Today in the NYTimes, an article about Bloomberg’s recent speech to Johns Hopkins graduates in Baltimore.

It should be accessible for a few days here, although may need a login.

A few paragraphs from the piece:

—————————————-

Distancing himself from national Republicans and the Bush administration, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday urged an end to the political manipulation of science, which he said had been used to discredit the threat of global warming and undermine medical advancements in areas like stem-cell research.

<snip>

"Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agenda," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it ‘political science.’ "

<snip>

"It boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, the country is still debating the validity of evolution," he said. "This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities."

————————————-

Another reason why I think Bloomberg is a great mayor.

Credit where it’s due: Bloomberg on science

Today in the NYTimes, an article about Bloomberg’s recent speech to Johns Hopkins graduates in Baltimore.

It should be accessible for a few days here , although may need a login.

A few paragraphs from the piece:

—————————————-

Distancing himself from national Republicans and the Bush administration, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday urged an end to the political manipulation of science, which he said had been used to discredit the threat of global warming and undermine medical advancements in areas like stem-cell research.

<snip>

“Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agenda,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it ‘political science.’ “

<snip>

“It boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, the country is still debating the validity of evolution,” he said. “This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.”

————————————-

Another reason why I think Bloomberg is a great mayor.

Re: Credit where it’s due: Bloomberg on science

[quote author=“dougsmith”]Today in the NYTimes, an article about Bloomberg’s recent speech to Johns Hopkins graduates in Baltimore.

It should be accessible for a few days here, although may need a login.

A few paragraphs from the piece

—————————————-

Distancing himself from national Republicans and the Bush administration, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg yesterday urged an end to the political manipulation of science, which he said had been used to discredit the threat of global warming and undermine medical advancements in areas like stem-cell research.

<snip>

“Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agenda,” Mr. Bloomberg said. “Some call it pseudoscience, others call it faith-based science, but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it ‘political science.’ “

<snip>

“It boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, the country is still debating the validity of evolution,” he said. “This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.”

————————————-

Another reason why I think Bloomberg is a great mayor.

dougsmith,
I agree that Bloomberg is a great mayor. We got a good one this time.
We now know without a doubt whose side he’s on.
All the best.
Bob

[quote author=“Jayhox”]I’m voting for him next election, even though I live nowhere NEAR NYC!!

There has been some speculation that he is anticipating running for national office by saying these things. I have no idea. I’m just happy he’s saying them.

[quote author=“dougsmith”]

There has been some speculation that he is anticipating running for national office by saying these things. I have no idea. I’m just happy he’s saying them.

That he spoke as unabashedly as he did showed some courage, a rare trait in a politician.

dougsmith - 04 June 2006 03:32 PM

[quote author=“Jayhox”]I’m voting for him next election, even though I live nowhere NEAR NYC!!

There has been some speculation that he is anticipating running for national office by saying these things. I have no idea. I’m just happy he’s saying them.

If he is planning on running for national office, some would say he would be better off not saying them.  Unfortunately, there are more people in the country who would vote against him for those remarks than would vote for him.  At least that’s how it’s been up to now. Maybe more people are finally getting smarter.  Let’s hope so.

I love hearing a politician saying something intelligent for a change. Most wouldn’t take a chance on saying something that could come back to bite them. 

I doubt he will run for President.  He’s already 71 years old and will be 74 by the time of the next election.  I suspect he has more sense than to get caught up in that morass at his age.  An appointed position would be better for him and for the rest of us.  He wouldn’t have to watch his words to the same extent as he would if he were running for office.

Lois

Yes.  Hope.

It is ironic that considering how he criticizes Republicans for being against science, he himself is so blatantly anti-science when it comes to the subject of guns. For example, he calls for banning “assault weapons” and said Andrew Cuomo’s recent “SAFE Act” is a model for the rest of the country. The problem is that there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” It’s a completely fictional term that is defined by gun control politicians however they want to define it. Essentially, it is a stealth gun ban. It lets politicians ban any guns they want. All they have to do is claim that they are closing “loopholes” in the law (which is nonsense) when really they are just expanding the definition of the law to include more guns.

What Cuomo in his recent legislation did, essentially, was to ban the further sale of what amount to being scary-looking guns. People in any state with an “assault weapons ban” become felons for being in possession of guns that, because of their cosmetic appearance, get deemed an “assault weapon.” In California, who pioneered the first “assault weapons ban,” they actually banned a single-shot shotgun as an “assault weapon” because of its appearance. Cuomo is requiring people who already own guns labeled as “assault weapons” register them with the state government. He considered confiscation, and the NY state police said they would enforce that. If enacted, essentially the state police would go around confiscating what amount to being scary-looking guns from people. They also reduced the ten round magazine size limit in New York to seven rounds, then when they realized that seven round magazines are very rare, they decided to make it where people can still purchase ten round magazines, but only load them with seven rounds. Which I am sure all criminals will dutifully abide by.

Cuomo also showed a complete lack of understanding of the Second Amendment and gun rights. He said, “No one hunts with an assault weapon, no one needs ten bullets to kill a deer, pass safe and reasonable gun regulation…” well the Second Amendment doesn’t have the slightest thing to do with hunting, and existing New York state law already limits one to hunting with five round magazines. Also, people very much do use the weapons that get labeled as “assault weapons” for hunting, and as said, “assault weapons” are not real in the first place. The NY SAFE Act touts about how it respects “hunters and sportsmen,” as if the Second Amendment has anything to do with that. Cuomo and the state legislature crafted the legislation in secret, then Cuomo declared a special situation that allowed him to sign the law without the usually mandatory three-day public review period.

Cuomo is a textbook example of the dangers of a politician who “knows” they’re right when they fantastically wrong, and yet this legislation Bloomberg thinks is a model for the country. I also do not like Bloomberg over his attempted soda size ban and his trying to dictate to women about baby formula.