Mike Bloomberg gave a commencement address at Johns Hopkins and made some really insightful comments. Transcript and video.

A brief excerpt:

And it boggles the mind that nearly two centuries after Darwin, and 80 years after John Scopes was put on trial, this country is still debating the validity of evolution. In Kansas, Mississippi, and elsewhere, school districts are now proposing to teach "intelligent design" - which is really just creationism by another name - in science classes alongside evolution. Think about it! This not only devalues science, it cheapens theology. As well as condemning these students to an inferior education, it ultimately hurts their professional opportunities.

Hopkins' motto is Veritas vos liberabit - "the truth shall set you free" - not that "you shall be free to set the truth!" I've always wondered which science those legislators who create their own truths pick when their families need life-saving medical treatment.



PS. Hey Mike -- My guess is you're going to run for Governenor after you're done being Mayor. If Eliot Spitzer is ready to run for Senate or President by that time, I'll vote for you.

 

It sickens me that science is slowly becoming non-secular. Science is f'n secular! If it wasn't for secular science, we would still think the world is flat, we would still think that the sun revolves around the earth, we would still not be allowed to read, the printing press would never be invented, we would just be ignorant fools that never question anything around us. Science is to question...science is to analyze and find truths...finding answeres to questions that start with "why?.."

You might as well toss the word "science" and just make it all theology...disgusting. I would yank my kid out of the school in a heart beat.

 

Luckily our constitution protects us from these sorts of things. If they vialate this ammendment, you simply sue the shit out of them.

 

benajmin, if I was a betting man (and I am) my guess is that he is gearing up for a Presidential run in '08. Problem for Bloomberg is that he is neither a republican nor Democrat having changed his party affiliation to run for Mayor of NYC so he did not have to go through the Democratic primary and was unopposed as the Republican candidate. The good thing for him is that he has shown he can grow a large business and run a tough city effectively, both good leadership skills. He also has money which you need a a third party candidate.

As for ID in schools I think it is pretty silly, let science be science and Theology be Theology.

 

Bloomberg is terrible :down: He only won because Guiliani endorsed him, then he broke several promises he made to Guiuliani about what he'd do when he took office.

 

haha...and I was just about to say this guy slants much further right then left. Seems like broken promises and the "right" have lot's in common. At least he doesn't steal campaign funds or rip off indians....at least, for what we know of....

 

You make little to no sense.

 

Bloomberg was a life-long liberal and registered Democrat until he switched to a Republican so he had no challengers in the primaries he had to face. His conversion to a Republican was out of convenience, not political ideology. He is still a moderate liberal at heart.

 

I'm the worst gambler in the history of the universe, and I think I would actually win this bet. =)

I would be very very surprised to see Bloomberg run for President, mostly because I can't imagine a guy who was Mayor of a city -- even New York -- being elected President immediately after. Not Bloomberg, and not even Giuliani at his peak. I agree that he aspires to higher office, though. I think Bloomberg would be more likely to run for Governor, but not until after Eliott Spitzer is done with the post. Bloomberg simply couldn't compete with Spitzer for the post.

 

What's more difficult, running NYC through a terrorist attack or being a senator?

If Generals can get to the presidency immediately after retiring, why not a mayor?