“Congress seems drugged and inert most of the time.”
Even when the problems it ignores build up to crises and erupt in strikes, riots, and demonstrations, it has not moved. Its idea of meeting a problem is to hold hearings or, in extreme cases, to appoint a commission.
Source: Unbought and Unbossed (1970), p. 104.
Help us to complete the source, original and additional information
Do you have more details about the quote "Congress seems drugged and inert most of the time." by Shirley Chisholm?
Shirley Chisholm 12
American politician 1924–2005Related quotes
“Treat any and all drugs with respect, for most of the time they are stronger than you are.”
Source: The Anarchist Cookbook (1971), Chapter One: "Drugs", p. 59.
“Hope is a most beautiful drug.”
Jeremy Mercer
(1971) Canadian writer
Source: Time Was Soft There: A Paris Sojourn at Shakespeare & Co.
James P. Gray
(1945) American judge
Source: Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs, 2011, p. 53
P. V. Narasimha Rao
(1921–2004) Indian politician
While nobody was opening their mouths in other parties, mouths were wide open in the Congress
Boris Johnson
(1964) British politician, historian and journalist
"No one obeys the speed limit except a motorised rickshaw", Daily Telegraph, 12 July 2001, p. 27.
2000s, 2001
Wernher von Braun
(1912–1977) German, later an American, aerospace engineer and space architect
Comparable to remarks of William Masters, in "Two Sex Researchers on the Firing Line" LIFE magazine (24 June 1966), p. 49: "Science by itself has no moral dimension. But it does seek to establish truth. And upon this truth morality can be built."
Variants:
Science does not have a moral dimension. It is like a knife. If you give it to a surgeon or a murderer, each will use it differently.
As quoted in Futurehype: The Myths of Technology Change (2009) by Robert B. Seidensticker
Science does not have a moral dimension. It is like a knife. If you give it to a surgeon or a murderer, each will use it differently. Should the knife have not been developed?
As quoted in Science & Society (2012) by Peter Daempfle, Ch. 6, p. 97<!-- also in Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference (2013) by Peter Daempfle, Ch. 9, p. 166 -->
Responsible Scientific Investigation and Application (1976)
Context: One of the most disconcerting issues of our time lies in the fact that modern science, along with miracle drugs and communications satellites, has also produced nuclear bombs. What makes it even worse, science has utterly failed to provide an answer on how to cope with them. As a result, science and scientists have often been blamed for the desperate dilemma in which mankind finds itself today.
Science, all by itself, has no moral dimension. The same poison-containing drug which cures when taken in small doses, may kill when taken in excess. The same nuclear chain reaction that produces badly needed electrical energy when harnessed in a reactor, may kill thousands when abruptly released in an atomic bomb. Thus it does not make sense to ask a biochemist or a nuclear physicist whether his research in the field of toxic substances or nuclear processes is good or bad for mankind. In most cases the scientist will be fully aware of the possibility of an abuse of his discoveries, but aside from his innate scientific curiosity he will be motivated by a deep-seated hope and belief that something of value for his fellow man may emerge from his labors.
The same applies to technology, through which most advances in the natural sciences are put to practical use.
“Ilhan Omar is NOW the most important Member of the US Congress!”
David Duke
(1950) American White nationalist, white supremacist, writer, right-wing politician, and a former Republican Louisiana …
David Duke, twitter, 4:35 AM - Mar 8, 2019