» Warmongering: An elaborate list
Posted July 7, 2008. By MSpencer
I've decided I'd like to keep track of all these crazy things the neocons say, specifically about war, World War III, terrorism, Iran, pre-emptive strikes, and shock and awe. I think by not having a list like this, we all slipped up back in 2003, and I think now more than ever we really need to keep track of what people are saying in Washington. I'll keep this post updated and post below that I've added more.
Starting from early June:
1. Daniel Pipes (Link)
Specifically on the topic of Iran:
In other words, if you vote for Barack Obama this November and he wins, George Bush will flip and start World War III.
2. Bill Kristol and Chris Wallace, Faux News (Link)
3. John Bolton (Link)
More to come, no doubt.
3 Comments
I've decided I'd like to keep track of all these crazy things the neocons say, specifically about war, World War III, terrorism, Iran, pre-emptive strikes, and shock and awe. I think by not having a list like this, we all slipped up back in 2003, and I think now more than ever we really need to keep track of what people are saying in Washington. I'll keep this post updated and post below that I've added more.
Starting from early June:
1. Daniel Pipes (Link)
Specifically on the topic of Iran:
QUOTE
What I suspect will be the case is, should the Democratic nominee win in November, President Bush will do something. And should it be Mr. McCain that wins, he'll punt, and let McCain decide what to do.
In other words, if you vote for Barack Obama this November and he wins, George Bush will flip and start World War III.
2. Bill Kristol and Chris Wallace, Faux News (Link)
QUOTE
KRISTOL: I think honestly, if the president felt John McCain were going to be the next president he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out. I do wonder with Sen. Obama, if president Bush thinks Sen, Obama win does he somehow think that, does he worry that Obama won't follow through on the policy…
WALLACE: So, you're suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama's going to win the election, either before or after the election—launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don't know. I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can't, it's hard to make foreign policy based on guesses about election results...
Self-explanatory. If Obama wins, George wants to make sure Iran as a threat is completely nullified. Instead of allowing the President elect to have a say in this, it would be a far more reasonable if he spent his last two months in office bombing Iran with what's left of the US military. Hey, the Air Force and the Navy are doing fine (Except for enlistment being down... massively, and funding being diverted to the Army and public corruption in Iraq).WALLACE: So, you're suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama's going to win the election, either before or after the election—launch a military strike?
KRISTOL: I don't know. I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can't, it's hard to make foreign policy based on guesses about election results...
3. John Bolton (Link)
QUOTE
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton believes Israel will stage a raid against Iran's nuclear facilities if Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the upcoming presidential election in November.
Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.
We all know the US had something to do with the Osirak raid, and if for some reason, Obama wins, we're going to help them launch another one?Bolton, often labeled a resolute neo-conservative, believes the Israeli attack would take place sometime between the day after Obama's win and his inauguration on January 20 of next year.
More to come, no doubt.
3 Comments
» Do they ever learn?
Posted July 7, 2008. By MSpencer
I don't think I can even properly introduce this one.
David Vitter and Larry Craig name themselves cosponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage.
The people embroiled at the center of two of the most entertaining extramarital affairs in recent political memory have thrown their backing behind an amendment which nobody in the western world, except America, would ever really consider.
This just... really... really makes my day.
David Vitter was the one who was implicated in the DC Madam files as being a high profile client of a massive prostitution ring.
But Larry Craig's the more interesting one; he was censured for verbally assaulting Barney Frank (D-MA) for his sexual orientation (He's the only openly gay representative in American history, I think). He was also one of the most outspoken against Bill Clinton's little slip of the pants and was one of the driving forces behind the Defence of Marriage Act, and ten years later, he's caught propositioning a man for oral sex in an airport bathroom.
I love hypocrisy, especially when it continues for... years.
Of course, America needs this amendment. America needs to prevent things like this from happening.
Thankfully, we have good, upstanding people like Larry Craig and David Vitter who are always on the watch for evil anti-American ideals like the marriage of two octogenarians who just happen to both be women.
Am I one of the only people that doesn't see a problem with this? Or am I the only one who realizes that allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't mean you're going to allow people to marry chihuahuas?
25 Comments
I don't think I can even properly introduce this one.
David Vitter and Larry Craig name themselves cosponsors of a proposed constitutional amendment which would ban gay marriage.
The people embroiled at the center of two of the most entertaining extramarital affairs in recent political memory have thrown their backing behind an amendment which nobody in the western world, except America, would ever really consider.
This just... really... really makes my day.
David Vitter was the one who was implicated in the DC Madam files as being a high profile client of a massive prostitution ring.
But Larry Craig's the more interesting one; he was censured for verbally assaulting Barney Frank (D-MA) for his sexual orientation (He's the only openly gay representative in American history, I think). He was also one of the most outspoken against Bill Clinton's little slip of the pants and was one of the driving forces behind the Defence of Marriage Act, and ten years later, he's caught propositioning a man for oral sex in an airport bathroom.
I love hypocrisy, especially when it continues for... years.
Of course, America needs this amendment. America needs to prevent things like this from happening.
QUOTE (CNN)
Breaking ground is nothing new in the nearly six-decade relationship of Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon.
The lesbian couple were the first to participate in a 2004 challenge of California laws against same-sex marriage, exchanging wedding vows only to see the ceremony voided later.
But on Monday, Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, exchanged vows again. This time, California law -- at least for now -- was on their side.
(snip)
"When you consider these two women, who have been denied their rights for 55 years -- put yourself in their shoes and you start to feel a little bit differently," said Newsom, adding that allowing gay and lesbians to marry is about giving them the respect and dignity they deserve.
The lesbian couple were the first to participate in a 2004 challenge of California laws against same-sex marriage, exchanging wedding vows only to see the ceremony voided later.
But on Monday, Martin, 87, and Lyon, 84, exchanged vows again. This time, California law -- at least for now -- was on their side.
(snip)
"When you consider these two women, who have been denied their rights for 55 years -- put yourself in their shoes and you start to feel a little bit differently," said Newsom, adding that allowing gay and lesbians to marry is about giving them the respect and dignity they deserve.
Thankfully, we have good, upstanding people like Larry Craig and David Vitter who are always on the watch for evil anti-American ideals like the marriage of two octogenarians who just happen to both be women.
Am I one of the only people that doesn't see a problem with this? Or am I the only one who realizes that allowing two men or two women to marry doesn't mean you're going to allow people to marry chihuahuas?
25 Comments
» McCain's Blunders - Week 1
Posted June 10, 2008. By MSpencer
So, now we're going to start a new segment on the unmitigated idiocy of John McCain. It's very simple; John McCain, under no circumstances, should become President of the United States. Why? Isn't it evident? The man says we should stay in Iraq for 1,000 years, but Army leaders acknowledge that the US Army is at its breaking point, and is unable to undertake another mission in defence of the United States; he claims that Americans are no longer dying in Iraq, but three American soldiers were just killed the other day by Iraqi insurgents; he pulls out rhetoric about corporate tax breaks, one of the Bush administration's greatest contributions to the current financial situation, claiming they will help Americans, but corporate handouts and pandering will not help the average American in any way.
John McCain is not only a shouting lunatic who at one point advocated bombing Iran, but he is a corrupt powermonger who is deep in the pockets of lobbyists.
So, without further ado, Week 1.
What's wrong with John McCain?
1. Oratory skills
I didn't think it was possible to find a worse orator than George Bush, who can usually be likened to a fevered monkey guarding a stash of bananas. However, John McCain, on the eve of Barack Obama's victory, decided he would go head to head with the presumptive Democratic nominee, and delivered a quite "moving" speech. In front of a pea-green background, giving his skin a lovely "zombie-green" tone, he proceeded to "smile" much like a child molester, and gave one of the most substanceless speeches during, not just this race, but this decade. McCain began to list Obama's policies, stating without much emphasis, "That's not change we can believe in," after each one. No explanation, no substance, just... uninspiring, unemphatic rhetoric.
An inspiring man, straight from "The Bride of Chucky"
At the exact same time McCain was rallying his seven or eight supporters (Who you can hear distinctly as being a very small crowd), Obama drove a packed arena in St. Paul wild, the very same arena that will be used for the Republican National Convention.
Is anyone else predicting the end of days for the Republican Party?
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4
And if you watch the video, it even leaves Fox News, the conservative propaganda machine, completely fucking speechless. Completely unbelievable.
2. Not only domestic corruption, but OFFSHORE corruption
Two weeks ago, MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844889) reported that Phil Gramm, McCain's national campaign co-chair and presumptive Secretary of the Treasury, "was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy."
The New York Times, however, has more.
So basically, the people lobbying McCain are trying to use him as an accessory in mass tax fraud which cost the US government $300 million in revenue. And the person who's lobbying for them is a part owner and just happens to be the guy McCain wants as treasury secretary.
There's more from Newsweek:
And John McCain says he doesn't have any lobbyists on his staff...
Unfortunately, that's about it for last week, next post should come on Sunday.
11 Comments
So, now we're going to start a new segment on the unmitigated idiocy of John McCain. It's very simple; John McCain, under no circumstances, should become President of the United States. Why? Isn't it evident? The man says we should stay in Iraq for 1,000 years, but Army leaders acknowledge that the US Army is at its breaking point, and is unable to undertake another mission in defence of the United States; he claims that Americans are no longer dying in Iraq, but three American soldiers were just killed the other day by Iraqi insurgents; he pulls out rhetoric about corporate tax breaks, one of the Bush administration's greatest contributions to the current financial situation, claiming they will help Americans, but corporate handouts and pandering will not help the average American in any way.
John McCain is not only a shouting lunatic who at one point advocated bombing Iran, but he is a corrupt powermonger who is deep in the pockets of lobbyists.
So, without further ado, Week 1.
What's wrong with John McCain?
1. Oratory skills
I didn't think it was possible to find a worse orator than George Bush, who can usually be likened to a fevered monkey guarding a stash of bananas. However, John McCain, on the eve of Barack Obama's victory, decided he would go head to head with the presumptive Democratic nominee, and delivered a quite "moving" speech. In front of a pea-green background, giving his skin a lovely "zombie-green" tone, he proceeded to "smile" much like a child molester, and gave one of the most substanceless speeches during, not just this race, but this decade. McCain began to list Obama's policies, stating without much emphasis, "That's not change we can believe in," after each one. No explanation, no substance, just... uninspiring, unemphatic rhetoric.
An inspiring man, straight from "The Bride of Chucky"At the exact same time McCain was rallying his seven or eight supporters (Who you can hear distinctly as being a very small crowd), Obama drove a packed arena in St. Paul wild, the very same arena that will be used for the Republican National Convention.
Is anyone else predicting the end of days for the Republican Party?
Youtube link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aMDJP4VxY4
And if you watch the video, it even leaves Fox News, the conservative propaganda machine, completely fucking speechless. Completely unbelievable.
2. Not only domestic corruption, but OFFSHORE corruption
Two weeks ago, MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24844889) reported that Phil Gramm, McCain's national campaign co-chair and presumptive Secretary of the Treasury, "was being paid by a Swiss bank to lobby Congress about the U.S. mortgage crisis at the same time he was advising McCain about his economic policy."
The New York Times, however, has more.
QUOTE (NYT)
Under pressure from the authorities, UBS is considering whether to divulge the names of up to 20,000 of its well-heeled American clients, according to people close to the inquiry, a step that would have once been unthinkable to Swiss bankers, whose traditions of secrecy date to the Middle Ages.
Federal investigators believe some of the clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to hide as much as $20 billion in assets from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge at least $300 million in federal taxes on income from those assets, according to a government official connected with the investigation.
(snip)
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive of UBS and the former head of its private bank, as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in bad investments, many of them linked to risky American mortgages.
Federal investigators believe some of the clients may have used offshore accounts at UBS to hide as much as $20 billion in assets from the Internal Revenue Service. Doing so may have enabled these people to dodge at least $300 million in federal taxes on income from those assets, according to a government official connected with the investigation.
(snip)
The case could turn into an embarrassment for Marcel Rohner, the chief executive of UBS and the former head of its private bank, as well as for Phil Gramm, the former Republican senator from Texas who is now the vice chairman of UBS Securities, the Swiss bank's investment banking arm. It also comes at a difficult time for UBS, which is reeling from $37 billion in bad investments, many of them linked to risky American mortgages.
So basically, the people lobbying McCain are trying to use him as an accessory in mass tax fraud which cost the US government $300 million in revenue. And the person who's lobbying for them is a part owner and just happens to be the guy McCain wants as treasury secretary.
There's more from Newsweek:
QUOTE (Newsweek)
McCain's campaign is already distancing itself from some of Gramm's other work for UBS: his involvement in attempts to sell financial products known as "death bonds," which BusinessWeek described last summer as one of "the most macabre investment scheme(s) ever devised by Wall Street." Not long after joining UBS, the Houston Chronicle reported, Gramm helped lobby Texas officials, including Gov. Rick Perry, to sign on to a UBS proposal in which revenue would be generated for a state teachers' retirement fund by selling bonds, whose proceeds would in turn be used to buy annuities and life-insurance policies on retired teachers. UBS would advance money to the retirement fund, then repay itself, compensate bondholders and pocket profits when insurance companies paid off on retirees who died. According to a banking-industry source, who asked for anonymity when discussing a sensitive matter, Gramm was involved in efforts to pitch similar UBS products to other financial institutions.
Gramm's office declined NEWSWEEK's request for comment.
So, more corruption. Gramm's office declined NEWSWEEK's request for comment.
And John McCain says he doesn't have any lobbyists on his staff...
Unfortunately, that's about it for last week, next post should come on Sunday.
11 Comments
» The last American.
Posted March 8, 2008. By MSpencer
George Bush is a fucking lunatic.
Why, might you ask?
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0736443620080308
I'm wondering how others see this, because from where I'm sitting:
1. President sets up a veritable concentration camp in Cuba.
2. Laws are "passed," others are ignored, under the purported threat of another 9/11. These laws allow just about any authority to detain someone indefinitely without charge or arraignment.
3. President invades Iraq.
4. President's subordinates send HUNDREDS of people to Guantanamo Bay (Stats say 775, but is that number really correct? Will we ever know?)
5. President tries to get wiretapping bill passed, but even John Ashcroft balks at this. As a result, Alberto Gonzales visits him in his hospital bed demanding his signature on either a letter of resignation, or on the domestic wiretapping bill, making Gonzales the only person in the world who can make Ashcroft look like a sympathetic character in comparison.
6. President's toady, Karl Rove, in order to divert attention from the wiretapping fiasco, outs Valerie Plame as under a CIA NOC. As a result, the entire administration is seen to be... a joke.
7. In 2006, after Alberto Gonzales takes over the reigns of Justice, eight US attorneys are sacked. Why? Well, one of them was wildly incompetent and shouldn't have been there in the first place. The other seven were prosecuting Republicans for things such as perjury, and corruption. One of them had been cited months earlier as being an inspiration to the US Attorneys Office!
8. Alberto Gonzales, after being "caught" as it were, is then brought before Congress where he.... lies. Repeatedly. And shows off that he really has no clue of what happens in the day to day operation of his department. In other words, he is revealed to be a complete and total quack.
9. Alberto Gonzales then argues that the writ of habeas corpus does not belong to Americans according to the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution really means you can't take it away, but doesn't that mean it's in place to begin with?
10. Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton are subpoenaed to appear before Congress. At the instructions of the President, they ignore this.
11. Alberto Gonzales resigns, and hires a criminal defence attorney who worked for G. H.W. Bush and worked on the Florida ballot recount team!
12. Then waterboarding comes out. The CIA is torturing people in Cuba. Idiots like Nancy Pelosi who don't care to read what is put in front of them don't have much to say except "So what," while people like John McCain, who was tortured, feel that waterboarding everyone should be mandatory. We don't need to get into an argument over what torture is and if it's useful; the fact of the matter is that they simulate drowning, which is torture, both psychological and physical, and they videotaped it.
13. Some lawmakers are appalled, some aren't. Following a long debate, Congress decides this isn't right, and bans waterboarding and torture at Guantanamo Bay, outright.
14. The President ignores this, and vetoes the bill, for "America."
And thus, the story of how Plame-gate, wiretapping, Iraq, and waterboarding are all linked to George Bush's presidential administration, and all of the fateful decisions he's made.
When we're finally safe, will we recognize the America we've built for ourselves atop the shattered ruins of our Constitution and our previous dedication to human rights?
I wonder.
6 Comments
George Bush is a fucking lunatic.
Why, might you ask?
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN0736443620080308
I'm wondering how others see this, because from where I'm sitting:
1. President sets up a veritable concentration camp in Cuba.
2. Laws are "passed," others are ignored, under the purported threat of another 9/11. These laws allow just about any authority to detain someone indefinitely without charge or arraignment.
3. President invades Iraq.
4. President's subordinates send HUNDREDS of people to Guantanamo Bay (Stats say 775, but is that number really correct? Will we ever know?)
5. President tries to get wiretapping bill passed, but even John Ashcroft balks at this. As a result, Alberto Gonzales visits him in his hospital bed demanding his signature on either a letter of resignation, or on the domestic wiretapping bill, making Gonzales the only person in the world who can make Ashcroft look like a sympathetic character in comparison.
6. President's toady, Karl Rove, in order to divert attention from the wiretapping fiasco, outs Valerie Plame as under a CIA NOC. As a result, the entire administration is seen to be... a joke.
7. In 2006, after Alberto Gonzales takes over the reigns of Justice, eight US attorneys are sacked. Why? Well, one of them was wildly incompetent and shouldn't have been there in the first place. The other seven were prosecuting Republicans for things such as perjury, and corruption. One of them had been cited months earlier as being an inspiration to the US Attorneys Office!
8. Alberto Gonzales, after being "caught" as it were, is then brought before Congress where he.... lies. Repeatedly. And shows off that he really has no clue of what happens in the day to day operation of his department. In other words, he is revealed to be a complete and total quack.
9. Alberto Gonzales then argues that the writ of habeas corpus does not belong to Americans according to the Constitution. Instead, the Constitution really means you can't take it away, but doesn't that mean it's in place to begin with?
10. Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton are subpoenaed to appear before Congress. At the instructions of the President, they ignore this.
11. Alberto Gonzales resigns, and hires a criminal defence attorney who worked for G. H.W. Bush and worked on the Florida ballot recount team!
12. Then waterboarding comes out. The CIA is torturing people in Cuba. Idiots like Nancy Pelosi who don't care to read what is put in front of them don't have much to say except "So what," while people like John McCain, who was tortured, feel that waterboarding everyone should be mandatory. We don't need to get into an argument over what torture is and if it's useful; the fact of the matter is that they simulate drowning, which is torture, both psychological and physical, and they videotaped it.
13. Some lawmakers are appalled, some aren't. Following a long debate, Congress decides this isn't right, and bans waterboarding and torture at Guantanamo Bay, outright.
14. The President ignores this, and vetoes the bill, for "America."
And thus, the story of how Plame-gate, wiretapping, Iraq, and waterboarding are all linked to George Bush's presidential administration, and all of the fateful decisions he's made.
When we're finally safe, will we recognize the America we've built for ourselves atop the shattered ruins of our Constitution and our previous dedication to human rights?
I wonder.
6 Comments
» A violation of... well... the law.
Posted December 18, 2007. By MSpencer
Last week, it was revealed that the CIA had destroyed torture-related tapes back in 2005, citing... well... nothing, not even operational security, despite the fact that "federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before," according to the Associated Press.
So, what did the Glorious Imperator have to say about this one? Seems pretty grim, I mean, if your own spy agency is destroying potentially sensitive, unconstitutional tapes which possibly contain blatant violations of international law on torture, you should probably know; right?
Eh... maybe not. According to ABC News,
But wait, that's irrelevant. Actually, that's really... not unacceptable, compared to what was said by the President the LAST TIME something like this happened. We all remember the Plame scandal, where Karl Rove and Scooter Libby violated... laws... and the CIA's non-official cover rules by exposing Valerie Plame-Wilson as a CIA employee in a calculated political strike at her husband, Ambassador James Wilson (Before Libby was pardoned for being a good patsy. There are almost too many scandals to remember.).
Back then, Bush said:
Good work, asshat!
I'm not quite sure who presides over a more legitimate presidency, George Bush, or Robert Mugabe?
But there's more!!
The International Herald Tribune has a bit more on the story. Apparently, facts won't be so forthcoming as they were in the last case. In other words, despite the fact his administration clearly has no respect for the validity of the CIA, Bush doesn't want to have to pardon any more clearly guilty people. There's a legacy to think about! More important things to do, like veto health care for children, destroy Iraq, devastate America's credibility, and set us up for war with Iran!
In other words; Justice refuses to collaborate with the House of Representatives (Hey! Unconstitutional!) as long as they... well... plan on investigating the rather ridiculous destruction of tapes which would show the CIA torturing people to extract possibly unreliable information at what is essentially a concentration camp conveniently located in Cuba, so we can say that they don't really have rights since they're not on American soil! Is waterboarding torture? Nope, not as long as you can't see how they do it! If you did... hmm... maybe you'd change your minds, so no, we can't have that. No investigation for you, elected representatives of the people and their interests. You're too likely to compromise operational security, sort of like why there were no tours of Cambodian prison camps for western journalists (They were waterboarding people too, and it was torture then!).
So, recap:
1. Violation of a court order
2. Violation of the constitution
3. Waterboarding IS torture.
It's all very simple.
38 Comments
Last week, it was revealed that the CIA had destroyed torture-related tapes back in 2005, citing... well... nothing, not even operational security, despite the fact that "federal courts had prohibited the Bush administration from discarding evidence of detainee torture and abuse months before," according to the Associated Press.
So, what did the Glorious Imperator have to say about this one? Seems pretty grim, I mean, if your own spy agency is destroying potentially sensitive, unconstitutional tapes which possibly contain blatant violations of international law on torture, you should probably know; right?
Eh... maybe not. According to ABC News,
QUOTE
Bush: My first recollection of whether the tapes existed or whether they were destroyed was when Michael Hayden briefed me. There is a preliminary inquiry going on, and I think, I think you will find a lot more data. Facts will be coming out in an orderly fashion, and that is good. It will be interesting to know what the true facts are.
Remember for a second that this is the same administration which produced the bobblehead Gonzales, who purjured himself to save the President's basic judicial validity (In collusion with Karl Rove's magically disappearing emails, and their borderline-illegal, conflict-of-interest use of Republican National Committee email inboxes), so the Bush Administration is already behind on the ball here.But wait, that's irrelevant. Actually, that's really... not unacceptable, compared to what was said by the President the LAST TIME something like this happened. We all remember the Plame scandal, where Karl Rove and Scooter Libby violated... laws... and the CIA's non-official cover rules by exposing Valerie Plame-Wilson as a CIA employee in a calculated political strike at her husband, Ambassador James Wilson (Before Libby was pardoned for being a good patsy. There are almost too many scandals to remember.).
Back then, Bush said:
QUOTE
"I don't know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."
Good work, asshat!
I'm not quite sure who presides over a more legitimate presidency, George Bush, or Robert Mugabe?
But there's more!!
The International Herald Tribune has a bit more on the story. Apparently, facts won't be so forthcoming as they were in the last case. In other words, despite the fact his administration clearly has no respect for the validity of the CIA, Bush doesn't want to have to pardon any more clearly guilty people. There's a legacy to think about! More important things to do, like veto health care for children, destroy Iraq, devastate America's credibility, and set us up for war with Iran!
QUOTE
The Justice Department asked the House Intelligence Committee on Friday to postpone its investigation into the destruction of videotapes by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2005, saying the congressional inquiry presented "significant risks" to its own preliminary investigation into the matter.
(snip)
The Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the department would not comply with congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."
(snip)
The Justice Department and the CIA's inspector general have begun a preliminary inquiry into the destruction of the tapes, and Attorney General Michael Mukasey said the department would not comply with congressional requests for information now because of "our interest in avoiding any perception that our law enforcement decisions are subject to political influence."
In other words; Justice refuses to collaborate with the House of Representatives (Hey! Unconstitutional!) as long as they... well... plan on investigating the rather ridiculous destruction of tapes which would show the CIA torturing people to extract possibly unreliable information at what is essentially a concentration camp conveniently located in Cuba, so we can say that they don't really have rights since they're not on American soil! Is waterboarding torture? Nope, not as long as you can't see how they do it! If you did... hmm... maybe you'd change your minds, so no, we can't have that. No investigation for you, elected representatives of the people and their interests. You're too likely to compromise operational security, sort of like why there were no tours of Cambodian prison camps for western journalists (They were waterboarding people too, and it was torture then!).
So, recap:
1. Violation of a court order
2. Violation of the constitution
3. Waterboarding IS torture.
It's all very simple.
38 Comments
» Somatic evolution?!
Posted December 18, 2007. By MSpencer
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071214094031.htm for a quick summary and for the full citation)
Seems rather interesting to me. It's another theory on the general cellular basis of aging and development of cancer (And is potentially a link between the two). It does make sense that over time, as with populations of organisms, the cells of multicellular organisms will be gradually selected for and against (Mostly for commonly dividing cells, I'm sure), resulting in decreased continued cooperativity. Not much we can do about it, but it could be the overall reason behind aging in the first place.
It's just one of those things you don't hear about now, but you'll hear about quite substantially in the next few years. This is potentially that link between the two (That one paper that opens peoples' eyes, attracting Brilliant Scientist A from Harvard who will snatch up the Nobel and the grants) that could result in, perhaps, regulatory drugs, or a new field of determining cellular cooperativity. It also should allow us to come up with a model for natural causes of death, and perhaps a terminal age beyond which humans cannot survive. It's also good to know what kills you, and how, so you can perhaps delay it.
Maybe it's the key to a longer life? It's just a thought, but I found it rather interesting, and it does tie into my research interests, so I'm subjecting everyone to it.
This will also be part of a perhaps weekly breakdown of science news which, for lack of a better place, will be part of my BNP... err... GNP blog (Just more of an overt response to the ridiculous, rude conservative propaganda which no doubt has preceded this post, which I will address a bit later). Since I prefer to write about my research and research interests, it'll mostly be about evolutionary and cell biology with a bit of genetics, but I'll try to survey most new scientific developments. It's tremendously interesting, really, and if you don't think so, well, you're a poor and decrepit human being.
3 Comments
QUOTE
The failure of normal cell differentiation patterns may explain cancer and senescent decline with aging, say researchers at the University of Arizona, the Santa Fe Institute, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Wistar Institute.
Darwinian natural selection and evolution is usually studied in populations of organisms, but it also applies to cellular populations; this is called "somatic" evolution. Such somatic evolution tends to reduce cooperation among cells, thus threatening the integrity of the organism.
In this study the authors proposed that a well-known pattern of ongoing cell differentiation in the mature tissues of animals functions to suppress somatic evolution, which is essential to the origin and sustainability of multicellular organisms.
The team, lead by Dr. John Pepper, tested this hypothesis using a computer simulation of cell population dynamics and evolution. The results were consistent with the hypothesis, suggesting that familiar patterns of ongoing cell differentiation were crucial to the evolution of multicellular animals, and remain crucial as a bodily defense against cancer.
Journal reference: Pepper JW, Sprouffske K, Maley CC (2007) Animal cell differentiation patterns suppress somatic evolution. PLoS Comput Biol 3(12): e250. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030250
Darwinian natural selection and evolution is usually studied in populations of organisms, but it also applies to cellular populations; this is called "somatic" evolution. Such somatic evolution tends to reduce cooperation among cells, thus threatening the integrity of the organism.
In this study the authors proposed that a well-known pattern of ongoing cell differentiation in the mature tissues of animals functions to suppress somatic evolution, which is essential to the origin and sustainability of multicellular organisms.
The team, lead by Dr. John Pepper, tested this hypothesis using a computer simulation of cell population dynamics and evolution. The results were consistent with the hypothesis, suggesting that familiar patterns of ongoing cell differentiation were crucial to the evolution of multicellular animals, and remain crucial as a bodily defense against cancer.
Journal reference: Pepper JW, Sprouffske K, Maley CC (2007) Animal cell differentiation patterns suppress somatic evolution. PLoS Comput Biol 3(12): e250. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.0030250
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071214094031.htm for a quick summary and for the full citation)
Seems rather interesting to me. It's another theory on the general cellular basis of aging and development of cancer (And is potentially a link between the two). It does make sense that over time, as with populations of organisms, the cells of multicellular organisms will be gradually selected for and against (Mostly for commonly dividing cells, I'm sure), resulting in decreased continued cooperativity. Not much we can do about it, but it could be the overall reason behind aging in the first place.
It's just one of those things you don't hear about now, but you'll hear about quite substantially in the next few years. This is potentially that link between the two (That one paper that opens peoples' eyes, attracting Brilliant Scientist A from Harvard who will snatch up the Nobel and the grants) that could result in, perhaps, regulatory drugs, or a new field of determining cellular cooperativity. It also should allow us to come up with a model for natural causes of death, and perhaps a terminal age beyond which humans cannot survive. It's also good to know what kills you, and how, so you can perhaps delay it.
Maybe it's the key to a longer life? It's just a thought, but I found it rather interesting, and it does tie into my research interests, so I'm subjecting everyone to it.
This will also be part of a perhaps weekly breakdown of science news which, for lack of a better place, will be part of my BNP... err... GNP blog (Just more of an overt response to the ridiculous, rude conservative propaganda which no doubt has preceded this post, which I will address a bit later). Since I prefer to write about my research and research interests, it'll mostly be about evolutionary and cell biology with a bit of genetics, but I'll try to survey most new scientific developments. It's tremendously interesting, really, and if you don't think so, well, you're a poor and decrepit human being.
3 Comments
» Praise our Imperious Leader
Posted December 12, 2007. By MSpencer
In his divine glory, our saviour and Imperious Leader George W. Bush vetoed another health bill providing free health care to children who would not otherwise be covered, thus proving that his personal crusade in Iraq is far more important than the American people; you know, the people he was sworn to protect and such?
Reuters has the story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00804920071213
The gist of it? Health insurance would have been provided to about ten million children in low and moderate income families at the cost of slightly increased cigarette and tobacco taxes. It's aimed at providing people who are "too rich" to qualify for Medicaid, and too poor to get health insurance through one of the major companies, some measure of protection against the corporatized American system. The Fuehrer, however, has better plans for this money.
The cost of this program, to provide free health care to ten million needy, sick children, is $35 billion. $60 billion if you count the meager funds already there, but yeah, just about $35 billion. The House just authorized $696 billion in military programs (That's $696 billion ON TOP of the annual Defence Department budget, by the way), including an, wait for it... additional $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! For a nation which spends significantly more money per capita than Canada on health care ($6,096 vs. $3,173; 15.4% vs. 9.8% of GDP; statistics from the World Health Organization), it seems rather... impressive, that we don't even have health care for the poor, let alone universal health care.
Of course, our Great Leader could always cancel the illegal war he coerced people into. Ah, that's another one that people seem to have missed.
You know, for once, it would be nice if people realized that the worst president ever (By opinion polls) is simultaneously screwing the poor, extorting and threatening other countries, and getting innocent Americans and Iraqis killed on a day to day basis, but I imagine that's too much to ask these days.
18 Comments
In his divine glory, our saviour and Imperious Leader George W. Bush vetoed another health bill providing free health care to children who would not otherwise be covered, thus proving that his personal crusade in Iraq is far more important than the American people; you know, the people he was sworn to protect and such?
Reuters has the story:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSWBT00804920071213
The gist of it? Health insurance would have been provided to about ten million children in low and moderate income families at the cost of slightly increased cigarette and tobacco taxes. It's aimed at providing people who are "too rich" to qualify for Medicaid, and too poor to get health insurance through one of the major companies, some measure of protection against the corporatized American system. The Fuehrer, however, has better plans for this money.
The cost of this program, to provide free health care to ten million needy, sick children, is $35 billion. $60 billion if you count the meager funds already there, but yeah, just about $35 billion. The House just authorized $696 billion in military programs (That's $696 billion ON TOP of the annual Defence Department budget, by the way), including an, wait for it... additional $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! For a nation which spends significantly more money per capita than Canada on health care ($6,096 vs. $3,173; 15.4% vs. 9.8% of GDP; statistics from the World Health Organization), it seems rather... impressive, that we don't even have health care for the poor, let alone universal health care.
Of course, our Great Leader could always cancel the illegal war he coerced people into. Ah, that's another one that people seem to have missed.
QUOTE (AFP via Google)
US President George W. Bush threatened nations with retaliation if they did not vote for a UN resolution backing the Iraq war, according to a transcript published Wednesday of a conversation he had with former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar.
In the transcript of a meeting on February 22, 2003 -- a month before the US-led invasion of Iraq -- published in El Pais newspaper, Bush tells Aznar that nations such as Mexico, Angola, Chile and Cameroon must know that the security of the United States is at stake.
He says during the meeting on his ranch in Texas that Angola stood to lose financial aid while Chile could see a free trade agreement held up in the US Senate if they did not back the resolution, the left-wing paper said.
The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States at the time, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
The White House did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript, with national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe declining to comment.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3bV2L...7btDtgfbe2NGt8Q
In the transcript of a meeting on February 22, 2003 -- a month before the US-led invasion of Iraq -- published in El Pais newspaper, Bush tells Aznar that nations such as Mexico, Angola, Chile and Cameroon must know that the security of the United States is at stake.
He says during the meeting on his ranch in Texas that Angola stood to lose financial aid while Chile could see a free trade agreement held up in the US Senate if they did not back the resolution, the left-wing paper said.
The confidential transcript was prepared by Spain's ambassador to the United States at the time, Javier Ruperez, the paper said.
The White House did not challenge the accuracy of the transcript, with national security spokesman Gordon Johndroe declining to comment.
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5g3bV2L...7btDtgfbe2NGt8Q
You know, for once, it would be nice if people realized that the worst president ever (By opinion polls) is simultaneously screwing the poor, extorting and threatening other countries, and getting innocent Americans and Iraqis killed on a day to day basis, but I imagine that's too much to ask these days.
18 Comments
» In Defence of Dr. Watson
Posted October 29, 2007. By MSpencer
Its a bit tough to be happy about the state of science today. Corporations buy our best and brightest, the path of pure research is often overshadowed by the potential for quick profit, and of course, if you do end up going into research, discovering great things, and perhaps winning a Nobel, there’s always the chance you could go somewhat crazy and begin spouting off nonsense on book tours. Yes, Im talking about James Watson, and I dont think its fair how poorly hes been treated.
His exact words were not terribly insane or outlandish, but were certainly quite offensive. Unfortunately, what he says is somewhat scientifically plausible; there is no reason to assume that mental faculties would be selected for identically across the globe. However, that conceded, it is not at all reasonable to assume that, as Watson apparently has, Africans have less mental faculties. Watson simply has no evidence either way, no evidence for his assumption, and no evidence for, well, anything associated with what he wrote or said. That said, we are talking about a Nobel Prize recipient, someone who contributed something to human knowledge which is truly monumental.
But the poor guys clearly let it get to his head. At eighty-seven years old, James Watson has braved public appearances for forty five years since the Nobel Prize was awarded, and unfortunately, his brain has turned into goo. Personally, I mourn the passing of such a great scientist; he was one of our best and brightest, and now he simply travels around the world saying ridiculous things and making a fool of himself, and even science as a whole. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time he’s done such a thing. For the last ten years, James Watson has travelled the world making expertly assertions about genetics as if discovering the structure of DNA gave him special insight into how it works… everywhere, in everything. Hes been a liability to scientific credibility since he first started blathering nonsense (Hes tackled obesity, Cambridge University staffing decisions, abortion, homosexuality, and sex drive with, well, differing degrees of incompetence) and it seems to be time to just stop listening to him.
Of course, does Watson still represent a benefit to humanity and to science? Little known facts; he chaired the Human Genome Project for four years, served as president of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a large set of laboratories working on cancer, neurology, genetics, and medicine, before becoming chancellor, a position he holds today, and has chaired numerous organizations, charitable and scientific. We could discount the poor man as a quack, but; he is possibly one of the most notable biologists of the entire 20th century, he continues to have some form of positive influence on the world, and, despite the severity of his comments, he at least avoids overt racism and is willing to accept when he is clearly incorrect. He may be a racist whose sense of discretion has abandoned him, but he’s still a fairly intelligent scientist who knows when to shut up and go home, and that is the real reason why we should all leave James Watson to his last few years of farmed-out senility. It’s not as if anyone takes him seriously anymore.
MSpencer is a U0 evolutionary biology undergraduate at McGill University. This column was written for the McGill Daily, as well as the Games Nations Play. Comments are welcome and can be sent to spencer.matt @ gmail.com
11 Comments
Its a bit tough to be happy about the state of science today. Corporations buy our best and brightest, the path of pure research is often overshadowed by the potential for quick profit, and of course, if you do end up going into research, discovering great things, and perhaps winning a Nobel, there’s always the chance you could go somewhat crazy and begin spouting off nonsense on book tours. Yes, Im talking about James Watson, and I dont think its fair how poorly hes been treated.
His exact words were not terribly insane or outlandish, but were certainly quite offensive. Unfortunately, what he says is somewhat scientifically plausible; there is no reason to assume that mental faculties would be selected for identically across the globe. However, that conceded, it is not at all reasonable to assume that, as Watson apparently has, Africans have less mental faculties. Watson simply has no evidence either way, no evidence for his assumption, and no evidence for, well, anything associated with what he wrote or said. That said, we are talking about a Nobel Prize recipient, someone who contributed something to human knowledge which is truly monumental.
But the poor guys clearly let it get to his head. At eighty-seven years old, James Watson has braved public appearances for forty five years since the Nobel Prize was awarded, and unfortunately, his brain has turned into goo. Personally, I mourn the passing of such a great scientist; he was one of our best and brightest, and now he simply travels around the world saying ridiculous things and making a fool of himself, and even science as a whole. Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time he’s done such a thing. For the last ten years, James Watson has travelled the world making expertly assertions about genetics as if discovering the structure of DNA gave him special insight into how it works… everywhere, in everything. Hes been a liability to scientific credibility since he first started blathering nonsense (Hes tackled obesity, Cambridge University staffing decisions, abortion, homosexuality, and sex drive with, well, differing degrees of incompetence) and it seems to be time to just stop listening to him.
Of course, does Watson still represent a benefit to humanity and to science? Little known facts; he chaired the Human Genome Project for four years, served as president of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a large set of laboratories working on cancer, neurology, genetics, and medicine, before becoming chancellor, a position he holds today, and has chaired numerous organizations, charitable and scientific. We could discount the poor man as a quack, but; he is possibly one of the most notable biologists of the entire 20th century, he continues to have some form of positive influence on the world, and, despite the severity of his comments, he at least avoids overt racism and is willing to accept when he is clearly incorrect. He may be a racist whose sense of discretion has abandoned him, but he’s still a fairly intelligent scientist who knows when to shut up and go home, and that is the real reason why we should all leave James Watson to his last few years of farmed-out senility. It’s not as if anyone takes him seriously anymore.
MSpencer is a U0 evolutionary biology undergraduate at McGill University. This column was written for the McGill Daily, as well as the Games Nations Play. Comments are welcome and can be sent to spencer.matt @ gmail.com
11 Comments
» New Panelist on the Block
Posted October 10, 2007. By MSpencer
After conferring with Hostile earlier in the evening, I've decided to give writing for GNP as a permanent columnist a go. Most of you should know me from my time in the think tank as, well, Darwin's bulldog and the discontented, disillusioned American. I've just recently returned from a hiatus following my move to McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, where I'll now be for the next few years. My views are usually a bit to the left socially and economically, I understand the need for some rightists elements in the economy, but that doesn't mean that ideologically I support them, or that in my ideal society, they would play any role.
Essentially, I'm an optimistic academic who would like to see equal rights, universal representation, social justice, and socio-economic equality. If you had to put it succinctly, a social democrat, but according to the
American system of profiling, I fall well within the bounds of the socialists. A statement of purposes and beliefs follows.
1. First and foremost, I am committed to the ideals of a socialist economy, essentially that no good citizen of a nation shall be deprived of the very rights that should be accorded to any member of society. These things are a dwelling, a reasonable expectation of safety, a means of income to benefit our economic system and to take advantage of those things which are available to them, basic human needs such as food and water, and a reasonable expectation that their government should do for them what is both morally and socially just, and in the benefit of the people. Naturally, this goes hand-in-hand with the principles of a democratic socialist government, that the government has a standing mandate to improve the quality of life for the people within the country through any means necessary, and to strive for the betterment of society as a whole, all stratas at once. I am a socialist not from reading a book, but by seeing the injustices in society, seeing the inaction of the government, and wishing to have a society which strives to better itself as a whole. The people, as a consequence of them demanding a government, demand a common assurance of societal stability, and stability is directly related to the quality of life of the lowest levels of the society. We not only have an obligation to end poverty and suffering in our nations, but we have a duty to do such. We not only have an obligation and a mandate to improve labour conditions around all sectors of our governments, we have a duty to do such. This duty is not necessarily to our constituents, but to our society, to humanity, to our own consciences. It is our responsibility to shape the world into what we want, and a productive, fair society which has equitable rights for all people in all stratas of society is truly the hallmark of all civilizations, past and present.
2. I view multiculturalism and equal rights for people of all ethnicities as being one of those things which absolutely cannot be combated. I am solely an Anglophone, and I live in Québec, so I do have some experience in this matter. The proportional representation of cultures in a society indicates a healthy community, and it also brings diversity to a society which would otherwise fall into the curse of the United States, where people were forced to abandon the vast majority of their cultural identity during the periods of mass immigration in the 19th century. Naturally, a common language is required for commerce, general societal interactions, and government dealings, but we certainly have no right to force people to give up their first culture in order to conform to our culture.
3. On a related note, equal rights should be of paramount importance to the government of a nation. I am of the opinion that every person in society is the possessor of fundamental human rights and freedoms such as the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, and that no government or citizen has the right to discriminate based on irrelevant personal characteristics such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, civil status, age, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, or physical handicap. People, in being part of society, forfeit some rights to gain the government's sanction of others. These rights are inalienable, and should a government be found to be infringing upon, or not enforcing the protection of these rights, that government should be supplanted by a government which will fulfil the fundamental mandate of the people to provide for basic social rights.
4. I wholly reject the Thatcherian notion that socialism legislates to perform a non-vital function of ensuring that everyone has a job. Socialism is, in every sense, morally just and socially correct to believe in. Socialism is simply the belief that the government should serve the people by ensuring that no person should be deprived the right to work, and that no person should be denied basic human rights or the rights of the majority in society. True, one of the goal of socialism is to ensure that workers are treated fairly, in that everyone who wishes should have the option to get a job and transition into a career, and that labour should be organized in order to provide assurances for the working populace, that no manager, businessman, or wealthy individual shall become master of another. Essentially, socialism is a rejection of the corporate slavery which has pervaded society for long. Socialism is the belief that, ultimately, the government exists to serve the majority, not the wealthy minority, by providing for common rights which should apply to all individuals, and which would provide certainty for each individual in a society, by ensuring they have the means to get a job, by ensuring they are not unfairly treated by their employer, by ensuring that the economy stays affordable for the majority of the society, and by providing the basic human rights to all citizens. Socialism is not a choice, it is simply a consequence of our own humanity.
5. The United States illegally invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq in March 2003 in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to end non-aggressive wars. True, a dictatorial regime was overthrown, but in its place, an unstable government built off of a religiously hostile majority (With the potential for genocide on the scale of Bosnia) was put in its place. Americans are dying daily in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians are being killed in appalling quantities. There is no victory in sight, we are stuck, helplessly, in the middle of a brewing civil war. No matter how trained the police are, the warlords will still be there after we leave, and if we don't leave, we will just further alienate the populace, create more enemies, and destabilize the region, thus allowing similar conflicts to dissociate to neighboring countries. Ultimately, a continued presence in Iraq will result in more American deaths, and ultimately, there can be no stopping of the up and coming civil war. In fact, the longer we stay, the worse it will likely be. Continued American presence continues to generate divisions. While pulling out may devastate American foreign policy, it was our invasion of a sovereign nation against the sanctions of 95% of the world which damaged it most in the first place.
6. I'm heavily involved in science, and I'm pursuing a degree in evolutionary biology at McGill here in Montreal. Many of you will recall my empassioned arguments against creationism (a fairy tale), intelligent design (pseudopseudoscience, there's more truth in scientology), and the rejection of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory from all sides. You might also remember the time I railed against Darwinian evolution, essentially stating that it is an outdated theory which has been improved upon substantially. Ultimately, I believe science education is of paramount importance to society. People need to know how things work, people need to understand the way the world moves in order to be a functional part of it. I view creationism as just as dangerous to modern science education as mistaking phosphate and phosphorous (One is a polyatomic ion of phosphorous and oxygen, and the other is used in numerous applications such as... incendiary bombs. Not to say the polyatomic ion isn't useful, it's the reason why you're alive, among one of its many uses). We need a well educated society to ensure that mistakes aren't made, that the people cannot live in fear propagated by pseudoscientists, and to build a more enlightened and tolerant society.
This also means that religion should have no place in government or education. Study the Bible all you like, it's influenced literature quite a bit, but religion should certainly have no effect on the education of individuals (It's criminal really), and it should have no bearing on the decisions of the government. In biology, we have to fight religion on a day-to-day basis in the field of stem cell research, among other things. Stem cell research is being blocked, largely by religious fundamentalists, on the basis that it is essentially contrary to their religious beliefs. There are some things which outweigh the individual beliefs of a group of people, one of them is the potential benefit to society, and the other is the freedom of religion. It's not against my beliefs to study stem cells, when did they become society's moral compass?
So, I hope this helps to clarify some of my views. You'll be seeing quite a bit of me, I'll be posting some articles soon. And as Hostile said, he's one to the right, Duke is one to the left, I view myself as... quite a bit more to the left, and quite a bit more libertarian. I try to keep a balanced opinion, and I try to do what I believe is morally right for the betterment of society. If that makes me a far left radical, then it makes me a far left radical, but I have trouble believing that my beliefs could be classified as such.
If anyone would like to speak with me, I'm available through the Revora PM system, MSN, or email (Contact for external email address). I'd love to hear your views in the comments section, or privately, on certain matters which I've touched on here. You can suggest an article as well, perhaps something you'd like me to take a look at, and I'll possibly write an editorial on it and post it here. I believe I have my article for tomorrow picked out already, so I'll get to writing that as soon as possible. Please check back and enjoy GNP, it will most certainly be quite interesting, and quite an adventure for us panelists.
3 Comments
After conferring with Hostile earlier in the evening, I've decided to give writing for GNP as a permanent columnist a go. Most of you should know me from my time in the think tank as, well, Darwin's bulldog and the discontented, disillusioned American. I've just recently returned from a hiatus following my move to McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, where I'll now be for the next few years. My views are usually a bit to the left socially and economically, I understand the need for some rightists elements in the economy, but that doesn't mean that ideologically I support them, or that in my ideal society, they would play any role.
Essentially, I'm an optimistic academic who would like to see equal rights, universal representation, social justice, and socio-economic equality. If you had to put it succinctly, a social democrat, but according to the
American system of profiling, I fall well within the bounds of the socialists. A statement of purposes and beliefs follows.
1. First and foremost, I am committed to the ideals of a socialist economy, essentially that no good citizen of a nation shall be deprived of the very rights that should be accorded to any member of society. These things are a dwelling, a reasonable expectation of safety, a means of income to benefit our economic system and to take advantage of those things which are available to them, basic human needs such as food and water, and a reasonable expectation that their government should do for them what is both morally and socially just, and in the benefit of the people. Naturally, this goes hand-in-hand with the principles of a democratic socialist government, that the government has a standing mandate to improve the quality of life for the people within the country through any means necessary, and to strive for the betterment of society as a whole, all stratas at once. I am a socialist not from reading a book, but by seeing the injustices in society, seeing the inaction of the government, and wishing to have a society which strives to better itself as a whole. The people, as a consequence of them demanding a government, demand a common assurance of societal stability, and stability is directly related to the quality of life of the lowest levels of the society. We not only have an obligation to end poverty and suffering in our nations, but we have a duty to do such. We not only have an obligation and a mandate to improve labour conditions around all sectors of our governments, we have a duty to do such. This duty is not necessarily to our constituents, but to our society, to humanity, to our own consciences. It is our responsibility to shape the world into what we want, and a productive, fair society which has equitable rights for all people in all stratas of society is truly the hallmark of all civilizations, past and present.
2. I view multiculturalism and equal rights for people of all ethnicities as being one of those things which absolutely cannot be combated. I am solely an Anglophone, and I live in Québec, so I do have some experience in this matter. The proportional representation of cultures in a society indicates a healthy community, and it also brings diversity to a society which would otherwise fall into the curse of the United States, where people were forced to abandon the vast majority of their cultural identity during the periods of mass immigration in the 19th century. Naturally, a common language is required for commerce, general societal interactions, and government dealings, but we certainly have no right to force people to give up their first culture in order to conform to our culture.
3. On a related note, equal rights should be of paramount importance to the government of a nation. I am of the opinion that every person in society is the possessor of fundamental human rights and freedoms such as the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, and that no government or citizen has the right to discriminate based on irrelevant personal characteristics such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, civil status, age, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, or physical handicap. People, in being part of society, forfeit some rights to gain the government's sanction of others. These rights are inalienable, and should a government be found to be infringing upon, or not enforcing the protection of these rights, that government should be supplanted by a government which will fulfil the fundamental mandate of the people to provide for basic social rights.
4. I wholly reject the Thatcherian notion that socialism legislates to perform a non-vital function of ensuring that everyone has a job. Socialism is, in every sense, morally just and socially correct to believe in. Socialism is simply the belief that the government should serve the people by ensuring that no person should be deprived the right to work, and that no person should be denied basic human rights or the rights of the majority in society. True, one of the goal of socialism is to ensure that workers are treated fairly, in that everyone who wishes should have the option to get a job and transition into a career, and that labour should be organized in order to provide assurances for the working populace, that no manager, businessman, or wealthy individual shall become master of another. Essentially, socialism is a rejection of the corporate slavery which has pervaded society for long. Socialism is the belief that, ultimately, the government exists to serve the majority, not the wealthy minority, by providing for common rights which should apply to all individuals, and which would provide certainty for each individual in a society, by ensuring they have the means to get a job, by ensuring they are not unfairly treated by their employer, by ensuring that the economy stays affordable for the majority of the society, and by providing the basic human rights to all citizens. Socialism is not a choice, it is simply a consequence of our own humanity.
5. The United States illegally invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq in March 2003 in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to end non-aggressive wars. True, a dictatorial regime was overthrown, but in its place, an unstable government built off of a religiously hostile majority (With the potential for genocide on the scale of Bosnia) was put in its place. Americans are dying daily in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians are being killed in appalling quantities. There is no victory in sight, we are stuck, helplessly, in the middle of a brewing civil war. No matter how trained the police are, the warlords will still be there after we leave, and if we don't leave, we will just further alienate the populace, create more enemies, and destabilize the region, thus allowing similar conflicts to dissociate to neighboring countries. Ultimately, a continued presence in Iraq will result in more American deaths, and ultimately, there can be no stopping of the up and coming civil war. In fact, the longer we stay, the worse it will likely be. Continued American presence continues to generate divisions. While pulling out may devastate American foreign policy, it was our invasion of a sovereign nation against the sanctions of 95% of the world which damaged it most in the first place.
6. I'm heavily involved in science, and I'm pursuing a degree in evolutionary biology at McGill here in Montreal. Many of you will recall my empassioned arguments against creationism (a fairy tale), intelligent design (pseudopseudoscience, there's more truth in scientology), and the rejection of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory from all sides. You might also remember the time I railed against Darwinian evolution, essentially stating that it is an outdated theory which has been improved upon substantially. Ultimately, I believe science education is of paramount importance to society. People need to know how things work, people need to understand the way the world moves in order to be a functional part of it. I view creationism as just as dangerous to modern science education as mistaking phosphate and phosphorous (One is a polyatomic ion of phosphorous and oxygen, and the other is used in numerous applications such as... incendiary bombs. Not to say the polyatomic ion isn't useful, it's the reason why you're alive, among one of its many uses). We need a well educated society to ensure that mistakes aren't made, that the people cannot live in fear propagated by pseudoscientists, and to build a more enlightened and tolerant society.
This also means that religion should have no place in government or education. Study the Bible all you like, it's influenced literature quite a bit, but religion should certainly have no effect on the education of individuals (It's criminal really), and it should have no bearing on the decisions of the government. In biology, we have to fight religion on a day-to-day basis in the field of stem cell research, among other things. Stem cell research is being blocked, largely by religious fundamentalists, on the basis that it is essentially contrary to their religious beliefs. There are some things which outweigh the individual beliefs of a group of people, one of them is the potential benefit to society, and the other is the freedom of religion. It's not against my beliefs to study stem cells, when did they become society's moral compass?
So, I hope this helps to clarify some of my views. You'll be seeing quite a bit of me, I'll be posting some articles soon. And as Hostile said, he's one to the right, Duke is one to the left, I view myself as... quite a bit more to the left, and quite a bit more libertarian. I try to keep a balanced opinion, and I try to do what I believe is morally right for the betterment of society. If that makes me a far left radical, then it makes me a far left radical, but I have trouble believing that my beliefs could be classified as such.
If anyone would like to speak with me, I'm available through the Revora PM system, MSN, or email (Contact for external email address). I'd love to hear your views in the comments section, or privately, on certain matters which I've touched on here. You can suggest an article as well, perhaps something you'd like me to take a look at, and I'll possibly write an editorial on it and post it here. I believe I have my article for tomorrow picked out already, so I'll get to writing that as soon as possible. Please check back and enjoy GNP, it will most certainly be quite interesting, and quite an adventure for us panelists.
3 Comments