Which is pretty much equivalent to asking I wonder how many people who hate GMOs are pig-ignorant idiots [that not even beer-drinking can cure**]*? Admittedly, this question is only tangential to these allegations that – shock, surprise! – some strains of perfectly safe genetically modified wheat were likely introduced into an Oregon crop by the very junk science yahoos that think that we’re living in the middle of an Atomic Horror movie. It’s still a fun question to ask.
A wide-ranging surveillance operation by the Food and Drug Administration against a group of its own scientists used an enemies list of sorts as it secretly captured thousands of e-mails that the disgruntled scientists sent privately to members of Congress, lawyers, labor officials, journalists and even President Obama, previously undisclosed records show.
What began as a narrow investigation into the possible leaking of confidential agency information by five scientists quickly grew in mid-2010 into a much broader campaign to counter outside critics of the agency’s medical review process, according to the cache of more than 80,000 pages of computer documents generated by the surveillance effort.
For the record, I don’t actually care if somebody believes in stuff like astrology. But fair’s fair, and if we’re going to have to listen to liberal elites sneering about creationists, said elites can take the time to explain why they don’t sneer at astrology devotees*:
For those limited to text: somewhere around 30% of Democrats believe in a whole range of New Age stuff, explicitly including astrology. This is roughly double the number of Republicans also surveyed. Similar numbers and ratio for conservatives/liberals**.
A quote for you, to roll this up:
A touchstone to determine the actual worth of an “intellectual”- find out how he feels about astrology. – Robert Heinlein
I would have added that quote attributed to G.K. Chesterton about the implications of ceasing to believe in God, but the actual quote is hard to pin down.
(H/T: Instapundit) Get a cup of coffee, because you’re going to enjoy reading this.
Political movements always have extremists — bitterly partisan true believers who attack anybody they feel threatens their movement. I’m sure you know the type, because his main talent is making himself heard. He doesn’t bother with making thoughtful arguments; instead, his technique is about shrill attacks in all directions, throwing a lot of issues up and hoping that one will stick or that the audience becomes confused by the chaos.
Although not for the reasons Mr. Myhrvold thinks. He thinks that he’s correcting some unfortunate, hysterical, and inaccurate criticisms of his work that were made by a anti-carbon enthusiast; what he’s actually done is help legitimize the religious fanatic by taking him seriously enough to address. At great length. Which will now be seized upon by said religious fanatic and parsed until he can find something else to hammer Myhrvold on, thus hopefully sparking another rebuttal in the Freakonomics NYT blog.
Well, this is how you learn to learn better. The sooner Myhrvold works out that this has more to do with theology instead of politics – and that he’s the heretic – the happier he’ll end up being.
Via Hot Air, and the best part? Watching the faces of his guests curdle. Ever so slightly. They start around the point where Maher starts babbling about inoculations. (Language warning):
Interestingly, the people who most like to beat their chests and howl about all those awful fundamentalist ‘Christianists’ on the Right* absolutely hate it when the entire anti-vaccination Left thing comes up. Their utter lack of self-awareness of just how ironic their responses tend to be should provide the interested observer with hours of fun at parties – for a given value of ‘fun,’ of course…
*All the while hoping that you don’t know how many of them vote Democrat. Hint: lots.
No, that’s not an ironic title, as anybody who deals with either the anti-vaccination or the anti-nuclear power crowd* for any length of time will readily enough attest. Ronald Bailey of Reason (H/T: Instapundit) is busy beating his head against the wall over the smug, self-congratulatory rhetoric of James Speth (from the latter group): Bailey had to read Speth’s book, and noted that Speth was bragging over helping to block the production of fast breeder reactors. Now, you can make the argument that blocking these kinds of nuclear plants is a good thing, as fast breeder reactors produce Evil Sinful ScaryDevil Killing-Metal plutonium and The Triple-Cursed Dirt of Hell radioactive waste; and if nuclear weapons are your absolutely greatest worry, well, it’s a free country. But Speth’s supposed greatest worry is global warming.
Or, as Bailey notes:
…in an alternative universe in which 200 reactors come online, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would be about 35 percent lower than they currently are. In other words, the reactors that Speth opposed could have been a huge part of the solution to what Speth claims is humanity’s “biggest threat.”
They could have, but that would have been a violation of Speth’s religious beliefs. And we should all stop pretending that we think that the anti-nuclear Left is motivated by anything more rational than a particularly illogical theology; or that the Democratic party isn’t happy to pander to them.