The Obama administration is anti-science!

I rather look forward to seeing how completely the science blogs are going to attempt to ignore this aspect of what is actually a very legitimate philosophical question about the extent to which science should be suppressed:

The US government has asked the scientific journals Nature and Science to censor data on a laboratory-made version of bird flu that could spread more easily to humans, fearing it could be used as a potential weapon.

The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity asked the two journals to publish redacted versions of studies by two research groups that created forms of the H5N1 avian flu that could easily jump between ferrets – typically considered a sign the virus could spread quickly among humans.

Of course, it should also be interesting to see the contortions that Sam Harris and other science fetishists will perform in an attempt to blame the dangers of science on religion. I not only don’t have a problem with the idea of suppressing science, I think it is entirely obvious that science is going to be increasingly suppressed by governments around the world and that suppression will prove politically popular.

The ironic thing is that scientific progressives have managed to place themselves completely on the wrong side of history while simultaneously believing they are history’s vanguard.


The anti-democratic party

It appears that the Republicans are not so much anti-Democrat as anti-democratic:

The alarms are sounding in Iowa.

Conservatives and Republican elites in the state are divided over who to support for the GOP nomination, but they almost uniformly express concern over the prospect that Ron Paul and his army of activist supporters may capture the state’s 2012 nominating contest — an outcome many fear would do irreparable harm to the future role of the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

Strange, how a Ron Paul victory in Iowa wouldn’t render him electable, but “would do irreparable harm” to the caucuses. As Nate and others have often said, if voting – or for that matter, nominating a candidate – could change anything, it would be outlawed.

At this point, if Ron Paul doesn’t win the Republican nomination, he MUST run as a third-party candidate. The disaster that is the Obama presidency would still be better than the evil corruption that is the bank-owned Republican establishment.


The Tea Party – Occupy Wall Street alliance

That would be a worthwhile third party:

Open Letter from a Marine Tea Partier to All Occupiers
Posted on 12/12/2011

First of all, I’m surprised you’re reading this. Thanks to the corrupt media, many of you might be clueless to the fact we share quite a bit of commonground.

Let me clarify: By “Tea Party,” I am in no way referring to the hijacked movement we know and love today. By “Tea Party,” I don’t mean Iran warmongers, bailout lovers, the “extreme right,” and people who think what happens in your bedroom affects them in any way. No, what I mean is the Tea Party as it started in 2007 as opposition to Bush policies.

The media loves to paint a picture of OWS vs. TP, “right” vs. “left,” etc. It’s an old tactic called divide and conquer. If we fight amongst ourselves, no one looks at the true criminals at work in society….

The system we live under is a corporatist model rapidly deteriorating into a fascist police state. The reason I added “Marine” to the heading of this letter was to (hopefully) attract active duty servicemembers, veterans, and law enforcement. We took an oath to the Constitution in order to join. The oath clearly gives us not only the option, but the responsibility to disobey ALL illegal orders. The police attacking peaceful protesters in the streets are in direct violation of that oath. If you are attacking peaceful people you are already on the wrong side of history.

Remember, focus on commonground. Just don’t look to government to be our saviors. Our politicians (yes, including our President) are bought and paid for by corporations and the mega banks. In fact, Obama’s biggest campaign donor is Goldman Sachs. His Treasury Secretary worked at Goldman Sachs himself. Why do you think some Europeans call us the United States of Goldman Sachs?

Semper Fi and Semper Occupare. Because nothing would terrify the establishment more than a united Occupy Tea Party movement.

– Cpl. Stephen Mark Allen, USMC


The drug war against the economy

Fred Reed chronicles one effective way for G to GDP:

When I arrived in Mexico going on ten years ago, it was a mildly sleepy upper-Third World country, whatever that means—corrupt but not dangerous, not rich but hardly poor, barely middle-class overall and climbing, the mañana thing seldom noticeable, and women pouring into the professions. I parodied the American conception of Mexico as perilous hell-hole because it wasn’t. Not even close.

Then in 2006 Felipe Calderón became president, and declared war on the drug cartels. Mexicans I talk to think he did it under pressure from Washington, but I don’t know. Certainly Washington has done everything in its power to encourage it.

The war failed, as anyone with even a vague understanding of the world would have predicted. A war on drugs—foolish phrase—may be said to succeed if the price of drugs rises on the American street. It didn’t. It won’t.

Things happened that were touted as successes against the traficantes. A fair number of bosses of important cartels were killed or caught. Since Americans confuse leaders with movements and countries, this sounded like progress. Of course if, for example, you kill a leader of the “Taliban,” his second takes over within hours and all goes on as before. And if you kill the leader of a cartel, his underlings fight among themselves for the pieces, thousainds die, and law breaks down. Mexicans know this. The State Department apparently doesn’t.

Meanwhile, as always, drugs remain everywhere available in America.

At first the killing remained largely in the northern states, Chihuahua, Sonora, Sinaloa, Tamaulipas, and such, with patches south in Jalisco and, especially, Michoacan. The gringos who lived around Lake Chapala, an hour south of Guadalajara, were not much affected.

Then the mayhem arrived here at Lakeside. In recent months the gringo havens along the lake have seen firefights with automatic weapons and grenades. Bodies are frequently found. Very frequently. Until recently no gringos were killed. The narcos were fighting among themselves and against the police. Expats didn’t, and so far don’t, interest them.

A few days ago an American was killed in Ajijic, the epicenter of gringolandia. It was just an armed robbery gone bad. The narcos had nothing to do with it. Thing is, when the country falls into chaos because ofthe war against drugs, every other kind of crime follows.

The expats have begun moving out. Realtors report large numbers of houses going on the block. If this continues, and I see no reason why it won’t, restaurants will continue to close, maids and gardeners will lose their jobs, and the doctors and dentists that serve the expatriates will leave. Today a local Spanish website reports a fall of fifty percent in trade at eateries. If this continues, tourism, a crucial business in Mexico, will disappear. Already, we hear, the cruise ships have stopped going to Puerto Vallarta.

Prohibition never works very well and often the costs significantly exceed the benefits. And creating crime ex nihilo only serves to turn law-abiding citizens into criminals, it seldom significantly modifies their behavior. Just as you won’t stop reading the Bible or playing chess if such activities were made illegal, most people won’t stop drinking or doing drugs. Perhaps if pro-drug war Americans are unconcerned about the loss of Constitutional rights, the immorality, or the foreign instability created by the drug war, they will be more responsive to the way in which it is obviously serving as a negative fiscal multiplier now that the global economy is in contraction.


The most importantest nomination ever!

Ross Douthat considers Ron Paul’s surge in Iowa and is inspired to accomplish the rarely seen double-sellout on principle:

Even as the national party prepares to choose between the former speaker and the former Massachusetts governor, Iowa Republicans may end up choosing between Gingrich and Representative Ron Paul. In every post-Thanksgiving poll but one, Paul has been neck and neck for second place in Iowa. In most of them, he has lagged well behind the soaring speaker, coming in just below 20 percent while Gingrich hovers around 30. But a new Iowa survey, from Public Policy Polling, shows Gingrich leading Paul by just a single point, 22 percent to 21….

Iowa Tea Partiers face a choice. If the town hall crashers and Washington Mall marchers of 2009 settle on a Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider as their not-Romney standard bearer in 2012, then every liberal who ever sneered at the Tea Party will get to say “I told you so.” If Paul wins the caucuses, on the other hand, the movement will keep its honor – but also deliver the Republican nomination gift-wrapped to Mitt Romney.

It’s a stunning achievement. In order to prevent Barack Obama from winning a second term, Republicans must sacrifice principle to pragmatism and nominate the self-styled progressive Republican, Mitt Romney. But in order to prevent Mitt Romney from being nominated as the Republican candidate for president, Tea Party Republicans must sacrifice principle to pragmatism and vote for the Medicare Part D-supporting, Freddie Mac-advising, Nancy Pelosi-snuggling Washington insider, Newt Gingrich.

The problem is that too many Republicans listen to this sort of nonsensical analysis, all of which is intended to accomplish precisely one purpose: convince conservatives to vote against their own principles. Once they have done that, it doesn’t matter who wins; the Bank Party has already won.

There are actually only two distinct candidates in the 2012 election. There is Ron Paul, who represents the U.S. Constitution, and there is Newt Romney O’Bama, who represents the Bank Party. The unprincipled pragmatists always like to claim, in defiance of both mathematics and logic, that a vote for Not-X is a vote for X, and yet, whereas the more salient and material fact of the matter is that a vote for X, Y, or Z is a vote for the set of {X,Y,Z}. There is no substantive difference between Romney, Gingrich, and Obama on any of the major issues presently facing the nation.

I don’t believe Ron Paul can win the Republican nomination for president. But then, I didn’t believe Tim Tebow could lead the Broncos to the top of the AFC West either. Roll Ron roll!


A progressive standard-bearer

His views “are progressive”. That is straight from the man’s mouth. Seriously, even in the eye of the economic hurricane, this is the man that the Republican establishment genuinely prefers to Ron Paul… which should tell you everything you need to know about the Republican Party. If they nominate Newt Romney, there is absolutely no way that any self-respecting conservative or libertarian can belong to or support the party.


The unconservative candidate

It used to be that Republican “moderates” would portray themselves as socially moderate, but fiscally conservative. Now, however, they’re not even fiscally conservative anymore:

The tax plan proposed by Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich would add $1.3 trillion to the U.S. budget deficit in 2015 alone, a new analysis shows, complicating his goal of balancing the government’s books.

The analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center compares the federal government’s take under Gingrich’s proposal with projected U.S. revenue if current tax law ran its course and existing income tax cuts expired as scheduled after 2012.

One interesting aspect of this presidential campaign is that it has revealed the Republican candidates to be every bit as unwilling to cut government programs as the Democrats. As numerous observers have pointed out, the Republicans elected to the House in 2010 were elected to do one thing: reign in federal spending. And they have manifestly failed to do that.

Tax cuts are definitely desirable, but they are less desirable and less necessary than spending cuts. And tax cuts without spending cuts means even more debt.

This is why a second Obama term would be vastly preferable to either a Romney or Gingrich presidency. Obama is actually more constrained on spending by a Republican House than either of the two Republicans would be. It’s almost beside the point to describe any of the three as being Democrats or Republicans, though. They all belong to the Bank Party.


Mailvox: A new GOP foreign policy

A VP reader who writes at Policymic recommends the GOP adopt Ron Paul’s foreign policy:

Republicans love to wax poetic about America’s founding documents. Read anything by popular conservative pundits to get up to speed on how our precious Constitution has been shredded by liberals and why America desperately needs to return to the principles contained therein.

The major Republican presidential contenders all share that view as well. Newt Gingrich’s website, for example, tells readers that religious liberty and life are unalienable rights “contained in the Declaration of Independence.” Mitt Romney has similarly ripped on “advocates of “secularism” for taking the idea of separation of church and state “…well beyond its original meaning.”

The problem, however, is that Republicans don’t endorse their own back to basics argument when it comes to foreign policy. Conservatives, historically speaking, don’t a endorse the idea that America is the world’s police force, and for the sake of consistency and the good of the country, today’s Republicans need to abandoned this interventionist mindset.

This may sound like a strange argument if you don’t know your history, so let’s briefly put it context. The idea that America should cross the globe solving every nation’s problems is a progressive one. And it makes sense when you think about it. The left generally accepts that the government ought to have a very active role in society, alleviating poverty, ensuring a level playing field or the little guy, and so on. So why wouldn’t the same be true of foreign policy as well?

It’s all quite true. Unfortunately, it’s all quite irrelevant. The observable fact of the matter is that most Republicans, including many who call themselves conservatives, are now progressives on the foreign policy front. There is literally nothing conservative about the Republican Party’s mainstream anymore, and they are at their most left-wing and pro-government intervention with regards to foreign policy.

What they should do and what they can reasonably be expected to do are two completely different things. Which is why they are so often called, quite correctly, the Stupid Party.


WND column

The Madness of Newt Romney

The argument for nominating Newt Romney as the Republican candidate for president is pretty straightforward. Newt Romney is not Barack Obama. Newt Romney is believed capable of defeating Barack Obama due to its generally moderate position approximately half way between Barack Obama and Republican Party conservatives and a strong Republican electoral tailwind. Since Newt Romney is believed to be less unattractive than Barack Obama and capable of winning the general election, Republicans should, therefore, look past its flaws and nominate it as the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.


Unelectable redefined

Many people are under the impression that “unelectable” means “insufficiently popular with the electorate. That clearly isn’t true:

[I]n that campaign discussion on Twitter, one candidate has fared better than anyone else. Congressman Ron Paul has enjoyed the most favorable tone on Twitter of all candidates examined. From May through November, fully 55% of the assertions about the Texas Republican on Twitter have been positive-the highest of any candidate-while 15% have been negative-the lowest percentage of any candidate. That is a differential for Paul of 40 points on the positive side.

Paul is also the most favorably discussed candidate in blogs. While he trails significantly in the polls, and has received less coverage than every Republican candidate except Rick Santorum from news outlets, Paul seems to have struck a chord with some cohort in social media.

This treatment of Paul stands in contrast to that of most of the GOP field, for whom Twitter has been a tough neighborhood. Five of Paul’s seven GOP rivals have had negative opinions on Twitter outstrip positive ones by roughly 2-1 or more.

What “unelectable” actually means is “insufficiently popular with the mainstream media”. Or more precisely, “insufficiently subservient to the banking industry”.