Republican Science, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #297 | @MDWorld
October 22, 2012 Mike Gold 8 Comments
Joe Walsh is to the 2012 campaign season what the Three Stooges were to the old Saturday matinees.
Continuing with our theme that Republicans simply aren’t any damn good at the biological sciences, Joe Walsh proclaimed “With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance (of abortion saving the life of the mother)… There is no such exception as life of the mother, and as far as health of the mother, same thing.”
Joe, pal, listen: after you legalize marijuana, I want some of whatever you’ve been smoking.
He was in a debate televised on the local Big Bird station, encouraging the viewers to vote him into Congress instead of war hero Tammy Duckworth. You might recall Ms. Duckworth as the National Guard reservist who co-piloted a Black Hawk helicopter in Iraq eight years ago when a rocket-propelled grenade brought the copter down, taking with it both of her legs and some use of her right arm. She has served subsequently as Assistant Secretary for Public and Intergovernmental Affairs in the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which is not a pity job.
Whereas Ms. Duckworth has not defined herself as a “hero” in her campaigning, Mr. Walsh nonetheless said a “true hero” wouldn’t talk about her military service. Amazingly, that was one of his less offensive statements.
So “modern technology” means no woman dies in childbirth – or, at least, no woman’s life would be saved by having an abortion. In the several days since this pronouncement, women have been lining up around the metaphorical block to put the lie to this fantasy, including California Representative Jackie Speier. She had an abortion after the fetus took up residence in her cervix at 17 weeks. Responding to similar comments from New Jersey Republican Representative Christopher Smith, Speier said “…For you to stand on this floor and to suggest, as you have, that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous.”
That shows more respect than these Right-Wing Houngan deserve.
In the debate, Ms. Duckworth said Mr. Walsh “would let a woman die” rather than allow her to have an abortion. Her opponent angrily whined, “That’s not fair.”
Our friend, mystery novelist Elaine Viets, sent along something that the Republicans rarely let shape their opinions: the truth. The source is the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Fact Book, which points out the more than 50 nations have lower maternal mortality rates than the United States. You know, the nation that the Republicans say has the finest health care system in the world.
Indeed. When it comes to living in Fantasyland, Joe Walsh merely owns a condo. The Republican Party owns the building.
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com , every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week (check the website above for times) and available On Demand at the same place. He also joins Martha Thomases and Michael Davis as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Doug Burton
October 22, 2012 - 5:18 am
This could use some reformatting; the sentences do not wrap properly and run off the right side of the column.
Douglass Abramson
October 22, 2012 - 8:34 am
A true hero wouldn’t even mention their military service… He must have been a big McGovern fan then.
Rick Oliver
October 22, 2012 - 11:42 am
Walsh is equally well qualified to handle our international affairs. He is approximately the only member of Congress that openly supports a one-state “solution” to the Israel-Palestine problem, and in defense of his “solution” he boldly proclaimed that his evangelical Christian constituents were more pro-Israel than most American Jews. He did not, however, say anything about his constituents being particularly pro-Jewish.
Mike Gold
October 22, 2012 - 1:02 pm
One-state is a solution if Israel’s borders are extended to Turkey, Turkmenistan, India and China. Which would please a lot of the Religious Right and a fair amount of American Jews who love taking bold pro-Israel stands from their comfy chairs in Boca Raton and West Bloomfield Hills.
Neil C.
October 22, 2012 - 1:05 pm
What any Jews who would vote Republican fail to realize is that the GOP doesn’t have any love for them, and just need them to control the are when The Final Battle takes place. Then, they’re going to hell anyway because they don’t worship Jesus.
Mike Gold
October 22, 2012 - 1:38 pm
Neil, speaking as a guy who hangs out with a lot of Jews (some are called “family” and others are just “best friends”) and of course as a guy who lives in the Greater Hymietown area, I think a hell of a lot of Jews know EXACTLY why the Religious Right is so “pro-Israel.”
Despite the Republican Party’s massive distortions about Obama’s position on Israel and Bibi Netanyahu’s outright support for the Grand Imperious Flopmeister, American Jews support Obama by more than 2 to 1. American Jews also poll (no pun intended) strongly in favor of social issues that are part and parcial of the Democratic Party agenda. People who hold such opinions are not welcome in the Republican Party, which most Jews (speaking on behalf of most Jews) regard as a country club anyway.
Of course, both American Jews and the Religious Right are anti-Muslim, and “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
Rick Oliver
October 22, 2012 - 2:18 pm
Hey! Be fair! The Jews will get a choice: Convert to Christianity…or go to hell. As I understand it, they’ll get a better deal than I will, because I think the Jews will get a chance to repent after Jesus make his big comeback, while that will apparently be too late for me.
Neil C.
October 22, 2012 - 2:59 pm
Mike,
Unfortunately, my uncle, a very bright guy, does not get it. He considers my newspaper “anti-Israel” despite the fact an Israeli has a high position and one of our editors had been Orthodox. Oy.
R. Maheras
October 22, 2012 - 3:02 pm
Mike — While some partisan Republicans have, indeed, been responsible for “massive distortions” of Obama’s policy with Israel (that’s what partisans do: distort), you make it sould like Obama’s been a great pal of Israel.
He hasn’t. He has kept them at an arm’s length since taking office. His policy has bordered on obvious discomfort — something that has not been lost on Israel’s potential adversaries. In fact, most of the time it seems that he just wishes the “problem” would go away.
And if he keeps playing both sides against the middle with Iran and the rest of the anti-Israel states in the Middle East, he may very well have a unintentional, bloody solution to that problem before he knows it.
That’s not exactly what friends are for.
Mike Gold
October 22, 2012 - 3:09 pm
I didn’t say Obama’s been a “great pal” of Israel, Russ. He hasn’t been blindly pro-Israel. He’s been more interested in peace than in the support of a block of voters. And, sadly, being peace is not something the leaders of any of the middle east nations are interested in.
The people of these sundry nations are more divided on the topic. I wish we were.
R. Maheras
October 22, 2012 - 3:55 pm
By the way, Mike. You seem to only pick on idiot Republicans who are anti-science.
A story broke today about the town of L’Aquila, Italy, which just prosecuted six scientists and a seismologist for not predicting the earthquake that devastated the town three years ago. They were all found guilty of multiple manslaughter.
It didn’t matter than anyone with even a cursory understanding of science knows earthquakes are impossible to predict, and, in defense of those on trial, thousands of scientists said just that before the trial was even close to completion. No, those vindictive bastards prosecuted the scientists ANYWAY.
Curious, I did about three minutes of research, and guess what I found out? The mayor of the town, Massimo Cialente, along with the city council — you know, the guys behind the prosecuting attorney — are liberal Democrats.
You won’t see THAT in any news reports, I bet. But if they’d have been Christian conservatives, woo-hoo, the media would have had a field day!
So, as ol’ Paul Harvey used to say, “And now, you know the rest of the story!”
Mike Gold
October 22, 2012 - 4:24 pm
Russ, I’m willing to pick on Republicans who are pro-science. It you’ll provide me with a list…
I know about the Italy story. Goddamned amazing. Astonishing. An d the appeals process takes about six years… just as long as the sentence!
“Liberal Democrats” in Italy are not the same as “Liberal Democrats” in the United States. Damn near every European nation has a Liberal Democratic party, and they shouldn’t be confused with the Internationale. Or the Illumanati, for that matter. For one thing, in the States “Liberal” and “Democrat” are two separate words; there is a Liberal Party in some states (NYS, for example). and of course there used to be “Liberal Republicans” prior to the great purge during the Neocon Revolt.
Of course, European Liberal Democrats have a different term for our liberals. They call ’em “conservatives.”
R. Maheras
October 22, 2012 - 4:46 pm
Dammit, mike, i wanna get some chips and dip and watch the Bears game, not Google Republicans.
Mike Gold
October 22, 2012 - 4:56 pm
Lucky bastard. I’m pining for a Blackhawks game like you wouldn’t believe. I might be back in Chicago next month, and going to Chicago and NOT having a Blackhawks game is simply offensive.
The Wolves aren’t bad…
R. Maheras
October 22, 2012 - 5:06 pm
It was either Monday Night Football featuring the Bears in a conference game against the Lions or the third presidential debate. The Bears game won hands down.
Mike Gold
October 22, 2012 - 6:33 pm
I liked last night’s debate between Chris Mathews and Bill O’Reilly — on helium (the Night of Too Many Stars fundraiser). I’ll bet 90% of the viewers were wishing Obama and Romney would do that tonight.
Hell, if that happened I’d vote for both of ’em. I’m sure I’m still voting in Rahm Emanuel’s district…
Rene
October 23, 2012 - 4:49 am
Conservatives don’t trust any science that offends God. Liberals don’t trust any science that offends Mother Nature.
Mike Gold
October 23, 2012 - 6:32 am
Hmmm… I gotta think on that one, Rene. It’s an interesting point.
A whole lotta liberals are opposed to new things that they perceive (but don’t know) might possibly be a threat: irradiated meats and veggies, contemporary nuclear power research, the Hadron Collider, human cloning.
God must still be pissed off about that whole “Earth revolves around the sun” thing.
Neil C.
October 23, 2012 - 7:16 am
Or liberals don’t trust science that could actually harm people.
Rene
October 23, 2012 - 8:32 am
You’re saying Liberals don’t trust any science then, because almost any science can actually harm people. All forms of harnessed energy can harm people, almost all tools can harm people.
You sort of make my point for me, Neil. Neither most Liberals nor most Conservatives are actually enthusiastic about science. I know Liberals that dream of living like the Na’vi of AVATAR just like Conservatives who dream of the Puritan America of the 17th century.
I suppose both groups would have a nasty surprise if they were suddenly transported to Pandora or THE SCARLET LETTER America. Oh, the so-easily-forgotten brutality of life without modern conveniences.
Mike Gold
October 23, 2012 - 8:41 am
Neil, how do we know that?
The most basic tenet of science is experimentation, and investigation, research are all part of the process of experimentation. Deductive reasoning. If we don’t experiment, we don’t know if something is actually harmful. Is radiating food more harmful than the bacteria that crawls all over our food — including (and often particularly) uncooked vegetables? We have no viable evidence either way. Nuclear power? There are hundreds and hundreds of reactors in use today. Yeah, Chernobyl didn’t work out so swell but they started building it in 1970 and, being the Soviet Union, it’s difficult to tell to what standards it was maintained. In 1986 the average American wouldn’t be caught dead driving a 16 year old car. Japan last year? Gee, folks, maybe clustering six reactors in an area highly susceptible to tsunamis and earthquakes (hello, California, I’m talking about you) wasn’t the smartest thing they could have done. That’s not science, that’s stupidity. And rather naked stupidity at that.
Nonetheless, far, far more people have been injured and killed due to electrical accidents than to nuclear power accidents — particularly in the early days. (Please note the word “accident” and do not dare exploit the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.) Science taught us how to minimize the risks to an “acceptable” level. People still get killed in electrical accidents.
Everybody’s paranoid because of the word radiation.. until they need to consider using it for medical procedures. Then, nuke away. Many smartphones emit potentially dangerous (over time) levels of radiation, but we trust science to continue to minimize the potential risk. So, do liberals refine risk by if and how their ox is being gored? You know, just like the rest of us do?
I’m not saying all this stuff is safe. I’m saying we don’t know if its safe or, in the case of all power-providing industries, if it can be made much, much safer. Without science, we don’t know what actually harms people and we don’t know how to prevent or minimize the risk.
Shoes For Industry!
Mike Gold
October 23, 2012 - 8:47 am
Rene: or deodorant.
A few years ago, there was (and I believe continues to be) investigation into a connection between aluminum in deodorant and Alzheimer’s, and there’s been ongoing research into a possible connection between paraben (an element in many deodorants) and breast cancer.
So… what is acceptable risk? And if you don’t like sitting next to a cigarette smoker at a restaurant, you’re going to have a real hard time in a world without deodorants.
Me? I have cats.
Rick Oliver
October 23, 2012 - 9:32 am
While there is certainly some risk that a nuclear reactor will fail catastrophically, the main objection to nuclear power is high-level nuclear waste from reactors, which will remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years. Nobody has come up with a viable solution to this problem. The federal government spent several billion dollars developing a storage site in Nevada that didn’t work out so well. Hanford and Rocky Flats are great examples of the dangers of inadequate storage of high-level nuclear waste. You don’t have to be an anti-science luddite to be opposed to widespread proliferation of nuclear energy.
Rick Oliver
October 23, 2012 - 10:22 am
Fast breeder reactors could potentially burn 100% of their fuel, leaving little or no waste. The problem is that they run on weapons grade plutonium, which poses a significant security risk.
George Haberberger
October 23, 2012 - 10:39 am
“Nonetheless, far, far more people have been injured and killed due to electrical accidents than to nuclear power accidents — particularly in the early days.”
Someone once said, (and maybe someone here can help me because I can’t remember where I read it), that if the first use of electricity had been the electric chair and not the light bulb, we still wouldn’t have electricity in our homes.
Rick Oliver
October 23, 2012 - 11:21 am
Plutonium-239, which is in irradiated fuel, has a half-life of 24,400 years. It is dangerous for a quarter million years, or 12,000 human generations.
Reminds me of the story about the guy that jumped off a 20 story building. As he passed each floor, people heard him say “So far, so good.”
Without a viable solution for nuclear waste, we’re sitting on an extremely patient time bomb. It would be incredibly short-sighted to pretend that this is not a very real problem simply because we haven’t made large patches of the planet permanently uninhabitable with the technology…yet.
Mike Gold
October 23, 2012 - 12:25 pm
Rick, we have a similar problem with Prius batteries.
I don’t know if we can deal with this issue or not, but I think we might be a lot closer to a solution if we continued funding nuclear energy research to an appreciable extent. Politicians can’t do it: advocating pro-nuclear policy is a lose-lose: the liberals will hate you, and the right wing wants to drill baby drill. One nation, of the oil industry, by the oil industry, for the oil industry.
Nuclear, at best, won’t replace coal and oil. Nor will wind, or solar, or natural gas. But we should explore the viability of it being part of the mix, and that requires research.
What used to be called “science.”
Neil C.
October 23, 2012 - 12:38 pm
Mike,
I’m not saying I believe it (the jury is still out on somethings), it’s just when ever I hear liberal chat about dangerous science it involves genetic engineering of food, etc.
Mike Gold
October 23, 2012 - 12:49 pm
Funny you should mention “electric chair,” George.
After Nikola Tesla failed to convince his boss Thomas Edison that his alternating current was better than Edison’s direct current, he got George Westinghouse to finance his experiments. And Edison went totally apeshit.
Edison got himself an AC license and built an electric chair and gave it to Auburn Prison in upstate New York. Then he started referring to electric chair executions as being “Westinghoused,” which was a nifty promotion campaign. The chair was first used on a guy named Kemmler, but for some odd reason the voltage was too low. They had to fry him twice. It was pretty horrible, even by the comparatively bloodthirsty standards of the time.
Edison might have won that battle, but obviously he lost the war – and he did so pretty damn fast. And the electric chair endured as well.
Not sure why we hold Edison in such high regard. Many of “his” inventions were actually created by his employees. He totally blew it on AC. His control of movie making equipment was onerous. He was a bigot of astonishing proportions. Edison was a vile and contemptible creature.
Yet, until recently, nobody remembered Tesla.
R. Maheras
October 23, 2012 - 1:13 pm
There is a large environmentalist faction is anti-technology/anti-science if it means one creature or one tree is to be harmed in the name of science (sort of like the conservatives who are against stem cell research).
I addressed this in my letter to the LA Weekly after they published an article blasting the proposed movement of the Space Shuttle Endeavor from LAX to the California Science Center because it involved cutting down 400 healthy trees.
As I mentioned here before, while I’ve been pro-environment since the 1970s, I am a pragmatic environmentalist.
My letter starts about half-way down the page:
http://www.laweekly.com/2012-10-11/news/endeavour-trees-occupy-los-angeles/
R. Maheras
October 23, 2012 - 1:17 pm
I mean Endeavour, of course… (I write too dang fast)
Rick Oliver
October 23, 2012 - 1:28 pm
I was merely addressing the contention that being anti-nuclear classifies one as somehow a no-nothing, knee-jerk tree-hugging luddite. There are very real reasons to be very concerned about nuclear energy because of the nuclear waste problem — and unless Prius batteries have plutonium or uranium in them, it’s really not the same thing.
We have over 130 millions pounds of high-level nuclear waste in this country already, and guess where that waste is currently stored? On site at the nuclear reactor plants that generated it. And guess where those plants are? Right next major lakes and rivers, because nuclear power plants need a whole lot of water. So we have large amounts of radioactive waste sitting right next to many of our fresh water supplies.
Solve the waste problem, and we can talk about building more reactors. Ignoring the problem is like ignoring the detrimental environmental effects of coal burning plants — and since we’ve got shitloads of coal, we’ll probably build a shitload more coal burning plants before building more reactors, because as long as we live in a state of permanent denial we’ll keep going with the cheapest option.
R. Maheras
October 23, 2012 - 1:39 pm
Rick — I’m for launching the most dangerous radioactive waste into the Sun, but everyone’s against that because:
a.) It would be very expensive
b.) The very expensive rocket may fail at launch, possibly dispersing said contaminants in a way that would be hazardous to humans — even if said waste was in very expensive, explosion-proof containers
c.) It would be very expensive
d.) It would be very expensive
e.) It would be very expensive
George Haberberger
October 23, 2012 - 1:40 pm
“sort of like the conservatives who are against stem cell research”
Just as a point of clarification, most conservatives are only against EMBRYONIC stem cell research because of the ethical concerns. There is no protest against adult stem cell, umbilical cord stem cell or core blood research.
Mike, I have heard those things about Edison but as you say only fairly recently. When I was a kid Edison was The Wizard of Menlo Park.
R. Maheras
October 23, 2012 - 1:59 pm
Rick — One other point about all of this spent radioactive “waste.”
If it’s radioactive — especially highly radioactive — it’s a potential source of free energy. Our problem is we are too stupid, too scared or too narrow-minded to find a way to tap into it.
The Brits are using such fuel to make long-lived batteries for deep space probes.
But that’s small potatoes.
The reason no one wants to think bigger is they are worried about such waste falling into terrorist hands. But imagine all of the energy in that waste getting tapped in some fashion. Alas, it will never happen.
Rick Oliver
October 23, 2012 - 2:27 pm
You can harvest the plutonium waste from traditional reactors to provide fuel for fast breeder reactors. The problem, as noted earlier, is that the resulting plutonium fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons, not just dirty bombs.
Mike Gold
October 23, 2012 - 3:07 pm
How many nuclear weapons are floating around unaccounted for? How much material is out there on the black markets that can be used for dirty bombs? Can you use nuclear waste from the medical industry and other legitimate private industries to make dirty bombs?
Let’s take that one step further. How much nuclear material is there in the hands of sundry military establishments? How many nations have “the” bomb? How stable are these nations? How stable will they be ten years from now? Five years? 10 AM EST November 7th?
I’m not being flippant here. I see the issue of nuclear attack on any level, from any source, as one that is separate from nuclear power.
Rene
October 24, 2012 - 7:28 am
I’m understanding of the fear of atomic power. What really gets me is the extraordinary repulsion a lot of leftists have of genetically engineered food.
The reason I’m a leftist in most issues is because I prize rationality. Social conservatives are irrational; they take their cues from magical texts that are 2000-year old and from gut reactions. They dress it up in rational arguments sometimes, but deep down it’s “God said it’s wrong”, “my gut says two guys kissing is wrong” or “it’s right because it’s always been like that.”
Very well, when it comes to the environmental issues, I find that most of the hysteria, irrationality and gut reactions come from the Left. It’s not that they are necessarily wrong. Sometimes a gut reaction is a correct one. But when otherwise intelligent people refuses to eat anything that is genetically engineered even while they stuff themselves with countless other poisons, I can’t help thinking they’re taking their cues from FRANKENSTEIN and THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU.
It’s the same fear of the “unnatural” that I so despise in the Right. I am consistent, I despise it on the Left too.
Likewise, it’s not like there aren’t a lot of legimate concerns about nuclear power. It’s not like I don’t understand the huge psychic scar left by the Atomic Bomb. At least in the case of atomic power, there IS a reason for a psychic scar. I don’t think there is one for genetic engineering.
Rick Oliver
October 24, 2012 - 10:28 am
Mike: I’m not advocating a position one way or the other on fast breeder reactors. I’m just providing factual background information. FWIW, the union of concerned scientists is opposed to fast breeder reactors because of the weapons grade plutonium issue. So, once again, this is not exactly an anti-science position.
I suspect that low-level radioactive waste associated with medical applications would not make a very effective dirty bomb, but I could be wrong.
And finally, the fact that there is whole shitload of hazardous radioactive material out there already is not a good argument for generating shitloads more.
Seriously. For all practical purposes, the radioactive waste generated by nuclear reactors is IMMORTAL. It will almost certainly still be here tens of thousands of years after the human race as either extinguished itself or moved on.
Mike Gold
October 24, 2012 - 10:58 am
To me, the Union of Concerned Scientists are just a heartbeat away from the food Nazi scientists that what to ban instead of inform.
How much low-level medical radioactive waste would it take to make a dirty bomb powerful enough to collapse a sewer beneath Sears Tower (or whatever they’re calling it this week; I think the food Nazis are on the naming committee)?
Im not making the argument that because there’s a whole shitload of hazardous radioactive material out there it doesn’t matter how much more we generate, I’m saying radioactive waste is an issue separate from nuclear research — research, I would have typed in bold italics — and its one that must be addressed. No matter how that happens, it’ll probably take a lot of energy to transport/transform/transgender it.
I’m not suggesting nuclear energy can provide this power, but I am saying that it can add to meeting our power needs, that we will need a wide mix of sources to keep up, and that expanded research into nuclear energy should be part of the process.
Now, excuse me. I’ve got to set my watch forward another minute.
Rick Oliver
October 24, 2012 - 12:24 pm
Just to clarify: AFAIK, a dirty bomb is simply a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material. Detonating the conventional explosive acts as a dispersal method for the radioactive material. The radioactive material does not enhance the explosive power of the device. Low-level medical radioactive waste typically has a very short half-life, measured in hours or days. So if you want to detonate a dirty bomb laced with low-level radioactive medical waste in the Chicago sewers, the detrimental effects of the radioactive material are likely to be negligible.
Mike Gold
October 24, 2012 - 2:12 pm
OK. Try this. The Jackson Street Blue and Red Line subway stations are connected both upstairs and down. A coordinated attack there during AM rush, deploying a few briefcases? Awww, screw it. It’d be so much easier to go with sarin. I mean after all, what does Tokyo have that Chicago doesn’t? I mean, outside of about six million more people and… Godzilla.
Seriously, it’s these times of actions that are more likely to do us in, speaking for those of us in North America that is. If the unibomber wasn’t such a Luddite, or the Oklahoma City boys had a modicum of intelligence, this would have happened already.
History shows again and again how nature points up the folly of man.
Neil C.
October 25, 2012 - 1:47 pm
Thanks, Mike. Now I have that song in my head! 😛