I am an unapologetic capitalist, but even I understand that there are some things that capitalism is not the best way to handle.
Like, once upon a time, we tried having a free market for fire extinguishing companies, and we ended up with people who hadn’t bought any fire protection having their houses burn down while competing companies stood by in case sparks ignited their customer’s houses. Of course, sparks did fly and entire cities were reduced to ashes.
Likewise, when money becomes free speech, then truth and facts become whatever the highest bidder says it is. Which is why universities were created, along with public museums. It is a system that has worked a very long time (ironically, longer than the “institution” of traditional marriage). It isn’t broken, so why are some people trying to fix it? Well, other than for profit?
2 Comments
Yeah, money talks…
I’ve been involved in a back & forth exchange of letters with Sen Charles Grassley now for a few weeks. I asked him to support the bill putting marijuana on schedule two. So far all I’ve received are arguments on how bad it is for children and some arguments from the 1950’s.
However, he did point out that drug companies have created approved medications that mimic the compounds found in pot,and he does support testing. OK, so if it has some medical uses, why keep it on schedule one? Heck, even meth is on schedule two. He also commented on how we in the US have the best process in the world for approving meds, which is why we see so many ads from lawyers calling for people to join class action litigation against drug companies.
Wait, what? An extreme right-wing nutjob who believes in Evolution? Hey, that’s progress!
Seriously though, I appreciate that museums and science in general are often strapped for cash, but it’s sad and more than a little disturbing that a major scientific institution would compromise its credentials to such a degree in exchange for profit. It’d be interesting to know how the larger scientific community views it (quite negatively, one would expect).
But it’s no longer any surprise how the scientific method is often co-opted and twisted to serve political or religious agendas (think Intelligent Design; Google the Creation Museum and learn how our ancestors walked with dinos!). This goes beyond the pat response, “I’m no scientist, but…”. This is playing scientist, but I guess this is how big money talks now in our big new plutocracy, with forked tongue in HD multimedia.
Or as the late, great Frank Zappa once put it (in Dumb All Over): “It won’t blow up or disappear, it’ll just look ugly for a thousand years.”
Let’s hope not.