Obama's science czar suggest...............

[ahrimen]

WTF???compulsory-abortion-sterilization! wonderful

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 83612.html

[Berserker]

This piece was written in 1977. That is over 30 years ago. If you think of any of your mindsets just 10 years ago and compare them to now, you will realize just how much your mindsets and values have changed since.

Although this article may give some insight into the person's mind, I warn against taking what this article is saying at face value. This article feels like an attempt to discredit someone in power with anything that can dig up from their past. If truly one wants to make a picture of what he's saying, one needs to read the book and not just the quotes which can very well be taken out of context. Perhaps that book is simply a scientific study in options and alternatives given different world variables such as world starvation, war, ecosystem collapse, etc. Perhaps not. I just warn against reading a quote and making this person be the devil based on that quote.

[ahrimen]

in most cases i would agree but this is a man who has been given unpresidented power. we have had czars before but never in history have we had as many (last count 17) and never before have we had a science czar (who should do what exactly?) and anyone who ever felt that at anytime ugenics or genicide ar "OK" under any cirumstances i dont care if it was 1953 1940 or 1800 to think thatway at all shows a total lack of any moral center. hitler wrote mien kaumpf many years before he took power, (im not saying this guys going to be hitler) but my point is when you have a strong belife like that you don't give it up so easily . and when you become a "czar" of anything! any and every thing you have ever said or written or done should be vetted, scruitinized and critisized, before you should have that much power.

[MorGrendel]

I am actually not well versed on this guy, so I cannot speak to him. However, an administration focused on science is important to me. I wish they would work on getting us off this planet, not because I don't like my neighbors, but because it will force us to face social issues (the morons that blow themselves up can't get on the ship). I also think this where we will invent real environmental improvements.

Now, again I don't know much about this guy, but I did see in that he mentioned serilization that can have no permenent effect, effect on the enivroment, and without side effect. So, if the process is reversable with no side effects, I think this is selective ugenics which people practice everyday rather than genecidal egenics which is based on ethnical, racial or religious criterion. And from a science point of view, the earth is overpopulated. We do need to thin the herd. He is not the first person to mention population control, I believe even the passifist Ghandi articulated its necessity. Science, ethics, and religion always spar, they are uncomfortable bedfellows and are rarely collabritive. However, out so many unethical and unsavory actions, like battlefield medicine, great advances have been made.

Now as far as him being a czar, that is a term created by the 24-hour-news-cycle, and I won't use it. I would consider it a slur and slander. To that point, I have a major problem with the 24-hour-news-cycle. Did you follow the Goldblum death? The news outlets were reporting on posts on Twitter. You speak of vetting, but the people who should be doing it are not. The core is rotten, and all the flashy graphics will not improve the taste of the pie. You speak of the scutinization of past writings; and to that I agree, but with a caveat. My caveat is this, position papers don't count, transcripts of debates don't count, stump speeches don't count, unless the creater claims them. Sound bytes are not enough. Opinion papers are written to vet ideas, to test ones own premise, to understand how the other side thinks. They may be a polar opposite of what the person thinks. This is exaserbated by the extreme ideological pundritry that is seen on TV. (just because you cry and scream does not make your point more valid)

Finally, we also need to allow people to change their mind. Now, this guy may be Hitler, Stalin, and the Ayatollah all in one, but he may also be someone who has never heard a good arguement from the other side. I wish political figures could change there mind. I would prefer to listen to someone who says, "I've changed my mind, and here is why . . . " I worry we have killed the thinker with buzz words like flip-flopper, pussy-footer, two-faced, and double talker. Just think about how stong an ally a guy is when he can see both side, but prefers yours.

[MorGrendel]

And if you have a link where Holden actually uses the words compulsory-abortion, I'll be happy to look at that too. That is a pretty incidiary phrase, that is not backed up by this persons Op-Ed.