James Watson didn’t say this to the London Times, but he is living it. Albert Einstein said, “God does not play dice with the universe.” This was because he objected to Bohr’s interpretation of indeterminacy in measuring sub-systems in quantum mechanics.
We now have new information about what God does or doesn’t do and its relation to scientists. In Einstein’s time, the dispute was over what science is. In our time, its whether to say what it is. Cold Spring Harbor Lab’s trustees say don’t.
== “Live not by Lies”
Alexander Solzhenitsyn “live not by lies”
As printed in The Washington Post, p. A26
Monday, February 18, 1974
We have been so hopelessly dehumanized that for today’s modest ration of food we are willing to abandon all our principles, our souls, and all the efforts of our predecessors and all opportunities for our descendants–but just don’t disturb our fragile existence.
Men’s median wages are the same in the US as in 1973. The article by Solzhenitsyn was published in 1974 in the Washington Post. See graph page 16 at link below. Women’s median wages are below men today so they make less than men did in 1973. In fact, women are still where men were in 1960. See their graph on page 16 too. Men and women’s median earnings have been falling for the last several years.
So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.
On September 6, 2007, Vanishing American quoted this in writing about conservatism and writing about race. This was before the Watson flap.
VA is writing about the “Race and Conservatism” piece by John Derbyshire:
Vanishing American says
There is a dire need for a true conservatism to assert itself in America. Without a genuine conservative party in our country, we simply have a Hobson’s choice: liberals or liberals-lite.
==Nature Editorial on Watson’s speaking truth for no fee
The following summarizes some of the criticism of the Nature editorial at the above posts. Nature says scientists have the right to speak out on controversial issues, just not Watson. Nature says that population groups differ in characteristics (e.g. IQ), not races. Nature says real scientists need to speak out on the differences in population groups, as opposed to false crack-pot pseudo scientists like Watson who speak of racial differences in IQ.
Nature 449, 948 (25 October 2007) | doi:10.1038/449948a; Published online 24 October 2007
Top of page
Debate about sensitive scientific issues needs to be forthright but not crass.
So ‘Honest Jim’ Watson has finally fallen victim to his notorious propensity for making outrageous statements —
Maybe Nature is venting its personal feelings towards Watson?
- Main Entry:
- Latin crassus thick, gross
- circa 1625
1 a: gross 6a; especially : having or indicating such grossness of mind as precludes delicacy and discrimination b: being beneath one’s dignity <crass concerns of daily life> c—used as a pejorative intensifier <crass flattery><crass propaganda>2: guided by or indicative of base or materialistic values <crass commercialism> <crass measures of success>
Crass commercialism? Would that be like pretending no racial differences in IQ to get speaking fees, donor money and avoid book tours being cancelled? Is that crass? Isn’t the reaction to Watson by donor recipients the intended meaning of the word crass?
Search Tim Russert speaking fees
Tim Russert Speaking fee from Arianna Huffington at Huffington Post:
But, according to the Washington Speakers Bureau, which exclusively handles Russert’s speaking engagements, his standard speaking fee is $60,000 plus first class travel for two for west coast appearances, and $50,000 and first class travel for two for east coast locales — although, they say, private planes are strongly preferred.
===The same applies to Senators who vote for immigration.
U Shaped Income Inequality Timeline
—-Senators Vote their Stock Portfolios
7 of the top 8 wealthiest Senators voted for S. 2611, amnesty, affirmative action, non-deportable crime, and a pathway for the top 1 percent of households to continue to enjoy 20 percent of each year’s income, compared to 10 percent before Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act. The only 1 of the top 8 who didn’t vote for S. 2611 didn’t vote, Jay Rockefeller. McCain is 7th and Kennedy 8th in wealth.
Rank Name Minimum Net Worth Maximum Net Worth
1 Herb Kohl (D-Wis) $219,098,029 to $234,549,004 Voted Yes S. 2611
2 John Kerry (D-Mass) $165,741,511 to $235,262,100 Voted Yes S. 2611
3 Jay Rockefeller (D-WVa) $78,150,023 to $101,579,003 Not Voting S. 2611
4 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $43,343,464 to $98,660,021 Voted Yes S. 2611
5 Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) $41,153,105 to $64,096,019 Voted Yes S. 2611
6 Frank R. Lautenberg (D-NJ) $38,198,170 to $90,733,019 Voted Yes S. 2611
7 John McCain (R-Ariz) $25,071,142 to $38,043,014 Voted Yes S. 2611
8 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $19,189,049 to $93,043,004 Voted Yes S. 2611
More data here
More on journalists taking speaking fees to speak the other way on reality:
Free fax to Congress on hot immigration bills: http://www.numbersusa.com/actionbuffet
Steve Sailer race iq
First part of list
Donald E. Axinn
Founder and Chairman, CEO, Donald E. Axinn Companies
Landon T. Clay
Chairman, East Hill Management Company, LLC
Kristina Perkin Davison
Partner, iEurope Capital LLC
Joseph T. Donohue
Managing Director, Gleacher Partners, LLC
J. Goldfield & Co.
Lola N. Grace
Officer: Vice Chairman
Managing Director, Sterling Grace Capital Management
Laurie J. Landeau, V.M.D.
General Manager, Listowel
Stephen M. Lessing
Managing Director, Lehman Brothers
Robert D. Lindsay
Officer: Vice Chairman
Co-Managing Partner, Goldberg Lindsay & Co.
Nancy Abeles Marks
Carl Marks & Co.
Eduardo G. Mestre
Vice Chairman, Evercore Partners
Douglas P. Morris
Chairman & CEO, Universal Music Group
Jamie C. Nicholls
Forstmann Little & Co.
John C. Phelan
Managing Partner, MSD Capital, L.P.
Trustees of a science institute are supposed to uphold science, not their business ventures. If a trustee acts against science, in order to benefit their personal company, then they may be liable for their actions? Just a hypothesis. Donors could sue the trustee to get their money back, because the trustees have acted against science, which is contrary to the representation to donors, i.e. that science would be upheld by trustees?
More links here: