QUOD ME NUTRIT ME DESTRUIT

It strikes me as odd that in Britain, Tony Blair is getting roasted alive for his participation in the War on Iraq while in the United States, the guy who started the whole thing is walking around acting as if nothing bad really ever happened. He is able to use phrases like "stay the course", "cut-and-run" "just doesn't make sense", and "progress is being made". His administration dissembles "information", almost wikipedia style as if you repeat something enough times and enough people agree, it makes it true, to the point that many Americans today believe that Iraq harbored Weapons of Mass Destruction and was intimately associated with Al Qaeda before the US armed forces entered.

I still think that Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the correct one, although I strongly disagree with the handling of the effort. But that's not the real issue. The real issue is not so much whether or not we agree with our leaders, but whether or not we hold them accountable. In Britain, Tony Blair faces regular questions from Parliament -- a Parliament that asks intelligent questions, and hard questions, and is not so easily satisfied by "we're going to stay the course" then the American public seems to be. Instead of the thunderous applause that Bush meets wherever he goes, Blair is greeted by boos and criticism -- criticism, that, to his credit, Blair has tried to face head-on.

And, that, to me is very very sad. America prides itself as being a center of democracy. The US has touted the new Afghani and Iraqi governments as new democracies that they have helped to establish. But, why the focus on democracy if Americans aren't willing to do the very thing that democracy was founded upon -- holding its leaders accountable? Engaging in meaningful debates and brokering compromises on policy issues?

What does the US have instead? A media that is perfectly willing to accept platitudes from elected officials. A media that is perfectly willing to say they covered both sides of the issue by letting both sides issue substanceless sound bytes. A media that considers a debate to be two sides hurling insults and rhetoric past each other, not even at each other. A media that lets politicians label opinions they disagree with as elements of the "far-left" or the "far-right" without ever questioning it. A populous that instead of asking for the hard facts is force-fed them by demagogues on both sides of the aisle. Instead of looking closely at their country's leaders, they instead only look closely at mindless reality TV. Instead of asking their politicians for answers to real serious problems like the national deficit, America's growing educational inadequacy, a very flawed healthcare system, and a completely mishandled government apparatus for dealing with terrorism, natural disasters, and epidemics, they ask for pictures of Tom Cruise's baby.

I'm not trying to pretend that Great Britain has a paragon of democracy. And I'm not saying that the American people necessarily need to throw out Bush or to harshly criticize him. But, the least Americans should do is question them. Question them on what they're doing. Question them on what their predecessors did. Question them on what they think the future will be like. Question them on how they're solving problems today. Question them on how they think they're doing. Question what the media says. Question what the traditional sound bytes actually mean.

You don't have to vote. You don't have to write petitions. You don't have to make annoying blog posts like I do. Just question.

I am now HSC certified. I can operate all handguns without question! THAT'S RIGHT, BIATCH!

Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm here I come! (See previouis entry to see a pic of the gun.)

I seriously dislike Joe Lieberman. I've always disliked him. I don't like his platform and I don't like how conniving and manipulative he is.

So, after he concedes defeat to Ned Lamont (who, if I lived in Connecticut, I would have voted for), Lieberman states "that he was not dropping out of the race, but would instead run for re-election as an independent this fall."

Now, I'm borderline hating Lieberman. If Lieberman decides to go ahead and run as an independent in 2008 for a senate seat, he's going to split the Democrat vote. It was such a close election and the Democrats of Connecticut are going to have to choose who to vote for AGAIN. In a time where the Democrat party is falling apart (lack of platform, lack of leaders, disorganization...) we need all the seats in the Senate we can possibly get. For him to put his own ego above the needs of this country is ridiculous. He should support Lamont and guarantee a Democrat seat in the Senate.

Fucker.

In other news, I blew the radiator in my car and then I changed it so now it's good as new. I <3 my car.

Working Out Beliefs and Politics

Yes.

Who will be at the Giants game on July 23rd against the San Diego Padres?!

My little cousins are here. SO cute and loud but I love them anyway. :) I'll post a pic later.

Something political:

Yesterday's New York Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage has prompted many different responses. It has been received by many gay rights activists as "callous and insulting to gay people" and which "treats us as if we are alien beings" and the left-leaning New York Times even deemed it "a key setback" for the gay rights movement. On the conservative side, the decision has been praised as the "Gettysburg in this big contest".

I think they're both missing the point. Supreme Court decisions, contrary to popular opinion, are not and should not be questions of morality -- they are questions of interpretation of law and the applicable constitution. In this specific case, the court ruled that the New York statute limiting marriage to between a man and a woman was NOT in conflict with the Constitution or the understood and held-to legal precedents. It's specific argumentation made the claim that, although not necessarily correct, the New York legislature did not violate anyone's fundamental rights (ie it was not imprisoning homosexuals, nor was it denying them of life, or putting undue hardship on them) and was capable of rationally coming to the conclusion that incentivizing opposite-sex couplings to commit to each other was a good thing for society. Because of this, it does not violate the due process clause of the New York Constitution, nor do they believe it violates the due process clause of the federal Constitution. They admitted that there was definitely some evidence which would argue that opposite-sex parenthood is not intrinsically better than same-sex parenthood, but it was not so overwhelming that it made the decision to legislate an irrational one based on prejudice. This they also supported by the fact that the New York legislature also passed a law which explicitly protected people from discrimination due to sexual orientation.

From that perspective, I do believe that the ruling was made "correctly" in the objective sense that the law does not violate due process.

It doesn't mean, however, that the law is necessarily a good thing for society or is "morally right". And therein lies my disagreement. This is neither a real victory or a real defeat for any side. Following the "judicial activism" of the Warren court, the public seems less and less inclined to listen to or understand what the court has to say. Judicial rulings from high courts are so full of legalism and use obscure rationale (ie the one used by this court that judged that while the logic used by the New York state legislature may be incorrect, it could have been rationally approached) that even those who are inclined to can rarely understand. Moreover, the courts are strongly insulated from public opinion (as they should be) and as such their rulings oftentimes seem counter-intuitive or just plain wrong to the masses.

My point is that social changes should not be, unless absolutely necessary, made through the courts. This decision only affirms the need for legislative action as a means of change. Legislative action is fundamentally more representative and more democratic -- something which I would argue is morally superior when dealing with issues of social customs/mores and is also more pragmatic and desirable as it would not only better reflect society's interests but also be more likely to induce a change in society.

And what if society isn't ready to fully accept gay marriage? Then it's up to activists, writers, and politicians to convince people -- as it rightfully should be in a democracy.

Americans who support stem-cell research are supposed to take heart from the U.S. Senate's agreement last week to schedule a vote on legislation that would loosen President Bush's restrictions on the scientific research.

But this so called progress is actually further proof of California voters' wisdom in passing the $3 billion stem-ecll initiative in 2004.

Californians may be dismayed that lawsuits have prevented the state from fully implementing its program during the past 18 months. But it has also taken Congress five years just to put together a package of bills in response to Bush's restrictions. The senate is expected to pass legislation already approved by the House. But Bush has promised to use his first presidential veto to kill the stem-cell package.

So much for taking heart.

Since the vast majority of Americans support stem-cell research, passing the legislation may help Republican candidates at the ballot box in November: But a Bush veto means it won't result in any additional federal grants for scientists.

The only reason many of the nation's top stem-cell resarchers are still in the United States is because of California voters' decision to lead the way and fill the void left by the Bush administration.

In order to conduct meaningful research, scientists need the promise of a steady flow of dollars over a period of years, if not decades, to achieve major scientific breakthroughs. Even if Bush did not use his presidential vet, there are no guarantees that his successor would support further expenditures.

That's why the length of California's stem-cell initiative --10 years-- is as significant to scientists as the size of the investment.

Bush has indicated he would veto the package because embryonic stem-cell research involves the destruction of human embryos. The legislation now before the Senate would allow the funding of research on embryos that would have otherwise been destroyed at fertility clinics. If the president chooses to exercise his veto to "protect society's most vulnerable members," he should also explain to the American public why he opposes stem-cell resarch but supports in vitro fertilization, which also involves discarding and dstroying millions of human embryos.

For decades, many of the biggest breakthroughs in medicine have been the result of taxpayers' investments in research by American scientists. If the promise of stem-cell resaerch results in new treatments for a wide range of diseases, the nation will owe California voters a huge debt of gratitude.


HMPH! Bush is destroying America and all of what it has stood for in the past. America's time as a superpower in everything ranging from government to military strength to academics (especially science!) is coming to an end--or maybe it already has.