Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Next came Queen Hill
Which will next beget
Princess Chelsea
If it be the gods' will...
~
Seeking understanding why the 5th marriage was a complete misery,
thee blogger approached the Rabbi to request:`Toss wed-bawl-balls?
On thee 6th wedding day ceremony, war-hawk, get No Valentine Candy.
The Walt Whitman Heart Shaped Candy Box is replaced with a dead goose.
Well I wouldn't necessarily want to do without them but I could do without them being equated to royalty. Artists sure, kings hardly. Elevating artists art(ificially) doesn't work for me. I am an American and thus will never accept any designation with a royal twinge.
I agree with you that the history of vaccinations in protecting not only our children, but also adults, around the world is an example of what sound science should be about. I also agree that disingenous crusades against any and all vaccinations are dangerous. All we need to look at to see this are the increasing incidences of previously vaccine-controlled diseases such as whooping cough.
However, it is also disingenuous to not recognize that much of the scepticism surrounding pharmaceuticals is a result of the corporate witholding and manipulation of the scientific data available on their products.
I work in the research field. Increasingly our protocol teams find themselves facing severe restrictions in agreements with pharmaceutical companies regarding the results that may be published on the basic science being done using their products. When our scientists balk at the restrictions, their protocols end up being torpedoed, the research companies do the research themselves (sometimes stealing the study objectives in the process) and end up presenting the data under conditions completely within their control.
That means we need to expose corruption and self-dealing in scientific enterprise, to be sure. But it also means that we must have respect for the cause of science, the quest for truth using human senses and reason, and the norms of honesty, openness, and intellectual integrity which the large majority of scientists and physicians try to honor.
Exactly so. Transparency in science is critical to building the trust that is desperately needed in order to avoid fueling unnecessary fear in the public which then translates into abandoning the advances made along with the risks entailed, real or imagined.
Politicians no longer have "names", such as you and I have. Today they have brands. It is part of the marketing package. Policy is marketing strategy. Reality, history, and its related ideology is sold over the airwaves through an army of public relations specialists (salesmen) and fear mongers.
People are too busy for nuanced inquiry. Or the alternative approach (independent research) is too complicated and hard. I know quite a bit from a liberal arts university education and my 65 years absorbing information from a place of intense intellectual curiosity. However, I still can't understand the world of finance (all those acronyms!) at all. It must be similarly hard for preoccupied people to get past the packaging and look at the product.
What chance does democracy stand in today's overwhelming, intimidating, and utterly unfathonable world? The idea of an "informed electorate" is a hoot.
The Duke of Earl? The Count of Basie? The Prince of ... Prince?
Oh well...
I've long maintained that, in a thriving democratic culture, being related to a political figure would be a definite handicap-- because citizens would always be on guard against any suggestion of nepotism or dynastic ambition.
Politics is a family business, much like many others. It's not surprising that people who are raised in a political home find political careers. Same is true with lots of other areas. Try becoming a lighting technician on a soap opera.
It's the rise of nepotism as a positive cultural value, which I take as an effect of a broader breakdown in shared values. The lunatic fringe has just concluded a 40+ year effort to break down broadly shared values, starting with a war on the widely shared idea that the US is a liberal democracy.
Their tactics of vitriol and hyperbole have poisoned public discussion about almost everything. So what we are left with are ideas that don't really require discussion -- Jeb Bush must be OK since his Dad was, etc. It's a way of having a fake political discussion -- which family scion would be the best fit is a conversation that we can have in public that won't unleash the screaming bullying that a conversation about economic fairness or reproductive rights or healthcare finance would.
It's all part of a broader trend where we have been induced to give up the very idea of shared values (i.e., community) in favor of a highly destructive "every-man-for-himself" mentality.
Having said all that, is it OK to hope that one day Michelle Obama will run for something? I think she's terrific!
While I certainly agree that nepotism (and I'm defining the term to mean ascension through family ties rather than merit)is a bad/damaging political practice, I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss every politician with the same surname as a predecessor as a beneficiary of nepotism. At least, I don't think it's fair to label them as unworthy office holders or even office winners. There has to be some accounting for genetics or even environmental influences being responsible for family members entering and succeeding in politics. Is it not conceivable that some office holders have inherited the same capabilities and qualities that made their ancestors attractive to the voting public? I know that W. -- and most likely his father -- wouldn't have had a shot at being president without their surnames and societal standing, but it's not fair to others to assume that voters considered only their names when casting votes.
It would be interesting to compare politics to another profession, such as athletics, where ascension is almost 100% a result of merit. I would bet that at least a dozen or so current major league baseball players have blood ties to former players. Where there is so much money at stake based on team success, baseball can hardly be accused of nepotism. It shouldn't be a shock to consider that the offspring of a player would be endowed with a favorable genetic makeup for baseball, as well as being raised in an environment that would further draw out those natural attributes. I know baseball and politics are completely different professions, but is it a stretch to apply some of the same reasoning to suggest that at least a small percentage of political dynasties are based -- to some degree -- on merit?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
