Martin Peretz, editor of the New Republic, steals a joke I've been using for the last 5 years. My version, which I often used in class goes like this: If George Bush personally discovered a cure for cancer, the New York Times would accuse him of callously ignoring victims of other diseases. Which it would. Here's Peretz' version:
If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others. He pursued his goal obstinately, they would say, without filtering his thoughts through the medical research establishment. And he didn't share his research with competing labs and thus caused resentment among other scientists who didn't have the resources or the bold--perhaps even somewhat reckless--instincts to pursue the task as he did. And he completely ignored the World Health Organization, showing his contempt for international institutions. Anyway, a cure for cancer is all fine and nice, but what about aids?
Read it all.
Recent Comments