Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Of Fingers And Burgers

Here is proof (if any was still needed), that some people are in serious need of a good screw:

The ad, which has been running in major markets since last week, has drawn the ire of television watchdogs, including the Parents Television Council. "This commercial is basically soft-core porn," said Melissa Caldwell, research director for the PTC. "The way she moves, the way she puts her finger in her mouth -- it's very suggestive and very titillating."

You can't make up that kind of comedy! Putting her finger in her mouth is probably as "suggestive" of bulemia as it is anything else. As an aside, I really don't even think Paris Hilton is incredibly hot. What hotness there is, is at least partially negated by her incredible stupidity.



OK so as I write this, it's currently 51 degrees, and it's going up to a whopping 57. That's depressing. Paris might need to cover up a little more in this weather. Don't do it on my account though, miss "heiress (moroness?) of the Hilton fortune".

It looks like the stem cell research bill passed the House handily, garnering dozens of Republican votes along with almost all Democrats. 238-194 was the final tally, a comfortable majority as with public opinion, but it won't be enough for an override. Oh well, guess the abortions won't go for any useful purpose after all. They'll just go out with the rest of the medical waste.

By the way, regarding my post yesterday, it seems many conservatives are incensed at the compromise, because they wanted a fight. Like I said, careful what you wish for. You're better off with what you got, trust me.

13 comments:

Devo said...

I completely agree that Paris is not H.O.T. in the slightest, but I'm happy that she's finally decided to eat a frickin' cheeseburger. Maybe now she'll be fleshy enough to garner a "hot" rating. As it stands, though, she's just pointy and scary.

Dumb, though? I don't buy it. That's an act, and we're eating it up like Jello puddin' pops. To get the kind of sensational media attention that she gets on the regular, she can't be all THAT dumb. Besides, releasing a steamy (if boring and unimaginative) sex tape of yourself mere weeks before your big television debut is guaranteed publicity. Which equals guaranteed bucks. She ain't nearly as dumb as she wants us to believe.

As for "abortions" getting thrown away... I was under the impression that the new bill proposed using extra embryos left over from in vitro fertilization that would not develop normally anyway, not abortions. Using abortions would just be a double smack in the face to all the Mega Christians who want to kill aborters (right to life is so ironic sometimes) and who happen to compose an insane constituency of our House of Reps. Sad to say, but millenials have been multiplying for decades now. I commented on a post in another blog stating my opinion of that phenomenon. But that's another rant for another day...

Erik Grow said...

Well to be fair there are not many "kill doctors that perform abortions" types, though they do certainly exist, along with a much larger, but still smallish number of people that sympathize with them.

Actually, I had nearly forgotten about that angle devo, in-vitro extras! Yes, that is an even better case for a pragmatic solution. As we have seen though, this is not based on what solutions would have what net effect. It's based on ideology, period, and there is really no reasoning with them.

Devo said...

Yep, you seem to be completely right. And the "liberals" are even PRESENTING the bill from the in-vitro angle!!! Amazing. I'd imagine the religious consservatives oppose in vitro fertilization though. If they do, I want to see one of them tell a child that their life is wrong and that God hates them because their parents did not concieve in the God-sanctioned way. THAT oughtta be a fun conversation!

Anyway, religion can be a wonderful thing, but it seems it's really taken a turn for the crazier in this, our wonderful country...

Erik Grow said...

Some Catholics are against even in-vitro fertilization, but many Catholics and most Protestants are not against it.

nicnerd said...

Devo, you must not be very old. Ini-vitro fertilization was indeed quite controversil and some people did in fact oppose it because it is unnatural. I am somewhat biased on the subject because I went through the infertility nightmare while trying to conceive my first child. In the end, the conception was natural, but we were very close to trying in-vitro. Obviously, I do not oppose it, but some folks did. I do find it freaky and unnatural and had many debates with my then wife about it.

Paris Hilton is not attractive IMHO. I am not sure what the flap regarding the advertisement is about, but I presume it is suggestive, like much of the crap on television. It does bug me that this stuff is on television, but I take a different approach, I simply do not watch television. For many years I did not even have television in the house. It is a very rare day indeed that I allow my children to watch television. It is even more rare for me to watch it. The last that time I watched anything on television was the Super Bowl at Erik's house. I find it full of Madison Avenue flash, smut, violence, and simply nothing of an redeeming value. I prefer to read a book, currently I am reading Tim LaHaye.

Hector Vex said...

I don't buy hamburgers from WHORES like Paris. I prefer to buy them from guys in rubber masks and crowns...

As for her being dumb, no, she's not dumb. She's just mentally lazy. If that makes sense.

Erik Grow said...

Actually Hector, I know exactly what you mean. When you're rich, you can afford to be mentally lazy, even when you are actually smart enough to do more. Paris *may* fall under that category.

Yes, nicnerd was also watching the Super Bowl at my house during the Janet Jackson incident last year. Hehheh. I've said this before Dan, but when you start talking about smut, I forget that you are actually 30 and not 60! It's just a swimsuit. Hehheh.

nicnerd said...

I think I was referring more to her porn video, my friend. I like women as much as the next guy, but I don't need to see sex 24/7 on the tube. Unlike some other folks, I don't feel the need to protest about it. I think that it is terrible, I am ashamed of where we are as a society. I choose to not endorse it, let others do so if they choose. I just do not find television interllectually stimulating, or even entertaining for that matter.

Erik Grow said...

Ohhh, I never saw that actually. That certainly wasn't on TV! Maybe I should go find it though.

Devo said...

You're right, nicnerd, I'm not that old. 26, in fact. I know that in vitro fertilization is a fairly new process, but I never really heard any serious uproar about it. However, if it's a widely accepted practice NOW, and they do in fact end up with "extra" non-viable embryos that are either unable to develop normally or will be terminated, then perhaps a more "ecologically sound" method of disposal ending in a vastly beneficial resource for stem cells... I dunno, seems pretty ethical and moral to me. However, I don't know all that much about the specifics of either that type of fertility practice or stem cell research.

One thing I DO know is that morality and ethics are never hard and fast, unchanging, universal rules that are one hundred percent beyond growth. Some ARE, some are not so much. As societies grow, outside pressures force mores and folkways to grow too. Who knows? If we don't start managing our explosive population growth, perhaps cannibalism will one day be de rigeur rather than anathema? Heck, a few thousand years ago it was considered morally reprehensible for ANY member of society to cut meat on the same surface as they cut vegetables. Ever. That's cuz soap wasn't invented yet.

Now before you get your panties all in a bundle, I'm not advocating a purely relativist moral code with NO absolutes and a "do what you want" atmosphere. I'm merely stating that the inability to adapt often does not favor the furthering of outdated values.

Janet Jackson's boob was gross. All pancakey and flat. She needs a bit of the ol' silicone jammed up in there. Lift 'em up a hair.

Oh, and Erik, Paris Hilton's "video" was so incredibly bad, I suggest not watching it even if you can get it for free. It's just bad. bad bad bad.

nicnerd said...

Devo, your debate style is rather disrespectful. I do not wear panties, Erik will vouch for me when I say nobody would want to see me in panties.

"outdated values"

I missed the memo on when killing babies became acceptable. Statements like this and "extra embyros" represent a callous disregard for the sactity of life. Human spare parts sound ethical to you? Oh my!

Hector Vex said...

nicnerd - where did you get killing babies out of what Devo said? He clearly stated that we should find a better resource for non-viable embryos (there are such things) than just tossing them because it's "morally" wrong. It's essentially human waste. So why not use it for the purpose of science and research? Human spare parts are ethical. Think about it - kidneys, livers, hearts are transplanted every day. Skin from other people flab is used to fix burn victims skin. Fat is moved from the ass to the lips. Blood is transfused... lungs are transferred...

That's human spare parts. Are you telling me that's not ethcial?

And those are viable, living parts. Stem cells are not. Stem cells are leftovers, possible embryos that never could be.

You so easily associate that with killing babies. Your crude and reactionary association is quite ignorant actually. There is no killing of any babies, and you know that. If a woman has an abortion, the baby is dead. That's her choice. So why flush that puddle of embryonic goo down the toilet when it could be used to find a cure for disease or whatever? It's already waste, why waste it?

Devo said...

I wasn't necessarily accusing you of "wearing panties", though I could see how you might think that. Rest assured, it's merely a idiom, "an expression whose meaning cannot be inferred from the meanings of the words that make it up" (thanks, Princeton, from whom I snatched that definition of "idiom"). "Getting one's panties in a bundle" refers to "getting upset". I did not intend to offend.

Now, on to discussion. "Extra human parts." I've read articles where people can be medically induced to grow "extra parts" on various appendages. A Russian boy was born with an abnormally small penis, and through the miracle of modern science, was able to grow a new one on his arm so he could lead a "normal" love life. The doctors could then sever it from his arm and reattach it to where it belongs. I see THIS as an ethical example of "extra human parts". And how about umbilical cords? They seem kind of "extra" to me, once mom and kid are done using 'em. Unless, of course, you propose that the mother eats them, as most other mammals do. If not, however, they may very well be a rich source of potential stem cell propagation.

Extra Penis On Arm:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/10/wruss10.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/10/ixworld.html

However, I imagine that your question refers more precisely to my example of fertility clinics and "extra" embryos. If these embryos are non-viable, but usable for stem cell propagation, then I fail to see how using them for such an end could possibly be considered unethical.

Now, on to what is considered "human life". I don't want to sound callous, but apparently I already do. Fine. Let's keep this discussion well within historical context. Thousands of years ago, people though that the center of human Being was the heart. That's where they thought all the thinking and feeling went on. Fast forward a little while, and you've got people advocating insulin shock therapy or electroconvulsive therapy to "treat" severe psychological problems. Somewhere in between these phenomena we've got therapeutic bleeding, phrenology, the "traveling uterus" theory of "hysteria", and trepanation. All of these things were once legitimately held beliefs in human physiology. I'm not pretending to understand the exact point where human life "begins" but I AM saying that my understanding of the human animal is NOT so arrogant as to demand universal acceptance at the expense of scientific objectivism.

Finally, on to your allegations of disrespectfulness. As I said earlier, the phrase I used was not a personal insult, but merely an idiom that I erroneously assumed was pretty much universally familiar to most Americans. Your assumptions about my age, however, WERE personal, unfounded and presumptuous.