Michael and like thinkers,

I absolutely agree with you.  These guys are the anti-science left. 
In a little flourish, they are a twisted amalgam of 
self-righteousness, ignorance and contradiction wrapped in a ragged 
cloak stained of delusion.

I think that its an unfortunate element of the left that we must 
waste such valuable time and energy sweeping up the, at most, well 
meaning dust they constitute because we leave the window of the lefts 
house open.  Perhaps its the price we pay for being ardently 
anti-establishment --distrustful of so many things that the form of 
opposition is more important than the substance.

Its in a way understandable, in that the world is very complicated 
and many people prefer simplicity.  With this simplicity, they can 
skim the surface of any subject just enough to justify their 
convenient and self enforcing categories to the ignorant bystander 
and blow empty rhetoric to someone more knowledgeable so that they 
maintain their sorry sense of doing the right thing.

I'm not sure if anything can be said to pierce such adamantine walls 
of self-righteousness, but I guess this list serve is the crucible 
where such chemistries of the "reality-based community" can be tried 
out.  Lets hope we can be a little successful.


>This post from Jonathan Campbell is an example, to me anyway, of the 
>absolute contempt that some so-called leftists have not just for 
>science--which could, just perhaps, be justified by the abuses of 
>science--but for any standards of evidence whatsoever when it comes 
>to argumentation and debate. In other words, first comes the 
>politics, and then the "facts" to back them up. Is this any 
>different from the way the Bush administration justified the war in 
>Iraq? Not in my view.
>Let's just take one of Jonathan's statements:
>"Why is it that there is no interest in ADULT stem cells, which really can be
>obtained easily (from the patient's intestines) and used easily and
>relatively cheaply to re-grow organs?"
>Every single clause in this sentence is factually incorrect. If it 
>is so easy to grow organs from adult stem cells, perhaps Jonathan 
>would like to tell us where this is actually being done.
>As for the pharmaceutical industry, it has a lot to answer for. But 
>do we base our policies on taking the exact opposite position from 
>everything it does? How about the attempts to find an AIDS vaccine. 
>Obviously pernicious, and must mean that a pure leftist should be 
>for continuing the epidemic, right?
>In sum, this is the kind of infantile, ignorant, knee-jerk, 
>no-nothing leftism that has landed the American left in the toilet 
>for the past 30 years where it will stay until those who want to 
>impress us with how hard they work and how tirelessly they engage in 
>the struggle actually get their brains in gear and start acting and 
>thinking in the real world.
>Sorry for the rant, but we had a dream once and too many leftists 
>have turned it into a fantasy with this kind of crap.
>On 2/15/07, Jonathan Campbell <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>The person with chuzpah around here is the Marxist Expert from the Columbian
>White Tower.
>Mitchel at least is at least DOING something good for the world (actually
>many things) and I think his critique of Marxist philosophy with regard to
>capitalist progress is right on the money.
>Louis, here is something to chew on philosophically (I understand you have
>almost a PhD in this): why are so many extremely wealthy capitalists and
>capitalist foundations connected to the pharmaceutical industry interested
>in a technology (embryonic stem cells) that is supposed to really solve
>diseases, when the primary business model of the pharmaceutical industry is
>long term illness maintenance, having nothing to do with cures or effective
>curative treatment? Why are prominent leftists lining up as a cheering squad
>along with the capitalists for this new technology?
>Why is it that there is no interest in ADULT stem cells, which really can be
>obtained easily (from the patient's intestines) and used easily and
>relatively cheaply to re-grow organs?
>Why is the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry so intent on regulating
>natural supplements (via Codex) when "modern medicine" is the leading cause
>of death in the US (>650,000 per year) and the leading cause of injury
>(millions per year), while the number of people who have died as a result of
>natural supplements is less than a hundred per year, almost exclusively the
>result of not following the label and/or sheer stupidity.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Louis Proyect" <<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]>
>To: <<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
>[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 1:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Mitchel's Marxism & the Environment talk now on-line
>>  >Stan Goff has kindly posted the talk I gave on January 26, 2007, at
>>  >Bertell Ollman's Marxism Seminar, at
>>>You can read the entire talk there -- including the parts that I had to
>>>excise due to time constraints (concerning stem cell research and the
>>>left) and also post your own comments.
>>  Amazing. Not a single reference to John Bellamy Foster, Paul Burkett,
>>  James O'Connor or Mike Davis.
>>  What chutzpah.
>>  --
>>  <>
>Michael Balter
>Contributing Correspondent, Science
><mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]

Jose Morales Ph.D.