Slashdot Mirror


Michael Bloomberg Defends Science

blonde rser writes "This weeks Scientific American Podcast plays excerpts from NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg's commencement address at John Hopkins University (text and video can be found online). Once he gets past the standard pomp and circumstance he makes a strong, pro-science speech. It is impressive how he very directly demonizes those that would politicize stem cell research, global warming, Terry Schaivo, and evolution." From the speech: "Hopkins' motto is 'Veritas vos liberabit' - 'the truth shall set you free' - not that 'you shall be free to set the truth!'" Stirring stuff.

22 of 387 comments (clear)

  1. Puzzling. by killjoe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I applaud Mr. Bloombergs speech to me he represents a rather puzzling person. Why is this guy a repulican. Not just him but also people like arnold schwarzenegger, Andrew Sullivan etc. I mean if you are not against gay marriage, if you don't think pre-emptive war is a good idea, if you are pro life then why are you are republican. Before anybody says anything about fiscal responsibility or smaller government I will ask you to go look up the track record of republican presidents regarding those items.

    I am especially puzzled about Andrew Sullivan. This guy is gay, the republican party tried to pass a platform saying that homosexuality was a disease!. They are trying their best to deny him the right to marry, to serve his govt, live wherever he chooses etc and yet he is still a republican. Can anything be more important to you then having the same rights as everybody else in the country?

    Weird.

    --
    evil is as evil does
    1. Re:Puzzling. by lxs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Denial is a powerful force. In the 1940s and '50s communism was a fashionable political stance in Europe and Stalin was hailed as a hero. When under Chrustjev accounts of the crimes commited during the Stalin era were published, it took many intelligent people years or even decades to accept that their political stance supported a murderous totalitarian regime.

      It will take traditional conservatives at least as long to realize that they are supporting a criminal regime.

    2. Re:Puzzling. by blonde+rser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the thing that you are missing is the Republican theory of economics. No, I'm not referring to fiscal conservatism or even tax cuts for the public. I'm referring to the fact that one of the major distinctions between democrats and republicans is their support for large corporations. Democrats (as a terrible over generalization) tend to see corporations as these large entities with lots of money and no mouths to feed, that are oppressing those that are working for them. Where as Republicans (similar terrible generalization) tend to see large corporations as the number one employer of Americans, and representing a huge amount of American wealth. Schwarzenegger and Bloomberg seem to fall into being this sort of republican.

      As for Sullivan, I think comments like those made in your second paragraph is precisely what pushed him towards Republicans. I tend to think he's the sort of guy who rails against people who say "well you're gay so you have to be liberal (or at least anti-republican)." I like to think of myself as a pretty cool headed guy but I think I would get pretty ticked if someone suggested how I was born absolutely determined what side of a debate I was always on. In a sense you are absolutely correct when you say "Can anything be more important to you then having the same rights as everybody else in the country?" Isn't he just declaring his right to determine his own political perspective and not having it dictated to him by his sexuality?

    3. Re:Puzzling. by lxs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      your comment shows that some people, like you , are still in denial and think that the problem lies with the people implementing the system and not with the system.

      Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism. Things didn't go wrong because Stalin was a particularly evil man, but because it is the natural conclusion of the system. If you or I try to implement the system, we too will be capable of atrocities in the name of the common good.

      But me saying that will not sway your opinion, which more or less is the point I was making in the first place.

    4. Re:Puzzling. by unamiccia · · Score: 5, Informative

      Six years ago, Bloomberg was a bored billionaire who wanted to run for mayor. The race for the Democratic nomination was crowded with experienced candidates and the Republican race wasn't. Though Bloomberg had identified as a Democrat during most of his career, he switched parties to run for the Republican nomination.

      The combination of a brutal Democratic primary, 9/11, and Bloomberg's amazing spending (he self-financed his campaign) got him elected in 2001. That year he only spent $70 per vote received -- that increased to $100 per vote when he ran for reelection last year. His was the most expensive non-presidential campaign in U.S. (therefore world) history.

      I'm not sure what Bloomberg wants to do when he leaves office in 2009, but he sure as hell doesn't want to hang out with Republicans. He's been distancing himself ever since he was reelected.

    5. Re:Puzzling. by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Possibly because communism is a political concept that has very little to do with totalitarianism which can be allied to any economic philosophy.

      Communism requires totalitarian control of the economy (and a big, powerful government to do it). Once you go down that path, well, we all know where it seems to end up... (historically speaking).

      P.S. If anyone wants to reply with how the big, totalitarian government is only a transitory requirement which can be dismanteled once the communist utopia has been established, well, we all know how historically acurate that theory has proven itself to be...

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    6. Re:Puzzling. by killjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I remember Reagan. He spent the economy into insane debt that took till clinton to come out of. He instituted zero tolerance of drug laws so that having a seed meant you ended up in jail. What's worse I remember how people were having their houses confiscated because their renters smoked dope. Reagan started the war on drugs. I also remember him funding death squads in central america with arms sales to iran. I remember him falling asleep in front of the pope. I remember him confusing real life with movies. I remember nancy whispering his lines to him. I remember Lee Atwater who I believed was an actual demon roaming the earth eating souls as he went along.

      Yes I remember Reagan. Bush reminds me a lot of him. I am sure he would take that as a compliment.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    7. Re:Puzzling. by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Up until the last 250 years or so just about everywhere was a totalitarian dictatorship

      Do you even know what totalitarian means? Please read this. Until the 20th century, most states lacked both the resources and the desire to "regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior." Statist communism, on the other hand, required by definition that "nearly every aspect of public and private behavior" is regulated to ensure an equal outcome for all.

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
  2. Machievalli by midnighttoadstool · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If politics is purely a question of the study of and the wielding of power then Bloomberg may be right and we should all be reading Machievalli's "The Prince" instead of debating the human, moral and ethical dimensions of scientific possibilities.

    Its peculiar that Bloomburg should be calling for these matters (stem cell etc) not to be politicised since he, as a politician, has got to be aware that everything has a political dimension somewhere along the line, even if indirectly, which is why politics is so very important and not to be trivialised or dismissed.

    Politics at its height is concerned with these profound questions; not just lowely administrative questions of how the rubbish/garbage is to be collected, and the roads maintained.

  3. Um, What? by philgross · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dude, Terry Schiavo is not a terribly complex issue, and there was nothing "questionable" about her state. As was clearly documented at the time, her brain was gone. Tragic, but true. Those desperately trying to pretend that she had some higher-order function left were denying science, medicine, and facts. The craven politicians trying to get mileage out of the tragedy were disgusting, even by Washington D.C. standards, with actual-doctor Bill Frist the most egregious and hypocritical.

    1. Re:Um, What? by wrf3 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, I'll bite. Yes, she was brain dead. Yes, she wasn't going to recover.

      Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her? This has nothing to do with science, since science cannot answer ethical questions. It had to do with law (who controls another human being since there were no written instructions from her). It had to do with whether we are the kind of people who will dispose of the inconvenient, whether we will choose death over life. It wasn't about Teri, since she couldn't possibly care. It was about us.

      Personally, I think we failed miserably.

    2. Re:Um, What? by Distinguished+Hero · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yet why should she be killed when there were people who were willing to take care of her?
      Were they willing to finance her care completely out of their own pockets? If so, I agree with you. Otherwise, resources are finite and precious, and there is no sense wasting the state's resources even more than they are currently being wasted.

      --
      Uttering logically derived and empirically supported truths to the disciples of the orthodox establishment.
    3. Re:Um, What? by BakaHoushi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's really a matter of law. Mrs. Schiavo was married, and the laws state, if I'm not misinformed, (IANAL) a husband has the right to decide on life support. Can we just let ANYONE come along and say they'll take care of her?

      Hypothetical situation: I'm married (Crazy enough right there), and my wife is also on life support. I'm in pain just seeing her in such a state, and would rather see her die than suffer in such a way for so long. However, it turns out Bill Gates it's actually my 5th cousin, and he walks in and says he'll pay for the support forever.

      Should he have the right to do that? I don't think so. It's not really an ethical issue, because opinions in this case could vary so much. What it comes down to is should he have the legal right to do that?

  4. Re:This man is right by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just notice that even such "harmless" decisions as "1 child per family" program in China have some not-quite-expected consequences where there many, many more boys being born than girls. They are heading to a big social crisis in 15-20 years this way (and they know it). Expect arrival of single horny chinese young men hunting for your daughters wherever you live.

    Not only horny - but economically disenfranchised. "1 Family 1 Child" means that for every 2 retired people there will only be 1 working person. The US has concerns about their social security pyramid scheme collapsing because american families have something like 1.8 kids. China's got it much worse with around 1.05 kids. I would be leaving the country if I were forced into that kind of scheme too - which only makes it worse for the ones who don't leave.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  5. That's not quite right. by goldcd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "It is unacceptable that stem cell research is being outlawed pretty much everywhere"
    It's mainly just been outlawed in the US, and specifically in projects that take funding from your government (as I understand it).


    It's a quite bizarre situation. If stem cell research had been banned outright, then it would make more sense as at least it could be looked at as an ethical decision. This ban on funding is an entirely political point - the US science system has been hobbled entirely to make a political point.
    Still - when your scientists are phoned and asked which party they vote for, before they get their money (and nobody seems to care)
    *shrugs*
    You reap what you sow.

  6. Re:This man is right by McDutchie · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Just notice that even such "harmless" decisions as "1 child per family" program in China have some not-quite-expected consequences where there many, many more boys being born than girls.

    I think you mean: many more baby girls being murdered than boys.

  7. Re:It's good and all by Yvanhoe · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on! You know that facts have a strong liberal bias!

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  8. Re:stem cell research by blonde+rser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The funny thing is that stem cell research isn't tightly controlled. In fact I'm not sure there are any real limiting restrictions at the moment. There is certainly a ban on federal funding of most stem cell research (a ban to which Bloomberg is referring). However, if some old rich white guy wants to drop a few billion on stem cell research in the hopes of extending his own life, he is completely allowed to do that. And I don't think their is much of a political movement trying to deter him from doing so either.

  9. I don't know.. by CheechWizz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe it's just me but I find it very scary that somebody holds a 'pro-science' speech and gets commended for it, the fact science has to be defended in this day and age is bad enough already, that there are so few people with cloud doing it that we can find the time to cheer about individual cases of it happening is even scarier.

  10. Bloomberg News by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Bloomberg has been one of the biggest fundraisers for Bush, since he "switched parties" from Democrat to Republican to get Giuliani's endorsement in the 2001 NYC mayor election. And for 5 years his news network has ignored Bush's attacks on science, like the rest of the mass media. Now that everyone is hearing how Bush destroys science to please the retards who want to vote down the "brainy" people to their level of medieval slavery, there's a big backlash. Especially in NYC, where being smart is second only to being rich as the ticket to being rich.

    Bloomberg is talking science in the public speeches for the media, and raising money for BushCo behind the scenes. Just like Arafat used to talk diplomacy in English on TV, and terror in Arabic through the grapevine.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  11. He's more Republican than Washington Republicans by gorbachev · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Republicans used to be about small Government. Bloomberg is doing it. Washington Republicans are doing the exact opposite.

    He's fiercely pro-business, so much so that he's essentially running the NYC administration and government as a business. The Washington Republicans are running the country as a huge piggy-bank of favors to The Party supporters.

    Bloomberg has done wonders in improving the NYC services. The 311 service is just amazing in how well and inexpensively it does what it does. The Washington Republicans were in charge of the Katrina mess.

    When Bloomberg cuts services, as unpopular as that is, he cuts the ones that don't perform. The Washington Republicans cut the services their faith based agenda doesn't accept no matter how efficient they are.

    I'd rather have more Bloombergs as Republicans (or Democrats for that matter).

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  12. Re:As to the science vs. religion by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I'm issuing a restraining order. Science should stay 500 yards from religion at all times.

    We keep trying, but Religion keeps showing up on our front porch at 3:00am, drunk with power and demanding to come in to "talk" about the "controversy".