Michael Bloomberg Defends Science 387
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.
This man is right (Score:2, Insightful)
With stem cell research there is no waiting
Re:This man is right (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway - these matters are complex and neither you and m
Re:This man is right (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:This man is right (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you mean: many more baby girls being murdered than boys.
You Win! (Score:3, Insightful)
If the baby is in the belly, the mother gets to excise it if she wishes.
Re:This man is right (Score:3, Interesting)
There was nothing unexpected about that. Any moron could have figured out what was going to happen, and I'm sure the people who designed and implemented the policy were fully aware of it. The imbalance is not as large as you probably believe though (especially as the one child policy is enforced selectively (mostly in th
Re:This man is right (Score:2)
RENEW, RENEW, RENEW!
Re:This man is right (Score:2)
(FYI: there's a remake of Logan's Run underway.)
As far as 100 goes, there was a quote on the google/ig page the other day from George Burns to the effect "The key is to reach 100. Very few people die past 100."
<sarcasm>And finally, it was terrific to see Bloomberg had the stones to bring up something for which he's become a proponent: tagging all {illegal|temporary} immigrants with an RFID chip to permit proper identification.</sarcasm> News.Google shows nothing about this subject but www
Re:This man is right (Score:2)
That's not quite right. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:free market economy (Score:2)
Re:This man is right (Score:2)
WTF? What do you base this opinion on? Movies? "That seems nasty"?
Re:This man is right (Score:2, Interesting)
In history human beings have been provided their social and moral guidelines from elsewhere. This included from their government, religious institution, or simply from the environment in which they lived. (After all, an agrarian society can only have so many types of social systems.) As technology has empowered us over the past few decades, we have had the opportunity to shun many of the exter
Re:This man is right (Score:2)
Stem cell researched is not "being outlawed pretty much everywhere." In the US, there is a ban on federally funding stem cell research (which means the federal government can't spend its tax "revenue" on stem cell research. Individual states, rich people, and venture capitalists are free to fund as much stem cell research as they want.
Laws shoudl be made about what is allowed to be done with stem cell research, for inst
Re:Murder (Score:2)
Two words should knock this one down: Evidence please.
Re:This man is right (Score:2)
But you knew that, right?
Re:This man is right (Score:3, Insightful)
This is exactly the type of language that doesn't help anyone. For the most part, the stem cells come from embryos that are going to be destroyed anyway. So it's really the choice between incinerating them or letting them help humanity. And as for potential babies, that's the same argument that's causing the Catholic church to ban condoms which leads to huge increases in HIV and other STDs. So it all depends on how far you want to go with t
i've voted democratic my entire life (Score:2, Informative)
michael bloomberg in 2001
Re:i've voted democratic my entire life (Score:2)
since it's the democratic proce... oh nevermind
Puzzling. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
There are lots of shortcuts which I know people are going to claim I'm taking liberties, particularly if I'm providing an overly shortened version of their political viewpoint or if they are politically more astute than I am. But I'm holding the talking stick as I write this. I'm sure someone's going to tell me to go visit Wikipedia or even take a chair to wait my turn to go to Helen Waite, but everyone is permitted to make their own viewpoints known.
For Democrats (or democrats, Liberals, and liberals,
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way: your writing-style is so confusing and all over the place that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about or what position you are taking. I'm just commenting on the one tiny bit of your post I could actually make sense of.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Actually, it is the hallmark of an autoritarian government. Social-democratic governments are interested in providing public healthcare and social welfare. Whether they also try to control their subjects lives or not is completely orthogonal matter.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Interesting)
So why haven't I jumped ship? In a way, I have, but to cynicism, not the Democrats. I once asked Richard Epstein where classical liberals and Reagan conservatives could turn to defend our rights. His response, though obvious, sums things up nice
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! (Score:2)
On another note, John McCain is a great mix of qualities from both parties while being independent enough to avoid the sheep speak of the parties--minus right now (as he's campaigning for the primaries and do
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:5, Interesting)
It will take traditional conservatives at least as long to realize that they are supporting a criminal regime.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you even know what totalitarian means? Please read this [wikipedia.org]. 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.
Communism is far from totalitarian (Score:3, Insightful)
I beg your pardon, but communism was supposed to be ruled in "communes" / communities, that would set its own agenda and its own decisions ab
Re:Communism is far from totalitarian (Score:2)
And when I played the lottery, I was supposed to win... Regardless, the "communes" would have acted like tiny states, still "regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior."
Nowhere is it stated that for communism everything had to be centrally organized by a power-hungry and self-serving elite.
And nowhere does it state that when I d
Re:Communism is far from totalitarian (Score:3, Interesting)
And look at how much they advanced science, technology, medicine, philosophy, and so on.
Their knowledge of biology and ecology was much more advanced than the Euro-Americans they were in contact with. They had wonderful philosophies. The best discussion of Truth I've ever heard was from a native elder discussing his tribe's traditional views. I've also heard very interesting and insightful comments about
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Insightful)
But that doesn't mean that all of communisms manifestations are doomed. Socialism
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Insightful)
The same could be said for capitalism. And communism hasn't been tried in 'many countries the world over'. There was a failed startup in Russia. It was remarkably successful while it lasted. There is some interesting stuff happening in South America, and it is interesting to note that Emperor Dubya considers Chavez a 'terrorist' and an 'enemy of the free world'.
The arguement that communis
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
(Chrustjev said in the 60's that the Soviet Union would be reached in 20-30 years... whi
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Interesting)
The sad truth is that there are far more totalitarian regimes than democracies in the world, regardless of the system. The other truth is that revolutions/coups (be they communist or otherwise) also tend to lead to totalitarian regimes. Just see what happens when a democratically-elected communist regime gets overthrown by capitalistic interests [wikipedia.org].
Re:Puzzling. (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
That's exactly what capitalism does - hands control of the economy to a totalitarian regime. Communism is a response to this, and puts the economy back under democratic control, where it belongs.
You mean like the US government? Your criticisms of communism apply just as well to your favourite 'leaders of the free world'.
What you are missing is that in a democracy, the people actually decide how the resources a
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Great, more slogans. Perhaps if you tried to substantiate your baseless assumptions with some sort of supporting evidence, I could debate the matter with you...
Communism is a response to this
So you admit that communism is reactionary? Interesting.
and puts the economy back under democratic control
Out of an immense number of communist revolutions and regimes, how many times has this happened? 0.
where it b
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
But I'm talking about human nature, and I'm just taking an extreme example to illustrate my point.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Stalin was quite the Jew hater and murderer himself. See this [wikipedia.org], this [wikipedia.org], this [wikipedia.org], and this [wikipedia.org]. If Stalin didn't murder as many Jews as Hitler, it was only because Stalin died earlier than he planned.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
It's also lame. I've seen propositions for a Bush corollary to Godwin's law. (Though there should have been one for Clinton too.)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Of course Bush can be compared to Stalin. Both are willing to kill people and ignore the rule of law to meet their political goals. Both support ideology, or at least give the impression of believing in it to justify their actions. Both want to rule the world.
The main differences between them are the body count and that Bush has taken a powerfull n
Re:Puzzling. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Not that puzzling (Score:3, Insightful)
Both parties are broad churches containing members of differing views on pretty much all of the 'issues'
The only persons of interest are those at the extremes - you can probably tell the differece between a right wing republican and a left wing democrat - but between the two it gets a little fuzzy.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Can't speak for the other ones, but in Bloomberg's case, one of the reasons was simple - the Republican primary was easier to win than the Democratic one, which also damaged his eventual rival, Mark Green. So this put him in the "main event" in much better shape than his opponent who had been through the NYC Democratic meat grinder.
There was probably a fair amount of state and national Republican support as he was following Giuliani, a Republican. Also the governor and of
Re:Puzzling. (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.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
He WAS a Democrat. (Score:2)
Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
That he's a Republican In Name Only makes complete sense. I laud him for this since there simply needs to be more Republicans who speak up for science, intellectual thinking and reason.
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
Bloomberg was most recently in the news ( that I noticed anyway, here in Australia ) when the New York transport workers' union was out on strike for a day. Bloomberg was, of cours
He's more Republican than Washington Republicans (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:Puzzling. (Score:2)
There are lots of Republicans who feel the same way as I do. Several are in the House of Representatives, but the current administration and the S
Machievalli (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Machievalli (Score:2)
It's not peculiar at all. (Score:2)
Whilst it's a political issue - he's got to either help withold the funding (something he doesn't believe is right), or piss off his voters (which he really doesn't want to do).
If it stops becoming a political issue, then the funding decision isn't his to make and if voters demands he withold it, he can just say it's not his problem.
Pot vs. Kettle (Score:2)
Neither party is willing to let a few inconvenient facts stand in the way of their political agenda.
Re:Pot vs. Kettle (Score:2)
"We" as in "fellow scientists".
Neither party is willing to let a few inconvenient facts stand in the way of their political agenda.
"Neither party" as in "politics from an outside view".
He was giving the speech as neither a Democrat nor Republican but instead as Mayor and fellow graduate with a scientific background.
I wonder what his position would be... (Score:2, Offtopic)
...on the GhostBusters.
Re:I wonder what his position would be... (Score:2)
What do you mean "Biblical?"
Old Testament, Mr. Mayor. "Wrath of
God"-type stuff. The seas could boil, fire
and brimstone falling from the sky
STANTZ
(chimes in)
mass hysteria, human sacrifice
MAYOR
Enough! I get the point.
But what if you're wrong?
VENKMAN
If I'm wrong then nothing happens and you
toss us in the can. But if I'm right, and
if we can stop this thing
just say that you could save the lives of a
lot of registered voters.
The Mayor start
For information (Score:2)
Re:For information (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ [skepticsan...dbible.com] is a good tool too.
Re:For information (Score:2)
There is a saying here in Finland. I don't know if it you have it in english-speaking countries, but, roughly translated, it goes: "Like the Devil reads the Bible." Ironically enough, the Bible itself also contains examples of such a thing, like the part where the Devil was tempting Jesus.
The point ? It is unwise to take passages out of their context and interpret them
Terry pratchett got it right.. (Score:2)
Motto (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Motto (Score:2)
Re:Motto (Score:2)
fact (fakt), n.
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
In other words, facts ARE the truth, there is no difference.
I don't know.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Bloomberg News (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Get It Right (Score:2, Informative)
Oh, yeah, this is Slashdot -- never mind.
As to the science vs. religion (Score:2)
(Lisa the Skeptic)
Re:As to the science vs. religion (Score:4, Interesting)
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".
It's 2007... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yep, always happens. (Score:2)
Re:Yep, always happens. (Score:2)
Um, What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, What? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Um, What? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Um, What? (Score:2)
To be consistent, we ought to apply that argument to people who have Life without Parole sentences.
Back in the day they used the Gallows for those kinds of folks, avoiding the aforementioned costs.
None of the above is intended as a value judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um, What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Um, What? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any case, should we have the legal right to sentence the innocent to death (which is what you're asking)? I say no.
Re:Um, What? (Score:3, Insightful)
In fact, the videos they showed of her with slight movements and reactions were dated, as she ceased to do that during the debate.
And the question is not "is the husband a
Re:Um, What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Because she expressed that was what she wanted.
Here's a better question. Why should someone else's money and wishes be reason to usurp your own wishes?
She did care, and expressed her feelings to her husband, who carried them out, refused 10 million dollars, and stood up to the governments of Florida and the U.S. senate in the process.
Re:Um, What? (Score:3, Insightful)
It's nice that YOU think so, but here in America, we have this thing called the court system that rules on issues like this. That way, the people that decide whether someone is lying or not have to go through a process to find that out, hear all the evidence yea or nea, and rule on it. Third-parties who hear some rumor or get only part of the story are not exactly the right people to decide whether something is credible or not.
And regardless, i
Re:It's good and all (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's good and all (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's good and all (Score:2)
Re:It's good and all (Score:2)
I thought I saw John Stewart use it on his show a while back. I could be mistaken though (I did use the term "I believe" to indicate my less than full confidence in my assertion). Perhaps I confused the two as Colbert used to be on Stewart's show.
And as such, I'm guessing he was just joking.
I acknowledged that it was supposed to be a joke in my original post.
Re:It's good and all (Score:2)
Re:It's good and all (Score:2)
I understand that Colbert used the joke at that event (coincidentally, I read a transcript of it shortly after it happened); however, I was under the impression that before that (quite a bit before, when I still watched the Daily Show) John Stewart has made a similar (same) joke; of course, at the point, it was a
Re:stem cell research (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:stem cell research (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Err, that's... (Score:2)
Okay, yeah, I was one of them. Oh well.