How true. The highly isolated and competitive nature of scientific research; strong pure academic/technical/scientific perspective; intra-specialty competitiveness; external pressures through funding considerations (often federal grants, etc.); all serve to seriously erode humanistic and ethical considerations. To watch the subtle power of inculcation and indoctrination of one's own family members as they go from being undergraduates to practicing physicians is an education in itself.



This assumes that they had a soul to sell in the first place. As we are witnessing today in America, the government usually adopts policies reactively as it is conservative by nature.

For example, Bush's decision reflects the political power of C-PAC. Whether or not he personally shares these views is politically irrelevant. Again, the "government" did not outlaw the practice of discrimination, the Supreme Court did. Lincoln only changed the written law which mandated policies at the political/legal level. It took the Supreme Court to actually enforce it in the social and economic levels. No political "In" will voluntarily risk becoming an "Out" unless circumstances force them to make an unavoidable unpopular choice. In reality, the stage must first be made by the people by electing to public office those politicians who will then make this change "official" because it is in these politicians’ best vested interests to do so.

And yes, I personally believe that for Nazi Germany, or the fall of the Iron Curtain to occur internally (sans other extreme external pressures), at least a large percentage (not necessary over 50%) of the citizens must proactively support the decision. (This does not apply to clearly third-world societies, for obvious reasons.)

This explains why the Democrats had to be in office for the Civil Rights movement to occur. It also explains why Bush has to be in office before Roe vs. Wade could once again be challenged in the Courts. In both cases the government did not do the "right" thing. Politicians will always choose the politically expedient alternative. I am not implying that they are, or are not, inherently wrong or evil. I am simply stating that this is the course of action that political leaders follow, because that is the way politics/government works. If I do not see mounting popular support which is in the process of transforming itself into a grass-roots demand for action, I do not foresee major self-initiated political change in more developed countries.

This is also exactly why I am so concerned about the recent changes in the US political landscape. C-PAC (the Christian-based Political Action Coalition) could not yet generate such support if it were not for their ability to ally themselves with otherwise sober voters who have no other viable political option as the opposition forces do not appear capable of providing a decisive and popular alternative agenda. Remember, you do not need over 50% to win an election. A highly motivated and organized three-of-a-kind will beat a complacent and fearful flush, every time.



The only thing slippery about these issues is the ethics of the people who can not see straight through to the heart of the matter. It is exactly this kind of inability of scientists and politicians to make clear and appropriate humanistic distinctions which has the unfortunate effect of lending credibility to right-wing religious extremists as well as truly enlightened humanists.



Let's explore this non-proliforation/Islamic-nationalism topic in separate posts, bb? We appear to have covered enough ground for several major topics in the last few posts already.



As we all also know, my astute friend, the accelerated development of "the bomb" was the result of rather "serendipitous" faulty intelligence, this is true. But really, the development of this weapon, per se, was simply a function of an idea whose time had come.

And yes, I am truly having fun now!

This is true of post thatcherite british politics, where populism has taken over from conviction. This is evident in the way New Labour has shed its socialist convictions and has moved from the left to right of centre, and David Cameron looks to be moving the Conservative from their historic right wing conservative position to potentially left of centre.

On upshot of this is reduced voter turn out. This is perceived by politicians as political apathy, however I see it not as lack of interest in politics, far from it, but as a disenchantment with the main political parties who are more interested in holding power through populism than advocating any particular philosophy or conviction. One only has to see the growth in single issue and extreme organisations and their increasing share of electoral vote.

This situation opens the way for organised lobbying groups such as C-PAC to get more weight or credence for their aims than they truely deserve.

It is interesting to note that the british politicans I admire are not necessarily ones whose views I agree with, but they are ones who have remained true to their convictions and appear to speak the truth as they perceive it, not as they think the populis want to hear it.

This morning's news featured an interesting interview with a British journalist (it figures) who made the following excellent commentary.

Isreal/America/Europe might want to revisit England's recent success in dealing with Northern Ireland. He suggested that the World may not wish to isolate and reflexively oppose Hamas. England, for example, used continuing dialogue and negotiations with the militiant extremists to bring these groups into the political mainstream. He added that the first step would be to make the demand that all overt hostile actions would not be tolerated. Isreal/America could then proceed with discussions from there.

While he did not say this, undoubtedly he was aware that in some sense this election needs to viewed as a significant step towards peace.

Hamas' agenda has always represented the majority opinion of Palestinians. This means that Isreal/America finally has the real "decision makers" at the table; not the stooges. If the real players are not part of the deal, there is no deal. No more of this rediculous: "we said, they said, you said ..." How can Hamas ever believe that their complaints have been heard if they never have had the opportunity to present and discuss them directly with their opponents?

Isreal finally has the opportunity for a final and lasting peace for two reasons.

It is finally negotiating with the only participants (Hamas) who can actually enforce a peace. (Since these are the same people who have been violating it).

Second, Hamas is now the democratically elected representative government of the people of Palestine. Hamas is no longer able to act outside of the law with impunity. As the duly elected government they now have the responsibility to the people of advancing and protecting their best interests. If they do not succeed, then the same people who voted them into power will certainly vote them out. Without that core support, terrorism will collapse internally.

There is no assurance that this strategy will work. Sometimes there simply are no good (peaceful) solutions. But this strategy does ensure that if some peaceful solution is indeed possible, that it actually can be found.

We can all only hope so.

As a postscript it occured to me that perhaps I should have made one point more explicit.

Hamas acheived access to power through the Democratic process. Isreal/America may not like this, but we must respect it . We should verbally acknowldege it without rancor.

The point is simple. Now that Hamas and the Palestinian people have accepted democratic government; so long as they remained committed to the democratic process, they have taken the only prerequisite step necessary for peace.

Democracy works because, like the free market economy, that "invisible hand" will successfully guide it towards that end which best serves their own self-interests: productive, sustainable growth through co-operation and competition.

Many governments get started this way... I know ours did. Remember, the democratic election process legitimizes. I wonder if the current US theocracy will recognize this or start throwing out labels like "evil empire" again!

You mean their not?

Darned! Just when I thought it was safe to start polishing the nukes again.