More support for you and your list -- well reasoned

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Man Ching Cheung <mcheun01 () coral tufts edu>
Reply-To: mcheun01 () coral tufts edu
Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 12:22:44 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: More support for you and your list


Dr. Farber,

    Your list has provided me with much more reasoned, sensical, and
in-depth analysis than most newspapers and CNN.  I realize you draw your
material from friends and colleagues, some of whom work for those news
organizations; I see the value of this list as you concentrating a good
amount of the works of good analysts and reporters.
    I support the Bush plan for war against Iraq.  I too have been
persuaded that Mr. Hussein has violated basic codes of conduct towards
his own citizens, that he has and continues to test chemical and
biological weapons on the dissident elements within Iraq, that should
the U.S. back down from enforcing disarmament supported by the U.N. in
1991 and re-affirmed in 2002 he will merely bide his time and make war
again in the region, that he can supply terrorist organizations with
weapons of immense destructive power, and that the U.S. should correct
its past mistakes by removing strongmen it has supported in the past.
    Any discussion of war should center on the costs and benefits of
leaving Mr. Hussein in power.  The benefits of removing someone who uses
brutal violence to repress political expression is obvious; that same
person also tests neurotoxins on his own people (Jeffrey Goldberg, The
New Yorker, 25 Mar 2002).  The main issue still unresolved in my mind is
if Mr. Hussein would use his weapons against the U.S. if it does not
attack him; that is the largest factor in analysing the cost of war.
Will he attack the U.S. in the future?  Will he blackmail the U.S., as
North Korea will do now, so it can get aid?
    Is containment a viable solution?  Sanctions restricted both North
Korea and Iraq, yet both seem to have active weapons development
programs.  It seemed that the two actors are unreliable, and rules of
normal diplomatic conduct do not restrain them.  Will weapons be passed
on to terrorist groups (it does not have to be a direct transfer;
perhaps Iraq can supply weapons to a Islamist power friendly to both
al-Qaeda and Iraq)?  Does Mr. Hussein just want weapons... because he
can, and therefore will not use it against U.S. unless he were prodded
more?
    Your list has been the only place where I get consistent discussion of
the above points.  The press coverage usually devolves into an argument
against war based on a fear of America being perceived as a bully or
against Bush.  Neither argument addresses the impact of leaving Mr.
Hussein in power.  If we were to use lessons from World War II, then we
ought to realize that Roosevelt had argued that, should Hitler be
allowed unbridled supremacy in Europe, it would only be a matter of time
before America finds itself alone against an aggressive Reich.  Few
Congressmen bought that argument; further, the public sentiment is that
the stories about German Nazis persecuting the Jews were exaggerated.
Should Americans have argued against WWII based on the fear that America
could be perceived as a neo-colonial power, putting out fires that
inconvenience it?  Should Americans have argued against the war based on
opposing Roosevelt because he was a Roosevelt?
    I fear that is exactly how the press covers the war.  My only response
is that, even stupid people may do the right thing for the wrong reason.
  I also don't buy the argument that President Bush is a moron, and so
we can discount everything he does.  I think if Pres. Bush were an
idiot, and he were controlled by Mr. Cheney, then that still leaves a
rather intelligent person in control.  If Pres. Bush were not a moron,
then we have a smart man advised by a group of highly intelligent
individuals.  In either case, calling Pres. Bush stupid is
self-destructive, even if it racks up karma for the Far Left Liberals.
    As much as objectivity has been bandied about to describe how one sees
his own point-of-view, I have a stake in showing the public what true
objectivity is.  I am a doctoral student in a neuroscience program.  I
of course want to generate data and work of high quality.  What that
means is that I have to put build a story about how the olfactory system
works from a sundry of details.  As a result, I not only gather and
present arguments, I have, in a sense, to create as well (to devise
tests and record the results faithfully).  True objectivity is simply
addressing reasonable and irrational concerns reasonably.
    The problem I have with the press is that the coverage is based on
personal attacks.  America will lose its position in the European
clique, or that President Bush is controlled by oil companies are bad
arguments.  In much the same way, I shouldn't dismiss, for example a
phrenologist, by calling him a quack and a moron.  I have to show him,
to the audience, and to myself how he is wrong.  What evidence do
scientists have that dispute a model of brain function based on skull
morphology?  Or if a creationist throws verbal rotten eggs at Richard
Dawkins, it is incumbent upon the involved to refuse to sling mud in
kind, and address the actual questioning of scientific data.
    Objectivity means that one has to consider evidence even from a
so-called interested-party source (like Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and Big
Drug), because if one refuses to consider that evidence based on
financial or political ties, then that opens up the same argument
against scientists who had done good work, but who concluded that
carbon-based greenhouse effect is real, or that second-hand smoke causes
lung cancer (the point is that, we all have a stake in something).  Of
course, all this dictates that all parties report their data as
faithfully as possible, and not fabricate them; we must prosecute fraud
ruthlessly and relentlessly.  But we should never devolve to ad hominem
attacks.
    I doubt I linked together the ideas about press coverage, the impending
war, objectivity, and science well; I am sure you realize time and space
does not permit me a much deeper analysis.  I only hope that the main
points, and my support for your work, are appreciated.

        Man Ching

-- 

Man Ching Cheung
Laboratory of John Kauer, Ph.D.
Department of Neuroscience
Sackler School of Graduate Biomedical Sciences
Tufts University School of Medicine
136 Harrison Ave.
Boston, MA 02111
  Tel:  617-636-0483
  Cel:  617-953-2774

*All views are my own, and not necessarily of anyone I am affliated with.


------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/