>>How can the party line be wrong when it has the crucial proof on its side: majority voted for it. Majority of scientists, though, but then they also have to keep an eye on their grants and publishing...
>
>It might be simpler.
>
>This around 1600:
>
>And thus the native hue of resolution
>Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
>And enterprises of great pith and moment
>With this regard their currents turn awry
>And lose the name of action.

Believe it or not, I recognized this by the very first line, and I knew the rest - in serbian. We had excellent translators back in XIX century...

>Or, as someone who was lining up a putt told me:
>"You think long, you think wrong."

This may partly be due to the general fondness for decisive guys, whose best trait is to make decisions quick. If they turn out to be right, the better.

What I don't understand is how the masses around the globe fell for the propaganda and suddenly decided to blindly trust big pharma, who are, in my book, together with the rest of the scum - politicians, advertisers, realtors, mobile operators, RIAA.