Last week, I was attacked by liberals who wanted to selfishly live beyond the time that had been allotted to them by the almighty. This week, I have been vindicated by one of the most liberal news outlets possible, MSNBC.

The MSNBC article says that whether though genetic manipulation or caloric limits, extending one's live can be dangerous to society. The MSNBC article theorizes about the implications of human beings doubling their lifestyles, and finds the practice morally wanting. Unlike the advantages of the neocon agenda, scientists do not think that extended lifespan will solve world hunger, prevent horrible diseases, or bring about world peace.

Amongst the first casualties of this double lifespan is the sacred institution of marriage. Scientists are always out to prove that they know better than God. So their contention is that human being will not be able to spend until death do us part if that amounts to 100+ years. They go as far to say that term marriages will become popular.

Now if there's one thing I don't go in for it's this Da Vinci Code/Robert Heinlein idea that term marriages are healthy. Remember, term marriages were the final straw in convincing the English that the Irish were incapable of self rule. And to any liberals who don't know how that conflict turned out, you may have to change your definition of quagmire.

So in conclusion, living longer will only bring us disease, famine, scientific atheism, loveless marriages and unwinnable wars. Is that really a world worth living longer in?

Dr. Ryan Maynard, Editor, NewsBlog 5000

posted by NewsBlog 5000  # Monday, May 22, 2006