Slashdot Mirror
Politicizing Science
An anonymous reader writes: "The Washington Post has a story about the government's efforts to remove independent scientific review boards and replace them with officials that match the views of administration. This includes careless elimination of life-saving safety regulations in gene-therapy to help specific business interests and hiring based on political views such as stem cell research and cloning. Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
What is the point of power if you can't wield it from time to time. If we don't like the way the education system is being run we vote em out of office and get someone new.
Much better than an unelected quango situation where the public can do nothing!
michael can post whatever he wants... case in point.
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
Of course, research has to be political, even many ppl here on slashdot won't agree.
By political, you mean for example the fact that some things are not agreeable to work on such as human cloning.
And I think the budget decisions on how much money is granted to a research branch is political
The main question, here, is how much should it be politized and if you trust yourpoliticians.
The right way to fix the problem may not be to give them less power, but to have politicians you trust.
I am a European, but is the real question : do you trust Bush government on defining Science ? Would you trust Nader ?
But in the long run, it will make no difference at all. Think about it, will the public really trust these stacked "review" boards anyway. Appearently, the general public is mostly ignorant of their existence to begin with. People are beginning to see that everything is just "spin". Anyone with enough money/power/influence can produce any study to show anything, this is hardly new, and I doubt anyone is really fooled. They can destroy the legitimacy of their own processes as much as they want, but ultimately the government "of the people, by the people, for the people" will answer to the people, if they piss everyone off.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
Its all fine and dandy to say you can vote out the Government if you don't like the way they're running things... but with the truth being that governments are often the puppets of the large corporate lobby groups and their funding, having the governments interests running scientific research means that your getting McDonald's (fast food), Phillip Morris (tobacco / entertainment) Pfiezer (drugs) interests being served by the scientific community. Not science for the sake of science. Funnily enough these large corporations aren't interested in curing cancer, but rather selling product and making a profit. These prime directives interfere and oppose the Scientific communities general urges to do research for the good of society.
Fast answer is Bzzzt. WRONG
Then it isn't science. Review by independent scientists is a fundamental part of science. Unfortunately the vast majority of people have no understanding of science or its principles.
"It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it." --George W. Bush, May 5, 2000
With statements like that from their leader I'd hate to see what US govt officials have to say about embryo cell research and cloning...
- you are sofa king weed todd did
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
What do you mean or? The answer to both question is yes. It is wrong, but whose in power do what they want.
The danish government did a similiar thing back in the spring, they even admited openly they have cut down on review-boards that they considered too "lefty". This is the problem with government with a too stable majority; noone to oppose them.
This is pretty scary. Perhaps the illustrious President Bush should do a little reading about one Mr. Vannevar Bush. His dream of a government with a commitment to basic and practical sciences has slowly, with many fluctuations, become closer to a reality. More actions like this to destroy government research would put us back 30 years.
4 5.htm
Riding the wave of unprecedented collaboration between academia and the government during World War II, Vannevar Bush released a well-known (but not well read) report, Science: The Endless Frontier, outlining a new role for the federal government in research. He foresaw the need to replace the minimal government science policy with one that would supply the US with human resources for science, a research infrastructure between Government and universities, and a balance between fundamental research and national goals.
Vannevar helped set science policy in the US that has lasted for 60 years, and this administration's actions flies right in the face of that policy. Maybe Gdub should go do some reading:
http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush19
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?"
Hmm.. I sense a rhetorical question ... ;) Yes, those elected get to do what they want with tax money. You like it, when they're dems, so don't pretend to oppose it generally.
Call me when they start pushing aquired heredity or a flat earth. Until then, yawn.
Admittedly, independent review boards are not perfect - they can & will be influenced, as with any other real world review system (juries, anyone?).
This type of board-packing, however, is completely shameless, and unfortunately is also perfectly consistent with the administration's "top-down" approach to everything.
When Bush & Co. ran for office, they were forthright about wanting to run the country like a business; however, everyone thought he meant "efficiently, with less waste", not "as a way to make money for the people at the top as quickly as possible, ignoring the actual accepted methods of governance, including listening to anyone, whenever possible".
I'm actually beginning to miss Clinton's disingenuity; he at least had the shame to try and cover up his malfeasance and two-facedness.
I guess we can only hope that Bush + Cheney are infected with one of the diseases that gov't stem cell research was working on. Ah...
As if the committees weren't biased before.
'"It's very frustrating," said Paul Gelsinger, who became a member of the committee after his son, Jesse, died in a Pennsylania gene therapy experiment that was later found to have broken basic saftey rules.'
Bet that guy's impartial.
Um, the article actually talks about regulation of genetic tests...
Correct me if I'm wrong but if an administration's chance of being re-elected is mainly made up of the amount of contributions they get from companies, isn't it to be expected that the administration will make policies favoring these companies. This is not a political statement, just an observation.
beauty is only a light switch away
You seem to be ceasing to be a democratic nation and are becoming a corporate oligarchy (and before anybody accuses me of being anti-American, the same thing is happening here in the UK).
It would be more honest if you renamed members of the administration, Fritz Hollings already seems to be nominated as the senator for Disney, presumably now you need senators for Xerox, Pfizer, General Motors etc. This would give people an idea of who these people really represent.
I didn't vote for them, it's not my goverment. I wish mine was that consistent about where they do stand. You could say that the governing body believes in something..!
In any case, if the people don't like this kind of thing, there's always the next election. Someone want those committees run themselves free of any external pressure whatsoever? Jack Valenti anyone?
OK, so science is politicized. /.erati improve the situation?
How can the
Publicize blatant non-thought and pure pursuit of the almighty buck?
Leads to the next question: how can we stimulate thought in some depressingly thoughtless heads?
Love my father, but the threat of a critical thought gives him hot flashes, triggering a reach for another beer.
Do what you can, I guess...
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Ever since the first rich landowner sponsored a pet scientist to work on projects there has been a political and social element to science.
Science is a powerful political and social tool. Especially in times of crisis and war. Look at the amount of science that was funded/pushed aside during the second world war. Or even the politicising of areas such as healthcare research and genetics.
Back in teh day it was the church that used science, not it's governments.
Rivals provides a great insight into this (michael white) as does chomsky and koestler in more depth.
Or even the work that has gone into SSK and contestation and dissemination of controversial or sensitive knowledge and research.
Working for the (other) man
Bush Junior and Bush Senior were relaxing on a Florida beach one summer afternoon..
"Look dad", says Junior, "a big boat"..
"That's not a boat son, that's a yacht.."
"Huh, how do you write that father ?"
Small pause, ... "No, you're right son, that's a boat."
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
A proper scientific report should clearly explain what and how the new information was found.
All the pros and cons should NOT be included.
For instance a report on the use of the "Morning After Pill" shouldn't contain the entire abortion arguement. It should as clearly and consisely as possible explain what new information was found.
Did they trust Clinton's stacked boards? The Dems get a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Tree Huggers, so they put Tree Huggers on the boards. The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards. No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Yes, USA is getting dangerously close to becoming a police state. The "War Against Terror" has sped up this process dramatically, it seems.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Interestly enough, there is a Guardian inteview with Christoper Reeve in todays issue in which he makes a number of passionate and obviously, very personal, points about stem cell research and the need for separation between Church and State. The interview can be read here
3 585,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/genes/article/0,2763,79
One of many excellent quotes is,
"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"
It's an interesting read, not only for his political comments but also to see his determination to fight back when many would have given up.
When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant...
Quot erat demostratum.
When referring to governments, the classical definition of oligarchy, as given for example by Aristotle, is of government by a few, usually the rich, for their own advantage. It is compared with both aristocracy, which is defined as government by a few chosen for their virtue and ruling for the general good, and various forms of democracy, or rule by the people. In practice, however, almost all governments, whatever their form, are run by a small minority of members. From this perspective, the major distinction between oligarchy and democracy is that in the latter, the elites compete with each other, gaining power by winning public support. The extent and type of barriers impeding those who attempt to join this ruling group is also significant...
Quot erat demostratum.
~~~Please pass the salt, I hate unsalted MD5s
It is unfortunate, again IMHO, that we don't first elect the direction for the country to take (what are our current priorities/needs) and then elect someone to do the job that we have demanded. Instead, we must put up with choosing the candidate least incompatible with the views of the individual voter and in the end having those views obscured.
Whoops! Contradicting yourself there ol' son. /.
EITHER the truth is just not clear OR scientists can reasonably be chosen based on your already knowing what conclusion they'll reach.
Can't have both.
Let's face it folks, this administration is fundamentally oposed to public review of *any* issue.
Bottom line, we leave them there long enough and they'll start going after
Don't believe me? Look at what happened to the SPIE (Society of PhotoInstrumentation Engineers) under Reagan. They started being threatened with arrest on treason charges if they released research that contradicted SDI (The "Star Wars" program).
As somebody who worked on a few SDI proposals and was doing fiber optics work at the time (mostly for defense applications) I don't intend to be quiet this time.
So, are you ready to "hang separately"?
Rustin H. Wright
Founder, Reed and Wright
F.O. patent 4,808,204 (drawings done on a Mac Plus!)
Data is the lever, rigor the fulcrum, brains the force that drives it all.
In a very timely interview Christopher Reeves blames a breakdown in the separation between church and state, namely Bushes dependence and appreciation of right wing Christian groups, for him still being paralysed
"We've had a severe violation of the separation of church and state in the handling of what to do about this emerging technology. Imagine if developing a polio vaccine had been a controversial issue," he says. "There are religious groups - the Jehovah's Witnesses, I believe - who think it's a sin to have a blood transfusion. What if the president for some reason decided to listen to them, instead of to the Catholics, which is the group he really listens to in making his decisions about embryonic stem cell research? Where would we be with blood transfusions?"
Whether it's right for the separation of the church from deciding what's right and wrong in science experiments could be argued till the cows come home. What's not arguable is that any intrusion of politics into scientific debate won't be to the benefit of some special interest group.
A third committee, which had been assessing the effects of environmental chemicals on human health, has been told that nearly all of its members will be replaced -- in several instances by people with links to the industries that make those chemicals. One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Ugh, can you imagine that scientist being totally objective ? At the moment US politics is completely dominated by companies trying to screw as much as they can out of the world. Putting them in charge of any advisory committees that help determine federal policy is going to be good for business and terrible for the US public.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Not.
-Kevin
Quoting Washington Post:
At least the Americans seem to be half-aware of what's happening. As a European with an interest in the protection of privacy and human rights I am appalled at how little my fellow EU citizens seem to know about the erosion of their rights and how readily they accept it when they're told about the recent changes. European media doesn't really criticize this process because they can either be silenced (even big news broadcasters like BBC have been under heavy pressure from the UK Home Office) or they censor themselves in fear of appearing sensationalist.
The owls are not what they seem
Firstly, I'm not a Christian, and I have no problems with stem cell research. However, I think that any debate should include those who have strong moral views on the subject. Some science should be reviewed on it's ethics.
However, what annoys me, is when people with a moral arguement try to strengthen it but distorting science (such as playing up adult stem cells (which are good, but aren't all that)).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Politics is just the manifestation of your philosophy and morality. It's not possible to separate this from science, or anything else.
Is it OK to experiment on adults? Children? Babies? Pre-babies? Why or why not? At some point, your religion, philosophy, morality, whatever, have to become involved. There is no other basis for making such decisions. The Pete Singer's of the world are at least honest (if repulsive) in admitting what their bias is.
"Let's just put our differences aside and do what I think is right", seems to be the battle cry here. Nope, sorry. We settle these differences through politics. At least in the western world we do it at the ballot box, ultimately.
In the last few years there have been a number of "government" scientists discovered planting evidence that "proves" endangered species existed in certain areas in order to prevent logging or housing development, etc.
Do you have any sources for this?
As far as I'm concerned, any scientist or engineer working for the government is either actively or unwittingly pursuing a political agenda. And the most conspicuosly egregious example of this has been the agenda of the leftist religion of environmentalism.
While environmental science has more than it's fair share of well meaning cranks, it does have a solid scientific base. Of course this allows the lobby groups to attack the cranks, and then via. guilt by association slander the scientists, while meanwhile peddling their own peusdoscience (The skeptical environmentalist, is perhaps the most recent example).
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
Christopher Reeve has been mentioned several times lately here.
I think it would be worth while to set up an interview on Slashdot with him.
Any one else agree?
Independent boards staffed by volunteers are often biased as well. Boards dealing with medical science are often staffed with self-styled "medical ethicists", and like to propose bans on stem cell research, genetics research, and so on. Proponents of such research usually cannot be bothered to volunteer for such boards. Similarly, environmental boards are staffed mostly with scientists who are also environmentalists. In my country at least, these boards make biased and rather conservative recommendations, conservative being "opposed to new things" rather than "right wing".
Funny, over here the tendency is to ban things, while it seems these boards in the US seem to swing the other way and take a rather laissez-faire attitude. You'd expect real scientists to choose to research, then regulate.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
The interesting thing is that this belief is actually a hangover from the Soviet era when the Communist government believed that it could reconstruct reality to suit dogma.
Of course, this belief fouled up Soviet science. Now it looks like Bush and co. are going to repeat the process. Instead of communist apparatchiks deciding what is science and what isn't, capitalist apparatchiks do the job.
Forget the separation of Church and State for a moment, anyone sufficiently badly educated or stupid to believe Creationism for a microsecond shouldn't be left in charge of a potato chip, let alone a school board or a government.
Ah well, I don't expect European bioresearch and pharmaceuticals companies are too worried. The day Bush needs a stem cell based treatment for Alzheimer's, or whatever, he'll have a sudden conversion to science.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Did this post have a point aside from bashing the President?
Of course they are. To suggest that scientists have somehow transcended above the human experience is ludicrous. EVERY scientist has an agenda.
Case in point, when Carl Sagan says that there are probably billions of other life forms in the universe, is this based on scientific analysis of the factual evidence, or because of an eager, heartfelt desire to prove their existence?
I hope an editor sees this. Reeve has a very personal view on the use of advances such as stem cell research. However, I would also like to hear his answers to the nay-sayers that have messed his chances up.
as to the real intent of the post. Either trolling or deliberately flame
baiting. Your response is dead on though. Im so tired of people who believe
that because they are uninformed enough to make an objective decision that
all scientists are. Yes scientists are human and have biases but the better
ones try real hard to put those biases aside when doing research. The ones
like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that
favours their views is just as good as any.
These independent review boards were not doing peer review of other scinetists work they are little think tanks that give policy advice. They were never (if such a thing is even possible when giving policy advice) giving their advice from some pure knowledge-for-it's-own-sake scientific stance. They have always been staffed by scientists and academicians and LAWYERS who are activists or politically biased.
The only thing happening here is that a group of (who are very influential because they can set the initial terms of debate) policy advisors that agreed with the views of the last administration is being replaced by a group of policy advisors that agree with the views of the current administration.
One new member is a California scientist who helped defend Pacific Gas and Electric Co. against the real-life Erin Brockovich.
Well, OK then. If Holywood has peer reviewed his work and found it wanting he MUST be a bad scientist.
The GOP gets a lot of $$$$ and votes from the Fundies, so they put Fundies on the Boards.
Actually it is the Fundies who are upset because the bio-research board has been stacked with bio-research company scientists.
He is not the current president. That he had some flaws does not give
the current President the right to do stupid things. The line of logic
"They all do it" is flawed and doesn't address the real problem. If
a conservative litmus test is required before appointment to a review
board that should be objective, why bother to have the board at all.
Clinton is not the current president and can't run again so brining
him into this debate is pointless. Either the current administrations
policy is good or it is, as I believe, flawed. That is the issue.
Pedro Morales?
Cat
Well, it would make sense that if you want total control you remove the existance/relevance of a Free and Independant Academia.
All aboard the Totalitarianism Train, next stop: Fascism! TOOT! TOOT!
Gee, could you state this in a more biased, loaded and patronizing manner? Hell, why not just make up my mind for me, and relieve me of the burden of thinking.
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
Except that it's total bullshit. He's not throwing grenades into boxes of kittens. He's trying to help people recover from debilitating injuries and diseases. And the church is trying to prevent it in order to further their political campaign against abortion.
If the church was really after humanitarian causes rather than trying to make sure new disciples spawn as quickly as possible, they would have objected to embryo-juggling in fertility clinics, which had been going on for years before stem cell research got big. But no, they only got the ball rolling now. So transparent.
There is nothing inhumane about embryonic stem cell research, and everything inhuman about hindering it. Similarly with abortion - the church doesn't care about suffering and crime and the ruined lives of young mothers, rape victims, etc. They care about pumping out more believers. And our parents might remember from a few years ago when the church was still campaigning against birth control.
They don't campaign for things for fun, and if they were great moral crusaders, we'd see church-backed demonstrations and "nuremberg files" websites on the environment or corruption in government or colonialism, or any of the other big causes of the poverty they make such a show of "ministering to." Of course, if ministering happens to be recruitment too, hey, who was using those poor people anyway?
Let me spell it out for you.
80% of the world's Catholics live below the poverty line.
Catholicism is a disease that preys on the poor and ignorant.
Or perhaps it's more like a paraiste. It attaches, sucks out money and work, changes behavior to further propagate itself... "You wouldn't like the world without the church." I'll take it any day of the week, and twice on Sunday.
Some time from now, when we can look back on it with the illumination of hindsight, the anti-birth-control,anti-stem-cell,anti-abortion campaign will look as evil and cynical as the crusades, or their unwillingness to institute zero-tolerance against pedophile priests, or the church's policital struggles to control Europe (still being fought today, for instance, in Ireland!). Especially on the eve of a Malthusian population nightmare.
What's that, you ask? There are over six billion people on earth. The last billion of which were born in the last ten years. Do the math. Or maybe you went to catholic school, and they taught you some of that new math?
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
Question: how do you vote? It's a serious, not a rhetorical, question.
I agree with you... up to a point. It's hard to ignore the steady increase in the amount of money being spent on elections and the consistent pulling of the teeth of any attempt at campaign finance reform (golly, remember way back before the "world changed..." you know, back before everybody learned that a)airplanes are flammable, b)tall buildings are easy targets, and c)there are a lot of people out there that really hate the USA? Remember way back before that, when we Americans were all so oblivious to the danger of somebody flying an airplane into us that we were actually getting a little tiny bit worked up about "campaign finance reform" for a little tiny while? Vaguely? No? Yeah, well it was a long time ago...)
Despite this almost everyone I know falls to the thinking that "if I don't vote for corporate sponsored candidate X corporate sponsored candidate Y will get eleceted... and that will mean the end of the world!" When I tell my friends that I've lost the belief that there is a substantive difference between DFLer and GOPers, (a SUBSTANTIVE difference, mind you... yes they have very different rhetorical platforms and will tend to split on certain key issues... abortion, for example...) they ger VERY ANGRY.
I had "liberal" friends who got VERY ANGRY at me for voting for Ralph Nader in the presdidential election... despite the fact that it was a sheerly strategic vote, to help increase minor party power in Minnesota, because I KNEW Gore would carry MN (freaking Mondale carried MN, okay? Dukakis carried MN) and so my vote had no impact on the outcome of the national election. They got ANGRY at me.
So, how do you vote? I vote strategically. Because the sad fact is that I can't find anyone to vote for that I think has a snowball's chance of getting elected who I would actually like to see elected. To be honest, most of the people I vote for would probably be lousy or at best inneffectual if they actually got elected. But at least a little tiny bit of federal cash gets put somewhere besides the epic battle of "Business as Usual" versus "Same Old Same Old."
I look at Bush the younger, who took his "he believes in the Federal government and I believe in the People" rhetoric to Washington and has proceeded to orchestrate the biggest Federal land grab for power at the expense of individual liberty (read the stinking P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, okay... and remember that only 1 Democrat, 1 Independent and Three conservative Republicans had the grapes to stand up for the constitution in the face of terrorism...) that has occurred in my lifetime. Like smaller government? Well you'll like the huge consolidation of federal power that will occur under the flag of "Homeland Security" (would someone please tell me when I started living in a homeland? I was certain I lived in nation...)
Or I look at Clinton and the Democrats... As dirty on Enron as any Republican, soft as warm butter on the environment, civil liberty, corporate reform. I love the way my friends who enjoy the occasional "mind altered" experience vote Dem because Democrats are Liberal and Liberals are more "Enlightened" in drug law reform... despite the fact that the most draconian anti-drug legislation of the last two decades was written by Democrats in a mad dash to prove they were "tough on crime..." and despite the fact that Bill Clinton signed legislation that, had it been in effect when his OWN BROTHER was convicted for cocaine posession, would have put him away for TWENTY YEARS. Jeezus, what the hell kind of people ARE these?
So, I continue to vote as strategically as I can to facilitate some foothold of independent action agains the corporate-sponsored "divide and conquer" strategy which has so effectively dismantled the relevance of representative democracy in this nation. Honestly, I'd like a better option, I really would. How do YOU vote?
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Based on actual science, adult stem cells show results, and as great potential as the embryonic cells that this debate is stuck on.
Let's focus our attention on the cells that are show practical application.
Let's not distort science to show that "embryonic cells are the only hope," either.
Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
BTW - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
No matter which party is in power, it's a foolish to assume that a goverment "science review" board is unbiased. They exist to endorse administration policy, not to give unbiased advice
And it's peoples willingness to accept this, that is the real problem.
Nobody is 'accepting' anything. It's his board, and he can do with it as he pleases. If you don't like their conclusions, feel free to start your own board and publish whatever results you like. Everyone gets to make their own decisions here.
I'ts important to recognize that the only authority these boards have is advising the president -- they don't make policy, they don't enforce policy, they don't legislate and their conclusions aren't binding.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
An AC wrote:
> the majority still fortunately believes that women
> should have absolute control over their own body.
With the exception of rape and seriously male dominated countries, we women have absolute control over our bodies when we decide whether or not to have sex. Get in touch with your inner backbone and say no if you don't want to risk getting pregnant. Any other form of birth control is not 100% certain.
In the case of rape, yes, a woman should not be burdened with a child that she is not equipped to raise and who will constantly reminder her of the worst time of her life. Equally important, an innocent child should not have to be raised by a mother that would hate him or her for something that was not their fault. I still don't see why medicine doesn't get off its high horse and find a way to transplant the baby into the womb of someone who can't conceive a child (her problem or her hubby's), but still has a fully functioning womb. That way the kid would have a loving mother, a woman who couldn't have a baby would have her dream come true, and the woman who was raped could be free to pick up the pieces of her life and heal. They do a procedure like this for certain kinds of horses all the time.
> Even if that 10% rate of cancer is real and not
> some malicious FUD interpretation of statistics
> by a Pro Life nut "scientist" the women should
> still have the right to abort.
Don't laugh at breast cancer. My mother died of it. It was horrible!
Of course, by the time she died it wasn't just breast cancer. It got into her bones, permanently broke her leg, got into her skull above, and probably in, her brain, and generally all over everywhere in the last day or two of her life.
Don't laugh at it. Don't increase your risk for it. Get treatment immediately if you get it, and please, toss your stupid pride out the window. My mother waited 18 months because of her stupid pride (she was *so* strong) before telling me or getting treatment. It was so terrible watching her die of it.
"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)
I disagree with this assessment. In order for most people to actually get upset about this something will have to affect them in a directly negative way. And I don't think that's going to happen (at least not in the short term). The problems introduced by these biased review boards will be so latent as to be unnoticed in the relevant future (i.e. more global warming won't mean the ice caps melt next year). By the time people start to see negative effects it will be way too late and they won't even connect them with this policy.
The whole point of this is to silence the voices of those who offer opposing views. If the public only gets one side of the story, it won't occur to most of them that there's another side.
Sorry, already been debunked. Try again.
sed 's/In Soviet Russia/In NSA America/g' < yakov-smirnoff-jokes.txt
Female Prison Rape in NY
Life might be a lot simpler if you believe something like this, but the fact is that in our system of goverment, we elect people to act as our representives in government.
Since democracy = government by the popular, to run for office, one needs to use the media. Since our democracy is capitalist and media outlets are not state-run, this costs money.
Corporations understand this. If MegaCorp X* (* insert your particular corporate villain here, or labor group, or environmental group, or any lobby or PAC) likes the policies one endorses, they will give that individual (their campaign, their party, etc) money to access the media outlets more successfully.
Do I think that there is some implied quid pro quo involved? Certainly in some cases at least, it would be naive to believe otherwise. Do I think Greenpeace hands Barbara Boxer a check for $50,000 and says "now you must vote to do what we say!" Hardly. To believe THAT is equally naive. Entities support the politicians that align with their interests. Companies that give to BOTH sides are simply arming themselves for both eventualities, and hoping that the implied quid pro quo is enough to maintain that politician's favor.
The question is, what do you think is so much better - a totally state-controlled scientific system in which companies have NO say in what gets research funding/focus? Or perhaps a totally free-market system where the government gives NO money for scientific research, and companies/foundations can follow whatever they want.
Is our system perfect? No. But the statement "Government is owned by Corporate America" is as banal as it is naive.
-Styopa
Capitalism is an *economic system*, not a political one. You can be capitalist and still have any political system in place.
Excuse me, but I am the Creator of the Universe. Some people do consider me a borderline-psychopathic Thug - I admit, encouraging competing religions was a bad idea, not to mention the creation of trolls - what was I thinking? But no-one in their right minds would call Me a liberal. In fact, I have a good mind to smite thee for even thinking that!
But on second thoughts, smiting might be a tad psychopathic, and I've been trying to ease up on that a bit, since the whole World War II thing. I'll have to settle for having one of My acolytes mod you down.
One thousand votes are useless when the only people who get onto the ballot are owned by the corporations due to the amount of money they got for their campaigns. Either way you vote, you are still putting the people with money into power.
The point is, the leader needs an overview. That's why the general stands on the hill over the battle; why the CEO has a corner office high on the tower; why the pharoah is symbolized by the pyramid, and the pyramid crowned by the eye.
Instead, in Bush, we have someone who wants to lead not from a high perspective that folds into itself the partial perspectives from those with lower vantages, but from the trenches, convinced that the only higher perspective he needs is that of the God who put him there - a God at whose right hand, if you trace the money, was Enron.
From the article:
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Hmm, isn't it strange how when there are administrations that are friendly to corporations in power, the economy goes into a slump, then after a while, the administration either starts, or escalates a war to get us out of it? Look at the pattern. Look at GHW Bush, look at Reagan, look at Nixon, etc. The fact is that being friendly to corporations isn't good for the economy because it keeps the money circulating in smaller circles and not letting it get out to the general public.
Amazing. My post has gone from 5 (with three funny mods) to 1 (various troll, overrated and flamebate mods).
Seems that some people don't have much of a sense of humor. It's a sad situation when people get upset about jokes about the President.
> At least one nationally renowned academic, who was recently called by an
> administration official to talk about serving on an HHS advisory committee,
> disagreed with that assessment. To the candidate's surprise, the official
> asked for the professor's views on embryo cell research, cloning and
> physician-assisted suicide. After that, the candidate said, the interviewer
> told the candidate that the position would have to go to someone else
> because the candidate's views did not match those of the administration.
> Asked to reconcile that experience with his previous assurance, Pierce said
> of the interview questions: "Those are not litmus tests."
Well, technically that's true, they didn't measure the pH of the candidate.
Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."
In my humble opinion, pretty simple:
If your research is funded by tax dollars, then you should be subject to "politics." Honestly, if you take public dollars to fund your project, then you should be answerable to the public (i.e. politicians or some public leadership).
If you don't take public funds, then you should only be answerable to the law and your conscience.
Of course, that is in a perfect world...
The politicization of science lies not only in committee packing, but in a public that will pick and choose what science it accepts and what science it rejects based on whether or not the results support their political, religious, and economic interests.> The ones like the AC from above simply state all research is biased so research that favours their views is just as good as any.
This brings to mind something I read on talk.origins over the summer. Paraphrasing from memory:
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Interesting enough the scientist who made the discovers about adult stem cells verstility was recently touring Australia promoting embryonic stem cell research. Why? Because contary to popular belief, her research is being badly distorted.
How many scientists are saying "embryonic cells are the only hope"? Most see adult and embryonic stem cell research to be complimentry technologies.
As for focusing attention on technolgies with demonstrated practical application, this isn't how science is done. It would be the equilivent of our ancestors stopping research into the automobile, because the horse and buggy has immediate practical applications.
Why not make additional investments in the areas of research that are already bearing fruit, rather than get enmired in a debate about whether using those cells is efficient & effective, or if it is killing people.
Why not invest in both technologies, and if their is a moral arguement against one, make the moral arguement, not sidestep it by distorting science.
And on a sidenote, thank you for kind offer, but I'm really not looking for any form of salvation.
Warning: Some ideologies on the Net are smaller than they appear.
We get the dumbest person in the White House since Dan Quayle making science decisions? Ugh, this is really depressing. Just wait until he starts replacing other boards with ones that reflect 'his views'. Are we a dictatorship yet?
"I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
Stephen Wolfram? He has already shown his disdain for the peer review system and is just as dogmatic about his own ideas as Bush's fundamentalist yahoos are about their's.
Actually, what got Gallileo in real hot water that his church supporters (what, you didn't know he had those?) couldn't get him out of was when he started dabbling in biblical interpretation and claiming the Bible supported his claims. The priestly class was generally not amused and Gallileo, generally being described as an irritating SOB, had his goose cooked. It was not the Church's finest moment (JP II ended up issuing an apology and embarked on a small penance for the affair) but it was also not the unadulterated forces of light and right v. the forces of reactionary evil that many portray it to have been.
This is precisely why I hate that "one nation, under god" was added in the 50's to the pledge, and also the mottos on our money. Many people these days don't realize that it wasn't always that way and use that as an argument for thinking we are a nation built on religion. Even if our forefathers had faith, they realized how important it is to be left up the individual instead of dictating who's right and who's wrong.
Badly distorted research? I don't know anything of the researcher you mentioned, but the second link that I posted is a list of *dozens* of documented applications of adult stem cells.
As far as making the moral argument, I belive that is what is happening with this debate. What frustrates me is that the conventional wisdom within the "community" at slashdot appears to be that "those religious types oppose science" and "who are they to define morality?"
Their statements about the moral/ethical value of embryonic stem cell research require a statement of a moral standard. That statement being that the pursuit of knowledge/potential benefit to humanity is of greater moral value than the cost to humanity in general or the cost to the embryo in particular.
Science is not unbiased and separated from morality, much as the crowd here would tend to assert.
I would argue that we should not invest in embryonic stem cell research because of the cost to humanity as a result of the destruction of those human beings. You may disagree, and that is your right. Distorting science is irrational and foolish - no matter which side of the debate you are on.
Thanks for your thoughtful and respectful reply.
Regards,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
This is what things were like already 500 years ago, with the Holy Church agreeing or disagreeing with the finds of science. The finds that were Christian enough were good, those which were not were... flogged or burnt or take your pick.
:-/
Nothing is new under the sun. Tell you what, I even think that "Christian enough" still holds.
because Clinton was a brilliant man, however flawed, and Bush is simply above-average
1) above-average intelectually ?
2) AFAIR, president Clinton was a briliant woman
Working for necessity's mother.
The majority does not believe that women should have absolute control over their own body. The real facts are that there are absolutists on both sides of the debate and they're both minorities. In terms of opinion polls, the pro-choice absolutist faction is larger, in terms of votes, the pro-life absolutists are larger. The squishy middle is the true majority.
Now that we've got that lie out of the way, the idea of dismissing a study just because it has uncomfortable consequences for a political opinion is base and immoral. A woman is not free to choose if the truth, whatever that might be, is kept from her. Irrespective of our opinions, the people making life and death decisions need the real facts.
Sugarcoating the consequences of abortion isn't pro-choice (respecting the woman's right to choose as an adult moral agent), it's pro-death and harkens back to the pro-eugenics leanings of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger.
If you've read any Socratic dialogues, you know that they basically consist of Socrates talking to a patsy, who puts forth points which are one by one shattered by Socrates. Galileo's dialogue was a lot like that, except that a lot of Simplicio's statements were near-verbatim quotes of the Pope.
In response to this insult, the Pope cracked down on people questioning the Aristotelian model of the universe. So not only is Galileo's modern reputation incorrect, in fact he set back his own cause a few years.
grep -ri 'should work'
This is factually wrong. Congress actually did pass legislation with a life exception but health exceptions include mental health and that's a loophole that would gut the provision. It's easy to get a statement that a particularly pregnancy is mentally stressing and would endanger mental health. That's the line over which the late term abortion battles were fought.
Your entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Ever since the 1970's, the US government has been recommending a diet high in grains and low in fat. Up until then, they were recommending things like beef and eggs a lot. The New York Times Magazine about 2 months ago did a really good story (all your free reg are belong to us) about how nutritionists questioning the low-fat diet - most prominently Dr. Atkins of the famous Atkins Diet - have been denied government funding, even though they have a pretty good case.
I seriously recommend that NY Times story, though. If they're right, it's beyond a scandal.
grep -ri 'should work'
Cripes, not the Socialist/Marxist/Collectivist pep-talk again...
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
It's a lot better to keep an independant board with their own political agenda who has no accountability to the people, instead of replacing it with a review board whose political agenda matches those of the officials elected by the people?
Does anyone see that maybe this isn't such a horrible idea?
I'm all for impartiality. I just don't think it exists.
Despite what slashdotters will tell you, they aren't going to put oil tycoons on review boards for hospital ethics. But they also might not put people in those review boards who have political agendas that few people want -- like (for instance) the governmentalization of health care.
Doesn't it make some sense to put people in boards who are going to look for solutions inside of the bounds of what the American voting population will tolerate?
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
Actually, if you do much reading of the American "Founding Fathers", it becomes clear that all of these ideas were alive and well at the time. Many people thought that such separation was needed to prevent the development of a theocracy. Others argued that separation was needed so that the state wouldn't play favorites, and would protect various sects from each other. Still others argued for the need of state protection from the followers of religions.
;-)
None of these are new ideas at all. The American First Ammendment was clearly intended to provide all of these protections.
And no, the US was not the first government to institute such religious protections. Not by a long shot.
One of my favorite quotes was from George Washington, who supposedly said that a single lighthouse is worth a hundred church steeples.
(Of course, we're now phasing out lighthouses. We need a new metaphor. "A single wireless relay tower is worth a hundred churge steeples"? Nah; it just doesn't work. Especially since a lot of wireless relays are installed inside church steeples to hide the ugly things from view.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Well, you think critcizing the President is moronic...
Please re-read my post. I said that what's moronic is criticizing jokes and witicisms as if they were meant to be serious statements. I certainly don't mind people criticizing the President.
Evil is the money of root.
Is this wrong? Or do those with power get to do whatever they want?
Both are true. Duh.
Each panel has spent months or years becoming experts on a topic. Replacing all or a majority of scientists on the panels means a significant loss of knowledge. If you fear what a group of scientists will say, then peer-review their results *and come up with better explanations of their findings!* Don't simply prevent the results from being published. I hope that the former members can take some time to publish a summary of the data and possible explanations for the data that they were seeing.
It is utterly and completely wrong. Politics overruling science is wrong in exactly the same way that religion overruling science is. Worse still, politicians have the use of force at their disposal. Politicians are also a lot easier to buy. They are more interested in votes and power than in science. Having them oversee scientific research and review and filter for business and political reasons effectively ends free scinetific enquiry as it impinges on national policy. It allows them to not only hide what they are doing but also overrule any objective facts they find inconvenient.
We don't like the fact of global warming so we will just put our people on the evaluation committee. We don't like evolution so we will put a "fair" number of creationist on board. Our drilling policy will not pass a fair environmental review so we'll stack that one too.
What fun!
First they refuse to honor FOIA. Then they override normal checks and balances. Then they ignore congressional requests for information. Now they want to put a gag on science itself? People, wake up! It doesn't get much more blatant than this.
Congratulations, you have just made an airtight argument for $0 science funding, or $$$ federal funding for all other religious movements. We can't establish a church, remember?
Your social studies book may have said that our elected representatives represent us, but the person with the most campaign money has won every presidential election since Truman, and over 85% of congressional elections. The evolution of modern advertising in the 1950's convered American politics into a fundraising competition. Our representatives get elected on the basis of how well they convince us they are representing us, and they get the money to do that from the various money sources whose interests they actually represent.
Sorry, it's absolutely supported. The left has a developed habit of lying about science from what the evidence actually is (Bellsiles controversy) to what it actually means (IPCC report). The right, when it catches a fake advocating on its side turns on the fraud and dissociates itself much faster and much more conclusively than the left and that's been apparent to anybody paying attention for years.
Evidence is evidence, lies are lies. Left wing scientists have a moral obligation to bludgeon their own ideological colleagues to not only drum out their own frauds (all ideologies can generate frauds) but do it quickly and decisively in order to safeguard science itself.
Right wing scientists have the identical obligation. They seem to be holding up their end of the bargain with society better.
but the GOP is made up of rich CEO's and religious... fundamentalists... who have absolutely nothing in common.
Two reasons: first off the core issues to each group are largely irrelevant to the other. Social conservatives are largely unconcerned with fiscal policy and fiscal conservatives are largely unconcerned with social issues. There are certainly many individuals that are part of the GOP for one but oppose it on the other. But an even larger group is supportive of both positions. As you say CEO's want "rich-guy" tax cuts, well most CF's want "middle-class guy" tax cuts so they can agree on tax-cuts that affect all income levels. Businessmen want honest employees, so acknowledment or at least an absense of official hostility towards a christian morality that says "thou shalt not steal" is not something they are fired up to oppose.
The second reason is that both agendas do have a point of commonality. They are both opposed to government, particularly federal government, control. You may scoff and say that CF's want increased government control in issues like abortion. But that is ignoring their argument against it which if you accept is no more pro-government regulation than being for antihomocide laws. In other instances where CF's are supporting government it is long-standing existing laws or practices of local & state governments that are being invalidated by increased federal control. They don't see how an amendment explicitly forbidding only congress from doing something can after 200 years suddenly be found to be binding on their town council. In general though CF's are very distrustful of government control especially in issues related to families. They homeschool or send their kids to private schools they don't like social security numbers, they distrust social workers, etc. etc. etc. Both fiscal and social conservatives are part of what Grover Norquist famously termed "the leave us alone coalition"
Also in both instances they are conservative - as in not liking change, or at least not liking the change being offered. In the past taxes (at all income levels) were significantly lower, there was far less government regulations & intrusion into personal lives and yet a far greater acknowledgement by government of the religious beliefs of those governed - public prayer was common, public education had a decidedly protestant religious cast, laws generally reflected the christian morality & wasn't afraid to say so. Both businessmen and CF's are bound to want to return to (at least some aspects of)that previous social consensus and to oppose increasing change away from it.
CF's are tax exempt, and the CF's look for government grants, even!
While churches are tax exempt most CF's are parishoners and are taxed plenty. Very few CF's have any interest in government grants. While there is certainly some interest in government support of faith based charities most CF's are VERY cautious to downright hostile to them. The more Fundamentalist they are in theology the more distrustful they are of initiatives such as vouchers or grants to faith based charities. They view them as trojan horses for government regulation.
First off, Greens in Florida did not in any way shape or form "cost Al Gore the election." Your statement assumes that AL Gore "deserved" these people's votes, that they "denied" him the votes he somehow had a "right" to, which is patently absurd. Sure, you can argue that Greens SHOULD have voted for Al Gore, hell, you can argue that Republicans and Libertarians should have voted for Al Gore. You could argue that vast numbers of Floridian fogeys should have figured out how to work their damn ballot instead of accidentally voting for Pat Buchannan, that Florida Democrats should have realized the Ballot was confusing and blocked it before it was approved, or that Jeb Bush should have been eaten alive by wild dingos at birth. You could argue that the Supreme Court shouldn't have called the election how and when they did, you could argue that our country should apply the popular rather than the electoral vote count for choosing its leader, or that Al Gore really should have been able to take Tennessee, all things considered. You could argue that while the Republican party has coddled its lunatic fringe by keeping pressure on wack religious issues and such, the Democratic party has essentially alienated it's own lefty wackos by drifting more and more consistently to the center.
But no, you blame a tiny percentage of voters who chose to vote their consciences rather than their fear. It's their fault! Ignore the whole point I made that I voted in the firm (and may I point out wholly correct) knowledge that there were not enough Greens in MN to tip the balance against Gore (what with our modern optical voting machines and all...). Just ignore my explanation of strategic voting... namely, that my vote accomplished something (major party status for Greens in MN) while your vote for Gore, my fine little friend, accomplished dick. That's D-I-C-K. Didn't matter. You threw it away.
You also seem to be missing the fact that what I'm essentially arguing is that, aside from a few "hot-button" issues that keep dips like you on the hook, the DFL and the GOP have become indistinguishable corporate-funded power-trading PR machines, and the only solution to this is to vote against corporate funded candidates. This is called a long-range approach. If you haven't twigged to the fact yet, your knee-jerk fear-based short-term approached is having the impact that EVERY SINGLE YEAR it takes more and more money to get elected and therefor every year the wealthy minority of individuals have more and more influence on American politics. It gets worse and worse and pinhead little yappers like you keep DOING THE SAME THING, saying "yes I approve of wealthy individuals and corporations defining the two viable choices for me in representing my interests in every government position through direct investment and I will demonstrate this by voting for one of these two choices under all circumstances," and then, so help me, getting self righteous about it to boot!
If this is your definition of "assinine" and "irresponsible" I shudder to imagine what your political philosophy sounds like. Oh, and if yer gonna use them big words like "asinine"
ya might wanna learn to spell it, you idiot.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Since when is 'tell me only exactly what I want to hear' responsible? It is gross incompetence. The people doing this should be fired- not for some moral sin, but for gross irresponsibility and damaging the flow of information to the Chief Executive. They have a RESPONSIBILITY to be passing useful data up the chain of command. I don't care if the guy only wants to hear good news- that only means HE is incompetent too and doesn't change a thing. They are obligated to not do this!
Or are you part of the "you are 0wn3d, suck it up and deal until you're dead" crowd?
I'm sorry, but regrettably some of us are less cowardly than that- and you can't possibly change anything by refusing to try. Call it wasted effort if you want- thankfully it's not up to you.
I live in a state with a Socialist representative- Vermont, with our Bernie Sanders, whom we appreciate. The guy writes up anticorporatist essays to put on his House web site. I vote Progressive because someone had the balls to come to my door and talk to me, with flyers and stuff for the basic tenets of the Progressives (including daring stuff such as maximum wage), otherwise I might still be more of an apolitical doormat.
Be a doormat if you want, but do you really expect other people NOT to organize? Look at what's happening!
(R-Ill.), a tobacco industry defender. At his behest, Glantz's NCI funding became the
first National Institutes of Health grant ever targeted for cutoff by a congressional
committee." ref
There is no dirtier example than tobacco
industry pressure to shut down science it
doesn't like. It's a precedent for just
how ugly this could get.
Do you have a better idea?
When it comes to the huge bureaucratic monstrosity that is the US Government, I don't see any way of making it better; that is, none other than disbanding it entirely. I have the same beef with Socialism that I have with all top-down rule-from-on-high systems-- which accurately describes 99.9% of the world's current governments, including the Representative Republic here in the U.S. of A. My ideal government is one in which the majority of the decisions are made at the local level. The problem with Socialism is that it (like all large, coercive controlling bodies) forces society apart and breeds antagonism. Example: I'm doing well, but the gov't is taking 50% of my pay for "social programs". Persons down on their luck who need help may be getting this money, but I get no satisfaction from it because I have no personal involvement. All I see is a sour-faced IRS agent demanding money. All the recipient sees is a disinterested government worker. He feels no gratitude, because the bureaucracy isn't going out of its way to help him-- if he fell sick and didn't come in for his check the bureaucracy sure as hell isn't going to knock on his door to see if he's ok. Additionally, when a huge government attacks poverty it has no flexibility. Large numbers of needy people will get little or nothing, while others who shouldn't be eligible collect. The bigger the bureaucracy, the less personal attention.
Ideally, we'd have a society where the government isn't in the business of charity. Ideally, if one of our neighbors is starving, we'd all help him/her out. Instead of some faceless machine spitting out Social Security checks to old people who don't have anyone to talk to be telemarketers, we'd have (as stupid and Hippy-Commune as it sounds) a community where people help each other. It's the old saying: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs", but with the caveat added: "voluntarily". As soon as the coercion of a large central authority is thrown in, it becomes just another lousy dictatorship like the old Soviet Union. What it comes down to for me is, large government cannot be "made nice"; not through socialism or anything else. Large government, in the end, turns into a thug putting a gun to your head and saying "give me that which is yours, because only I can really help people."
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
To an intelligent and open-minded individual, an intelligent true believer is like a good punching bag. You can whack them as hard as you want, but they always bounce back, and they never really know how to hit back.
You will find this hard to believe, I'm sure, since you've painted me as your enemy, but I appreciate the sincerity and tenor of your response. However, I'm sure you will understand, I am not writing for you. Just as a true believer must be sure that I will go to hell (with all its notorious accoutrements) for dying unrepentant with my beliefs, I have, though not a corresponding faith, a reasonable assumption that you are in no danger of questioning yours. I write for those others who are still capable of thinking for themselves.
Your painting of my writing as "baited" with "anti-Catholic hysteria" is, of course, a weak position to start from, since you have not-so-subtly failed to answer almost all of my points, while attempting to fall back on "victim" mentality; what many believers consider to be a kind of or "inherent" moral superiority. Furthermore, the insincerity of this retort is also fairly obvious, as, had you really believed this claim, you actually wouldn't have responded, rather than responding to point out that you couldn't be bothered to respond.
Religion is a game with words. Understand this thoroughly, and the entire tawdry mass of it becomes transparent. Out here, in the rational world, we use words as they are described in a dictionary. To the sophists of the church, this is nothing more than a weakness to be exploited.
Church opposition to fertility clinics was conducted with beautifully worded position papers and public speeches. Church opposition to abortion and stem-cell research was conducted with systematic violence, expansive and carte blanche political lobbying (or call it by its real name, "subversion"), and domestic terrorism. Yet to you, the Church's position is consistent on both. Until the next round of the argument, where you will, oh, who knows, deny the Church's involvement in politics, or sanction of violence, or claim that their opposition of fertility clinics was just as vehement and organized as their opposition to abortion or embryonic stem cell research. Or surprise me. Come up with something new. The Catholic Church officially condemns Usury, as well, but there is no "Jerusalem Files" website for bankers. Here, fair is fair, I've got something nice for you to read as well: it's called Doublethink.
You made no response to my mention of the Nuremburg Files, or the church's campaign against birth control (despite it being plastered all over that citation of yours), and you admit you are unwilling to engage in what would undoubtedly be an interesting debate over the status of the embryo - typical for someone who arrives at their beliefs by means other than facts and reason. You didn't comment on the church's undisputed and venerable history as a machiavellian political machine - you could learn a lot by having an open-minded discussion of history, you know. Say what you like of me, but don't say I'm not willing to discuss my points in a rational and honest setting. Now that God seems to be out of the bush burning business, that's how most people get their ideas, you see.
You elected not to discuss the peculiarities of the Church's humanitarian priorities, especially their unwillingness to become involved with environmental problems, problems of corruption, or colonialism, some of the chief sources of poverty, especially in the third world, where the Church claims to be so active. Yet you know, I think, your claims that such discussions are "hysterical" or otherwise out of bounds ring decisively false.
The Church rarely recruits adults. It knows it can only breed believers, or (perhaps) recruit them through indoctrination ("Catholic School") while they're still young. The vigor with the church encourages its followers to marry and produce children (your other responder, for instance, had clearly received his opinion about this "requirement" from church sources), and the inherent conflict between this and the duties of a moral person, clearly weight heavily on the minds of your text's author. You claim this is a matter of "hysteria." I much prefer the modern Catholic Church, because such criticism of the church policies in earlier times would have earned me a choice seat at a church barbeque. It makes "hysteria" sound like a real party. But really, I know what you'll say. Actually, you're the most predictable at the weakest juncture of your argument. If you want to surprise me, enter into an honest discussion of Church policy. If you analyze them the way you analyze say, North Korea (who is not nearly as well represented in world politics, I assure you), the conclusions are difficult to avoid. They want what most large bodies want. Survival. Growth. Or dispute me. But don't comfort yourself by thinking that your "hysteria" arguments, or the several other stock "I'm being baited by a Catholic hater" responses make very convincing rebuttal.
Your response to your other poster claims "the church doesn't require you to have children." How charitable. Would you care to comment on the paper referenced in that which you kindly provided for me, "Gaudium Et Spes"
"...married Christians glorify the Creator and strive toward fulfillment in Christ when with a generous human and Christian sense of responsibility they acquit themselves of the duty to procreate. Among the couples who fulfil their God-given task in this way, those merit special mention who with a gallant heart and with wise and common deliberation, undertake to bring up suitably even a relatively large family..."
You have the audacity to misdirect about the Church's blatant propagandizing of the procreative act? Please, don't neglect to comment also on the very paper you cited, HUMANAE VITAE, which follows, "Nonetheless the Church, calling men back to the observance of the norms of the natural law, as interpreted by their constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marriage act (quilibet matrimonii usus) must remain open to the transmission of life..." Your beautiful paper is in fact a pitiful compromise with the rhythm method (skimmers, point 16 is the good part). From point 30, to its own administrators, regarding its strict no-effective-birth-control-allowed policy, your paper says, "Consider this mission as one of your most urgent responsibilities at the present time." How many ways should we dance around it, hoeferbe? The Church is in the baby business! Just a hint, trying to minimize or deny it at this point just massacres your credibility...
The overlap between charity and recruitment. The objective analysis of religion in the context of information science, cellular automata or semiotic phenomenon. The church's role in the violence in Northern Ireland. Yes, even their unwillingness to institute zero-tolerance against pedophiles. All hysteria? You have a different definition of hysteria than the dictionary.
Did the end at any time justify the means, hoeferbe? Did it justify beheading Galileo? Or persecution of gays and lesbians? Did it justify what the church did in Yugoslavia in World War II? Am I hysterical, hoeferbe? Or, truthfully, is my honest and sober talk about the church's behavior rather sedate, in fact downright lazy, when anti-abortion terrorists, whom the church "officially" distances themselves from but unofficially provides the moral (and sometimes financial and logistical) support for (much like Osama bin Laden and the WTC bombers?), are carrying on an active and public murder campaign against Americans? I urge you, read your own side's literature, before you form any premature opinions about what hysteria really is.
I'm hysterical, indeed.
I guess that's the only thing you can tell yourself. Your alternatives would be to start really cranking up the Doublethink - try to bury all this under a deeper bed of lies. Or perhaps you could simply run away, and look for an easier (a more ignorant, pliable) conversational partner. That's the playbook, after all. May God have mercy on your soul.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!