about? Their friends liking them? What happened on "The Real World"? Partying? You never hear about American kids having real opinions on real issues. Check out their blogs if you don't believe me.
These French students are reacting to real issues, ones that affect the whole community, now and in the future when these schoolkids grow up and start running the world. Whatever their ideas may be, right or not, at least they have them!

I was determined not to write about the Super Bowl/Janet Jackson/Boob fiasco, but now that coverage of this stupidity is taking up precious space on my AvantGo subscription, I must air my complaints.
MSNBC reported on Feb. 7 that the FCC has received more than 200,000 complaints about the "wardrobe malfunction." An overwhelming number? Not really, when you consider that this number makes up less than 1% of the American population. At any given time, I'm sure you can find way more than this percentage who are pissed off about something else (and something way more worthwhile).
The same article also reported that the Parent's Television Council has counted more than 24,000 complaints. Again this is less than one one-hundreth of a percent of the nation! Who cares? Just because these loudmouths have nothing better to do than gripe to entities who can't do anything about it, do the rest of us have to suffer their woes? I mean really, what are the FCC and the Parents Television Council going to do about a 2 second breast flash that happened last week? Have their kids truly been that traumatized by the event? I'm sure they don't run screaming every time one of these God-fearing moms whips out her own boob to feed little Junior.
While we're at it, has anyone called anybody to bitch about the streaker that presented himself on the field of the Super Bowl? I mean, that was full frontal freakin' nekkidness, but nobody's whining about that. What gives? Even if it didn't make it to national TV, did anyone indignantly leave the stadium, fragile rugrats in tow, demanding their money back? Is there a huge campaign underway by the Bowl-goers to file complaints to the NFL, AFC, Budweiser, GoldenPalace.com and the Department of Homeland Security? I didn't think so. Rather, "delight and hilarity" was the order of the moment, according to this source.
Besides, if you consider the way TV has been going the last decade or so, everyone knows that sooner or later, everything will be on broadcast television. Boobs, butts, genitalia, gay sex, and cuss words. Get used to it. Or find something else to do. Please.