Science & The Three "S's"
by Jim Beers
Jim Beers Commonsense
"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
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
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
28 November 2007
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at
http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact:
- 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.