SCIENCE & THE THREE "S's"

by Jim Beers

"Science", "scientist", "best science", and "scientific method" are all legitimate and valued portions of the human experience.  They are a means of examining what we have learned to date and then to learn more systematically in order to make sound decisions and develop new products.  "Science" is only a MEANS TO AN END: "science" is not an end unto itself.  The juxtaposition of "science" from a means to an end, to an end unto itself was glaringly demonstrated today in the two Washington newspapers in two entirely different matters, each beginning with the letter "S".

First, the Washington Times reported that "Hill urged to cut abstinence funding", "Researchers see 'scientific and ethical problems'".  Dr. Santelli, "a department chairman" at "the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University" tells us "We want to see that the best programs are used" and "that they are based on the best science".  He prattles on that "Abstinence until marriage is a fairly rare event, certainly for teenagers since they don't get married until they're in their late 20's," "It raises the whole issue of 'Is that a reasonable goal?  Do the programs make sense? Are they well-grounded?" "Best science"?  "Ethical questions"?  "Reasonable goal"?  How did we come to the point that "scientists" claim authority over moral behavior of the young?  The notion that a "scientist" and "best science" can even suggest that OUR children should not be encouraged to abstain from sex as we so desire is preposterous.  Based on this sort of thinking, "science" might eradicate any teaching that stealing or lying is wrong and should be avoided because they believe it is not a "reasonable goal" and raises "ethical questions" (based on whose morality?).  After all if most teenagers have lied or stolen, well "'Scientist-in-charge' forbid" that any others be importuned and made to feel bad by being told they should not lie or steal!

Well, one might ask, what does this have to do with the things Jim Beers usually writes about?  The answer is quite a bit actually.  You see this overreaching by Columbia University "scientists" is a somewhat dramatic new twist in the "science" worship that has been employed by Federal politicians, state and federal bureaucrats, University professors, and radical environmental/animal rights organizations for 35 years now.  Does anyone remember when domestic animals and wild animals and wild plants and rural activities were the responsibility of property owners and rural communities?  Does anyone realize that "scientists" and "best science" have become merely stalking horses and surrogates for more centralized-government socialist movements; and radical causes like eliminating animal ownership and activities like hunting and fishing, forest and range management, and a whole gamut of animal uses from cockfighting and trapping and rodeos to medical testing and animal husbandry for food?  If you remember when "science" was a friendly tool and not a means to seize private property; if you remember when Universities were places to seek help; if you remember when politicians protected Americans from those who would take their property and traditions (and children) from them: then you should consider how much things are changing as you read on.

The second article appeared in today's Washington Post under the banner, "7 Decisions on Species Revised".  This eco-friendly, journalistic fuzz-piece tells us of "a Bush administration appointee" that "influenced" "several rulings on whether to protect imperiled species under the Endangered Species Act".  Although the supposedly nefarious "appointee" was in charge of the US Fish and Wildlife Service we are told "the agency turned a blind eye to her actions".  The hero of this set piece is "Congressman Rahall (D-W.Va.) Chairman of the House Resources Committee" who bemoans "the extent to which political ideology had influenced the administrations approach to protecting plants and animals".  The bottom line is that the "go along to get along" Secretary of the Interior has reversed the former decisions of the vilified appointee to not list such innocuous species as white-tailed prairie dogs and lynx along with 12 species of Hawaiian flies, a California toad, and a Colorado jumping mouse: Hallelujah!

If the federal government can "List" the white-tailed prairie dog and lynx, they may as well "List" the cottontail rabbit and the starling.  "Science" and "scientists" will justify "Listing" ANYTHING.  This is because the professors specializing in prairie dogs and lynx get PAID to justify "Listing" them; and then get PAID ad infinitum to testify in lawsuits about them; and then get PAID to design censuses for them; and then get PAID to "recommend" habitat's to be "taken" without compensation for them; and then get PAID to spell out why "Down listing" them is not recommended; and then get PAID to justify "tradeoffs" for development "permits"; and then get PAID to explain why they "need" to be part of a larger "Native Ecosystem/Wildlands/Corridors/etc." scheme as such schemes are introduced. Finally they can depend on being PAID as consultants by the radical groups that are pushing all the political and bureaucratic buttons that are strangling rural America.
So a "Bush appointee" didn't roll over for the "scientists" and their bureaucrat partners: good for her.  She did her job of overseeing the agency that thinks it should grow in money, personnel, and power annually no matter the cost to others or the nation or our way of life.  She was undercut at every turn by bureaucrats that knew they only had to wait until politicians more favorable to them got elected and reversed her.  I'll bet that if I could get a quarter for every "secret" call to staff members of the new House majority from US Fish and Wildlife Service employees to that effect, I could go on a Caribbean cruise.

Then there is the West Virginia Congressman leading this charge to stamp out "political ideology".  He has been the subject of a major corruption investigation about enriching himself very significantly at taxpayer expense.  His West Virginia constituency is (in my humble opinion) probably one of the least concerned group of voters in the nation about all this emotional animal hyperbole.  As he leads this political dance macabre, the sharks are circling and looking for more people to attack.  Worthies such as the Forest Guardians and Center for Native Ecosystems are joining with others to sue and to go after other persons not sufficiently obedient to "best science".  Talk about strange bedfellows; they don't get much more bizarre than a West Virginia Congressman and Forest Guardians: but truth be told the Congressman gets to divert voters attention from his other troubles and the national radical groups will be donating and volunteering to keep such a staunch supporter in office.  It certainly doesn't hurt that not one of these "imperiled" species reside within 1,000 miles of West Virginia either.

So, why does a milquetoast Secretary of the Interior throw one of President's appointees to the wolves?  Why is a West Virginia Congressman in bed with extremists?  Why is an agency able to muster such support from the opposite
party of the President?  The answer my friend is the upcoming Presidential election.  We are now witnessing the advent of the earliest and longest Presidential campaign in history.  We can look forward to a long string of two things:

1. Endless scandals publicized by the Democrat Committees in the House and Senate that are aimed at Republican transgressions carefully described by government employees hoping to be rewarded when the Democrats get elected.

2. Gargantuan and numberless Wilderness, Roadless, Wildland, Corridor, and Sanctuary legislation coupled with "expanding" and "beefing up" of every bit of environmental and animal rights legislation currently in place.
Just as in the early 1970's when there was a political confrontation of the first order (Watergate), and a hotly debated foreign expedition (South Viet Nam) there is a political need to divert our attention (from Iraq and the
hatred of a President) with a Circus Maximus just as Roman Emperors did when they worried about the rabble (that would be you and me).  Our Circus Maximus is to be a procession of feel-good but wholly unreasonable and
ineffectual environmental and animal rights radicalism justified and disguise by "scientists" and "best science".

What then are the "Three 'S's'" referred to in the title of this article? The "Three 'S's'" being incorporated under "Science" are Sex, Species, and Sheep.  SEX is demonstrated by the Columbia "scientist" recommending the end
of abstinence teaching because it is not "reasonable".  SPECIES is this entire Endangered Species charade that is deadly serious and killing people and livestock and game herds and pets and traditions and hunting and fishing
and ranching and the very right to own and use private property from real estate to timber.

Finally, there are SHEEP; that is you and I.  "Science" is being used on us like Hitler used the SS and Stalin used the KGB to intimidate the citizenry and take away their very way of life and turn it into the sterile dreams of others.  When we let "scientists" or politicians or professors or radical groups do this to us we are SHEEP.  When we say enough is enough and restore the freedoms and liberties we were given and that we are letting slip away, we are MEN!  Putting the "Science" genie back in the bottle is a good place to start.

Jim Beers
28 November 2007

- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others.  Thanks.

http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)

- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7@verizon.net

- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.

Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO  80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com

| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |