<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Discovery News</title>
      <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/</link>
      <description>covers politics, foreign policy, science, technology, media and culture with
an eye toward issues of conflict between worldviews. It reports otherwise
under-represented developments and discovers facts and points of view that
otherwise might be missed in public dialogue. Contributors include former
Discovery News ambassadors and elected officials, public policy fellows and writers
nation-wide.</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2010</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:45:05 -0800</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>Abortion Con Job Coming Into Open</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<img alt="4084971106_393b7e9a5a.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/4084971106_393b7e9a5a.jpg" width="410" height="201" />

I pointed out on March 9 that if the White House and Congressional leaders cannot get the health care bill passed, all it will take to sway the final needed votes is a Leadership concession to the handful of Democratic anti-abortion forces. The pro-choice Democrats will make ritual complaints, but they still will vote for the resultant, supposedly "anti-abortion" product. 

That is what is now in the works, perhaps, <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/house/87865-pro-life-dems-working-on-a-vote-deal">according to <em>The Hill</em></a>. Watch for developments in the coming hours.

Meanwhile, I repeat my prediction that any such supposed legal agreement will be betrayed. Indeed, it is so obvious to insiders that it will be betrayed (perhaps almost immediately, perhaps after a decent interval of a few months) that some of the anti-abortion Democrats may <em>not</em> go along. However, some <em>will</em> go along because the parliamentary fig-leaf they are being offered gives them a way to pretend that they have not caved in on the abortion issue. Actually, all the Leadership needs is about half the anti-abortion Democratic members. Once the bill's future is secured, Speaker Pelosi can give the other members a pass to vote "no".

As I say, the pro-choice Members of the House, meanwhile, will know full well that any abortion "compromise" is synthetic, a fig leaf. They will pretend otherwise while voting for the bill. 

There are so many open deals like this that are tied to certain members and certain districts on the issue of health care "reform" that one can only imagine the behind the scenes deals--the ones based on promises of jobs after a likely election defeat, for example, and the ones based on threats of various kinds. A "no" vote Member can be threatened with everything from loss of a treasured committee assignment--where the real work the House supposedly takes place--to loss of good office space after the next election, not to mention election campaign cash meanwhile. A truly vengeful Leadership could even threaten a potential "no" vote Member with discreet disclosure of unsavory personal information to inquiring media. (Sorry if that sounds cynical.)

It is risky for the Leadership to act in a really vengeful way; there is always next month's votes, and the votes after that. But the stakes are really high now. If the bill passes, watch for more and more deals to come to light. It may be too late, but they will come to light.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/abortion_con_job_begins033041.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/abortion_con_job_begins033041.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:45:05 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>The Reasons to Answer the Census</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Some folks are bothered a bit by a couple of trends in the taking of the Census; yes, the one being taken right now.

First is the letter householders are getting in the mail to alert them that they are <em>about</em> to get an official Census form to fill out. It's a bit expensive, but there is nothing wrong with sending out this little teaser. Response rates go up when people are advised that the real thing is on its way. That means fewer, more expensive personal Census worker visits later.

The more troubling problem, rather, is the admonition written in the letter (and in many of the radio ads for the Census) that "Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete and accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share."

]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/the_main_reasons_to_answer_the032911.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/the_main_reasons_to_answer_the032911.php</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 16:17:38 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Net Neutrality is an Orwellian Phrase for Government Direction of the Internet</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Senior Fellow George Gilder has shot a little arrow into the Obama Administration plans for "net neutrality". The  Tuesday <em>Wall Street Journal</em> carries <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575118100783269306.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion">George's attack</a>.

The author of <em>Life After Television</em>,<em> Microcosm</em> and <em>Telecosm</em>, among others, has been trying hard to make the point that the very cutting edge of our economy is high technology and its abundant success is the product of freedom from government over-regulation. Obama and Co., he says, <em>hope</em> to <em>change</em> that.

Net neutrality is Orwellian. It is further evidence of America's careening drive into a planned economy--and stagnation.

 ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/net_neutrality_is_an_orwellian032931.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/net_neutrality_is_an_orwellian032931.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Technology &amp; Democracy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 23:40:11 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title> Scandal Arises Over Vaccine Doctor</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Do you still contend that scientists are a breed apart, a superior species that should hold others, mere mortals, in awe? Then please digest <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/health_science/daily/20100312_Autism-study_doctor_facing_grant_probe.html#comments">the latest scandal</a> about money, greed and "science", and this time keep in your mind's eye the thousands, maybe millions, of infants that are affected by autism. It is their welfare that must now come into focus.

Danish scientist Paul Thorsen has disappeared, apparently, along with a couple million dollars of U.S. public money and some of the data that formed the basis for studies in which he participated. Now those enormously influential studies--supposedly disproving any connection between mercury and autism--are coming into question,  and deservedly so.

Maybe the studies were valid. By all means, let's find out. In fact, a thorough and <strong>independent</strong> public investigation is imperative. Since the Center for Disease Control's money was involved, surely the CDC should not be the only body looking into this matter.

A U.S. Court <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703780204575119923410598534.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop">decided just now</a> that the autism link to mercury is invalid. Maybe so, but given the timing it doesn't seem that the court was at all aware of the Thorsen scandal. The Court ruling and the Thorsen revelations seem to have overlapped.

]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/another_and_serious_science_sc032921.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/another_and_serious_science_sc032921.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">American Politics</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:31:02 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Paranoia or Clearing Air? Two Views of Turkey</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Two friends (of each other and of mine) have written well-publicized articles about the true condition of Turkish democracy today. They both seem reasonable and they overlap a bit, but they also clash. 

First, look at <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704131404575117641079293872.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">Claire Berlinski's article</a> from the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>.

Then read <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/234853">Mustafa Akyol's article</a> from <em>Newsweek</em>.

I <em>want</em> Mustafa to be right. I am not sure that he is. I do know that the United States has not handled Turkish relations well for some years. For those of you who think it doesn't matter, Claire and Mustafa both could set you straight.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/paranoia_or_clearing_air_two_v032901.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/paranoia_or_clearing_air_two_v032901.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Foreign Policy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:13:00 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>No Religion, Please, We&apos;re Harvardians</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Harvard was founded in 1636 as a Christian seminary. For generations it trained ministers and leaders for Massachusetts and the young American nation. The Puritan divines were well educated, their writing precise and often eloquent. Over two centuries, the axis of university religion turned from Puritanism to transcendentalism (Unitarianism, essentially) and from there to a pluralism that honored religion in general but nodded toward conventional Protestantism. This latter era is expressed well in the beautiful neo-Georgian Memorial Church, built at the head of The Yard in 1932 to honor Harvard men who died in World War I. But even in the first two thirds of the Twentieth Century, Harvard was also characterized by sophisticated skepticism. Then came the '60s and things got worse.

<div class="floatimgright" style="width:160px;"><img alt="God-harvard-FE06-vl-vertical.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/God-harvard-FE06-vl-vertical.jpg" /><div class="captionText">Illustration by Peter Oumanski for Newsweek</div></div>

Today Harvard students go to church, some say in record numbers; but the culture of the university is hostile to religion, presented in that supercilious manner often associated with Harvard. 

For faculty star Stephen Pinker--evangelist for evolution, atheism and animal rights--religion has no place at such a fine educational institution. ("Pinker to John Harvard," a <em>New York Post</em> headline might read, "Drop Dead.")

Lisa Miller's <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/233413">recent article in <em>Newsweek</em></a> about this subject continues to draw attention, including from Harvard undergraduates. The article itself unconsciously draws a line between those who, like Pinker, want to banish teaching about religion (unless the course is about the evils of religion) and those who think that an educated person in our day, or any day, must know something of the rich patrimony of religious faith.
        ]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/no_religion_please_were_harvar_1032891.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/no_religion_please_were_harvar_1032891.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Faith &amp; Science</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:57:29 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Joe Biden Flunks His Israel Test</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<img alt="Biden_Israel_Test.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/Biden_Israel_Test.jpg" width="420" height="236" />

Sometimes, educational experiences are unpleasant. Vice President Biden was in Israel this week to cheer his "old friends," declare his joy at being "home" and, oh, by the way, encourage Israel not to build any more settlements in Jerusalem and the West Bank. But <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-10">during his visit</a> the Israelis announced (by cooincidence or the unilateral decision of a faction in the Netanyahu government) that they were going to allow another 1600 new settlement housing units in (East) Jerusalem.

This provoked Joe Biden to rebuke the decision, and his mission more or less ground to a halt right there.

In <em>The Israel Test</em>, George Gilder argues that Jewish settlements have not hurt the Palestinian economy of the West Bank, Gaza or Jerusalem, but have greatly improved it. Before the intifadas of the 90s, Palestinians moved into the areas where Israelis settled and gained greatly from the collateral prosperity. Palestinian <em>per capita</em> income tripled in the period.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/joe_biden_flunks_his_israel_te032861.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/joe_biden_flunks_his_israel_te032861.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Foreign Policy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:52:28 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Animal Wrongs</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<img alt="Picture%204.png" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/Picture%204.png" width="360" height="248" />

Wesley J. Smith's book, <em>A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy</em>, is gaining traction. Here is <a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2010/03/11/animal-wrongs-2/">an excellent interview</a> of our senior fellow in bioethics at Frontpagemag.com. As with so many issues, the opposition to Smith's views create a straw man about it, holding that Smith is insensitive to animal welfare--the humane treatment of animals from pets to ranch cattle. The opposite is true, as Smith makes clear.

Radical animal rights is part of the utopian leftism that depreciates human exceptionalism--those qualities that make us distinctly human.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/animal_wrongs032841.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/animal_wrongs032841.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Bioethics</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 11:14:03 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Mexico  Deserves Support on Trade Issue</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The Obama Campaign in 2008 opposed George W. Bush's efforts on behalf of free trade, including the permission of qualified Mexico truck drivers to bring their goods into the United States. The reason was simple: big labor was opposed; in the Mexican case it was the Teamsters.

Now we are experiencing a near collapse of free trade progress and, in the case of the Mexican trucks, strong retaliatory measures by Mexico that, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704784904575112032142899068.html?KEYWORDS=Mexico+Tops+List+of+Trade+Issues">according to the <em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>, already have cost us $2.6 billion in export trade and some 25,000 jobs. 

]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/mexico_deserves_support_on_tra032801.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/mexico_deserves_support_on_tra032801.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Foreign Policy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:51:44 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>A  Neglected Feminist Cause</title>
         <description><![CDATA[by Anika Smith

Jonah Goldberg has <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/427383/where-feminists-get-it-right/jonah-goldberg">a thought-provoking article</a> up at NRO where he reminds us that “Feminists Get It Right” when it comes to the plight of women subject to abuse simply because of their sex.  After giving a few examples of grisly practices where women are punished for men’s inability to restrain themselves (particularly the opening scene, where he explains how young girls in Cameroon are disfigured by their mothers in order to discourage the randy local boys), Goldberg explains that this a familiar story on a global scale.  “Around the world, women — girls — have to pay the price for the barbarity of boys.”

It’s a fact too often ignored in what Harvey Mansfield calls the gender neutral society, that purposefully obfuscates the differences between men and women, but it’s still true: where men are most brutal, women, being the weaker and more vulnerable sex, suffer most.

]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/a_worthy_and_relatively_neglec032791.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/a_worthy_and_relatively_neglec032791.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">American Politics</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:13:35 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title> Opposition to Obamacare Vulnerable to Sudden Collapse</title>
         <description><![CDATA[In the course of this one day Rep. Bart Stupak, D-MI, who leads a Democratic pro-life group of about 12 House members, was quoted in support of a possible "sidebar" bill to prevent abortion funding, and then, later, <a href="http://www.lifenews.com/nat6095.html">minimizing the prospect. </a> This underscores the problem that opponents of Obamacare face. It is only the abortion issue that stands in the way of a narrw majority House vote for the expensive, cumbersome Senate health care bill that President Obama favors.

But all it really will take to reach a successful compromise is a decision by the President and the Senate Democrats to concede this point in language acceptable to Rep. Stupak, either in a "sidebar" bill or in the health care bill itself. That would be painful, and a few House and Senate votes might shift against the bill, but only a very few. In return, Obamacare proponents would get the 12 pro-life Democratic votes for their bill, and with it the prospect of a much bigger government role in health care from now on.

They could and probably would betray Rep. Stupak later on.

Pro-life groups are urging Rep. Stupak to hang tough. The reality is that only when the present legislation is buried can a genuine bi-partisan effort develop that ends some of the bureaucratic sclerosis in the present system, and yet prevents the even worse bureaucratic sclerosis that Obamacare would entail.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/the_potential_flaw_in_oppositi032741.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/the_potential_flaw_in_oppositi032741.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">American Politics</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:58:24 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Scientism is Seductive Public Policy, and Wrong</title>
         <description><![CDATA[From time to time almost everyone at Discovery Institute winds up taking a swipe at scientism, the philosophy that enthrones science as the ultimate arbiter of morals, as well as facts. Scientism--seen in many a news and opinion article--is an arrogant assumption of unearned authority. Wesley J. Smith <a href="http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2010/03/09/scientism-isnt-science/">blogs about it</a> at <em>First Things</em> today. 

The trouble is, one may dismiss scientism as folly, and yet be seduced by it in particular circumstances. My chief disappointment these days is not with those snake oil salesmen in the scientific community who try to peddle their views as unimpeachable truth, but the gullible laypeople who, lacking a doctorate in science, think they have to defer to the "experts". This is particularly true of journalists and editorial writers. They wouldn't defer so readily to generals on the subject of the advisability of war, would they? Nor to Wall Street gurus on the wisdom of a given tax policy. But some "study" in which "scientists say" something in a "journal" is treated as Gospel.

Gospel, of course, is not treated as Gospel.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/scientism_is_seductive_public032711.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/scientism_is_seductive_public032711.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Science &amp; Culture</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 12:03:30 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Nelson Mandela Versus Winnie Manela</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<img alt="mandela_1566363c.jpg" src="http://www.discoverynews.org/mandela_1566363c.jpg" width="420" height="262" />

CNN interviewed Winnie Maneda, divorced spouse of Nelson Mendela, today and made the woman who once advocated "necklaces" of burning tires for inadequately motivated revolutionaries in South Africa seem proper and almost prim. But <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256425/Nelson-Mandelas-ex-wife-accuses-President-betraying-blacks-South-Africa.html">another interview</a>, in the U.K., printed in the <em>Daily Mail</em>, gives a truer sense of the woman and her poisoned perspective.

<em>Invictus</em>, the film starring Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela, did not get much attention at the Oscars show last night, but it deserves to be listed in the pantheon of films of political redemption. Whereas Winnie's hatred pointed in one direction, the suffering and reflection of Nelson Mandela headed him--and South Africa--in another, and history was transformed. It is not perfect, but, still, it is one of the quiet, beautiful triumphs of our time.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/nelson_mandela_versus_winnie_m032701.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/nelson_mandela_versus_winnie_m032701.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Foreign Policy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:01:28 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Attack on Wesley J. Smith, and a Response</title>
         <description><![CDATA[Former Bush speechwriter Matthew Scully penned <a href="http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWY2ODVjMmMxNGVlMzRiNWRmNzU2NjU3NmY3YWE4ZWI">a tough review</a> of Wesley J. Smith's book in National Review last week. This week, <a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=6681">Wesley took his turn to respond.</a> The latter article appears in the March 22 edition of National Review.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/attack_on_wesley_j_smith_and_a032681.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/attack_on_wesley_j_smith_and_a032681.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Bioethics</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:24:59 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>A New Freedom, Both Free and Important</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The government expansionists have had their eyes on the Internet ever since Al Gore claims he invented it. Of course, the Feds' DARPA did help birth the Internet, but there is no reason why Washington now should imitate the Iranian mullahs or the Chinese and start restricting access and imposing financial or technical controls.  

It is not just because the technology is new that it has made such a huge contribution to our economy; it's also because the new technology has been relatively unfettered by the government.

The whole subject of federal regulation re-emerges in a major way in coming weeks. Watch this space.

Meanwhile, Mark Landsbaum of the <em>Orange County Register</em> (in a column that I missed when it first came out) is among those trying to <a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/internet-225830-government-online.html">sound the alarm about losing freedom on the Internet</a>. 

Take note before they take it away.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/one_of_our_new_freedoms_is_amo032631.php</link>
         <guid>http://www.discoverynews.org/2010/03/one_of_our_new_freedoms_is_amo032631.php</guid>
                  <category domain="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category">Technology &amp; Democracy</category>
        
        
         <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:41:23 -0800</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
