Happy Canada Day, Eh?

Tomorrow, July 1st, is the commemorating day of the birth of our confederation - Canada Day!

For your pleasure, here's (who else?) Bachman-Turner-Overdrive to remind us that we must keep on takin' care of business ( and remain vigilant in the protection and preservation of our democratic values and institutions):

So, let the festivities and the partying begin! But before doing so, let us remember these words of wisdom, again from BTO: don't get yourself in trouble, eh?

Enjoy - and I wish a great Canada Day to all my fellow Canucks! Bonne fête du Canada à tous mes compatriotes!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Can You Spot The Principles Of Incompetence?

It is a lazy blogging day on this Saturday, at APOV (hey - lazyness can strike anyone at any time, even if momentarily, no? I'm only human, you know .... *wink*). Consequently, I propose to you good folks a little game - after all, why not have a little fun once in a while, eh?

This game is simple: I provide four news items and all you have to do is spot which of the Eight Principles of Incompetence are at work (whether alone or in combination). Post your answers in the comments of this entry - tomorrow Monday, I will announce the winner after reviewing/evaluating all the answers. Ready? Here goes nothing:

Item 1: Senator John McCain will return to visit Iraq on Monday.

Item 2: Prime Minister Harper awards Claude Bennett, a longtime Ottawa Conservative, a directorship seat on the board of the Royal Canadian Mint.

Item 3: A Mickey Mouse lookalike character on a Hamas-affiliated children's television program is beaten to death by an Israeli-like character in the show's final episode.

Item 4: Ann Coulter.

Have fun and keep on rockin'!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A Late Friday Night Ode To Regent Cheney

Brought to you by: Iron Maiden - Rock in Rio - "The Wicker Man"

Hand of fate is moving and the finger points to you
He knocks you to your feet and so what are you gonna do
Your tongue has frozen now you've got something to say
The piper at the gates of dawn is calling you his way

You watch the world exploding every single night
Dancing in the sun a newborn in the light
Say goodbye to gravity and say goodbye to death
Hello to eternity and live for every breath

Your time will come, your time will come
Your time will come, your time will come

The ferryman wants his money you ain't going to give it back
He can push his own boat as you set up off the track
Nothing you can contemplate will ever be the same
Every second is a new spark, sets the universe aflame

You watch the world exploding every single night
Dancing in the sun a newborn in the light
Brothers and their fathers joining hands and make a chain
The shadow of the Wicker Man is rising up again

Your time will come, your time will come
Your time will come, your time will come

Enjoy - and keep on rockin'!


(P.S. Oh yes, before I forget: we can now use videos on Blogger! Heheheheheh)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Update Notice - 06/29/2007

Yep - it's that time again at APOV. The following articles have been updated:

The Office Of The Unitary Regency Of The U.S.A.: three updates;

The OURUS: Interregnum Or Fait Accompli?: four updates.

Keep on rockin', ya'll!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The OURUS*: Interregnum Or Fait Accompli?

(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III) (Update IV)

(*: Office of the Unitary Regency of the U.S.A.)

Regent Cheney: going away or here to stay?

In my previous two articles, I elaborated on the now-established fact that Dick. B. Cheney installed himself as a Regent on January 2001, effectively creating the constitutionally unlawful Office of the Unitary Regency of the U.S.A. - complete with its Puppet Presidency.

Truth be told, it was after 9-11 that Cheney effectively made his move to firmly cement his Regency - driven by his intractable belief in Executive Supremacy. In other words, Cheney seized the opportunity that presented itself with the tragic events of September 11, 2001, in the same manner as he did when then-candidate Bush approached him for the vetting of running mates.

In this respect, Regent Cheney certainly fooled many of us (myself included, I must admit) into thinking that it was his Puppet President who represented a threat to the Constitutional Republic of the U.S. throughout all these years, when in fact he constituted the threat all along.

A stealthy, calculating Master Puppeteer indeed.

And the rest, as they say, is history. Including, of course, present-time - or current - history.

Hence the question which I now pose to you, good folks: is the OURUS an interregnum or a fait accompli?

Let us explore the possibilities, shall we?

Pros and cons that the OURUS is an interregnum:
It goes without saying that the OURUS is an unlawful and unconstitutional aberration - consequently, it must be removed somehow, thus rendering it a mere interregnum along the historical line of constitutional continuity. As I am writing this entry, the Congress is still debating an amendment to restrict the $4.75 million budget for the Vice President’s Office that is being held "constitutionally" by Cheney - thus seeking to effectively defund him. In principle, such a move would indeed go a long way in putting the Regent in constitutional check-mate - however, Cheney's alleged/potential access to monies marked for "vague items" (e.g. "black ops") or through other more dubious monetary sources would allow him to continue on, unimpeded.

There is of course the way of impeachment - which I happen to consider as being the perfectly constitutional and competent way to not only establish once and for all that Cheney's Regency is unlawful, but to effectively remove him from power. On the one hand, not impeaching Cheney would increase the bar of minimal requirements for impeachment so high, no one will ever be impeached. The same result will happen if representatives and the People simply "wait out" the rest of the Bush-Cheney term - or if criminal charges are actually brought up (the proceedings themselves, along with the usual stalling tactics, stonewalling and various legal delays, would certainly take quite a long time, no?). On the other hand, not impeaching Cheney will represent the ultimate expression of lack of democratic courage, principles and responsibilities. Unfortunately, too many (lame) excuses are being floated against impeachment. Furthermore, supporters/defenders of the Regent, both inside and outside the Congress, are advancing further reasons/arguments against impeachment - or even defunding, accountability or investigation, for that matter. Although momentum continues to increase on the side of those who are driving for impeachment, it remains to be seen if the Public and its Representatives have the patience, courage and determination to see this through.

Last, but not least, there is talk of the possibility that the Regent would simply abdicate (read: resign). There sure have been calls for it enough (three of many instances here, here and here). But really - who can force him into abdication? Certainly not his Puppet President, as some hope. Others have advanced the idea that GOP House members may put pressure on Cheney to resign. However, this is not only quite hypocritical of them, considering that many among them have aided and abetted him for so long, but we can guess what his answer might be ...

Pros and Cons that the OURUS is a fait accompli:
The only way that the OURUS might become a fait accompli would be through the use of a willfully mendacious military intervention in order to cement its rule once and for all. Indeed, the tools are already available: the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Directive, in conjunction with the Patriot Act and the Military Commission's Act (as well as the gutting of the Posse Comitatus Act), could be used as the means to install the Cheney Regency as a bona fides dictatorship. Simply invoking Martial Law would do the trick - and do not count on SCOTUS, which he shaped, to actually rule against him. Would Regent Cheney go through this? Consider his love for Executive Supremacy, as well as his overtly displayed disdain for accountability and any restrains put on his cherished Unitary Executive beliefs (like the War Powers Act, as an example). Likewise, let us not forget that he was the Mastermind behind the policies of habeas corpus suspension, torture, indefinite detention and illegal eavesdropping. Hence, such a catastrophic and tragic outcome remains possible.

Conversely, it is a well known fact that Regent Cheney's health is not one of his strong assets. Hence, why would he bother going through a (predictably not bloodless) coup, when he's not likely to reign for more than, say, ten years? Well, History shows us that there are always others more than willing and able to succeed despots and grab power for themselves. I would not be surprised if anyone among the Regent's men (past and/or present) would have no qualms at taking his place in holding the Office of the Unitary Regency of the U.S.A. - these people have shown themselves quite adept at formulating rationalizations (or duplicitous lies) to justify their actions - however mendacious - in the past. Such is the lot of incompetent human beings.

In closing - current History remains to unfold the conclusion of this saga, therefore eventually establishing whether the OURUS was an unconstitutionally aberrant interregnum or a pre-despotic regime-to-be. I am somewhat wishing that Regent Cheney will see the light and abdicate. Barring this, I fervently hope that he will be impeached - either way would preserve the Republic and the Constitution for which it stands.

In the meantime, it would do well for the citizens of the Republic to ask themselves this crucial question: why did we ever allow the election of a weak-minded and -willed candidate as President, along with a strong-minded and -willed candidate as Vice-President?

For I believe that such an instance not only constituted a first in the History of the U.S.A., but also caused - and facilitated - the ascension of the OURUS.

Let us hope that the lesson has been learned once and for all, and that it will not turn out to be a bloody one at that, eh?


Update: 06/28/2007 - Some folks are wondering whether America needs a Vice-President or not - but that is a wrong question to ask, just like this one. In any case, the obvious solution to prevent the ascension of another OURUS in the future is to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to clearly define the roles and limitations of the OVP, and voilà - problem solved (but that would require competence, i.e. patience, courage and determination, to do so). In the meantime, more people are waking up and rightly calling for the impeachment of Regent Cheney - that is good. However, the question can be asked: is there enough backbone out there to see this through? Meanwhile, here's more on how the Regent's SCOTUS has been gutting the U.S. Constitution - looks like authoritarianism is on the agenda, here ... no? I thought so ...


Update II: 06/29/2007 - Looks like I was right in characterizing Regent Cheney as a cold, calculating, authoritarian Master Puppeteer - case in point: this personal account. It also shows his Sixth Principle of Incompetence-driven primitive mind. On a related note: here is how I suspect Regent Cheney gets (at least part of) his monies to fund his OURUS and those secret ops at his behest (see above). With regards to the trashing of the U.S. Constitution by Puppet Bush and Regent Cheney, some are asking: "What went wrong? (...) Shouldn't this trigger some corrective mechanism? Shouldn't something be happening to reverse this? Why isn't SOMEbody doing someTHING? ". I've already written the answers to these questions here. In the meantime, more are pondering on the possibility that GOP House Representatives might go to Bush and demand the removal of Cheney - I say: not-gonna-happen (see above). As much as I wish for the impeachment of Regent Cheney to occur, it looks like the process is going to take too much time. Even if Congress plays hardball - especially since it looks increasingly evident that SCOTUS is indeed subservient to Regent Cheney. Consequently, it may be too late already - provided that Regent Cheney indeed exits the White House "gracefully", once January 2009 comes. Nonetheless, if impeachment does not happen, I'm afraid the U.S.A. will suffer the consequences of such infamy for decades and decades to come (see above). And last, but not least, a ray of hope by way of The Newshoggers: Theodore C. Sorensen, former speechwriter for JFK, wrote a hypothetical acceptance speech for the Democratic Party's nominee for President. Simply beautiful (and not to toot my own horn, but I was pleasantly surprised to recognize many of the themes I have been harping on about here, such as democratic lazyness, incompetence, denial/gutting of Kyoto, qualities of genuine leaders, politics of ignorance, fear and lies, the intellectual sloth-driven MSM, etc., etc., etc.). Now, if only ... (sigh).


Update III: 06/30/2007 - One more voice for the impeachment of Regent Cheney. It is to be hoped that a snowball's effect will be occuring soon enough, even if it may be too late already (see above). But come what may, it will be important for those who will have voiced, on the record, their support for impeachment - this could play a serious role, come the 2008 elections ...


Update IV: 06/30/2007 - By way of Politics Plus: here is a clear-cut example of intellectual sloth-driven non-thinking and lack of democratic courage about what it takes to impeach someone. The damage has been done indeed - most tragically enough. It would seem that Regent Cheney and his Puppet President will get away scott-free, after all ...


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Progressive Historians, at Diatribune, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Office Of The Unitary Regency Of The U.S.A.

(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III)

This is not a "Co-Presidency", nor is it a (misnamed) "Fourth Branch" of the U.S. government.

Rather, this is a Unitary Regency - Dick B. Cheney's Regency actually - which has been the de facto Executive Power behind the Puppet Presidency of George W. Bush since January 2001.

It is well known that Cheney is an ardent proponent of the Unitary Executive Theory. Alexander Hamilton expounded much on the necessity for a Unitary Executive in The Federalist Papers (No. 70; 03/18/1788):

"(...) all men of sense will agree in the necessity of an energetic (vigorous) Executive (...) The ingredients which constitute energy in the Executive are, first, unity; secondly, duration; thirdly, an adequate provision for its support; fourthly, competent powers (...) That unity is conducive to energy will not be disputed. Decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch will generally characterize the proceedings of one man in a much more eminent degree than the proceedings of any greater number; and in proportion as the number is increased, these qualities will be diminished (...) This unity may be destroyed in two ways: either by vesting the power in two or more magistrates of equal dignity and authority; or by vesting it ostensibly in one man, subject, in whole or in part, to the control and co-operation of others, in the capacity of counsellors to him."

(Emphasis mine)

Therefore, the idea of a "Co-Presidency" runs counter to the very concept of a Unitary Executive - and as a matter of fact, Cheney's long-held core beliefs on this subject are so extreme that they can be summed up in two words: "Executive Supremacy".

This is why I submit (again) to you, good folks, that Dick Cheney sought nothing less than such Executive Supremacy. Some (myself included, until recently) may call this an Imperial Presidency, I now prefer to call it a Regency - because this was the true objective that Cheney had for himself all along: to be the true Head of State of the U.S.A., ruling quietly behind a Puppet President which acted as concealment and facade.

To this effect, the inept Bush must have been a dream come true for would-be-Regent Cheney, back in 2000, when the former approached the latter for guidance and counseling in the vetting of potential running mates. After all, Bush's propensity for minimal workload and eager willingness to delegate constituted a golden opportunity for Cheney's complete involvement in the formulation and execution of policy. Ergo: Bush was the perfect Puppet for the Master Puppeteer. Consequently, Cheney seized the occasion and chose himself as Bush's running mate.

To paraphrase Hamilton and, to some extent, Harvey C. Mansfield: decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch are the characteristics of a vigorous Unitary Executive. It goes without saying that Regent Cheney followed this axiom to the letter. Allow me to provide a few examples to support this:

Decision: Regent Cheney made the decision that terrorist suspects held by the U.S. were to be stripped of access to any court and be confined indefinitely without charges, in order to be tried, if at all, in closed military tribunals. The Regent made his Puppet sign the Executive Order and thus the deed was done. This is only one example. Among. So. Many.

Activity: Regent Cheney shaped and enacted (through his Puppet President) foreign policy (Iraq, Iran), anti-terrorism policy, homeland security (the Patriot Act, the Military Commission's Act, the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Executive Order, as obvious examples), domestic initiatives, energy policy, environment policy and economic policy. He also shaped SCOTUS by vetting nominees. And. So. Much. More.

Secrecy: Regent Cheney gathered his Cabal of the Regent's Men (nearly all of which he picked himself), he had his spies and his motus operandi was to "never leave tracks" (so that his unlawful Regency ever remain effective, hidden and secure). Just the fact that it is only now that we are learning of the reality of this Office of the Regency of the U.S.A. is proof enough that secrecy, spying and deniability were an integral part of Regent Cheney's "characteristics" as a "vigorous" Supreme Executive.

Dispatch: Whether through monies marked for "vague items" (e.g. "black ops") or through other more dubious monetary sources, Regent Cheney has been approving secret intelligence operations against Iran - most likely by contracting private intelligence ops firms. I think we can legitimately ask the question: what else?

Last, but not least, I ask another question: isn't it strange that George W. Bush never professed any belief in, let alone displayed knowledge of, the concept of the Unitary Executive prior to 2001 (at least, to my knowledge)?

My answer to this question is: it is not strange at all, because he got "educated" on this concept only after he became Regent Cheney's mouthpiece and Puppet.

And to those who like to claim that "President" Bush charted his own way since 2001, I reply to them with a final question: how is it, then, that Cheney always got his way in the end?

In conclusion, the Office of the Unitary Regency of the U.S.A. was installed on January 2001, complete with a Puppet President to ensure its cover.

This was indeed never a "Co-Presidency", nor a "Fourth Branch" (it is the media which is supposed to be the 4th Branch of government), but rather a bona fides Regency.

Woe to the Republic ...


Update: 06/27/2007 - While the OURUS (Office of the Unitary Regency of the U.S.A) continue its typical despot-like obfuscating, disassembling and issue-confusing, more admirers/supporters of Regent Cheney become emboldened to come out of the woodworks. At the same time, more continue talking about "Fourth Branch" and thinking that defunding will do it (wrong on both counts). Lastly, looks like private contractors flourished under the Unitary Regency - I wonder how many of them are intelligence private firms?


Update II: 06/28/2007 - Via Digby, more people are calling for the impeachment of Regent Cheney.


Update III: Sydney Blumenthal published an opinion at Salon about Cheney's "Imperial Vice-Presidency". He misses the point: this is not an Imperial Vice-Presidency, but a bona fides Unitary Regency. Let's call things for what they truly are, shall we?


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Update Notice - 06/26/2007

Indeedy - time once again for an Update Notice at APOV, folks! Les voici/Here they are:

A Cancer On The Body Democratic: two updates;

Of Puppets, Puppeteers And Regencies: two updates.


Enjoy!


Oh, and by the way: beware one and all, because my blog's rating is apparently

(From Mingle² - Blog Rating)

For the following "nasty" words:

dick (4x) death (2x) abortion (1x)

(Well, it is certainly not my fault if Regent Cheney's nickname is "Dick" - Oops! I did it again! - and I certainly was not aware that those two other words were deemed offensive within any serious rating system - especially since my specialized scientific field of research is ... programmed cell death! Hmmmm ... why do I suspect those paragons of virtue - being sarcastic here - known at the "pro-lifers" are being afoot here? And stranger still: I know I used the words "heck" and "hell" a couple of times - so, why am I not being given a slap on the wrist for this? *wink* Have a good one, folks, and don't forget to laugh ... however drab things may be.)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Of Puppets, Puppeteers And Regencies

(Updated below) (Update II)

Welcome to the Cheney Regency of the United States of America! (Hope you've been enjoying yourselves ...)

The continuing revelations seemingly coming out from everywhere, and concerning Vice-President Richard "Dick" B. Cheney, not only bring to light the utter mendacious incompetence of the White House's ruling Cabal, but reveal a terrible truth underlying the Presidency of George W. Bush: that the latter indeed acted all along the puppet to the former.

It is said that hindsight is 20/20 - and with regards to the present subject of this article, this saying could not be more à propos.

Nonetheless, the signs were there all along - right from the beginning of the 2000 elections which would eventually lead to the instalment of the Cheney Regency.

Indeed - although Dick Cheney was "chosen" to help candidate G.W. Bush in vetting prospective running mates, he ended up Bush's choice after outlining himself the "proper" qualities and credentials best suited as a running mate for the would-be President. Cheney even moved out of Texas in order to be "legit" in the eyes of the 12th Amendment of the US Constitution.

And thus the stage was set for the ascension of the Master of Puppets.

During the 2000 elections campaign, I became suspicious that some sort of "fix" was in with regards to one member of the opposing team running against the Bush/Cheney ticket. My alarm bells rang out the moment that Cheney, through an aide, praised the qualities of Joe Lieberman - Al Gore's running mate. It was therefore not surprising to me when an "overtly amenable" Lieberman allowed Cheney to posit numerous assertions unchallenged, during the 2000 V.-P. debate. My alarm bells rang even louder when Lieberman refused to relinquish his Senate seat in order to run a parallel campaign for his re-election as CT Senator - and I was far from surprised when he ended up "parting" with Gore along the way through the 2000 campaign (he even stood against challenges to prevent Republicans from recounting votes). From then on, and as we know all too well, Lieberman would become a staunch supporter of the Bush administration on virtually every single decision and issue, including joining in the rattling of sabers in support of an Iran War - and he was well repaid when Cheney himself went out of his way to support him, thus ensuring Lieberman's 2006 win in CT ... as an "independent".

It was, however, after the "SCOTUS-approved" 2000 win by the Bush/Cheney ticket that I began to suspect the true respective roles of Bush and Cheney within their "covenant". Indeed, as Bush announced the composition of his cabinet, it became obvious that nearly all of the nominees were acquaintances, if not long-time friends, of Cheney. In fact, I remember my mind undergoing one double-take after another, wondering whether we were indeed in January 2001 and not still in the 1970's, 1980's or 1990's - the common denominator throughout these decades being none other than Richard B. Cheney.

I was therefore not that surprised when Bush "gave" free reign to Cheney in crafting the National Energy Policy - whereby Cheney assembled his own "Cheney Energy Task Force", personally hand-picking its (at the time) unknown members and conducting its meetings out of the public's eyes and ears. It seemed to me indeed that this was quite the responsibility and power for ... a "mere" Vice-President.

However, the clincher for me was what happened on that tragic day of September 11, 2001. Cheney was swifly rushed to the White House bunker, advising Bush from there while the President did the runaround in Air Force One. Cheney even gave authorizations to shoot down "hostile aircrafts", while the President was ... "away". And after the dust settled, it was Cheney - not Bush - who ended up being secured in an "undisclosed location", in order to remain so for long periods of time, out of public view. That is when all of this, put together, told me (as well as to many among you, I have no doubt) that "Cheney is more important than Bush".

This axiom thereafter got confirmed time and again. For example, during the run-up to the Iraq War, who else but Dick Cheney made that infamous speech to the Nashville convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, thus marking at the time the first major statement from the White House regarding the Bush-Cheney administration’s Iraq policy. Cheney was moreover the chief promulgator of the (non-existent) linkage between Saddam Hussein, Al'Qaida and 9-11 - in fact, he has kept on harping this lie to these days (how often has he gone on Meet The Press to pass on his talking points in favor/support for the Iraq occupation?). Then came the 9-11 Commission - and lo' and behold, it was insisted upon that A) Bush and Cheney testify together; B) Cheney was to handle most of the questions; C) the Bush-Cheney testimony was not to be under oath; D) there were to be no records of their testimony; and E) said testimony was to occur behind closed doors.

However, Cheney's secretive, shadowy Regency finally began at last to come under the light of scrutiny through the Valerie Plame Wilson affair ("Plamegate") - which culminated with the trial and conviction of I. Lewis Libby. The Regent's impenetrable armor began to show numerous cracks during that period.

And from then on, the flood gates opened to fully reveal Cheney's unlawful Regency of the United States of America. A few items of note:

Right from the beginning, the soon-to-become Regent Cheney and the "President" reached a "special understanding" with regards to the responsibilities and roles of the "Vice-Presidency";

Regent Cheney held the true executive power in the shaping of policies or in the making of decisions, whether openly or through duplicity, and with the "approval" of his Puppet President;

Consequently, Regent Cheney always got the last word before his Puppet President made any "decision";

Of course, Regent Cheney was, all along, the driving force behind the White House policy of global warming denialism;

Likewise, Regent Cheney was the chief promulgator and instigator of the policies of torture and indefinite detentions;

It goes without saying that the Cheney Regency "is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch", and thus is not obligated to account for anything;

Of course, by extension from the Cheney Regency, the Puppet Office of the Presidency is likewise exempt from any accountability;

And last, but not least, supporters/friends of Regent Cheney agree that it is perfectly reasonable that the Regency ever remains outside of the Law and of the US Constitution.

Through it all, it is therefore no wonder that poor, little Puppet George W. felt compelled to shout for all who would listen that he is the "War President", the "Decider", or the "Commander Guy", even going as far as to prance in flight suits and such (in this respect, I suppose little Puppet Georgie must be quite disappointed at not being the Commander-in-Chief anymore, being replaced to this effect by a soon-to-be-installed War Czar).

Henceforth rejoice, my dear American friends! For since January 2001, you have been living under the Regency of the United States of America, with Richard B. Cheney as your benevolent Regent, and George W. Bush playing the Puppet President.

Now, do not fret - instances of Unitary Regents acting as the true power behind heads of state-in-name-only abound throughout History ("Mayor of the Palace" would likewise be an appropriate analogy). In any event, nothing special/new here.

Unfortunately, as a consequence of your democracy-sleepwalking through the last eight years or so, you all have been likewise acting the puppets to the Master Puppeteer - big time.

So, my friends - how does it feel to find yourselves awakening to your worst nightmare?


I can only hope that the Catastrophic Emergency Presidential Directive, invoqued in conjunction with the Patriot Act and the Military Commission's Act, will not be be used as the means to enact the Sixth Principle of Incompetence in an attempt to cement the Cheney Regency as a bona fides dictatorship ...


Update: 06/25/2007 - Much later this afternoon, a Dkos diary was published advancing the idea of a "co-Presidency" type of deal between Bush and Cheney. The misnamed concept of "Fourth Branch" of government is likewise advanced, including the possibility of it blackmailing Bush into compliance (I say "misnamed", because the Fourth Branch is supposed to be the media - but I digress). Interestingly, the author ponders: "But its nagging at me that there's something more here. And the truth may be very, very ugly." Do tell - hence, why I still insist that what we are actually dealing with here is a de facto unlawful Regency ... Besides, when one considers Bush's less than competent tenure as Governor of Texas and his even worse record as a businessman, what better Puppet President could Regent Cheney have as an bona fides tool? I rest my case.


Update II: 06/26/2007 - As I mentionned already herein, the unlawful Cheney Regency ascended on January 2001. Not surprisingly, and as typical of would-be despots, Regent Cheney already considered himself there and then above Constitutional Laws. Of course, the most insipid arguments are being used to this day in order to support such outrageous claims - the Master Puppeteer is nothing but consistent.

On another related item, some say that Bush can stop Cheney - I answer "wrong" to this, because Bush is the Puppet acting as the facade and cover for the Regent and Master Puppeteer. If Bush were ever to do something about Cheney, that would be the same as a criminal patsie selling out his Boss handler(s) - he would be himself in (very) hot criminal waters nonetheless ... at the very least. Therefore, although still in the realm of possibilities, I would not expect Bush to move against Cheney (in fact, I would fall off my chair were he to do just that!).

Also related: defunding Cheney may work in the short term - but let's not forget that there is a lot of monies out there that have been allocated for "black ops" and other such "vague" items (including outright dubious, external monetary sources of funding) ... and these would surely become the new sources of support for the day-to-day operations of the Office of the Regency. The only and sure way to remove the Regent (barring an armed revolution should he use force to remain in power) is to proceed with impeachment - not doing so would increase the bar of minimal requirements for impeachment so high, no one will ever be impeached. There can be no excuses here, folks. The same result will happen if representatives and the People simply "wait out" the rest of the Bush-Cheney term. Either way, not impeaching Cheney will represent the ultimate expression of lack of democratic courage, principles and responsibilities (one glaring and pathetic example here of a mauviette who should be ashamed of calling himself a citizen - talk about the lamest excuses against impeachment!). Some among the media are asking "Has the Vice-President gone too far?" - this is the wrong question. The real question the MSM should be asking is: "Have we indeed been living under a Regency all along?"

That's a definite motive for impeachment/removal from power right there, folks.


(Cross-posted at DKos at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A Cancer On The Body Democratic

(Updated below) (Update II)

Alternative title: The Root Of All Our Problems - In Real Life And In The Blogosphere.

Democracy is slowing rotting away. There is not only a cause for this wasting disease, but as well a potential cure - if we commit ourselves with courage, diligence and determination to apply such a cure.

Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw with numerous ramifications, and which constitutes the gravest threat to our democracies.

On the one hand, intellectual sloth pushes any person who is afflicted by it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith, various dogmas or views of the world, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's “convictions”. To this effect, such a person will be often deluded by intellectual vanity, being arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth.

On the other hand, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth is continually in search of the quick-and-easy and of instant gratification - in fact, he/she craves such things. Incidentally, a person afflicted with intellectual sloth is egocentric, selfish, greedy and covetous, even paranoid, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Consequently, intellectual sloth-driven people invariably become slaves of expediency. That is also why such persons will all too often want (consciously or not) to be serviced an opinion, like being served fast food, rather than to make the effort of actually forging an informed one for themselves - they search for easy and absolute answers.

In short, intellectual sloth transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow".

Therefore, intellectual sloth renders those afflicted by it incompetents - as thinking, reasoning human beings, as well as in dealing/composing with reality (or at least in trying to understand it).

One direct consequence of the prevalence of intellectual sloth is not only voter indifference and apathy, but as well the complacent acceptance of the "dumbing down" (and disinformation) of the news and of the political discourse - after all, journalists and politicians are from the same culture as the voters's ... thus our current tabloid journalism and politics (Assault on Reason, anyone?).

Hence, the "it's all about me", "not in my backyard", "who cares? ", "we're the best", "not my problem", "we're good, they're evil" and other such selfish, uncaring, absolutist and/or uninformed attitudes that have been prevailing among the citizenry since at least the 1980's.

Case in point - I give you these two poll questions (and results):

Gallup Poll. March 11-14, 2007. N=1,009 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How closely have you been following the news about the recently completed trial of Lewis 'Scooter' Libby, the former vice presidential aide: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"

Very Closely: 13%
Somewhat Closely: 30%
Not Too Closely: 26%
Not At All: 29%
Unsure: 1%


CBS News Poll. May 16-17, 2006. N=636 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"How much have you heard or read about the special investigation into the possible leak of an undercover CIA officer's identity to reporters in 2003? Would you say you have heard or read a lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?"

A lot: 18%
Some: 31%
Not Much: 23%
Nothing: 28%
Unsure: 0%

And there you have it. Essentially the same question was asked twice, almost a year apart each time, and in both instances we are faced with the sad reality that less than 50% of Americans paid significant attention to this grave scandal.

Not convinced that this applies to all (current) major scandals? Then try this for size:

CBS News/New York Times Poll. April 20-24, 2007. N=1,052 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).

"How closely have you been following news about the recent firing of several U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department? Have you been following it very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely, or not at all?"

Very Closely: 15%
Somewhat Closely: 35%
Not Too Closely: 36%
Not At All: 13%


Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. April 18-22, 2007. N=1,508 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"How much, if anything, have you heard about the firing of eight federal prosecutors and questions about how Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and the White House handled the firings? Have you heard a lot, a little, or nothing at all?"

A Lot: 33%
A Little: 44%
Nothing: 22%
Unsure: 1%

Should we be surprised then that the poll answers to the follow-up question (or similar questions), "Do you think Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should resign or otherwise lose his job over the issue of the firings, or not?", were less than 45% (on rough average) for the resignation/removal of Gonzales?

Should we likewise be surprised that only 39% of Americans favor impreachment for Bush and Cheney - despite everything that has been revealed/reported/analyzed/discussed so far? Or that only 49% of Americans "believe" in evolution?

Call it scandal fatigue. Blame the MSM and the politicians as well, if you will.

But I call this intellectual sloth-driven incompetence as citizens.

As I wrote before: "We prefer to wallow body and mind into reality-tv shows and the local version of American Idol (Canadian Idol in Canada and Star Académie in Québec). Thus, therein now lies our democratic passion, whereby we discuss, analyze and evaluate which participant to support and then vote for him/her".

But, to do such things in the exercise of our duty as citizens of democracies? Forget it. We act like ostriches in the face of it. It is too complicated. Too discouraging. Too unsettling.

And don't you dare blame the Media Corporations - since they have no qualms at yanking shows that have poor ratings, why do you think they keep serving tabloid infortainment, news, reality shows, game shows and other such tripe? Because. These. Have. High. Ratings.

The intellectual sloth-driven search, if not need, for instant gratification craves entertainment - on TV, in movies, in music, in videos and in games. This in turn is the root cause for tabloid news and politics - a society-wide dumbing down. That is why (and how) Bush was elected in 2000 and again in 2004. That is why most candidates (GOP and/or Democratic) are often timid, "dumb and dumber" or "uber triangulators". We face the same problems in Canada with regards of our main political parties.

They are only responding (or trying to respond) to. The. People.

Unfortunately, the same problem has crept up in the blogosphere - and yes, including the progressive one.

Take for example the blogging tip of "keep it short and straight to the point" (not my forte, obviously!). Or the idea that "Blogs can have a shopping mall effect: everyone goes there because everyone goes there (...)"

In other words: the blogosphere not only enables but also (knowingly or not) encourages instant gratification.

Case in point: remember the backlash against Democratic representatives posting diaries at DKos, demanding that they actually leave Dkos (one example here), after the war funding bill was passed? How many took their ball and went home (one example here)? Or those who rant and rave because there is no impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney "now"? Yes such things are very disappointing, if not maddening, but such destructive backlash constitutes (sorry to say this) intellectual sloth-driven immaturity. It is short-sighteness. It is incompetence.

Consequently, such is my diagnosis: we are faced with a highly metastizing cancer on the body democratic, and it is called intellectual sloth. Heck, this cancer has spread through the whole body society already.

And it is this cancer that must be fought/eradicated, at its very root.

The solution? I wrote about it before: "Education. Yes, it is through education that the character flaw which is intellectual sloth can be countered (...) the inculcation, beginning in childhood and throughout the educational process, of the need for questioning, for reasoning, for discerning, for gathering information, for contextualizing, for criticizing, for evaluating/re-evaluating, for thinking - in short, for the need of intellectual activity - constitutes the best vaccine against intellectual sloth".

It is a given that this solution requires time and much effort. But it is the only one which will effectively fight and eradicate this metastizing cancer that is intellectual sloth, and which is destroying not only our body democratic, but also our bodies politic, economic, and society.

As I am fond of saying: "Living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility. And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)?"

Or, if you prefer: Patience trumps expediency. Patience and determination are the hallmarks of competence as citizens.

This recent DKos diary (one example among an ever increasing number of such examples) illustrates what I mean by this: patience and determination in convincing people and representatives (a clear majority at least) of the need for investigations leading to impeachment.

The same can, should, and must be done to enact the means necessary to eradicate intellectual sloth.

In the meantime, we must continue to expose, document and discuss incompetence - but we must also be willing to get off from our couches and convince those outside of the blogosphere to join in, or at least to make the effort to keep themselves critically informed. At the same time, we must keep organizing and pressuring to make the changes required to save the gravely ill patient that is society - and stop acting like intellectual sloth-driven immature adolescents while so doing.

It is a long and winding road indeed - but competence as citizens requires (nay: demands) this from all of us.

After all, our revolutionary participatory democracy is not just about ranting and raving, eh?


Update: 06/25/2007 - 41% ... the proportion of Americans who still believe there is a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11. Q.E.D. ... once again.


Update II: 06/26/2007 - Remember this poll from 2005? By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans favored impeachment of President Bush should it be revealed that he lied about the war in Iraq. And what has happened since then? Nothing. Zip. Nada. The cancer has spread so much, looks like it is time to activate the democracy life-support machine folks ...


(Cross-posted at DKos at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

The Eight Principles Of Incompetence

It is no secret that the two recurring themes in APOV are A) intellectual sloth; and B) the day-to-day expression, or symptom, of intellectual sloth - incompetence. Throughout my writings and explorations of these two themes, I have come to realize that there are actually general principles, or laws, which govern human incompetence.

After further research, thinking and pondering, I now feel confident to present to you my final, "official", Eight Principles of Incompetence:

Zeroth Principle: Incompetence is driven by intellectual sloth.
First Principle: Incompetence surrounds itself with incompetence.
Second Principle: Incompetence is ethics-impaired.
Third Principle: Incompetence abhors transparency and accountability.
Fourth Principle: Incompetence does or says anything to defend itself.
Fifth Principle: Incompetence always supports incompetence.
Sixth Principle: Violence is the last refuge of incompetence.
Seventh Principle: Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself.

Allow me to explain succinctly each principle, along with a few examples in support of each.

Zeroth Principle - As I have written before, "Intellectual sloth is a human character flaw. It pushes any person who is guilty of it to wallow in ignorance, finding security in absolute ideologies, philosophies of thoughts, tenets of faith or various dogmas, without seeking to understand them fully or even less to question them. A person guilty of intellectual sloth is constantly in search of the quick-and-easy and instant gratification (...) Incidentally, a person guilty of intellectual sloth is egocentric and selfish, even greedy, in his/her immature search for facility and instant gratification. Furthermore, such a person refuses to accept any fact of reality which confronts, rattles, or even invalidates, the comfort of one's “convictions”. To this effect, such a person will be arrogant, if not contemptuous, towards anything and anyone that confronts his/her ignorance generated by intellectual sloth".

To this, I also added that one who is afflicted with intellectual sloth is often deluded by intellectual vanity and invariably becomes a slave of expediency. Furthermore, everything is about image and appearance, instead of substance. Truthiness, instead of truth. All of these characteristics underlie incompetence - whether as nations, as communities, as citizens, as blue-collar/white-collar workers, as parents, and/or as thinking, reasoning human beings. In short, intellectual sloth transforms any adult person who is guilty of it into an irresponsible and reactionary child or adolescent, who lives only in the “now” while remaining blind to “yesterday” and “tomorrow". Such a person thus becomes incompetent - in dealing/composing with reality, or in at least trying to understand it.

Examples in support: Religious fundamentalism; Trent Lott (R-MS)'s "brilliant" idea of an electrified fence to curb illegal goat immigration; The "reality-based community" quote from an anonymous Bush aide (Who can forget this one?); The infantile/adolescent view of the world as a conflict between Good and Evil (as exposed by Glenn Greenwald); The cherry-picking of intelligence to justify the Iraq War; Bush's self-proclamations as a "War President", as "The Decider", or as "The Commander Guy"; Cheney's adherence to, and being a proponent of, the Unitary Executive theory; Bush's dismissal of an EPA global warming report as a "report put out by the bureaucracy"; The fatuous and vapid attitudes of MSM stars with regards to bloggers (one of numerous examples here); Bush's infamous signing statements for hundreds of laws; And so many other examples, especially from neocons and fundamentalists, which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including in virtually all of my previous entries).

First Principle - Incompetents do not realize their own incompetence (intellectual vanity, remember?) and rarely recognize de facto competence in others. In addition, the incompetent distrusts anyone who shows signs of actual competence, should he/she somehow recognize it, because competents not only make the incompetent look bad, but are most likely to question him/her. Furthermore, incompetents find security and comfort in echo chambers - consequently, loyalty to self, as well as to same ideology/beliefs/party, overrides all considerations in the incompetent's petty mind (i.e. cronyism rules). To this effect, incompetents will seek to bring all those around them to their level. Therefore, incompetents are always surrounded by like-minded, and likewise, incompetents. In addition, in this context, incompetence always rewards incompetence. Some call this "functionning inside the bubble", I call it "herd mentality" (especially in the context of the Fifth Principle).

Examples in support: The neoconservatives' dismissal of "science", "objectivity", and "truth" as guises for an ulterior, leftist agenda; From the Bush administration: Harriet Miers, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, Michael Brown, et al.; The Washington Beltway social circle of MSM/punditry elites; And, again, so many other examples, which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including in virtually all of my previous entries).

Second Principle - Consider the characteristics bestowed upon incompetents by their intellectual sloth, as outlined in the Zeroth Principle, along with what I have written before: "(...) it is a fact that those individuals who are 'corrupted' by power are inevitably revealed at their core to be selfish, greedy, covetous, paranoid or fearful. Consequently, these use power expediently as a tool for the wasteful satisfaction of their every whim, want and need, or as a weapon to aim recklessly at their outwardly-projected inner demons. In short: only incompetents abuse power". Incompetents cheat, lie, misuse, "backstab" and abuse anything and everything in order to get their way - and they always make perfectly quaint rationalizations, as well as giving themselves a deluded moral highground (or authority), to justify their wrongdoings. In other words, incompetents are morally hypocritical and ethically impaired, because of their intellectual sloth-driven reasoning/emotional immaturity, egocentricity, intellectual vanity/intolerance, and slavery to expediency.

Examples in support: Have fun with this Google search and this one as well; It goes without saying that there are so many examples, which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including in virtually all of my previous entries).

Third Principle - When you take into account the Zeroth, First and Second Principles, it becomes all too clear why incompetents prefer to do whatever they do under the cover of concealment and/or secrecy ... and thus why they abhor transparency and accountability. Not surprisingly, whistleblowers, which are inherently viewed as "traitors", constitute a veritable danger in the intellectual sloth-driven paranoid, petty minds of incompetents.

Examples in support: The Office of the Vice-Presidency under Dick Cheney: a few of numerous examples here, here, here and here; The US Federal government hid a $1.3 trillion loss last year; Try also this Google search for size; And once again, it goes without saying that there are so many other examples, which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including in virtually all of my previous entries).

Fourth Principle - Because of the previous four principles, incompetents never take responsibility for their wrongdoings, or those of other incompetents within their "circle". This is what I wrote before: "Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others". Here's something else that I also wrote previously: "They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end." For incompetents, everything is about spin and truthiness - never about facts and truth. Even when they are blatantly caught, incompetents continue to react and reason with their intellectual sloth-driven infantile/adolescent immaturity - they will deny that they did anything wrong or that they have lied, then they will blame/attack (read: character assassinate) their "accusers". I call this: "Lie and Cry".

Examples in support: Tony Snow on Bush's veto of the last stem cells research bill: "This is the President putting science before ideology"; Today's pearl of wisdom from Gen. Petraeus in support of the never-ending Iraq occupation; The White House on Cheney having exempted his office from a presidential executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information: "It’s a little bit of a non-issue"; I provide more examples here and here; Also, have fun with this Google search; And yet again, there are numerous other examples which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including virtually all of my previous entries).

Fifth Principle - Because of the "herd mentality" of incompetents (see First Principle above), they will always support and/or rabidly defend other incompetents - after all, in the incompetent's paranoid and petty mind, if one of his/her "kin" is allowed to be exposed, then surely he/she would be next! Consequently, incompetents use profusely the Fourth Principle (above) whenever other incompetents require support, protection or defense.

Examples in support: The (infamous) 109th Congress's tacit support of the Bush administration; I also give you Plamegate; Again, dixit the White House on Cheney having exempted his office from a presidential executive order designed to safeguard classified national security information: "It’s a little bit of a non-issue"; Again, I provide more examples here, here and here; And yet again, there are numerous other examples which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including virtually all of my previous entries). Caveat: because of their inherent intellectual sloth-driven mendacious nature, incompetents have no qualms turning against another incompetent, should this poor sap be utterly (and hopelessly) exposed - as a result, other incompetents will use (again) the Fourth Principle profusely to "distance" themselves from another such "terminally-besieged" incompetent individual (a current case in point discussed here, as one example among many).

Sixth Principle - (This axiom originates from the works of Isaac Asimov). Here is what I wrote before: "Intellectual sloth reaps ignorance. In turn, ignorance festers fear which, as we know all-too-well, acts as a powerful motor in driving irrational thinking and actions. Furthermore, fear is quite expert in the exercise of nullifying any semblance of intellectual and emotional maturity in people – in other words, fear transforms a supposedly adult (and thus mature) person into an irresponsible, reactionary, judgement-impaired, and comfort-craving, child or adolescent. One who searches for easy and absolute answers (...) And such intellectual sloth, through the fear which it causes in those people guilty of it, eventually brings in turn the incapacity (or lack of willingness) to deal face-to-face with the unknown and the uncertain. Thereafter, the table is set at last for intolerance and hate to arise: the eternal and real justifications (although never self-admited) behind violence in any of its shapes or forms".

To this, I later added the following: "Ignorance breeds fear. Fear fosters hate. In turn, hate leads inevitably to violence (...) when will we acknowledge the fact, once and for all, that it is the incompetents among us who consistently promulgate violence as a solution for anything, to everything? (...) we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ... including our very own for embracing such mendacity." Ergo: violence is the last refuge of incompetence.

Examples in support: The beating to death in Texas of an innocent (Mexican) man following a simple car accident; The Iraq War; The recent "conquest" of the Gaza Strip by Hamas; Michael Graham's solution to counter the positions of Hillary Clinton and Michael Moore; The prevalent rattling of sabers for an intervention against Iran (with more examples of such insane rattling discussed here, here, here, here and here, among many others); Last year's reckless bombing of Lebanon by Israel; And yet again, there are numerous other examples which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including many of my previous entries). Heck - just scan through the History of Humanity, while you're at it ...

Seventh Principle - As long as incompetents do not acknowledge their affliction with intellectual sloth, they will stubbornly refuse to change. Some people call this hubris. To this effect, incompetents are known to repeat the same mistakes again and again, because of their arrogance and utter fright at being exposed for what they truly are - and thus, they find themselves unknowingly enacting Franklin's, and/or Einstein's, very definition of insanity, which is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Examples in support: Go back to those examples given for the previous principles. Also, there are numerous examples which are exposed and discussed all over the internet (including virtually all of my previous entries). Heck - and as I have written before - simply keep on reading/watching/following the news - this principle is likewise being verified again and again, day in and day out ... in fact, all Principles presented herein will be verified over and over.

So, there you have it - my Eight Principles of Incompetence.

I have presented these to you in the humble hope that henceforth you will "amuse" yourselves at spotting them (whether singly or in combination) whenever you read/watch the news - at least, I know I will ...

Peace - and keep on rockin'.


(Originally posted on 06/22/2007. Time-stamp modified to 06/23/2007 in order to act as a "re-post")

(Cross-posted at DKos at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, at Progressive Bloggers, and at Progressive Historians)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Off We Go To The Creation Museum!

AKA Claudia and her husband "sacrificed" themselves and their money to give us all a very detailed photographic tour of the Creation Museum of Petersburg, KY.

I strongly encourage you to go see this photo journal - and do take the time to read the comments for each photo ... they are hilarious (even those from the occasional "true believer"). As much as I laughed myself silly at the sheer absurdity of the exhibits, I also felt utter disbelief and sadness for such a grandiose display of intellectual sloth-driven religious fundamentalism, ignorance and primitive thinking.

As expected, you will see that this "museum" is a pathetic assemblage/amalgam of Bible literalism, Bible fantasy interpretations, ignorance of scientific facts, misinterpretations/misunderstandings of scientific facts, glaring lies about our current scientific knowledge, and adolescent thinking-like logical fallacies and simplifications.

Heck - at times, they even seem ignorant of the very "facts" of their Bible which they so cherish and so literally interpret!

In short, and not surprisingly, this "museum" is a shining testament to all things sham, insipid, deceitful and quackery.

However, my one and only strong objection to the existence of such a pitiful spectacle of intellectual sloth, ignorance and religious fundamentalism-driven fantasy, of such a black hole of human knowledge as displayed for all to see, is this: the Creation Museum should not be called a "museum", but rather called for what it truly is.

A Biblical Creationism Exhibit.

After all, do Disney Land, or Disney World, or any such places, call any of their exhibits and rides "Entertainment Museums"?

So, go see this marvel of ignorance! And afterwards, if you feel like it, I invite you to come back and read my recent entries on evolution (in order of reading): "A very milky conundrum", "If it ain't real, then nothing's real", and "Yes: it's all in the roll of the dice, baby!".

Likewise, I also invite you to read my five-parts series on intellectual sloth: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV and Part V.

'Nuff said - and keep on rockin'!


(Cross-posted at Suzie-Q, and at DKos)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Update Notice - 06/21/2007

That's right - the following entries were updated:

When You Have Your Priorities "Straight" ...: added two updates;

What Was Needed To Be Demonstrated (Again): added four updates;

Ten Years After: A Post-Mortem: added a second update.

Enjoy!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Thinking Blogger Award

Ron West of Revolt Today (one of my suspiciously favorite blogs) tagged APOV with a Thinking Blogger Award today.

I greatly appreciate this disctinction from him, especially since there are hundreds and thousands of excellent blogs in the blogosphere to choose from. I thank you very much, Ron - I am quite honored (and humbled) by this!

Thinking Blogger is the original "guilty party" to come up with the idea of this Thinking Blogger Award. Here are the three simple rules:

1. If, and only if you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think;

2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme;

3. Optional: Proudly display the Thinking Blogger Award with a link to the post that you wrote.

And now, here are the five blogs which make me think and which I have chosen to tap as the next recipients of this award (in no particular order):

1. Impolitical - Comments on U.S. and Canadian politics, current events, fun stuff. Always straight to the point (quite unlike my own long-winded entries). Impolitical has the knack to draw out sharp analyses and straight up opinions just from a single headline ... often making me think: "how come I did not see this myself?"

2. My Blahg - Comments mostly on Canadian affairs and politics, but, in the same vein as Impolitical, Robert McClelland always goes straight to the point - and with a touch of sarcasm that I have come to call "McClellandian". This blog does the same to me as Impolitical does (see above).

3. StageLeft - "Some say the glass is half empty, others that it's half full ... we say, are you gonna drink that?". These folks (especially StageLeft and Balbulican) go to the very essence of the headlines and hit you with a one-two opinion punch - in the same vein as Impolitical and My Blagh, but with also a touch of humor that is just right (or should that be "left"? Hmmmm ...).

4. Political Psychols - A Canadian ex-conservative who reclaims his progressive values in the 21st century. Comments on all things current events. Also very much straight to the point. 'Nuff said, eh?

5. Alberta Spectator: Werner Patels - Musings, observations, cogitations and reflections on politics, media, society and life in general. I don't always agree with Werner, but his writing is that good, making me read what I don't agree with nonetheless. (08/30/2007 - as it turns out, I have comitted a serious error in judgement with regards to this blog. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused those of you who followed my misguided advice to go read it. To err is human, it is said - to which I reply: live and learn ...)


So, there you have it. There are so many other sites I really enjoy (see my sidebar), but since the rules say five (and some of them have already been tagged to boot) ...

Please click on any and all of the links I've blogrolled (here and on my sidebar). I read them regularly and they all share one thing in common - they are all great.

Enjoy!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

When You Have Your Priorities "Straight" ...

(Updated below) (Update II)

Nothing beffudles me more than watching incompetents straightening their priorities.

Case in point:

US concerned about mental health of diplomats in Iraq, Afghanistan - Dixit Laurence Brown, head of the State Department's Office of Medical Services: "The war in Afghanistan and in Iraq represent another level of stress due to the high levels and widespread incidence of violence that involve greater numbers of serving Foreign Service employees than past incidents (...) (This has resulted) in larger number of acute anxiety reactions and we might well expect an increase un numbers of those with PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) as well (...) (Officials) will (...) develop additional support programs or services if needed (...) ".

Steven Kashkett, vice president of the professional association that represents US Foreign Service personnel, chimes in: "(Foreign Service members) are not soldiers and are not trained for combat (...) Yet in Iraq, they are often directly exposed to conditions of war which they may not always be well-adapted to cope (...) (Diplomats assigned to the US embassy in Baghdad) experience frequent incoming fire in the Green Zone and sleep in vulnerable aluminum trailers (...) (while diplomats working in other parts of Iraq often live with the US military) in combat areas and work entirely in a 'red zone' environment. Not surprisingly, some of our members who have returned from these postings have complained of symptoms that are clearly associated with post-traumatic stress disorder."

What tragedy! Something - anything - must be done quickly! This is intolerable! Time to mobilize!

Right.

Now, it is not my intention to belittle what these folks are living in Iraq and Afghanistan, but ...

Maybe, just maybe, heaven and earth should be moved first to help those that are directly - day in and day out - doing the fighting? What about the PTSD endemic that has striken all those (already severely wounded or not) vets? Hell, what about decent care for them and their families, first and foremost - instead of callousness like this? Or utter laissez faire care like this? And who among us decent human beings could forget about the Walter Reed Army Medical Center?

Or could it be that, in the warped view of the incompetents neocons and chickenhawks, only those exposed to war - but with a higher education - are more deserving of proper mental health care than those lowly grunts who actually get killed or maimed by being knee-deep in warwaging?

Sounds a lot like the insane argument that "white-collar/rich folks have a morbid fear of jail - in contrast, of course, to blue-collar types, and darker ones still, who really do not mind prison at all - and thus white-collar/rich folks should not go to prison". Remember poor Paris Hilton who requires continuous monitoring due to her sufferance while being in jail?

Oh, the Humanity ... indeed.

Soldiers and vets are nothing but rhetorical tools and pawns for neocons - American and Canadian ones.

Ah yes ... incompetents and their "priorities" - Q.E.D.


Update: 06/20/2007 - Suzie Q reminded me of the tragic fate of this brave marine, may he R.I.P. It goes without saying that such similar heartbreaking stories probably number in the hundreds, if not thousands - as in the case of the Vietnam vets. Our societies are becoming uncaringly zombified by intellectual sloth. It is therefore no wonder that the politics of ignorance, fear, expediency and incompetence rule the day.


Update II: Remember these news from last year? Proves my point - again.


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

What Was Needed To Be Demonstrated (Again)

(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III) (Update IV) (Update V)

Today's entry is a "Round'em Up" type of entry, but with the following caveat: recent news items put forth to attention herein happen to demonstrate points I have made in previous entries ... thus making me think to myself "Q.E.D.". So, without any further addo, here we go:


Principle I - Incompetents will always support, protect, and/or defend, other incompetents:
Item 1: Richard Cohen wrote a column today in support of a pardon (or rather: a commuting of sentence) for I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby - the former White House official who was indicted on five counts which included obstruction of justice, making false statements and perjury, thereafter being convicted on four of the five counts and sentenced to thirty months in prison (see also the Valerie Plame affair - a.k.a. Plamegate). Cohen is truly an incompetent MSM columnist who has been proven wrong on so many things, so many times before, with each time being his usual incompetent-self while attempting to do what incompetents always do - you can find some more examples of this here, here and here.
Item 2: Other equally incompetent MSM reporters/columnists/media stars continue to be impressed/obsessed by how great GOP candidates (and possible candidates) look, sound and smell - no need to actually report on their honesty, qualification, substance (or rather, lack thereof) and incompetence.
Item 3: Representative Phil Gingrey (R-GA), in typical warhawk/chickenhawk fashion, defended again the neocon Iraq War - as any other "proper" neocon would do.
Item 4: The Mini Leader defended not only his softwood lumber deal of last year with the US (very accommodating for the US), but likewise the consideration of making even more concessions on this matter - most likely to please further his equally incompetent (but so beloved) Leader.
Item 5: Public Defense (neocon) Minister Stockwell Day parroted today the incompetent-driven meme that the "terrorists are losing" in Afghanistan, in support for the Mini Leader's Afghanistan policy and in order to stay "in tune" with the Bushies - making me ask yet again: is the neocon Harper government serving Canada or the US?
Item 6: Former White House DOJ official John Yoo went out of his way to defend the "right" of the US to detain indefinitely.
Item 7: It turns out that nearly no GOP senators read the now-infamous 2002 NIE before loyally voting for Bush's Iraq War.
Item 8: In true and typical religious fundamentalism fashion, radical fundamentalist Christians are honoring those who have killed in the name of God. Primitive minds indeed.
Conclusion: The above-mentioned principle is, once again, verified.


Principle II - Incompetents will do and say anything to defend themselves and other incompetents, including disassembling, obfuscating, lying and blaming others:
Item 1: Dixit White House Spokesman Tony Snow on the potential illegality of the use of RNC email accounts by WH officials and aides: Clinton did it too.
Item 2: Richard Cohen (again) grossly misrepresented/distorted the reality which lead to Libby's conviction in order to support his "thesis" that poor Libby should have his sentence commuted - at least (another take on this here). Then again, he is hardly alone in this. Interestingly, Cohen is good at pointing his finger to others but not himself.
Item 3: Would-be (maybe) GOP candidate Fred Thompson played the card of "they are encouraging our enemies", in a typical incompetent ad hominem attack/(non)argument.
Item 4: As the Democratic party-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform moves ahead with their investigation of the intelligence used by the Bush administration to build the (false) case for the Iraq War, their GOP colleagues are "threatening" to subpoena Valerie Plame Wilson in a pathetic attempt at bullying her (also see about Libby in previous items). I say: let them do just that, please - then, the more foolish will these incompetent GOP senators look.
Item 5: Rep. Gingrey - again (see above) - indulged in an exercise of grossly misrepresenting the US death and casualty figures in his incompetent defense/support of the Iraq War.
Item 6: More secrets and lies of the Bush administration revealed - not surprisingly.
Item 7: Environment (neocon) Minister John Baird obfuscates and disassembles to plain and direct questions put to him by a blogger. That is only par for the course, really, whenever and wherever Baird-the-incompetent is concerned.
Item 8: Tony Snow (again) obfuscates and disassembles with regards to the destroyed RNC emails - nothing new here. Remember this, or especially this?
Conclusion: The above-mentioned principle is, once again, verified.


Principle III - Incompetence is nothing but consistent with itself:
Item 1: The Leader today rattled his Iran saber again, using typical incompetence-driven politics of ignorance and fear, as usual. Nothing new here.
Item 2: GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani would rather be busy fundraising/campaigning while harping about terrorists and the Iraq War, rather than ... sitting on the Iraq Study Group. What does this remind me of? Hmmmm ... oh yes, I remember it now!
Item 3: SCOTUS Judge Scalia blinds us with his brand of Law Theorycrafting - even after a Canadian Judge competently and rightly dismissed such a stupid-thinking approach to Law.
Item 4: The MSM media stars/Antoinettes continue to make fools of themselves as they misinform and propagandize - as usual. Still nothing new here.
Conclusion: The above-mentioned principle is, once again, verified.


Principle IV - Incompetents (especially neocons) are about one thing, and one thing only: "Lie and Cry":
Item 1: Simply keep on reading/watching/following the news - this principle is likewise being verified again and again, day in and day out. 'Nuff said.


Have a nice day ... and keep on rockin'!


Addendum: by way of Digby - what ever you do today or this week, you have to read this article. It is a must. Trust me.


Update: 06/19/2007 - Of course, it is also a well established principle that "incompetents always surround themselves with other incompetents" (one small example here). Case in point: John Rizzo, the Leader/Commander Guy’s nominee to become the C.I.A.’s general counsel, supports torture. Re: Q.E.D. ... yet again.


Update II: 06/19/2007 - I've written extensively before on the (neo)con games played by P.M. Harper and his Harpie Environment Minister Baird. Proof is coming out of Baird's utter duplicity in trying to demonize the Kyoto Protocol so that he could "justify" trashing it and come up with his laughable Kyoto-Ultra Light. Incompetents can't do one single thing honestly - they have to cheat and lie. Oh, the mendacity. Need I say it? Yes - Q.E.D. one more time.


Update III: 06/20/2007 - I give you good folks one more example of Principle I, here. In the meantime, Tony Snowjob did Principle II again, while Da Newt obliged (as usual) by proving Principles II and III at the same time. On the MSM side, and not to be outdone, Lou Dobbs did a combo of Principles I+IV, Westley Pruden did a combo of Principles I+II, as did Richard Gwyn. Interestingly, all these instances altogether prove again Principle III. And I would add that if the Leader/Commander Guy does indeed veto Congress' latest Stem Cell Research bill (which would ease restraints on federally funded embryonic stem cell research), then he will prove that same Principle III all by his lonesome - as he so often does (Addendum 06/20/2007: and he did indeed. 'Nuff said). Are we having fun yet?


Update IV: 06/20/2007 - The Bush administration is caught doing Principle II again, this time with regards to the significance/impact of the Leader's infamous signing statements. Meanwhile, Rudy does a Principle II to explain his non-participation in the ISG. Are you as non-surprised as I am? I thought so.


Update V: 06/22/2007 - I have reworked and expanded the Principles of Incompetence here.


(Cross-posted at Dkos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Update Notice - 06/18/2007

That's right - time yet again for an APOV Update Notice, folks. The following entries have been updated:

Ten Years After: A Post-Mortem: two updates;

It Is All About Incompetence And Its Last Refuge ....: three updates;

Primitive Minds: a belated second update (you'll see why).

Enjoy!

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Ten Years After: A Post-Mortem

(Updated below) (Update II)

No, the title of this entry does not allude to the rock band of Woodstock fame.

Rather, this entry aims at a post-mortem analysis of the Kyoto Protocol, agreed upon in December 11, 1997, and which was effectively interred after the last G8 summit of this month of June, 2007 - thanks in large part to the continued (neo)con games and double-talk of the Bush (a.k.a. The Leader) administration and the Harper (a.k.a. The Mini Leader) government - grand tall-tales which I previously wrote about here, here, here and here.

The original objective of the Kyoto Accords was the stabilization of greenhouse gas (GHG's) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (man-made) interference with the climate system. To do so, the signing countries committed themselves to reducing their collective emissions of GHG's by at least 5% (with individual emissions target variations according to specific countries: 7% for the USA and 6% for Canada, for example), each country’s emissions target having to be achieved by the period 2008-2012 and thus "returning below" average 1990 emissions levels. To this effect, countries were given a certain degree of flexibility in how they would make and measure their emissions reductions - especially with the establishment of an international "emissions trading" regime to allow industrialized countries to buy and sell emissions credits amongst themselves. Hence, both developed and developing countries agreed to take measures to limit emissions and promote adaptation to future climate change impacts, with the Protocols being subjected to periodic review so as to better adapt and readjust its implementation according to further developments (scientific, economic, etc.).

Provided, of course, that the signing countries actually implemented the Accords ... something the USA and Canada (and neocon-led Australia as well) never did.

In the US, Kyoto was not ratified. Climate change denialism and economic scare tactic-driven arguments have been holding sway. Like a good neocon, Bush double-talks: "global warming is real but not man-made". His Clear Skies Act of 2003 was an obvious fraud - although very much approved by Big Oil and Big Corporation interests - and its "improved", somewhat less laughable 2005 version remains in legislative limbo. In an obvious attempt at rendering the Kyoto process moot, Bush and his Bushies promoted the downward redefinition of the ways to reduce climate change outside of Kyoto, without any reinforcement measures but with much "voluntary measures" - winkwink. On top of all of this, the Bush administration established and enacted a policy of systematic censoring, re-writing, controlling, falsifying, fund cutting, hiding, lying and spinning the de facto science underlying the reality of climate change.

Although Canada ratified Kyoto in 2002, and several initiatives and billions of federal monies having been invested to work toward achieving Kyoto targets, everything was scuttled by Canadian neoconservatives - especially by Harper and his Harpies, when they came to power in 2006. Indeed, and just as in the US, typical neocon pro-Big Oil and pro-Big Business scare tactic-driven, false and hypothetical arguments were used to belittle Kyoto, including outright disinformation and the promotion of climate change denialism (one more example here). Going outside of the Kyoto process was even floated, in an obvious attempt at following in the footsteps of The Leader. Even environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards was cut, including programs aimed at monitoring industries. Furthermore, outright scaling back of funding for climate science and adaptation programs was enacted by The Mini Leader's government - again, obviously in order to follow the "lead" of The Leader. The last nail in the coffin of Canada's commitment to Kyoto was hammered in when former Harpie Environment Minster (Rona Ambrose) flat out announced that Canada would not meet its targets under the Kyoto accords. In the end, the current Harpie Environment Minister (John Baird) came up with what I have come to call Kyoto-Ultra Light - which was such a fraud that it underwent extensive re-writing ... and which is most likely to remain lettre morte in the end (i.e. dead-on-arrival legislation - hopefully, this may result in the dismissal of the Mini Leader's minority government).

In any event, what we have here in the US and Canada is stalling and disassembling, the new neocon tactics to avoid dealing with climate change - in other words, they chose to "ignore it and hope it will go away", using hypocritical double-talk like their Big-Oil and Big Corporation masters (another example here).

The problem is that GHG's emissions drastically increased nonetheless in both the US and Canada (see also here for both countries and others) - with no regression in sight.

And of course, the Earth has been warming further as a consequence. With potential disastrous results down the line.

Then came the frenzied posturings of the neocon Bushies and Harpies prior to the June 2007 G8 summit in Germany - just as both Canada and the US deservedly ranked last among the G8 nations in tackling climate change.

On the one hand, The Leader rejected draft proposals for the official G8 communiqué on climate change, which stated that G8 members agreed on tough measures in GHG's. This went as far as to strike out entire sentences and significantly reduce the certainty with which the communiqué addressed climate change. Then, Bush attempted to throw into confusion international efforts to control world climate change, with a proposal which would work outside of a planned UN process - again, he peddled his cherished "voluntary measures" and "no enforcement measures" grand ideas (that's Mr. Accountability for you). Last, but not least, The Leader outright rejected the pre-G8 proposal of committing to cutting emissions by 50% by 2050, to increase fuel efficiency by 20% and to limit the world's temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.

Not surprisingly, world experts were not impressed by The Leader/Commander Guy.

On the other hand, and at the same time, The Mini Leader continued to lie his way into blaming his predecessors for Canada's failure to meet Kyoto's targets, while touting the example-making leadership quality of his Kyoto-Ultra Light Plan. Still gripped by the same extensive fit of self-delusion, he went as far as to claim that his plan was tougher than the pre-G8 proposal. Harper also, of course, double-talked: "Canada won't meet its Kyoto targets to lower greenhouse gas emissions, but can be a world leader in battling climate change". The equally "credible" Environment Minister Baird went even further by positioning Canada as a "consensus builder" between the EU and the US - thus once again playing stoogie/apologist for Bush. And just to be on the safe side, Harper started playing the excuse card of developing countries by advancing the idea that each country is unique and that "there's no one set solution for everybody" - thus effectively aligning himself with Bush's proposal of individualized voluntary measures for each country and without reinforcement measures. In the meantime, Harper and his Harpies raised the limits on pesticide residues for better harmonization with those of the US (making me wonder again who exactly is the Harper government serving: us Canadians or the US?).

Suffice it to say, in turn, the world's experts rolled their eyes with incredulity and disbelief at The Mini Leader.

Thus the table was set for the G8 summit - and thanks to all the confusing hypocritical double-talk and sleight-of-hand posturing of our Canadian and American neocons, this was the result:

(Excerpt from the official G8 communiqué, June 2007 - link for pdf full version here)

- Fighting Climate Change:

We face serious challenges in tackling climate change and achieving sustainable development globally. We reaffirm our commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and to its objective through both mitigation and adaptation in accordance with our common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. On this basis and taking into account the scientific knowledge as represented in the recent IPCC reports, we remain committed to contribute our fair share to tackle climate change in order to stabilize green house gas concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. To this end we need a flexible, fair and effective global framework and concerted international action. We underline the crucial role of economic incentives, in particular by carbon markets, for the necessary investments in climate friendly technologies at large scale. The adaptation to climate change will be a major challenge for all countries, in particular for developing countries , and means for adaptation need to be included in a future agreement along with enhanced technology cooperation and financing. We call on all parties to actively and constructively participate in the negotiations on a comprehensive agreement at the UNFCCC Conference in Indonesia in December 2007.

Translation: no more Kyoto protocols, no commitments to any targets, let's move the goalpost further ahead, and let's agree to disagree but promise to talk more about actually doing something in the years to come.

Outside of the communiqué, which was touted as a "substantial" agreement, the G8 members publicly acknowledged that what they specifically agreed upon was to "seriously consider decreasing greenhouse gases by 50 percent by 2050". While this may look as a severe blow to Bush, the fact is that this agreement is much closer to The Leader's initial proposal than that of the EU's. To this effect, The Mini Leader was very proud and satisfied of what came out of this G8 summit.

The more optimistic analysts have called this agreement "Progress made. Could do better." Others, more cynical, have likened this agreement with the following analogy: "Imagine that after years of dating, you finally decide to ask your girlfriend the big question. You purchase a pricey engagement ring and find the perfect romantic spot. Down on one knee you ask her to marry you. She responds, 'I will seriously consider it.' Would you celebrate?"

"To seriously consider" indeed ... especially since we all know how "efficient" the neocons and climate change denialists can be at "seriously considering" anything.

Case in point: now the talking points about climate change have begun to shift away from denigrating the science, in order to focus on improved strawman, scare tactic-driven arguments against set target emissions, or Kyoto, or any other similar agreement to come, such as:

Climate change is beyond our control - why risk economic hardship at fighting it?

Canada is still growing in population - that is why it lags in reducing GHG's;

Yes, bad things will happen - but no one can really predict the costs of the impacts of climate change anyways;

Going green means going in the red;

Regardless, the Earth will adapt and do fine;

(etc.)

And thanks (in good part) to the utter absence of leadership from the US and Canada on fighting climate change, we are now hearing the most ludicrous of arguments from developing countries against adhering to emissions caps, such as:

"India will not curb its greenhouse gas emissions as long as the West continues to treat it as a 'second class global citizen' with less right to pollute than the developed world".

Right to pollute. And so it goes ...

In conclusion, I say "R.I.P. Kyoto Protocol - we hardly (in fact: never) knew you".

Meanwhile, we better brace ourselves to face the consequences of our failures to act on GHG's emissions reductions - hell, even the Australian-Neocon-In-Charge had no choice in the matter when climate change-caused "bad things" started hiting his country. Same thing with China.

Our turn will come all too soon enough.

Then what?


Update: 06/18/2007 - The (non-neocon) Ontario government announced today an aggressive greenhouse gas reduction strategy that should see Ontario come close to meeting targets set out in the Kyoto Protocol (by 2014 instead of 2012). This is in step with the plan announced and enacted by the (also non-neocon) Québec government, some two months ago. Looks like individual, provincial Kyoto-in-stepping plans are becoming the way to go, in lieu of the neocon incompetence holding sway in Ottawa. The same phenomenon is occuring in the US, whereby individual states have brushed aside the Bushies and begun to enact Kyoto-like or Kyoto-close measures. Such things are way better than nothing - but country-wide consensus will have to occur soon in both the US and Canada. Otherwise, a lack of national policies will only lead to what the Leader (and the Mini Leader) have always wanted: "anything (if actually something there is) goes".


Update II: 06/19/2007 - Via Political Psychols: China has overtaken the US in GHG's emissions ... Need I say that this does not look good, especially without anything like Kyoto or even better, world-wide? (Sigh)


(Cross-posted at DKos, at Suzie-Q, at Diatribune, at Progressive Historians, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

It Is All About Incompetence And Its Last Refuge ...

(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III)

"Violence is the last refuge of incompetence".

Terrorists and coup putchists are living examples, if not ultimate ones, of this principle.

Case in point: the blood-thirsty Hamas goons have now conquered the Gaza Strip. Like all other incompetents before them (this example comes to mind readily), they have promised amnesty to their (Fatah) opponents ... falsely giving them hope for peace and reconciliation.

This is what I wrote before, concerning religious fundamentalists/extremists:

" (...) (They) point angrily their self-righteous fingers at anyone and anything that does not fit, or agree, with their views. All is fair game with them: race, religion, lifestyle, art, literature, et al. They are afraid of what they perceive as different, they are afraid of the unknown and the uncertain. Any challenge against their intellectual sloth causes a reactionary attitude of fear and loathing. Thus, they hate.

And with fear and loathing comes the inevitable violence – in words and in actions.

The list goes on and on about the violence perpetrated by those “good, humble, God-loving and God-fearing” folks. From any and all religions: the persecution of Christians by polytheist Romans; the Muslims’s invasions against the Infidels; the Christian Crusades against the Muslims; the Inquisition against heresy (witches, scientists, scholars, dissenters, etc.); the persecution of Jews by Christians and Muslims; the Church-sanctioned slaughter of Aztecs and Incas by the Conquistadores; Ghandi's assassination by a fundamentalist Hindu; Algerian Muslims massacred by their fundamentalist Islamic brethren; the assassination of Israel Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by a Jewish radical; Shiite mosque bombings by Sunnis (and vice versa) (in Iraq); bombings and shootings against abortion clinics (and/or staff) by fundamentalist Christians; etc., etc., etc.

Violence against different faiths. Violence against those that think, look or live differently. Violence against those of the same faith but who disagree with the fundamentalist point of view. All of this, in addition to the typical fiery and violent rhetoric of condemnation used by those same “people of pure faith”."

Fatah was convinced eventually to abandon its incompetent ways - it took time and effort, but then that is what competent people do - put expediency aside and use patience to engage and keep at it, in order to not only convince the others but also help them to become truly convinced.

It worked for Fatah. It worked work the IRA. It was working with China (and to some extent, still does). It worked with the former U.S.S.R.

This is what the West failed to do when Hamas was elected to power by Palestinians. To add insult to injury, the West imposed sanctions on the palestinians because of their "wrong" democratic choice.

This only helped embolden Hamas and cement them into their incompetent ways.

The same incompetence similarly caused the severe set-backs suffered by moderate Iranians in favor of the intractable, fundamentalist ones - and the prevalent rattling of sabers for an intervention against Iran (with more recent rattling discussed here, here, and here) certainly does not help.

And remember this, from last year?

In short, now we have the results of such all around short-sighted, expedient-driven incompetence - including the profuse use of its last refuge.

I hate to say "I told you so", but ...

It is high time to remember what diplomacy and engagement are for - before the state of the world grows even worse.


Update: 06/16/2007 - Incompetence is nothing except being consistent with itself. Case in point: yet even more debating on whether to attack Iran or not, with the same intellectual sloth-driven, incompetent pre-Iraq War rationales and tactics being put forth in favor for a "vigorous" intervention in Iran. As I wrote before: "(...) we must strive to forget nevermore that rationalizations supporting the use of violence - other than the need for the rightful exercise of self-defense when set upon by a genuinely clear, present and immediate danger - invariably constitute deceitful fabrications meant to conceal, disguise or justify incompetence ... including our very own for embracing such mendacity." 'Nuff said.


Update II: 06/16/2007 - Speaking of incompetence and its last refuge ... nothing better describes the Iraq War than these three words: "Mad Max World". Q.E.D. (once again).


Update III: 06/18/2007 - Via StageLeft: "If countries like Canada, the United States, and Israel, were not participating in a joint western holier than thou laying on of economic sanctions against the people of a country for not democratically electing the government that countries like Canada, the United States, and Israel wanted them to democratically elect ... would we see today, what we see there today?" Go read the rest - short but straight to the point. Also, MJ Rosenberg has more here. Need I say that I completely agree with these two entries? I thought so ...





(Cross-posted at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, at DKos, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

False Leaders Vs. Genuine Ones

Well, I am back at APOV, freshly returned from attending a symposium on Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepathology and Nutrition. As I was driving back home (the symposium took place at the Hotel Champlain in Montréal), many a thing whirled in my mind with regards as to what the heck I should blog about today - especially since I haven't blogged anything since last Wednesday.

Then my thoughts wandered on to the subject of the upcoming 2008 elections in the US and how soon I hope we have elections in Canada, in order to throw the neocons incompetents (see previous entries of mine here, here, here and here) out of power in both countries - at last.

However, I remain wary that neocons may yet retain power after such elections, if only because ignorance and fear, as well as lies and the search for instant gratification, appear to rule still the mind-sets of the US and Canadian electorates - in large part due to the disinformation and propaganda dished out by an incompetent MSM - both the American and Canadian ones.

Consequently, these thoughts lead me to wonder: what true leaders make? Here are the resulting musings:

"History dresses an extensive list of charismatic, decisive and righteous Leaders. However, the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of these have consistently proven to be fearful, petty, power-hungry, or violence-prone, authoritarians. To them, the end ever justified the means, as they disguised their incompetence with grandiose ideologies, wrapping themselves in religious, nationalist or racist flags of intractable absolutism, and using their deceitful siren song to stir passion, loyalty and even fanaticism - all in order to gather sizeable followings of narrow-minded, hate-filled, or warmongering, underlings. It is no wonder that people have suffered, one way or another, each time such a Leader rose to prominence.

Hence, never cease questioning those who would conscript you to their cause - if they dismiss, disassemble or scoff at, your questions, then they are being deceptive. Above all, beware the charismatic who speaks to your fears, for he - or she - ultimately seeks to be your Master. Listen instead to those who strive to convince you through honest, open, and patient dialogue, finding common ground while appealing exclusively to your nobler principles - for they indeed truly seek to better the lives of all. Such has ever been the way of genuine Leaders of Humanity."

Having said that, here's my question to all you good folks: who, among the current US candidates and/or Canadian party leaders, best fit into this description of the mark of Genuine Leaders?


(Cross-posted at DKos and at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, and at Progressive Bloggers)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Update Notice - 06/12/2007

Yes, indeedy - it is time once again for an Update Notice at APOV, folks. The following entries have been updated:

How ignorance, fear and incompetence translate: three updates;

Primitive Minds: one update.

And remember, folks: APOV will be gone fishin' from tomorrow to late afternoon Friday - regular blogging will then resume in earnest. Thank you for your understanding.

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

How Ignorance, Fear And Incompetence Translate

(Updated below) (Update II) (Update III)

I have previously written on how incompetence and lies rule like ignorance and fear in the politics of our times - especially since such things are aided, abetted and inflated by an equally incompetent MSM.

Interestingly, recent developments have occured which illustrate glaring textbook-examples of how ignorance, fear and incompetence translate into the framing of political messages, opinions and ideologies, as well as in the shaping and conduct of present (and future) governmental policies. Let us examine three of such recent examples, shall we?

Item 1: It is becoming increasingly evident that the Leader/Commander Guy and his neocons are actually preparing for some kind of military intervention against Iran - and soon at that. After all, incompetents are unconditional adherents to the idea that war is the solution for everything (because it is so expedient), and war is, bottom line, just another government program. Still doubting this? Then how about the confirmation that the CIA is running Black Ops against Iran, in addition to false intelligence being cooked to justify an Iran War ... just as in the case of the Iraq War? Or, how about making plans for a near-indefinite stay in Iraq, with the idea that the ravaged country be used as a staging area to attack Iran? A good thing, then, that two US aicraft carriers are already on stand-by in the Persian Gulf, eh?

Furthermore, when you are the Constitutional Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. military, why run the risk of bearing all the responsibility for your incompetence? Solution: appoint yourself a War Tzar, who will probably award numerous lucrative no-bid contracts to mercenary companies and intelligence private firms - with zero public accountability given, and none required. Result: Presidential ass covered.

(Sounds to me like this is the way of the future in the waging of war ... but I digress)

Conclusion: Incompetents are not only ruled by intellectual sloth-driven fear, ignorance and expediency, but they remain quite stubbornly consistent in their incompetence - including in the shaping of the policies of tomorrow.

Which brings me to the following axiom: no one cheer and support incompetents more than ... other incompetents. Allow me to make my case with the next two items ...

Item 2: Dixit the wit and wisdom of Senator Joseph "Joe" I. Lieberman (CT-Ind.) on the fine morning of 06/10/2007: "I think we’ve got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq (...) This could be achieved mostly with air attacks (...) I’m not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran (...) They can’t believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans. We cannot let them get away with it".

To be honest, I have grown to expect such singular, intellectual sloth-driven incompetent reasoning that waging war will solve all problems (in the same consistent manner that all incompetents do), from the "good" Senator. Indeed, Senator Lieberman has quite a track record of supporting aerial attacks, invasions and other such "vigorous" interventions - his staunch and continuous (but deluded) support for the Iraq War and occupation, as well as his calm approval of the indiscriminate (read: savage) bombardment of Lebanon by Israel last year, constitute "noble" testaments to this effect. Besides, Senator Lieberman has been harpering for an aerial strike (or confrontation) against Iran for quite some time (some instances here, here, here and here). Consequently, we should not be surprised that he uses "old" false (or non-existent) intelligence and fact-less claims, in an obvious attempt to bolster the rattling of his saber - it is, after all, what other notorious incompetents like him have also been doing with regards to Iran.

Conclusion: Senator Lieberman is a paragon of incompetence driven by ignorance, fear and expediency - consequently, he will assemble with, and staunchly support, other incompetents like him (this is also why he happens to be one of the "fathers" of the Department of Homeland Security, or why he agrees with Alberto Gonzales that the Geneva Conventions are quaint, among so many other examples).

Item 3: Then, you have this guy, that one, or this one, or that woman, and that guy, this one, or this one, ... and so many others - the list, in addition to being nearly endless, is rife with individuals who are united in their intellectual sloth-driven incompetence, ignorance, fear, hubris and mendacity. And of course, all of them promulgate, support (or defend) the same ideological, two-dimensional, fear-ridden, primitive view and (non)understanding of the world.

And so we come to my overall point with this preceding entry: in the end, when all is said and done, it is because of our own afflictions with intellectual sloth, ignorance, fear and the search of instant gratification that such incompetents are not only given power, but allowed to abuse power while they provide us with distractions.

(Paris Hilton, anyone?)

As I am fond of saying: mea culpa, mea culpa, vox populi.

We have the power to change things ... if we are willing to put in the effort and determination required for such a colossal endeavor. So in closing, allow me to part with these words that I have written before:

"(...) let it be known ad nauseam: living in a democracy is a right and a responsibility.

And yes, this responsibility requires effort. But which is better: having your back bent by the effort required to keep on living in a democratic society, or letting leave for complacency and find yourself one day with a back bent under a totalitarian regime (however benevolent it may be)? We must not wait until it is too late to remember that one who uses fear and seeks to control information is one who would see himself as our master.

(...) It is therefore up to us to be vigilant if we are to preserve our democratic values and institutions ... just like it will be up to us to bear the shame of having forsaken them because of intellectual sloth, ignorance, selfishness and the search for instant gratification."

'Nuff said.


Update: 06/11/2007 - The Senate's "no-confidence" vote for U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales did not pass. Guess who stood among those who voted against it?

That's right: incompetents will always support/defend other incompetents.

I rest my case ...


Update II: 06/12/2007 - Other people are begining to wonder if good old Joe's not actually coordinating his talking points with the White House. All I can answer to these questions is: duh! Incompetents always help each other - Q.E.D. (again).

Oh - and wonders of wonders - there is now even increased buzzing about a war with Iran! Looks like I was right ... contrary to what some said about my "alarmism".

And last, but not least: one more shining example of intellectual sloth-driven ignorance and incompetence (hold your applause, folks).

(Oh, heck - here's another one for you good folks - from the Incompetent-in-Chief himself, at that!)


Update III: 06/12/2007 - Who else but this guy should be awarded the gold medal-of-the-week in intellectual sloth-driven ignorance and incompetence? Indeed. Congratulations!

However, the platinum medal (better than gold) for sheer ignorance, incompetence and recklessness goes to this organization. This is insane ...


(Cross-posted as a DKos Diary, at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, and as a PB Diary)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Primitive Minds

(Updated below) (Update II)

It never ceases to amaze me to what levels of utter irrationality the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are willing to descend into.

They lie, they misrepresent, they use decoy arguments and make ad hominem attacks. For them, the use of duplicity, of secrecy, of arguments of (non-existent) conspiracy, of fact (and non-fact) selectivity/cherry-picking, of quacks/fake experts, as well as putting forth logical fallacies, are simply means to an end.

And this "end" is the following: to promulgate, support and defend their beliefs or their ideologies.

Truth be told: these are the only things that truly matter to them.

Why else would they try to censor science, attempt to control it, seek to falsify it or rewrite it, quietly hide it, brazenly deny funding for it, attempt to change its mission/purpose, actually lie about it, use spin games to deny it, go to great lenghts to confuse people about it, attempt to dismiss it as a matter of differing beliefs or philosophies, or go as far as to demonize it?

Why else would they use the politics of fear, ignorance and lies?

Why else would anyone one of them (along with so many others of his ilk) have the gall to repudiate on television the very same President whom he supported relentlessly until a month or so ago - with the "ex-supporter" base even applauding such repudiation?

Why else would they still seek to implement a "missile defense shield" while tests keep proving that it is junk?

Why else would they be comfortable enough to advocate more renditions and more torture ... with the audience actually cheering and applauding?

Why else are they capable of scolding others about democracy while they have been proven as authoritarians by their own words and actions?

Why else do they disassemble so easily, obfuscate swiftly, or use disinformation and propaganda?

Why else do they use euphemisms to hide/conceal their true intentions ("surge" in lieu of escalation, "enhanced interrogation techniques" instead of torture, etc.)

Why else do they promulgate confrontation and war, using overt and duplicitous means, as the solutions for everything?

(And I could go on and on and on ...)

I have come to the conclusion that the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are very much alike the people from the allegory of the cave, and somehow made flesh and blood.

They are indeed living in a cave, their backs to the entrance while facing the sunlit cave wall, seeing only shadows of reality. And it is from watching these two-dimensional shadows that they construct myths and stories to comfort themselves - because they not only fear the shadows that they see, but they also fear even more what these shadows represent.

Thus, they find themselves frightened to the deepest levels of their fragile souls by the glorious truth of the multi-dimensional reality in which we live, whenever they get out of their cave. Their intellectual sloth-driven, ignorant and fearful minds simply can not, or flatly refuse, to comprehend it.

That is why their beliefs and ideologies are not only parochial, but adamantly intractable.

Consequently, at the end of each day, the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters return to the safety and comfort of their cave, vowing to say and do everything in order to transform our multi-dimensional reality into the simpler, two-dimensional one made of shadows that they are accustomed to.

Hence, my conclusion is that the fundamentalists, neocons and other right-wing madhaters are the same ignorant, fearful and surperstitious primitives that our ancestors were, thousands upon thousands of years ago - except that they now use newspapers, magazines, television, radio, politics, and the internet, to spread their intellectual sloth-driven non-understanding of the world and, consequently, working hard at bringing us down to their level of ignorance.

Well, the non-primitive that I am has not only always lived outside of the cave, but has actually ever enjoyed and marvelled at this multi-dimensional reality in which we exist - even with its warts and all.

How about you?


Update: 06/12/2007 - Here's what happens when primitive minds succeed at confusing scientific matters - the society at large gets hooked, lined and sinkered. One more time: I rest my case ... alas. Digby has another take on this, but I disagree with his assessment that "the numbers arent great, but ...": I think the numbers overall are plainly abyssmal. Meanwhile, when someone (like an (incompetent) MSM journalist or pollster, or anybody else, for that matter) asks you whether you "believe in evolution or not", could you please answer this way: "I accept/reject evolution". I ask this of you good folks because, well, science is science - not belief. You either accept its facts or you reject them (sigh).


Update II: 06/18/2007 - I stumbled upon an article and read the comments ... only to find that one staunch defender of right-wing evangelism distorted one of my entries to help make his point. He actually makes my point in this very entry. If you wish to chuckle, read the entire article and comments here.


(Cross-posted as a DKos Diary, at Diatribune, as a PB Diary, and at Suzie-Q)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Gone Fishin'

More like "gone doing the science thing", actually.

I thought I'd let you know, good folks, that posting at APOV (and related diaries/blogs) will be light this week and the next, due to the fact that I have accepted to give talks (oral presentations) as invited scientist-speaker/presenter in two back-to-back symposia - one coming up this Thursday-Friday (6th Symposium on Physiopathology of the Digestive Tract) and the other one coming up Thursday-Friday of next week (3rd International Symposium on Nutrition, Hepathology and Gastroenterology).

Hopefully, I'll be able to sneak in a couple of posts in between my preparations of the said oral presentations and attending/participating at said symposia - after all, science and blogging oblige.

Thank you all for your understanding - and don't forget: keep on rocking, eh?


(oh - and now that I'm thinkig of it - if you folks want to chit-chat in the meantime, then go right on ahead and use this thread)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

Yes: It's In The Roll Of The Dice, Baby!

(The following constitutes the last part of a short three-part series on evolution)

So far, I have endeavored to disassemble two of the favorite (non)arguments of fundamentalists and denialists against the reality of the process of evolution - namely, A) that humans have remained essentially unchanged since Creation; and B) that the science underlying evolution is wrong/invalid.

Mind you - notwithstanding that I so endeavored by using a tongue-in-cheek-with-a-wink approach, the facts provided in these two previous entries of mine remain soundly grounded in reality and scientific accuracy (taking into account that I have to vulgarize the science at the same time).

It is therefore with the same approach that I intend today to disassemble a third favorite myth of the fundamentalists and denialists typically used in their (intellectual sloth-driven and ignorance-based) attempt at "disproving" evolution: there is no randomness and no natural selection in life.

Now, I've already discussed one recent example of random mutations followed by selection so as to provide an evolutionary advantage in humans - therefore, I will not dwell again on this.

Rather, I will focus on randomness. To whit (one zany example among so many - emphasis mine):

"Randomness and Divine Agency - In their article “Random Worms: Evidence of Random and Nonrandom Processes in the Chromosomal Structure of Archaea, Bacteria and Eukaryotes” (PSCF 55, no. 3 [September 2003]: 175–84), Glenn Morton and Gordon Simonsmake made a valuable contribution to the design debate. However, a couple of comments might be in order. First, I am not sure they have correctly applied biblical references to the Urim and Thrummim or to casting lots. In those examples, the point is not that God used randomness, the point is that when instruments of chance were employed to seek the divine will, the outcome was not random at all. As the authors themselves say, “God pre-determined the result”. A predetermined result is not an expression of chance. That makes the application of those examples to processes in nature problematic. If “humans are not able to distinguish between the appearance of chance and the actuality of chance”, and if “randomness is something that cannot be proven”, then it is not clear why “Christian apologists need to incorporate chance and randomness into their world views”. After all, we can neither distinguish it nor prove it, and it does not exist from God’s point of view.

Second, the authors claim that “Dembski’s model is inadequate to the task he intends”. But if randomness cannot be distinguished or proved, if, as the authors maintain, it is an illusion created by human perspective, and if "higher information content creates the appearance of randomness", then it seems to me that the “bar” for Dembski is lowered, not raised. Under such circumstances, all Dembski must do is provide a plausible alternative to the randomness claim."

Yes, yes, yes. We know the saying: "God does not play dice" (sayeth Albert Einstein - unfortunately, he had no inkling about DNA, genes and what I'm about to talk about below). So "of course", we can't distinguish or prove randomness because such a thing does not exists.

Very well, then - check this one out ...

Like every life-form on this planet of ours who reproduces sexually, males and females of the homo sapiens sapiens species produce gametes - spermatozoids (millions of'em at a time) for men and an ovum (or egg) for women.

For both sexes, we start off with precursor cells. Now, these cells, like the rest of our cells, contain 46 chromosomes - 23 pairs of each human chromosome, except that half came from Mommy and the other half came from Daddy. The whole idea behind precursor cells having to undergo gametogenesis (i.e. produce gametes) is to produce gametes with only a single copy of each 23 chromosomes so that they may recombine (or fuse) with one of their gender counterparts - then, we have fertilization (i.e. restoration of our "full" genotype of 46 chromosomes) and the fertilized embryo can develop from then on.

Here's where randomness is observable directly and proven:

First (trying to simplify things as much as possible here), precursor cells make one round of normal cell division, giving two daughter cells with 46 chromosomes each. Then, the two daughter cells undergo reductive division, each generating two daughter cells in turn but with 23 chromosomes each (only one copy of each human chromosome). That leaves us with a total of 4 gametes per precursor cell, right? For men, yes - multiplied by hundreds of precursor cells to start with and hence the mass production of spermatozoids. However, how come women normally produce only 1 ovum per ovulation cycle? That's because one precursor cell is used at a time and 3 of the potential 4 gametes produced are killed off randomly.

That's one roll of the die right there.

Second, for both women and men, the 23 "Mommy" and 23 "Daddy" chromosome copies can swap DNA ("crossing-over") with each other during the reductive cell division process needed to produce gametes (and yes - you could say that the parental units are unknowingly still "going at it" years and years after they made you - or that this is actually molecular self-sex - but I digress). This process ensures increased individuality/diversity in the progenies-to-be ... in other words, this allows for the off-chance that the children will have one or more improved attributes compared to their parents (better immune system, more brainy, more athletic, etc.). Of course, you can also end up with decreased attributes (weaker immune system, less brainy, less athletic, etc.). Interestingly, whether a pair of Mommy-Daddy chromosomes does a cross-over or not, and which specific pair (or pairs) gets to actually do it, is in good part determined randomly.

There's another roll of the die for ya (come to think of it - that's a roll of two dice).

And last (but not least): out of the millions of male spermatozoids racing to the single female ovum, only one gets to fertilize it and "win the day".

Talk about rolling the dice here!

Now here's the clincher: all of these (ahem) random things constitute altogether one of the very bases of the evolutionary process.

So, in conclusion, here's a suggestion for you folks the next time you meet a fundamentalist/denialist: instead of going (again) into a tiresome argument with them about the reality of evolution (especially since their nonarguments are tediously inane - one example addressed here), simply invite them for a fun game of Yahtzee.

It will not only be so much more enjoyable, but you'll be proving the point at the same time.

And remember: evolution is not belief, faith, philosophy, ideology or quackery - it is science.

No more, no less.


(Cross-posted as a DKos Diary, at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, and as a PB Diary)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

If It Ain't Real, Then Nothing's Real

(The following entry constitutes the second part of a short three-part series on evolution. Part one can be read here)

Fundamentalists and other denialists of the process of evolution are fond of arguing that it is an invalid science, seeking to undermine it with either theological, ideological or philosophical (non)arguments (three examples among so many here, here and here), or outright non-science, pseudo-science and quackery - like intelligent design or creationism science.

As I put it before: only science is science.

Interestingly, it is a truism that all scientific disciplines are related in various degrees (and I should know, considering what I do for a living - nonetheless, see these two examples here and here, in case you do not believe me). Hence, that is why the fundamentalist/denialist (non)argument that evolution science is invalid, or wrong, is the most ludicrous of them all - not only for its (ahem) fundamental fallacious nature but also for its grave implications.

Not sure? Then allow me to make a list of the scientific disciplines (and/or subdisciplines) which underlie the science of evolution:

We have geology (and related disciplines such as Earth science, environmental geology, geoarchaeology, geochemistry, geochronology, geomicrobiology, geophysics and others), chemistry (and subdisciplines such as analytical chemistry, nuclear chemistry, organic chemistry, physical chemistry and others), physics (and the subfields of atomic, molecular and optic physics, as well as particle physics and condensed matter physics) and, of course, biology (and its branches of anatomy, biochemistry, botany, cellular biology, developmental biology, ecology, microbiology, molecular biology, genetics, biophysics, physiology, zoology, and others).

Now, the only purpose of science is to describe and understand the reality we live in - the universe, our planet, life and, ultimately, ourselves. Granted, much remains to be understood (this is why crazy folks like moi can have careers and contribute to this noble human endeavor) - that is, after all, the nature of science and of the scientific method. Nonetheless, it is from such acquired knowledge that we use (and have used) for all of our (past, present and future) technological advancements - thanks to what we call the applied sciences.

So, here's the clincher: if the science of evolution is wrong or invalid, then this means that all the scientific disciplines and subdisciplines it relies upon are also wrong/invalid. Let's give ourselves a quick review of what this means if the fundamentalists/denialists are right on this one:

Physics wrong - then we can't be having planes, trains, automobiles, satellites, rockets, space shuttles, telecommunications, cell phones, TVs, electricity, windmills, waterwheels, radios, microwave ovens, houses/buildings, boats, sound systems, musical instruments, etc.

Chemistry wrong - then we can't be having CAT-scans, electron microscopy, gasoline, refrigirators, insulation, plastics, ceramics, nuclear reactors, thermonuclear bombs (someone else blogged about this one already), medications, clothes, paper, metal alloys, CDs/DVDs, X-rays, etc.

Geology wrong - then we can't be having mines, oil drills, cement/concrete, bricks, dams, asphalt, gemstones, water wells, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc.

Biology wrong - then we can't be having domesticated pets, farm animals and plants (by the way: selective breeding/cross-breeding constitutes the oldest form of genetic engineering/modification tech - but I digress), diseases (including genetically inherited ones), fisheries, alcohol (beer, vodka, et al.), game reserves, baking powder, surgeries, vaccines, antibiotics, gene therapies, organ transplants, blood transfusions, in vitro fertilization, etc.

Let me put it another way: if these sciences are wrong, then we would not be capable of seeing, speaking and hearing. Furthermore, we would not have computers and the internets. Ergo: I would not be able to type this blog and you would not be reading it.

In short - if evolution is not real, then nothing is, because you can't pick one science as right or wrong over any other ... since they are all interconnected.

So here's an idea - next time you see a fundamentalist/denialist yapping/blogging against evolution, simply ask him/her this question:

"If evolution ain't real, how come you can talk/blog about it?"

Then again, maybe everything is magic and we're all living in a dream ...

Nah.


P.S. Of course, you understood already that the very same of what I have discussed herein also applies for the science underlying our understanding of climate change and its effects, right? Good.


(Cross-posted as a DKos Diary, at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, and as a PB Diary)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)

A Very Milky Conundrum

One of the main (non)arguments of religious fundamentalists against the process of evolution is that God created man in His image and that, subsequently, humans have ever remained unchanged since the creation of Adam and Eve some 6000-10000 years ago.

Each time I hear such reality-disconnected fallacies, what immediately springs to my mind is the proven existence of numerous mutations in our genome which have emerged over the last 150000 years or so since the evolutionary advent of homo sapiens sapiens (with many mutation events actually occuring well after the presumed "Godly Creation of Man") - especially those mutations which cause genetically inherited diseases, such as muscular dystrophies, epidermolysis bullosa, et al..

However, considering the intellectual sloth-driven, ignorance-striken, fearful and parochial mind-think of religious fundamentalists, I doubt that they would be able (let alone be willing) to grasp the simple and obvious concept that the existence of such disease-causing mutations constitutes in itself proof of the basic genetic mechanisms which underlie the process of evolution.

Truth be told, I have this strong suspicion that they would simply reply that such horrible things were the Will of God following the Fall of Man.

Very well, then. Here's one small evidence (among a legion of others) that not only negates such feeble arguments against the reality of evolution, but which also actually invalidates the so-called literal-interpretation of holy scriptures.

And this evidence has everything to do with milk.

Yes - you have read this correctly: milk. But before I proceed further, allow me to properly set the table for you.

You see, we must first remember that mammals suckle their young, giving them nourishment through the milk produced in their mammaries. Same thing with humans (and hence why homo sapiens sapiens is also a mammal by definition). Now, milk is a rich source of fats, proteins, minerals (especially calcium) and, of course, water. Milk is also a rich source of sugars - or, rather, of one specific sugar: lactose. The problem here is that animal cells (such as our own) use glucose, a simple lonely sugar, to metabolize and derive energy from. Since lactose is a bit more complex sugar, being composed of one glucose linked with one galactose (a glucose relative), this means that this lactose needs to be broken down to release the glucose and galactose. In turn, the galactose can be quickly changed into another glucose, thus giving us the following end-equation: one lactose = two glucose.

Hence, that is why milk is full of lactose instead of glucose - otherwise, the milk would be quite syrupy, rendering it a difficult thing to suckle indeed (not taking into account that it would make the young suckling very thirsty).

Thus, enter the digestive enzyme lactase which breaks down lactose into its two individual, single sugar components.

The funny thing here is that lactase is expressed only when needed. In other words, the gene encoding this very necessary digestive enzyme for sucklings gets to be shut off around the time of weaning. No more milk as diet - thus no more need to spend energy and resources to produce lactase: such is the way for nearly all known mammals, including humans.

Or rather, such was the way for humans.

(Yes - the table is now properly set)

You see, when humans became sendentary - settling into stable villages and such - they soon began farming and domesticating goats and cattle. Realizing that the milk produced by these animals constituted a rich source of nutrients right at their finger tips, they of course began making cheeses out of milk (whereby the lactose gets broken down in the process of manufacture) or, for a quicker and more refreshing fix, actually drinking the milk.

Unfortunately, post-weaning children and adults being bereft of lactase, drinking goat or cattle milk would cause much discomfort such as cramps and even diarrhea. However, such side-effects were deemed acceptable when taking into account the richness that milk provided (but without being able to digest the lactose) - and therefore drinking milk eventually became a staple in the diet of some of our ancestors nonetheless.

This in turn favored random mutations in the lactase gene, thereafter acting as an adaptative/evolutionary advantage which resulted in their quick spreading among human (sendentary and milk-drinking) populations.

What were such mutations you ask? Why, they simply prevented the lactase gene from shutting down around weaning, thus setting the stage for massive milk-drinking frenzies among post-weaning children and adults without any side-effects, in addition of the benefit of being able to digest all the lactose in the milk.

In short: humans could then not only have their milk, but enjoy it too.

Let us fast-forward to today and what do we have? Why, we have those folks who are lactose intolerant ("old original stock") and those who are lactose tolerant (new, evolved, stock).

Interestingly, such mutations first emerged as early as 6800 years ago and as late as 2700 years ago, each such mutation being different and occuring independently among separated (milk-drinking) populations - yet procuring the same evolutionary advantage of keeping the lactase gene turned on after weaning.

Notice the time line here?

That's right - lactose tolerance evolved after the presumed time of the "Godly Creation of Man" so cherished by religious fundamentalists.

Now, here's the clincher: from the moment of Adam and Eve and onward, everyone is apparently quite lactose tolerant in the holy scriptures. Not a single mention of God giving the Divine Gift to man of being able to drink milk without side-effects.

Goodbye holy scriptures literalism and hello evolution.

So next time you meet a religious fundamentalist (like this one, this one or this one), ask him or her the following very simple - but oh, so damning - question:

"Got milk?"

(The preceding was the first entry of a short series of three on the subject of evolution).


(Cross-posted as a DKos Diary, at Diatribune, at Suzie-Q, and as a PB Diary)

(Click to unfold the rest of this article)

(Click to refold this article)