Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Michael Bloomberg Defends Science 387

Posted by Zonk from the science-apparently-needs-defending dept.
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This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Bloomberg Defends Science More

Michael Bloomberg Defends Science

Comments Filter:

  • This man is right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Swizec ( 978239 )
    I wholeheartedly agree. It is unacceptable that stem cell research is being outlawed pretty much everywhere. Laws shoudl be made about what is allowed to be done with stem cell research, for instance that you cant' clone whole humans, that seems nasty, but things like organs taht match the one that needs them perfectly should be allowed. I for one would like to have my heart replaced by what is practically my own heart once this one becomes too weak and/or sick.

    With stem cell research there is no waiting

    • Re:This man is right (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ceeam ( 39911 )
      Who would be at loss? Just use your imagination! For once - would you agree to move your retirement age if you start replacing your organs with new one? Would you agree that everyone should be able to do that or only people with money? Since we are dreaming do you really want to see talking (and walking) heads of 200 year old people around? I dunno - maybe they'll have something nice to say or teach but I doubt. Reminds me of some Simpsons episodes....

      Anyway - these matters are complex and neither you and m

      • Re:This man is right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:50AM (#15465701)
        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.

      • Re:This man is right (Score:5, Insightful)

        by McDutchie ( 151611 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:22AM (#15465756) Homepage
        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.

      • 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.
        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
      • Maybe we just need a mandatory carousel at age 100?

        RENEW, RENEW, RENEW!


        • (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

    • That's not quite right. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by goldcd ( 587052 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:55AM (#15465709) Homepage
      "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.
    • Laws shoudl be made about what is allowed to be done with stem cell research, for instance that you cant' clone whole humans, that seems nasty,

      WTF? What do you base this opinion on? Movies? "That seems nasty"?

    • Re:This man is right (Score:2, Interesting)

      by dalutong ( 260603 )
      I see there are already people criticising you. I will not be another one. I will just speak in philosophical terms.

      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
    • It is unacceptable that stem cell research is being outlawed pretty much everywhere.
      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
  • except once

    michael bloomberg in 2001

  • Puzzling. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by killjoe ( 766577 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @05:58AM (#15465598)
    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.

    • Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pintomp3 ( 882811 )
      well, he may be liberal on some fronts like gun control and science. but bloomberg is very much about control and telling people what's good for them. from banning smoking indoors to this cell phone ban in schools. he's the decider. that's the hallmark of a good republican. he knows what's best for you and will bully his way. here's a pretty funny take: http://www.newyorkmetro.com/news/intelligencer/17 0 76/index.html [newyorkmetro.com]


      • 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 plunge ( 27239 )
          The rich pay most of the taxes because they earn most of the income. As long as the government has to run on money, ANY system of taxation is going to take more from those who have money than those who don't have any to take.

          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:3, Interesting)

      by Omkar ( 618823 )
      If he's the same sort of Republican I am, he's a Reagan conservative/classical liberal who's disgusted by what the Republican party has become. Remember Goldwater and Reagan? The Republicans were once associated with sunbelt conservatism, not the southern-fried kind.

      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)

        by killjoe ( 766577 )
        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
      • A vote for the minority party in the US is a protest vote. Best case scenario is that you have different parties in charge of the legislative and executive branches. This is perfect and creates a government stalemate.

    • Re:Puzzling. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by lxs ( 131946 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:16AM (#15465634)
      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.

      • Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by cyber-vandal ( 148830 )
        Possibly because communism is a political concept that has very little to do with totalitarianism which can be allied to any economic philosophy.

        • Re:Puzzling. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by lxs ( 131946 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:46AM (#15465689)
          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.
          • I'm not in denial I'm merely pointing out that totalitarianism and communism are two separate things. Up until the last 250 years or so just about everywhere was a totalitarian dictatorship, it's the nature of some humans to want control over others, and not a flaw in one system over another. Russia was a dictatorship before communism and although nominally democratic now Putin is still a lot more authoritarian than any of the western leaders. I personally think that pure communism can't work but then I al

            • Re:Puzzling. (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Distinguished Hero ( 618385 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @08:13AM (#15465878) Homepage
              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 [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.
              • 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.

                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
                • I beg your pardon, but communism was supposed to be ruled in "communes" / communities, that would set its own agenda and its own decisions about local things.
                  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
                  • Native Indians had little or no concept of ownership of land, animals, tools and many other things.

                    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)

            by dalutong ( 260603 )
            I am big on the-institutional-infrastructure-determines-the-f u ture-of-the-system school of thought. That is why our system of winner-take-all elections will necessarily require that we are a predominantly two party democratic system (talking about America here.) I think that government ownership of all industry, etc, without simple (Paine-like) accountability inevitably leads to corruption and to some form of abuse/oppression.

            But that doesn't mean that all of communisms manifestations are doomed. Socialism

          • Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Insightful)

            by vandan ( 151516 )

            Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.

            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

          • Communism hasn't been tried anywhere, unless you count isolated tribes in the Amazonas. Please don't confuse Communism with some kind of Socialism (which can be anything from Swedish democratic socialism of the 50's and 60's, to Stalins dicatorship). Communism in a Marxist sense is far ahead in the future, and for many communists just an ideal, if not science fiction (a communist party wants socialism, not communism).

            (Chrustjev said in the 60's that the Soviet Union would be reached in 20-30 years... whi
          • Bzzzzt, wrong. Communism does not mandate a dictatorship or oligarchy. It is perfectly possible to have a democratic socialist state--see Sweden, for example (yes I know they're somewhat captialistic, but not *that* much more than the former USSR was.)

          • Re:Puzzling. (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jmv ( 93421 )
            Communism has been tried in many different countries all over the world, and it has always resulted in totalitarianism.

            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)

          by Distinguished Hero ( 618385 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:47AM (#15465808) Homepage
          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...

          • Communism requires totalitarian control of the economy

            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.

            (and a big, powerful government to do it)

            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

            • That's exactly what capitalism does - hands control of the economy to a totalitarian regime.
              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
      • I'm not happy with everything the current administration does, but comparing Bush to Stalin is outrageous and deeply insulting to the victims of Stalinism.
        • First off, my grandfather and several of my uncles have spent time in Siberia, so I'm not underestimating the extent of the crimes committed by Stalin. He was second only to Hitler in cruelty in the 20th century.

          But I'm talking about human nature, and I'm just taking an extreme example to illustrate my point.
        • I'm not happy with everything the current administration does, but comparing Bush to Stalin is outrageous and deeply insulting to the victims of Stalinism.

          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.)

        • I'm not happy with everything the current administration does, but comparing Bush to Stalin is outrageous and deeply insulting to the victims of Stalinism.

          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)

      by blonde rser ( 253047 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:29AM (#15465657) Homepage
      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?

    • Not that puzzling (Score:3, Insightful)

      by goldcd ( 587052 )
      The US is a very conservative country - and there is genuinely very little to separate the Democrats and Republicans ideologically.
      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.
    • 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.
    • Why is [Bloomberg] a republican?

      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)

      by unamiccia ( 641291 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @07:39AM (#15465792) Homepage

      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.

    • Mr. Bloomberg isn't a republican. He switched to the republican party right before running for mayor in New York.
    • Why is this guy a repulican.

      Wikipedia: [wikipedia.org]
      ...Bloomberg, a lifelong member of the Democratic Party, decided to run for mayor as a member of the Republican Party, reportedly to avoid the crowded field in the Democratic primary.

      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.
    • Bloomberg is a republican if I've ever heard of one. He's disgustingly rich. Some people will accuse me of having tall popply syndrome, and I accuse them of being morons. There comes a point where you have to say "Perhaps some of your wealth could be put to better use by other people who desperately need some wealth of their own".

      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)

      by gorbachev ( 512743 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @10:44AM (#15466382) Homepage
      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).
    • If you follow politics, you will find that there are all sorts of people that have to choose between one of the two parties. I consider myself a classic republican - I believe in states rights. What are my choices? The Republicans, who claim a desire for small government, but won't do it, and a Democratic opposition that complains the government isn't big enough.

      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)

    by midnighttoadstool ( 703941 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @06:20AM (#15465641)
    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.

    • I disagree. These profound questions have a habit of being settled by inexorable social and technological forces that often have their roots in garbage collection and road maintenance.
    • He doesn't think stem cell research funding should be denied - yet belongs to a party where the majority of members (and their voters) think it should be.
      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.
  • We disseminate the truth, our opposition politicizes science.

    Neither party is willing to let a few inconvenient facts stand in the way of their political agenda.

    • We disseminate the truth, our opposition politicizes science.

      "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.

  • ...on the GhostBusters.

    • MAYOR
      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) ... forty years of darkness, earthquakes,
      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 ... well, let's
      just say that you could save the lives of a
      lot of registered voters.

      The Mayor start
  • This motto is from the Bible: John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
  • When he wrote "The truth shall make ye fret". May have just been a typo in a newspaper but perhaps he was onto something...

  • Motto (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wizdumb ( 846957 )
    "Facts shall set you free" would seem more appropriate when talking about science, but what the hey.
    • But the facts are already there, whether we cognize them or not. It is only in being aware of facts that we become free.
    • Webster's:
      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)

    by CheechWizz ( 886957 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @08:51AM (#15465978)
    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.

  • Bloomberg News (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @09:12AM (#15466049) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • Get It Right (Score:2, Informative)

    by dubner ( 48575 )
    It's Johns Hopkins, not John Hopkins. Sheesh :-(

    Oh, yeah, this is Slashdot -- never mind.
  • As for science vs. religion I'm issuing a restraining order. Science should stay 500 yards from religion at all times.

    (Lisa the Skeptic)

  • It's 2007... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) ( 613870 ) on Sunday June 04, 2006 @10:24AM (#15466299) Journal
    ...and it's news that the mayor of some city has made a pro-science speech? What kind of just-crawling-out-from-the-dark-ages country are we talking about?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close