George W. Bush's qualifications to be President

I voiced my op on B last time around but since then the war came on and the ordanance"" cited in the book EVERYTHING AND MORE has not been used here so there is nothing yet but the propaganda en mass of only a change in order from nuclear, chemical and biologial to biologial, chemical and nuclear. Neither of which saying said anything any cleaer c/e wise. It would be possible to talk about stem cells however but my next post does away with this in principle (as to absolutes/origins) as you might or might not be able to follow (it is 8 point type of 4 pages length) so I am trying to shorten it a bit or two.

Not exactly.I had thought before the last cycle that Bush &might& have been able to get rid of some of the things we talk about here on EVC but instead there has been an INCREASE in topic posting ability. This is a good thing for us evcers but not so much for those who first encounter the problem first hand. I was over at True Seekers when 911 happened and in fact I came up with the saying "Ontogeny recapitulates Phylogeny because Browninan Motion is not reciprocally(mutually) independent of gravity fall". I am only now getting around to writing about the 'mutual' part but I really dont think I have gotten as much acrossed to you all as I know I have to myself so....as far as "qualifications" go.... I saw the pic of the two applicants at YALE and I am just as disgusted with the both guys as I am with all the new CORNELL students that arrived this past week- The whole "debate" is a problem but I do think he is "qualified" as far as Chomsky's 20% of manufactured consent goes. And I did think that it was OK to "ban" stem cell research. I had a bit of experinece with sterile techinque and in vitro fertilization of cow eggs with attempts in the science of reimplantation and the BASIC SCIENCE is sooooooooooooooo far back here that while I have not looked in detail at the issue of adult vs juvenile stem cells, but there needs to be SOME kind of RESTRAINT (I had hoped for a issue on evolution and not cell physiology) to prevent the schools from just turning out the B's & K's of the world without dealing with the things THAT ARE NOT PROBLEMS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS but instead ARE the LEGACY of the 60s generation. The relation of humanites to sciences did not solve it so it happens politically instead instead in my day I was hospitalized over all this. I dont think THAT will happen today but all we were doing in cloning was to RANDOMLY mix as many cells as we could get from dead cow ovaries with as many chemicals as we could find on the shelf and see if MORE embryos made it past the Blastula.I dont know that stem cell research is MUCH more advanced than this. I have theoretical reasons to doubt some of the claims but I am still trying to factor in Gladyshev's position of being FOR them.I know I have rambled. Yes I will likely vote for GW but having located the "delusion" I really wish my last twenty years were done over again. Who knows, If I was able to "turn back time" I would be a Democrat I almost signed up as then. It didnt happen that way for me however.

There was also "some" indication that mouse cells could pass the cell block stage where sheep could not but this did not work eventually with cows. This "some" is something like the difference between a Freshaman and Sophmore not something to differentiate US Presidential Candidates. If biologists KNEW how cells divide (as Croizat suggested) and Georgi has proposed works mechnically then we might be in a position to make some better policy. But what exactly did they find out? Was it any better than that some chemicals (growth homones) work better in mice than lambs? Do they know how to know ahead of time which cells to pick up that will do the best of the better in terms of dividing? I never googled it so I dont know. Regardless it is not the issue I had hoped GW would have had to have answered aka e---/c but that also did not happen in our time so far. Perhaps the next generation will finally get this chance.