…and this is a 
Wide open thread, free for the taking
Category: Godlessness • Open Thread
Posted on: July 4, 2008 10:05 AM, by PZ Myers
I'm about to head off to get coffee and attend this conference and give my own talk, and then zoom, right after the talk I have to head off to the airport and fly back home. I'll be back this evening, but until then, you'll all have to entertain yourselves in the comments…which you all seem very good at, anyway.
Just to get you started: Pat Condell.
Maybe one of the fundagelical creobots haunting Pharyngula right now will find something to rave about in that.
Comments
Entertainment? The Governor of Florida went and got himself a beard to increase his chances of being selected as VP.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 4, 2008 10:12 AM
William Lane Craig summarises current theistic philosophy, and boy is it in trouble:
This must be that sophisticated philosophy of religion that the "New Atheists" do not grapple with.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 4, 2008 10:18 AM
Religion is human rights abuse...LOL, i love this guy's speeches.
Posted by: Richard Eis | July 4, 2008 10:28 AM
Ok, so since this is an open thread, I'm going to ask about something I thought of the other day...There's a chronic, nearly insoluble, shortage of blood and blood products. Any incentive that will encourage people to give more will probably encourage the wrong people to give more (i.e. high risk for disease or with known blood born disease). Artificial alternatives have thus far been disappointing. So, there need to be other methods. One idea that occurred to me was to basically bone marrow transplant healthy large mammals with human hematopoietic stem cells or make transgenic animals with human blood (platelets, plasma, erythrocytes and leukocytes). Assume for the purposes of the exercise that there is no chimerism or that the transgenic animal is without genetic "leaks". How many of you are entirely squicked by the idea? Especially if the next step is that the blood is collected when the animal is slaughtered and the rest of the critter ends up on the dinner table? (People who are vegetarians on principle should not answer because you're already squicked by meat in general and I'm wondering about the implications of the human blood component.)
Posted by: Dianne | July 4, 2008 10:32 AM
*salutes Pat*
Sir, if only you were Prime Minister.
Posted by: Matt | July 4, 2008 10:34 AM
Pat is one of the reasons why I decided to take to blogging, because he's a smart dude and he's funny as hell.
I gotta say, this is not one of my favorites of his (I prefer "Hook, Line and Rapture") but every piece is funny and well thought out.
My only complaint is that he's not more prolific.
Posted by: JStein | July 4, 2008 10:42 AM
Dianne, that's a splendid idea!
Posted by: Spike and Drusilla | July 4, 2008 10:44 AM
Please everyone crash the petition at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/bbc_springer/index.html and post comments opposing the petition's premise.
Thankfully the religiots here in the UK aren't as plentiful as they are Stateside, but they need a healthy dose of STFU from time to time.
Posted by: MarkW | July 4, 2008 10:46 AM
Maybe we could encourage these folks to do something a little more, er, um, useful... like the folks in this article.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200807/NAT20080703a.html
It's titled "Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices"
Posted by: Mike | July 4, 2008 10:51 AM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 4, 2008 10:52 AM
Pat sure tells it like it is! I'm impressed. I googled and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell .
Posted by: Odonata | July 4, 2008 10:53 AM
Dianne,
I'm not bothered by the idea in principle. However, transmitting diseases between species is a major concern.
A better solution would be for more people to donate (i give every other month). The Red Cross could also change it's rules so thousands of healthy people who spent some time in Europe in the early 90s could give blood.
Posted by: Scott D. | July 4, 2008 10:53 AM
The Christian Voice petition, there's no option to say I hope they squeeze you until the pips squeek so any signature will just be one more for them - I'm pretty sure they'll delete/disregard any hostile comments.
Posted by: Don | July 4, 2008 10:55 AM
MAJeff #1:
Man, I'm disappointed. I thought he was actually growing a beard. I long for the days of Garfield and Hayes.
Posted by: chancelikely | July 4, 2008 10:56 AM
Dianne, I have no ethical problems with that idea.
Posted by: Jams | July 4, 2008 11:02 AM
Diane:
Soylent pink is MANBEARPIG!
Really, I would be more worried about zoonoses that I would be squicked by the general idea.
Posted by: MikeG | July 4, 2008 11:11 AM
To a Young Poet who Killed Himself
by: Joyce Kilmer
When you had played with life a space
And made it drink and lust and sing,
You flung it back into God's face
And thought you did a noble thing.
"Lo, I have lived and loved," you said,
"And sung to fools too dull to hear me.
Now for a cool and grassy bed
With violets in blossom near me.
" Well, rest is good for weary feet,
Although they ran for no great prize;
And violets are very sweet,
Although their roots are in your eyes.
But hark to what the earthworms say
Who share with you your muddy haven:
"The fight was on -- you ran away.
You are a coward and a craven."
The rug is ruined where you bled;
It was a dirty way to die!
To put a bullet through your head
And make a silly woman cry!
You could not vex the merry stars
Nor make them heed you, dead or living.
Not all your puny anger mars
God's irresistible forgiving.
Yes, God forgives and men forget,
And you're forgiven and forgotten.
You may be gaily sinning yet
And quick and fresh instead of rotten.
And when you think of love and fame
And all that might have come to pass,
Then don't you feel a little shame?
And don't you think you were an ass?"
Posted by: Bishop Pontoppodan | July 4, 2008 11:11 AM
Dianne - assuming those various safety concerns are taken into account, that sounds like an excellent idea. I suspect that they would be "milked" for blood pretty frequently, not just at slaughter time, so there would be some animal welfare issues to do with cows wandering around with portacaths stuck in their necks...
As for Pat Condell? Rock on...
Posted by: Owen | July 4, 2008 11:14 AM
Okay, it's the 4th of July. The Discovery Institute has a goofy article claiming that Jefferson believed in ID. Duh! So did everyone before Darwin. I just blogged about it, and (in my humble opinion) did a pretty good job of demolishing their article. Discovery Institute: Usurping the Fourth of July. Can't let the Discoveroids take over the 4th.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | July 4, 2008 11:18 AM
Oh, and I'm one of those folks who would be very happy to give blood, except I'm a British expat and apparently I have mad cow disease.
Mooer, boo, obviously.Posted by: Owen | July 4, 2008 11:19 AM
A little question for the biblical scholars here:
I seem to recall the suggestion that the injunction against eating pork may well be grounded in the fact that pigs pretty much have to be fattened on grain, and as such they're competitors for our food. That is in an impoverished society - as that of a caste of manual labourers, the Hebrews - pork is much too energy inefficient a foodstuff.
Now for the question(s): Are there any viable hypotheses for some of the other silly commandments? For instance, I could imagine that the problem with seafood is one of allergies/intolerances. I, myself, can't seem to keep down mussels and some kinds of fish. Has there been any studies into a genetic disposition for seafood allergies in Jews?
Similarly, might the problem with mixing fibers in cloth be one of efficiency or hygiene? Is mixed fiber less durable or harder to keep clean?
Do not cook the kid in its mother's milk: does that perhaps have something to do with milk being a good medium for bacterial growth? (Is milk a good medium for Salmonella?)
Any takers?
Posted by: Sili | July 4, 2008 11:24 AM
I was cruising Pharyngula's archives last night when I found PZ's piece on Neil deGrasse Tyson's commentary on ID. I blogged about it, and the creationist goofiness that followed is delightfully, hilariously incomprehensible. Check it out. Any insight into this particular species of loon would be appreciated.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | July 4, 2008 11:26 AM
The world's best political cartoonist, IMO. One of his finest.
Just thought it might be appreciated round these pharyngulists....
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cartoon/2008/jul/01/iraq.oil.business.exxon.total.chevron.bp.shell.georgebush
You 'Muricans have a great 4th July, now
DaveH x
Posted by: DaveH | July 4, 2008 11:26 AM
Re: blood. I'm an HIV- gay man. I'm barred from giving blood because I've had sex with a man once since 1978.
I hate needles, so they wouldn't get it out of me anyway, but c'mon!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 4, 2008 11:27 AM
Oh, and I became a blood donor about six years ago. They won't tap you more than four times a year here in Denmark, though.
And I've been quarantined for the past year-and-a-half because I'm pumped full of antidepressants.
Posted by: Sili | July 4, 2008 11:27 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | July 4, 2008 11:28 AM
Jesse Helms has died. Another hateful racist gone.
Posted by: Tulse | July 4, 2008 11:30 AM
That's just Parsons trying to sell his book. Again.
Posted by: MartinM | July 4, 2008 11:30 AM
Goddamit! I came hear to hear lunatics spouting off about how we're all going to go to haitch ee double hockey sticks, and all youse guys do is ramble on about some artificial Frankensteinian blood supply.
Jesus saves at Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Jacques | July 4, 2008 11:35 AM
BTW, everyone should go to pat's youtube video and vote down that arsewipe HuntingConde1l. He's the worst sort of troll, hateful little pious bitch.
Posted by: Jacques | July 4, 2008 11:41 AM
Dianne,
It's an interesting proposition, one that I would welcome if it could be pulled off (that being the real stumbling block, in all likelihood.) Still, it address a couple of points that I'm the perfect example of.
First, the problem of human donors. I'd very willingly give blood if I could, but can't for several reasons, only one of which isn't really logical. The illogical reason has to do with with the now extremely stringent limits on travel for donors (I'm theoretically blocked because I've traveled overseas recently, even though that was to Europe.) The best one is what's in my bloodstream most of the time, but that leads me to my second point.
I'm a rheumatoid arthritic (since I was a teen) and even now have a genetically modified (chimeric; human/mouse) monoclonal antibody in my blood, serving as my principle treatment. It serves to target the immune suppressant that keeps me able to do things like, well...walk. Naturally enough, that makes my own blood unusable for anyone else (the immune suppressant especially is very persistent and hard to get rid of.) And I'd be a perfect donor otherwise. I can't help but think that there are a fair number of people like me in the developed world who are out of the blood system because of things like this.
But of course, this also means that I don't have any problem with the ideas you've laid out. I wouldn't hesitate to use blood derived from such a source, as long as I though the animals humanely used in the process. That really wouldn't be that hard, no more than doing so in the food chain is hard (though our current system does a bad job of it, at least at the industrial end of the scale.) I also don't think it would be either necessary (or even desirable) to kill the animals for harvest. Rather, they'd be treated like human donors with permanent catheters installed and just bled on a schedule that won't harm them. Not only is it more humane, but also probably more economical, as I'd bet making one of these bovines would be a hefty investment and you'd get a much better return by preserving the animal rather than sacrificing it.
By the way, I am not a vegetarian, though I do eat organic meat because of the more humane nature of the animal husbandry practices involved in raising it.
Posted by: Stwriley | July 4, 2008 11:44 AM
I've been trying to win the first ever Conservapedia Challenge, but Mr. Schlafly still hasn't acknowledged my second response. The first he claimed didn't do a thorough job, so I went back and explored more.
Initial: http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-stubborn-idiocy-in-action.html
Followup: http://nolatitude.blogspot.com/2008/07/conservapedia-demanding-wrong-data.html
Does anyone know how big the Conservapedia prize is? It's bronze, like all other science-y medals, yes?
Posted by: No Latitude | July 4, 2008 11:47 AM
Dianne: I'm not squicked and I am a vegetarian (but I don't come from an animal rights perspective, so YMMV). That being said, there are more immediate things that can be done to increase the donor pool. For example, I can't donate blood, not because I take worrisome medication or carry any diseases but because I'm a bisexual male. The FDA specifically excludes any male who has had a sexual encounter with another male after 1977.
Posted by: BetentacledBrad | July 4, 2008 11:49 AM
About the blood idea, I wouldn't have any problems with harvesting blood from animals, but why only take the blood when we kill them for meat? Throughout their lives surely we could take safe small amounts of blood? I am not anywhere near knowledgeable on the Medical front or biochemical front, so if I am wrong then I appolagise.
Also theoretically the animals wouldnt even have to be kept in huge Battery farms, they could live free range and be brought in for a "milking" of blood every month or so,right? that might even appease some of the hardcore Vege's who I am sure will be against it.
I hate it when people mention high risk categories for blood as apparantly I am one, being someone in an homosexual relationship means I obviously sleep around with as many men unprotected as possible and therefor I am high risk! It is unfairly discriminatory as I know a lot more women who have slept with many many more men than I have.
I suppose it's a good job they have this policy though, as the blood goes straight from my arm into a patient without any tests other than the ridiculous questionnaire they make you fill out right? Oh wait... they screen it don't they? My argument fails. :p
Posted by: Kevin | July 4, 2008 11:54 AM
Every time there is a blood drive, I stop by to see if they have changed their silly rules, and every time I'm told that nope, they haven't. I lived in Italy between 1980-1988, so they don't want my blood. I am healthy and I am not afraid of needles. I'd easily give 4 or more times a year. I get frustrated every single time.
And I've got a huge crush on Pat Codnell. That kind of brain is so sexy.
Posted by: sphex | July 4, 2008 11:55 AM
Yet more proof that the world is coming to an end soon.
The movie version of Beer For My Horses starring Ted Nugent.
Posted by: Janine ID | July 4, 2008 11:55 AM
More proof.
Live in fear!
Posted by: Janine ID | July 4, 2008 11:57 AM
A day in the life of DaveScot
0700: Reveille. HOO-RAH! Semper Fi! This is my rifle! Time to slap on my boots, make the bed for bed inspection (make sure the quarter bounces this time), then head to the canteen for some slop.. oh wait, I'm not in the Corps anymore. Guess I'll start some coffee and get ready for work.. oh wait, I don't even have a JOB anymore.. guess I'll fire up the old ham radio..
0715: Ham radio time.. first broadcast of the morning: "I is DaveScot. I has a ham radio. It were designed by me, just like life am designed by some unnamed, unknowable being with godlike powers that for definite sure am existing but we can't know whether it am existing or not because me am agnostic. End transmission" Note to self: why do I always talk like Bizarro on my ham radio?
0730: Call from WAD. Says to stop referring to Uncommon Descent as "MY blog." Says I am just one of the many assorted "friends" and that UD is his playground and that I only serve at his discretion and whim. I call him a nerd and tell him to shove it in his big fat sweater or I'll break his glasses. HAHA I am so funny. ROTFLMAO. Note to self: Is it disturbing for a 50+ year old overweight man on the internet to use acronyms meant for teenage girls? ZOMG!
0800: Fire up Internet Explorer and check out the activity on UD. Let's see:
GilDodgeon's new post: "Did you know that I play classical piano? Well I do. Play classical piano, that is. But I'm also a computer programmer. Funny, isn't it, right brain, left brain, all that.. But music is really a passion of mine. And I was talking to David Berlinski the other day and he plays piano and speaks French, just like me. And wears a leather jacket just like me. That's another interesting contradiction in my personality, that I like motorcycles but play piano and speak French. Wow, I'm interesting. BTW evolution is crap. "
Denyse's new post: "Lame joke. Lame attempt to coin a phrase. Weak attempt at metaphor. Long quotation from someone else. Painfully bad pun. 10 links to more of the same on my blog. 10 links to buy my book. PS I am competing w DaveScot to see who can suck the life out of a room faster."
WAD's new post: "Evolution is the root of abortion, genocide, homosexuality, and war. And it's rubbish anyway because of the Cambrian explosion. Big word or foreign phrase incorrectly used in an attempt to appear well-read"
And the comments:
Bornagain77: "Hi, I'm crazy."
Coherent argument against ID, BAN.
Pointing out that the "problems" ID people see in evolution are really just products of their own ignorance, DOUBLE BAN
0900: Boy, banning those homos gets me worked up. They're all such homos, just like that dude in the Corps that used to give me BJs. He was a real homo.
Posted by: stop_reading_UD | July 4, 2008 12:01 PM
the injunction against eating pork may well be grounded in ...
Trichinosis.
viable hypotheses for some of the other silly commandments
There's this crazy thing called "google" that can be useful in answering such questions. e.g.,
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 4, 2008 12:05 PM
"Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate? How many people have died in the USA due to unavailablity of blood in any recent year?"
If the US is anything like the UK, it is unlikely that there is ever a total shortage of blood for use in an emergency. What happens is that when stocks reach a certain level elective operations that will need blood get cancelled.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 4, 2008 12:08 PM
Jesse Helms has died.
I'm trying to resist the urge to applaud.
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 4, 2008 12:09 PM
Yes, Jesse Helms has tarnished the birthdate of our great nation by making today all about him.
What a selfish, selfish man.
(still in snark mood, of course)
Posted by: No Latitude | July 4, 2008 12:11 PM
Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate?
And why would that want to encourage that if the blood weren't necessary? And since blood is a finite resource, what would make you think that there aren't genuine shortages? Honestly, you've asked an incredibly stupid question, one that you could have answered with your own effort:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSL/is_3_72/ai_65539092
Posted by: truth machine, OM | July 4, 2008 12:16 PM
@truth machine,
Why resist the urge to applaud? The Earth is much better for that piece of shit being dead.
Hell, the first person to let me know Reagan died got a free six-pack.
Posted by: Autumn | July 4, 2008 12:17 PM
A tribute to Jesse Helms in song.
Posted by: Janine ID | July 4, 2008 12:20 PM
@ Dianne,No 4:
Apart from the ethical and religious uproar(not that I care)that something like this would cause,there are too many difficulties with immune response and bug transfer to even consider it.
And as an Emergency Physician Im with Reg Selkirk on this,how many people have actually dies from blood shortage,the Red Cross etc appeals you hear are mainly in times of shortage,like school holidays or some sort of disaster,where you are in danger of running your reserves down.
Posted by: clinteas | July 4, 2008 12:24 PM
Reginald Selkirk (#2):
Wow. William Lane Craig never struck me as a shining intellect, but if he thinks the idiotic claims of the cdesign proponentsists hold any water, he's either a moron or a conniving liar. Hooray for sophistimacated theology!
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 4, 2008 12:26 PM
"Is that true, or is that a just motivational "fib" told by the Red Cross to encourage people to donate?"
Most blood shortages could be avoided by only giving transfusions when absolutely necessary (blood transfusions are not very good for you, even if the donor is very healthy) and by reusing the patient's own blood (using techniques developed to perform surgeries on blood-paranoid Jehovah's Whitnesses, oddly enough)
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-04/ns-cbt042308.php
"Jesse Helms has died."
Someone tell MC Hawking!
http://www.mchawking.com/mp3_files/JesseHelms.mp3
Posted by: Jason Failes | July 4, 2008 12:28 PM
OH FUCK IT GETS WORSE:
THE FUCKWITTERY, IT BURNS.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | July 4, 2008 12:32 PM
Bit of a straggler but let me tell you I was out for my morning run earlier and 4 horrible youths on bicycles had the nerve to dispute right of way on a pedestrian crossing. "Stupid old fart" they bellowed as they rode off. As they did so one of them turned and gave me a look. If he did. Thirty years ago I could sprint but the best I can manage now is a lumbering canter. Wake up GOD! Where's the bloody bears when you need them? Bears? I'd have given them bears, eyehenas, wolverine, okapis, they'd have had the bloddy lot. I might have even have felt bad about it afterwards, too but we'll never know because the bloody bears never showed up did they.
Posted by: Gav | July 4, 2008 12:32 PM
Funny (I'm not complaining) how this begain as a pat Condell / Anti-Religion thread and is now a blood drive...
Posted by: Jason | July 4, 2008 12:34 PM
Jesse ol' boy, you be sure to come back and tell us all about it, ya hear?
Posted by: Holbach | July 4, 2008 12:39 PM
Just dropped by to say happy 4th of July to everybody!
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | July 4, 2008 12:40 PM
I'm all for that one. That's the reason I can't give blood anymore. Every time there's a blood drive in my area I go just to see if this rule is still in effect. Then, when I'm told that it is, I say "That's too bad, me being O- and all."
Posted by: John Marley | July 4, 2008 12:41 PM
Jesse Helms has died.
The world is a slightly better place today.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 4, 2008 12:43 PM
You're not kidding. A formulation of the cosmological argument worse than Kalaam? That's the kind of stupidity that takes skill.
Posted by: MartinM | July 4, 2008 12:47 PM
It was an excellent speech for the first 4:30 minutes, until he came up with this :
"In a couple of generations, some parts of Europe will have no choice than to democratically allow sharia law"
Well, I'd like to see which projections he bases himself for this, which parts of Europe is he talking about, democratically elect sharia law, I think he is just spinning something out of the blue. With 2 to 3% of the European Union's population, projected to maximum double within a generation, and showing the same genrational trends in decreasing religiosity as with other religions, what is he talking about ? Why does he need to do that ?
So he starts his speech with "Islam is not the problem, religion is the problem", does a marvelous job for 4:30 minutes to attack them all by simply stating what is real and to speak out for secularism, but then in the end, has to exagerate the threat of Islam, and I think it just weakens his whole argument.
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 4, 2008 12:54 PM
I've managed to outwit the Red Cross so far. Every time I donate (which I do regularly), they ask whether I've had sex with a gay male, or with a prostitute, etc. But they never ask about farm animals. Take that!
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 4, 2008 12:56 PM
"Religion will simply die a natural death." Pat Condell.
Wishful thinking, but unrealistic as long as their are humans to perpetuate nonsense.
Posted by: Holbach | July 4, 2008 12:59 PM
They say you should only speak good of the dead. Jesse Helms is dead. Good.
/Bette Davis
Posted by: JoshS | July 4, 2008 1:04 PM
Enormous ignorance on blood donation in this thread. Does anyone die in the U.S. because of lack of blood, probably not. But blood donation also includes platelets, which do not store well, and are needed weekly for chemotherapy patients. Your local blood center is probably struggling to meet the need there.
As for travel in Europe, read the current guidelines -- I find it hard to believe everyone spent > 3 months in western Europe from 1980-1996 (how did you get you visa extended?) or > 5 yrs.
If you are an HIV risk, your dispensation is kindly granted.
Admit it, most people too lazy to donate, but should they get cancer, they will happy to suck down the donations of others. We are the ultimate consumer society.
For the record, I give platelets every 14 days. It hurts, it is boring, and it makes me feel like crap for several hours. My arm veins are so scarred you can hear a pop when the needle goes in. But this is my choice. For a 3 yr old leukemia patient, who has an excellent chance of survival, my choice is their hope.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | July 4, 2008 1:07 PM
Oh oh!
Holbach: "Wishful thinking, but unrealistic as long as their are humans to perpetuate nonsense."
Given your track record, I sure hope you don't take that thought to it's logical conclusion.
Down with religion! Death to the humans!
Posted by: btb | July 4, 2008 1:11 PM
Bishop Pontoppodan @ 17 What insane drivel, and by the same poet who puked, "But only god can make a tree"
Posted by: Holbach | July 4, 2008 1:14 PM
That Pat, makes me proud to be a Brit, fair brings a tear to me eye, an' no mistake, guv'nor.
\/ Peace
Posted by: Pete | July 4, 2008 1:17 PM
On the video, I think Condell's wrong about most religious leaders being unbelievers - people are very good at believing what it's convenient to believe, so they can serve their own interests and feel virtuous (see the AGW denialists for another example). That makes getting rid of religion tougher. I also think he greatly overestimates the threat that European countries will democratically institute Sharia - the alarming demographic projections he relies on assume that women in immigrant communities will go on having lots of children, which is historically unjustified. However, I'm entirely in agreement that we should push for complete secularism, getting religion of all kinds out of law, out of politics, out of education; and being entirely unbending in opposition to religious intolerance of criticism and ridicule - whether it is Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Hindu (there have been prominent examples of all of these in the UK in recent years), or Judaist - see Henry Gee's recent attempts at moral blackmail on this very blog.
On Dianne's proposal@2 - as a non-tetropodophage I think this would be far better justified (if safe) than raising animals to eat. My father, unusually, became a type 1 diabetic in his late 40s, and for most of the remaining 35 years of his life was completely dependant on porcine insulin, as millions of others were, so really this raises no new moral problems. (Insulin from transgenic bacteria is now used - my father had some problems when switched to this, because he didn't get the warning signs of hypoglaecemia he was used to, but in general it's almost certainly better, as the bacteria produce human insulin.)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | July 4, 2008 1:20 PM
Damn, I've heard about some insanely stupid US rules and regulations, but that blood thing just blew my mind.
I have to ask... If you pass all their inane little rules, they don't test your blood?
I mean, how much trouble could it be to take a pint (or however much they normally take) and use a bit of that to test for whatever blood-borne diseases they're worried about? Just leave the stuff in storage 'till the results come back.
If you can't be bothered to do that, then you don't get to complain about shortage of blood.
(Obviously, with all this 'you' stuff, I don't mean anyone personally)
Posted by: Bas | July 4, 2008 1:21 PM
Jesse Helms's kicking it has just made my day so much better. I actually feel like celebrating this 4th!!
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | July 4, 2008 1:23 PM
btb @ 62 I inferred no such scenario, and the conclusive thought was yours alone. If humans somehow became extinct through natural disasters of any kind, or did so by way of nuclear holocaust, would religion survive? Would animals pick up the vacuum left by humans and reestablish religion? Unequivocally no on both accounts. Simple, eh?
Posted by: Holbach | July 4, 2008 1:25 PM
Unanimous support for Diane's proposal we create animals for blood products.
We already doing that. They are of the species Homo sapiens. Very little cost involved for this purpose, with excellent results.
Perhaps what is missing is that we need to treat people like cattle.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | July 4, 2008 1:28 PM
@12 & 20:
I have the same problem about not being allowed to donate blood thanks to living in Britain in the early to mid 80's, despite the fact that I was a vegetarian even then and so never ate the darned cows!! It seems so unfair somehow.
(Sorry, Dianne, I know you didn't want veggies responding!)
Posted by: chgo_liz | July 4, 2008 1:29 PM
Donated blood is tested for HIV,hepatitis, and liver enzymes, at at minimum.
There is no test for "Mad Cow Disease". Not sure how you would create a test for a disease with an unconfirmed cause (as far as I know).
Posted by: R.C. Moore | July 4, 2008 1:32 PM
R.C. in #69:
Either you don't have kids or I'm doing it wrong. My little bundles of preciousness are bloody expensive. :-)
Posted by: Steve in MI | July 4, 2008 1:42 PM
I wrote:
...very little cost involved for this purpose
It costs relatively little to give blood. In fact nothing but some time.
So I may assume you have protected something so valuable with a regular donation of blood or platelets?
Posted by: R.C. Moore | July 4, 2008 1:46 PM
@ No 71 in response to No 66 :
Hard to test for something you dont know is a threat yet,and keep in mind that the tests for HIV ( 1: 1000000) and Hepatitis C ( 1: 50000)are not 100% reliabe either.
As to Pat Condell's latest video,I disagree with Neg regarding the overstating of the danger from Islam and the establishing of Sharia law,im not in the UK,but it would seem from all that I read and watch,that there are already pockets where Sharia law is practised in the UK now,and thats only going to get worse,while at the same time politicians and guys like this Archbishop dude are promoting "religious tolerance" for Islamists.I remember well the discussion over the female medical student or Intern that refused to expose her arms to wash her hands in theatre for religious reasons and almost got away with it.And im 100% with Condell,we have to call bullshit bullshit,and tell these people exactly where to stick their Sharia law and their Islamic rules,if they are attempting to apply them in free secular societies.
Posted by: clinteas | July 4, 2008 1:50 PM
everybody watch this video please:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzen8gCwpZA
Make her a star. Thank you. Have a nice day.
Posted by: 386sx | July 4, 2008 1:54 PM
You have confused reliability with accuracy, but still, what is your point? Blood screening is not perfect? Of course not. But the benefits far out way the risks.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | July 4, 2008 1:56 PM
Regarding platelet donation: I have donated both blood and platelets, and it seems to me that platelet donation feels a little bit worse - even though in theory they are removing "less stuff". Why is this, R.C.? I am just curious.
Posted by: aNt | July 4, 2008 1:57 PM
All the "Diane..." comments make me feel like I'm watching Twin Peaks.
Posted by: Luke O'Dell | July 4, 2008 2:00 PM
Speaking for myself, when the cooled blood is returned, it seems to really affect my joints and sinus cavities, like I have decompressed too quickly after scuba diving.
I am not dehydrated too much, but I still get light headed riding my bike home. Not sure what causes that.
Thanks for the platelet donation. I know is is more of a physical sacrifice than whole blood, but think of it this way: someone lived through one more round of chemotherapy.
Posted by: R.C. Moore | July 4, 2008 2:05 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 4, 2008 2:11 PM
@74
However, when does it become a numbers game? If the shortage of blood has become a big problem, would a less-than-100% accurate test (done 2 or 3 times on a batch) not be preferable? There would be the slight chance of a dirty batch of blood versus the certainty of a shortage.
"Hard to test for something you dont know is a threat yet"
While true, it seems like a bit of a useless argument. No offense intended here, but if we're going to worry about something "we don't know is a threat yet", why do we even bother with donated blood?
Frankly, if I'm bleeding out on some surgery table, I'd rather risk "that something we don't know about yet, but it may be dangerous" than that whole bleeding to death mess.
Posted by: Bas | July 4, 2008 2:12 PM
"Diane, I'm holding in my hands a box of chocolate octopi..."
(Sorry, couldn't resist!)
The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: The MadPanda | July 4, 2008 2:13 PM
Chestnut wins hot dog contest after eat-off
It sounds like brutal competition. Imagine stuffing yourself with 59 hot dogs in ten minutes, ending up tied, then having to face a five dog eat-off.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 4, 2008 2:16 PM
The DVD version of Expelled is now listed on Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/Expelled-No-Intelligence-Allowed/dp/B001BYLFFS/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1215114339&sr=8-4 . Comments are enabled, so if you've seen it feel free to express your opinion. Only two comments so far.
Posted by: Ken McKnight | July 4, 2008 2:17 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | July 4, 2008 2:18 PM
Poor me, this thread on blood donations is going to trigger some vasovagal syncope, I'm such a whimp.
Actually, it's not true, it doesn't work that way, so back to the programme :
Clinteas,
What do you mean exactly with "pockets" ?
I think there is a big stretch between saying that there are a few groups of nutcase fundies who practice it privately, and say that Europeans will democratically allow sharia law.
Does that mean that they will vote for politicians that pass laws that allow it ? With which majority ? The few % muslim fundies in the population ?
Posted by: negentropyeater | July 4, 2008 2:29 PM