Science Saturday: The Enlightenment Country (Chris Mooney & Jonathan Moreno)

[Bloggingheads]

[rcocean]

Makes him sound rather radical, which is funny considering he wrote for Vanity fair and the New Republic. And - judging by the obits - was beloved by William Kristol and the National Review.

As for the "voice of reason". I guess if you consider a supporter of the Iraq war, the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, and an Arab hater reasonable, well maybe...

Anyway, good to see kitchen table atheism back at "Science" Saturday.

[tom]

Originally Posted by rcocean

I guess if you consider a supporter of the Iraq war, the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, and an Arab hater reasonable, well maybe...

Arab hater?

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by tom

Arab hater?

Disregard conflation of ethnicity and religion. Hitch is a well known equal opportunity anti-theist.

[tom]

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Disregard conflation of ethnicity and religion. Hitch is a well known equal opportunity anti-theist.

Not sure if that's the move he was making, or if he has something else in mind. It's preposterous either way, but the challenge should start with clarification.

Originally Posted by tom

Not sure if that's the move he was making, or if he has something else in mind. It's preposterous either way, but the challenge should start with clarification.

ROFL. You aren't familiar with rcocean, are you? The only move he's making is 'making a fool of himself' - as usual. Our friend has a problem with the truth. Made even more ridiculous in this instance by the fact that CH was a rather outspoken opponent of the so called "Israeli occupation" of... wait for it... land that supposedly belongs to Arabs. What an Arab-hater!

[Wm. Blaxton]

Originally Posted by rcocean

Makes him sound rather radical, which is funny considering he wrote for Vanity fair and the New Republic. And - judging by the obits - was beloved by William Kristol and the National Review.

As for the "voice of reason". I guess if you consider a supporter of the Iraq war, the bombing of Dresden and Hiroshima, and an Arab hater reasonable, well maybe...

Anyway, good to see kitchen table atheism back at "Science" Saturday.

Hitchens was never a regular contributor to TNR; indeed, I can't recall having ever read anything of his in the magazine. I saw him sneer once on C-SPAN when TNR's name was mentioned (this was in his socialist period; I think his disgust had to do with the magazine's championing of Al Gore), and it's hard to imagine him getting on well with Peretz or Wieseltier.

As for Arab hatred, that's a slur I'm sure you'd have a hard time supporting.

The prevailing attitude on atheism at Bloggingheads seems to be that it's a dangerous, anti-ecumenicist creed that needs to be domesticated.

Originally Posted by Wm. Blaxton

As for Arab hatred, that's a slur I'm sure you'd have a hard time supporting.

It was never going to happen anyway.

Mr. Moreno names the fascist and Nazi Martin Heidegger as the alleged inspiration for neocons. Such unsubstantiated slander against neocons is really pathetic, and it discredits some of the other things that he says.

[jjwfromme]

Nah. Check out Leo Strauss's Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Heidegger also influenced Hannah Arendt, in fact they had an affair. But obviously that wasn't a bad influence on the author of *Eichmann in Jerusalem*...

Originally Posted by jjwfromme

Nah. Check out Leo Strauss's Wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Strauss

Heidegger also influenced Hannah Arendt, in fact they had an affair. But obviously that wasn't a bad influence on the author of *Eichmann in Jerusalem*...

What's your point? That you can't be a fascist/Nazi if you date a Jew, or if you influence one? He was also taught by the Jew Husserl, but he wasted not even a second to replace him at the academy when the latter was removed for being Jewish.

At the very least, Heidegger was an opportunistic Nazi.

[jjwfromme]

Originally Posted by apple

What's your point? That you can't be a fascist/Nazi if you date a Jew, or if you influence one? He was also taught by the Jew Husserl, but he wasted not even a second to replace him at the academy when the latter was removed for being Jewish.

At the very least, Heidegger was an opportunistic Nazi.

Sure, Heidegger had/has some things to answer for. But that doesn't mean he wasn't an influence on Strauss and the Neoconservatives--and a number of other people as well: Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, and Hannah Arendt. My point is that Moreno isn't making an absurd claim. You'd have to pull out a lot more details on what he means. You can't just dismiss his claim on the grounds that Heidegger wuz a Nazi!!1!!11!!

[MargaretH]

I take the progressive side of nearly all political questions, but as a woman my common sense makes me disagree with Chris regarding Plan B.

While it is probably true that the threshold age for buying Plan B contraception over the counter should be lower than it is, girls in their very early teens and younger who have experienced sex should have adult professional attention ASAP. In a word: they've been raped. I worry that convenient, no-questions-asked access to contraception for young girls would foster ongoing rape that would not come to the attention of authorities.

[SkepticDoc]

I don't agree with your definition of rape...

Yes, they need counseling, who is responsible to provide it?

[Wonderment]

I worry that convenient, no-questions-asked access to contraception for young girls would foster ongoing rape that would not come to the attention of authorities.

So you'd rather it come to their attention through the birth of an unwanted child? Prohibiting access to contraception does not promote greater attention to teen and pre-teen sex.

Also, the decision by Obama didn't address your concern about very young children having sex or being sexually abused. The labeling on the box could say, "You must be 14 years of age to purchase this product." Instead, proper access to the product has been taken away from older teens who have not been "raped."

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Instead, proper access to the product has been taken away from older teens who have not been "raped."

All any girl needs to do is get her older 17 year old friend to buy it for her.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

All any girl needs to do is get her older 17 year old friend to buy it for her.

Then there's no reason to restrict access, right?

Originally Posted by badhatharry

All any girl needs to do is get her older 17 year old friend to buy it for her.

Badhatharry: I oppose allowing Plan B for 16-year-old girls, because young girls getting their hands on Plan B would have devastating consequences, also, any young girl who wants Plan B can get it without any policy change - ALL THE MORE REASON TO OPPOSE IT.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

So you'd rather it come to their attention through the birth of an unwanted child? Prohibiting access to contraception does not promote greater attention to teen and pre-teen sex.

Also, the decision by Obama didn't address your concern about very young children having sex or being sexually abused. The labeling on the box could say, "You must be 14 years of age to purchase this product." Instead, proper access to the product has been taken away from older teens who have not been "raped."

Agreed. It bums me out that the Obama administration and Sebelius let this happen, though I fully recognize the difficult politics involved. Then again, what's the point in electing a Democratic president when you get Republican policies?

Federalism needs to return. The country can't take anymore moral mandates from either side. States need freedom to implement different policies according to their own communities' standards so that we can find out what works over time.

Also, MargaretH does have a point about adults raping children. However, I can't see access to the drug facilitating child molestation en masse.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Agreed. It bums me out that the Obama administration and Sebelius let this happen, though I fully recognize the difficult politics involved.

The only ones who agree with you are Wonderment and myself. Everyone else is perfectly fine with Obama's shameless pandering to the most contemptible and base individuals out there. Interesting coalition though.

Originally Posted by sugarkang

Federalism needs to return. The country can't take anymore moral mandates from either side. States need freedom to implement different policies according to their own communities' standards so that we can find out what works over time.

"communities' standards" seems to contradict "what works". The first is ideological, the second is technocratic. I don't think most disputes are about "what works", most people are just interested in shoving their agenda down the throats of other people. Mississippi doesn't want to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, because it works, but because most people in that state are stupid. There is no need for federalism, it would only enable morons. That's a violation of an individual's rights. That is why I strongly support Roe v. Wade. Contemptible individuals should not be allowed to make life-changing decisions for other (decent and moral) people.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by apple

The only ones who agree with you are Wonderment and myself. Everyone else is perfectly fine with Obama's shameless pandering to the most contemptible and base individuals out there. Interesting coalition though.

I don't see how a few puritanical prohibitions can be regarded with such contempt. Like the drinking age, it's society putting a little bump in the way of everybody doing everything they want without anyone saying anything about it.

Never fear, kids will find a way to buy beer and the morning after pill.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I don't see how a few puritanical prohibitions can be regarded with such contempt.

Good. You can move to Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan, where you can wonder long and hard about why the world regards with disgust the Taliban's "puritanical prohibitions".

All kidding aside, I also mentioned Mississippi outlawing abortions even in the case of rape. You're OK with that too, because people will (supposedly) find a way to have illegal abortions anyway. My dear badhatharry, your beliefs are so far removed from reality that it isn't even funny. Same thing happened during the debt ceiling crisis, you claimed that it was all a big joke and that the Republicans were never going to refuse raising the debt ceiling.

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Like the drinking age, it's society putting a little bump in the way of everybody doing everything they want without anyone saying anything about it.

It's about time that there be instituted a minimum age for joining dangerous cults like Islam or evangelicalism. They have destroyed far more lives than alcohol has or ever will.

Originally Posted by MargaretH

I take the progressive side of nearly all political questions

There's your problem right there.

Originally Posted by MargaretH

While it is probably true that the threshold age for buying Plan B contraception over the counter should be lower than it is, girls in their very early teens and younger who have experienced sex should have adult professional attention ASAP. In a word: they've been raped.

Yes. This still does not justify Sebelius's position.

Originally Posted by MargaretH

I worry that convenient, no-questions-asked access to contraception for young girls would foster ongoing rape that would not come to the attention of authorities.

How many times is it that rape of young girls is discovered because she gets pregnant? Or is it just that religious right fascists are excited about young girls becoming pregnant by rape (and not being allowed to terminate the pregnancy, because of parental consent laws)?

[thelaker]

I get so sick of snide claims to intellectual superiority from the left:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/404...4:43&out=05:29

1. The left follows evidence all the time?? Really?? I got two words for you: Nuclear power.
2. I'm astounded that access to Plan B is somehow considered an issue of science as opposed to an issue of public policy. I know that Kathleen Sebelius used science as the official reason, but everyone knows that its a public policy question. What issue of fact is involved here? The fact that it is safe for everybody does not mean that everybody should have access to it.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by thelaker

I get so sick of snide claims to intellectual superiority from the left:

Me, too, particularly when they claim it with no apparent awareness of how stupid they appear.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by thelaker

I get so sick of snide claims to intellectual superiority from the left:

There was nothing snide there, and no claim that couldn't be demonstrated - Morena backed off of the superlative. Nukes carry a heavy waste disposal burden (which is both a significant technical burden and a huge political problem) that most advocates seem to want to ignore. Everybody Knows is a great song, but a lousy argument.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

There was nothing snide there, and no claim that couldn't be demonstrated - Morena backed off of the superlative. Nukes carry a heavy waste disposal burden (which is both a significant technical burden and a huge political problem) that most advocates seem to want to ignore.

No one ignores it. It simply isn't relevant. That is, it isn't relevant of this environmentalism was really about avoiding human costs of "climate change" rather than a quasi-religious enterprise of the left to worship some sort of Gaia totem.

It is clean, working, real energy. If the country was prepared to give a place like Nevada an excellent deal, we'd be happy to store it for you. I for one have always favored Yucca mountain, I just think the package on the table is insufficient.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator

No one ignores it. It simply isn't relevant. That is, it isn't relevant of this environmentalism was really about avoiding human costs of "climate change" rather than a quasi-religious enterprise of the left to worship some sort of Gaia totem.

It is clean, working, real energy. If the country was prepared to give a place like Nevada an excellent deal, we'd be happy to store it for you. I for one have always favored Yucca mountain, I just think the package on the table is insufficient.

So it's not a political problem, you just don't like the politics?

Speaking of quasi-religious enterprises, that first graf is strictly assertive, completely unleavened by fact. The issue of storage for toxins that require isolation for tens of thousands of years is irrelevant? Now, that's a nontrivial assertion!

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

So it's not a political problem, you just don't like the politics?

Its obviously a political problem, because the left rejects the scientific facts regarding nuclear power. I simultaneously dislike the politics, because it is difficult to deal with anti-scientific "faith based" positions on technical matters.

Speaking of quasi-religious enterprises, that first graf is strictly assertive, completely unleavened by fact.

Reason dictates the conclusion. Nuclear power is clean energy as it applies to greenhouse gas. It is significantly more efficient in creating reliable energy in quantity than solar or wind. Nuclear byproduct isn't a problem that exacerbates "climate change", and isn't a problem at all other than requiring man to store it. Which isn't a problem with any other trash we create. So the leftist objection is to the nature of the waste itself, which they find an affront to "the planet", rather than an objection to efficacy.

The issue of storage for toxins that require isolation for tens of thousands of years is irrelevant? Now, that's a nontrivial assertion!

Yes, it is irrelevant. Store what you can't reprocess. Who cares? The obvious goal is to let nuclear power serve as stepping stone to some other energy source in the future, that is superior to it. The fact that nuclear power lacks the mystical purity of wind is irrelevant to me, a secular person.

[thelaker]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Everybody Knows is a great song, but a lousy argument.

Perhaps "everybody knows" wasn't quite the correct phrase, but what is the left really upset about here? Is it that Sebelius used a weak, science based argument to give cover for a decision unpopular with certain constituencies? Or is it the decision itself, which involves public policy subject to politics? I suspect that it is the latter, which would mean that science is irrelevant. Or if we are really making these decisions based on safety as determined by science, then I want unrestricted access to marijuana and pseudo-ephedrine!

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by thelaker

Perhaps "everybody knows" wasn't quite the correct phrase, but what is the left really upset about here? Is it that Sebelius used a weak, science based argument to give cover for a decision unpopular with certain constituencies? Or is it the decision itself, which involves public policy subject to politics? I suspect that it is the latter, which would mean that science is irrelevant. Or if we are really making these decisions based on safety as determined by science, then I want unrestricted access to marijuana and pseudo-ephedrine!

It seems pretty obvious to me that people are upset about what feels like a political capitulation. The arguments against seem a little ad hoc, but I have no strong feeling on the issue. (I do think Stephanie made some very good arguments upthread in favor of the decision.)

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by thelaker

Perhaps "everybody knows" wasn't quite the correct phrase, but what is the left really upset about here? Is it that Sebelius used a weak, science based argument to give cover for a decision unpopular with certain constituencies? Or is it the decision itself, which involves public policy subject to politics? I suspect that it is the latter, which would mean that science is irrelevant. Or if we are really making these decisions based on safety as determined by science, then I want unrestricted access to marijuana and pseudo-ephedrine!

Science has not determined the safety of pseudoephedrine. On the contrary, science has determined that unrestricted access to pseudoephedrine results in health outcomes harmful to many people (i.e., meth addicts.) Restricting the substance (you have to ask the pharmacist and sign) was a rational response to public health epidemic. It worked in reducing the abuse of meth. Their is no such public health risk associated with Plan B. On the contrary, Plan B's over-the-counter availability has been determined by science to be important to women's health.

Marijuana is not really a medicine. There's plenty of evidence suggesting it is HARMFUL to health, especially among young users. Cannibis may have some limited value as a pain med. If so, it should be available to the same extent as other pain meds (probably requiring prescription, like Vicodin or other psychotropics like Xanax and sleep meds).

[popcorn_karate]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Marijuana is not really a medicine.

not true. The latest of many studies showing medical benefits shows it reducing the growth of cancer tumors.

get over it, churchlady.

[SkepticDoc]

http://www.gwpharm.com/Sativex.aspx

[Wonderment]

The latest of many studies showing medical benefits shows it reducing the growth of cancer tumors.

I don't like to make jokes about cancer, but that is very funny.

[SkepticDoc]

The bottom line is that very few medical conditions have shown any real benefit from cannabis, those that do, just need a very small amount
(Canadian medical studies, can look up citations if requested).

Most proponents just want to get "high" and the practice of Medicine is being prostituted by a few that want to make a quick buck.

Look up "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome", some people actually get sick from it and the addiction is so great that they persist in spite of the evidence (I know it is a small percentage...)

The picture is muddled when people like the the late Carl Sagan and his last wife advocate the legalization, just as with alcohol, a few will abuse it and suffer. Would Society be better off regulating it? It would be great to get Mark Kleiman to discuss the issues.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by SkepticDoc

The bottom line is that very few medical conditions have shown any real benefit from cannabis, those that do, just need a very small amount
(Canadian medical studies, can look up citations if requested).

Most proponents just want to get "high" and the practice of Medicine is being prostituted by a few that want to make a quick buck.

Look up "cannabis hyperemesis syndrome", some people actually get sick from it and the addiction is so great that they persist in spite of the evidence (I know it is a small percentage...)

The picture is muddled when people like the the late Carl Sagan and his last wife advocate the legalization, just as with alcohol, a few will abuse it and suffer. Would Society be better off regulating it? It would be great to get Mark Kleiman to discuss the issues.

It would be much better that those who want to use marijuana for momentary pleasure purposes, the same that they use alcohol or other psychotropic substances with no health benefits and with toxicity potential, were more honest and stopped looking for medical excuses to advocate its legalization.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Ocean

It would be much better that those who want to use marijuana for momentary pleasure purposes, the same that they use alcohol or other psychotropic substances with no health benefits and with toxicity potential, were more honest and stopped looking for medical excuses to advocate its legalization.

except that that would be a losing argument. "I want to get high" carries no moral freight. "I should have a right to do [whatever] in private mostly convinces only others with the specific desire to do [whatever]. People use the arguments most likely to have an effect.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

except that that would be a losing argument. "I want to get high" carries no moral freight. "I should have a right to do [whatever] in private mostly convinces only others with the specific desire to do [whatever]. People use the arguments most likely to have an effect.

If it's a losing argument, too bad. I'm just saying that I wish people were honest and had the balls to say what they're advocating for instead of coming up with excuses.

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by Ocean

If it's a losing argument, too bad. I'm just saying that I wish people were honest and had the balls to say what they're advocating for instead of coming up with excuses.

Understood. My point is simply that their goal to accomplish an specific aim, and they try to frame the debate in the terms most likely to do that. It's perfectly reasonable to respond by pointing out that those arguments are less honest than some other alternatives.