The American Spectator

bvinson| 3.30.09 @ 11:15AM

great tv show. entertaining and always different.
the new guy is a welcome addition.

Claudia| 3.30.09 @ 6:51PM

I TOLD my husband that this show took a conservative approach to science! I amaze myself sometimes. Nice to read for once I got it right.

ClaudioS| 3.30.09 @ 7:01PM

You should pay more attention to the rest of the Executive Producer credits besides "Jerry Bruckheimer."

Ethan Reiff & Cyrus Voris, who created and ran 2 seasons of "SLEEPER CELL" on the Showtime cable network, are the actual day-to-day showrunners of "Eleventh Hour." Sleeper Cell is the only terrorism drama (with the emphasis on DRAMA and not pure action, like "24") that ever received any good reviews from conservative websites, bloggers, pundits, etc. Others on the right and many on the left hated that show but I thought it was incredibly smart, balanced without ever pandering to anyone in any way and, IMHO as a hawkish geopolitical conservative, had a classically conservative soul.

cdc| 3.30.09 @ 8:10PM

so the closest conservatives can get to a science show is one where the researchers are the villains. That is not going to do much to overcome the right's earned reputation for being anti-science

Dai Alanye| 3.30.09 @ 8:50PM

"…he right's earned reputation for being anti-science" exists primarily in the minds of the paranoid left.

Please excuse me—"paranoid left" is, of course, redundant.

ClaudioS| 3.31.09 @ 6:24PM

cdc,

The HERO of this show -- Eleventh Hour -- is a brilliant biophysicist. WTF? In almost every episode he DEFENDS science to someone. He just thinks science needs to be conducted in a responsible manner, with an eye on the human cost of the process. Most of the researchers on this show were heroic characters, but some of them were villains, kind of like in pretty much every discipline in real life, where most people are relatively decent but at least a few, for any number and variety of reasons, are to a greater or lesser degree, BAD.

I remember a scene from the episode with the DARPA research run amok, where Hood noticed that a radical animal rights activist was a diabetic and pointed out that without the sacrifice of animals used in research experiments to develop insulin therapy, the animal rights activist wouldn't be alive.

That doesn't sound "ANTI-SCIENCE" to me.

Paul Crowley| 4.2.09 @ 5:30AM

"He just thinks science needs to be conducted in a responsible manner, with an eye on the human cost of the process."

"an eye on the human cost of the process"

Why does one keep “an eye on the human cost of the process,” at all?

For what purpose?

For "Bean Counting" (accounting) purposes?
To what end?

Or for adjustments in Public Relations (due to concern about “how does that make someone feel?”)?

This is what defines the new reformed, and reforming, "conservatism?"

In what way does such an ethic differ from that of an intelligent Marxist?

In what way, if any, does such an ethic differ from that of an amoral pragmatist?

Marxists and amoral pragmatists are not the same, but they do tend to share the same ethic (i.e. “whatever is expedient”).

This sounds like a George W. Bush version of scientific conservatism, expressed in his explanation in 2004 for having become the first President to provide federal funding to stem cell research in 2001: “a compromise between science and ethics.”

Pure pragmatist. Purely unethical by pre-reformed American ethical and pre-reformed religions standards (Not all human motion is forward, or progress).

I noted to my older brother that “libertarian” has now been redefined as “conservative.”
His reply to me was that “there’s nothing conservative about libertarians.”
He’s right. He’s also 61 years old and hasn’t been paying attention.
This is far more libertarian than conservative.

At any rate, I can’t get too excited about another science-fiction program for science and technology cheerleaders, this one useful to teach the conservative-inclined’ How To Think Properly.

This is something that no television series, movie, documentary, or radio show is of any value for, whatsoever.

But such television shows, movies, and radio programs are immensely useful for the Formation of large numbers of individuals.

The easiest training that countless millions ever receive: No effort required. No need to think..Just look, listen, and absorb.

Many of the science and technology cheerleaders that I’ve known have been in-numerate, did poorly in science courses, usually majored in social sciences or humanities in college, were often Star Trek fans in the 1960s, know primarily only what they see on the 6th-grade level documentaries they love to watch, and confuse science with their weakly thought out political opinions, which are not their own, but are what They Are Taught, and only parrot back. Science for Science’ sake types.
Left-wing, right-wing, and other. . .

Conversely, many of the science and technology types I've known are Star Trek and Science-Fiction fans who get much of their ethics from the shows, which isn't something restricted only to science and technology types.

They have not a clue that science and technology develop according to how one's resources are applied
and that resources are applied according to one’s ethics.

In truth, there's nothing much left to conserve in this country that’s worth conserving.

This kind of "conservatism" is literal and explains much about the vulgarity and barbarism of the current population of reformed American conservatives.

Conservatives Taught to conserve the gains of the revolution.

Paul Crowley| 4.2.09 @ 6:09AM

Biotechnology Industry organization (BIO):
"The reality of biotechnology is dramatic and intense, and the discoveries that result are revolutionary. These discoveries are curing debilitating diseases, extending the lives of patients and improving quality of life."

Does the BIO list the debilitating diseases that have been “cured" (a strong claim)?
If so, have any of these "debilitating diseases" been known to mankind for greater than, say, five to ten years?

As to:
“extending the lives of patients and improving quality of life."

This is standard pharmaceutical company commercial advertising, and often pure pap.
Truth in advertising is like so much else in America today: "Like the Old Gray Mare."

Much of the garbage being pushed also degrades “quality of life,’ all for “illnesses” no one knew
existed, as recently as ten years ago, and “sufferers” didn’t know they had until viewing the commercials.

Then there's the issue of experimentation on Human Beings with these new drugs; unfortunately a non-issue due to the new post-1979ish "right" of the so-called "Right To Know."

An ethical question: Is it ever right to experiment on a human being?
This one is no doubt beyond the ken of any of the new reformed American self-styled "Christians," lay Catholic or Protestant.

“Eleventh Hour doesn't exactly contradict this [BIO statement at top], but such statements fail to capture the program's biotech caution.”

The program’s “biotech caution?!”

“Hood” warning "Geppetto" [plagiarism!] “against "playing God?’"
“Caution” is weak relative to “Danger.” Both are infinitely weak relative to “wrong.”
“warning against "playing God" is as weak as it gets [namely, worthless].

With friends like Russell here, "conservatives" need no enemies. BIO, on the other hand, should have him on the payroll, if he isn't already.

Scott Burditt| 7.23.09 @ 4:11PM

This show has been clearly influenced by this 1970's BBC TV series www.doomwatch.org

gffd| 11.30.09 @ 4:09AM

TOD Converter Mac,
TOD File Converter Mac

fdsfds| 11.30.09 @ 10:33PM

iPod Touch Converter for Mac,
DVD to iPod Touch Converter for Mac