Psyche, Science, and Society

Democracy sucks when the wrong people get elected: Iraq

An important article by Gareth Porter [US Realignment With Sunnis Is Far Advanced] points out that the US is now maneuvering with Sunni resistance forces to undercut the power of the elected Shia majority. As a result, many Shia believe the US wants to bring back the Ba’ath state.

Meanwhile, the US is allegedly shifting to a “hearts and minds” strategy [New U.S. Commander to Change Iraq Focus]. I guess they hope at least a few Iraqis will support permanent occupation.

Add comment January 31st, 2006

Iraqis want US out. US to ignore them

Yet another poll [see Nearly half of Iraqis support attacks on U.S. troops, poll finds] indicates that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis [this would be virtually all non-Kurdish Iraqis] want a timetable for US withdrawal. But 80% of Iraqis don’t believe that the US will give up its permanent military bases. As a result 47% support attacks on Americans.

Given the American respect for democracy, the wishes of Iraqis will be totally ignored, as usual.

Add comment January 31st, 2006

A child’s pledge of allegiance to the flag

Received from a reader who wishes to remain anonymous out of fear of government spying:

A Child’s Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

When I Was Just a Small Lad
I Looked up So Proud,
I Saw the Stars and Stripes
And I Recited out Loud!

I Pledge Allegiance
My Young Voice Cried,
To the United State of America
And to the Freedom for Which -
So Many Have Died!

I Pledged Allegiance
To the Republic for Which it Stands,
To the One Nation under God
I Folded My Hands!

As I Recited My Pledge
To the Indivisible Country,
I Whispered a Little Prayer
That Really Seemed -
Very Important to Me!

I Was Pledging to a Country
That Promised Liberty and Justice for All,
Not Just for a Few
No ! Really, Really -
They Meant it for All!

So Everyone Can Be Free
We Go to the Polls and Vote,
Everyone Has a Voice
We Proudly Gloat!

No One Is Supposed to Be Left out
We Should All Have a Say,
But I Find That Is Not Always True
I Just Found That out -
Just the Other Day!

I Found That Some of the Meanings
Of the Pledge Have Changed -
You See,
They No Longer Seem to Mean
The Same Things That They First Meant to Me!

I Recently Read That an Iraqi
General Had Died,
Around His Face an American Sleeping
Bag Had Been Tied!

An American Military Officer
Who Recited the Pledge Right Along,
Sat on the Generals Chest
Until All of His Air Was Gone!

I Don’t Think it Was
Was the Right Thing for Him to Do.
And I Find Myself Wondering
If He Thought He Was Doing it -
Doing it for Me and for You!

I Wonder Which Clause of the Pledge
He Thought the Generals Death Would Uphold,
Was it an Act under God
Or Was it Liberty and Justice -
For All to Behold!

I Read That Yet More
Of Our Soldiers Across the Sea,
Were Fighting in Afganastan
They Claimed They Were Fighting -
Fighting for You and for Me!

But I Never Recall
Casting a Vote to Tell,
Those Soldiers That They Could Murder
A Prisoner in a Jail Cell!

They Went into His Cell
To Question Him You See,
And While They Were There
They Beat Him -
Unmercifully!

When They Came Back
Some Time Later That Day,
The Found That the Man Was Dead
They Really Felt -
Like They Had Earned Their Pay!

When Their Commander Was Asked
If These Murderers Would Go to Jail,
The Prisoner Could Have Died of Natural Causes
That Was His Tale!

So All of this Makes Me
Makes Me Wonder Some How,
How Did Our Pledge Change
Why Are We the Way -
The Way We Are Now!

Didn’t Enough of Us Go
Go to the Polls and Vote,
Maybe Too Many of Us Just Sat
Just Sat at Home and Gloat!

Or Did We All Decided
That Our Pledge Should Permanently Change,
The Whole Constitution
We Should Conveniently Rearrange!

If We Are Truthfully a Noble Nation
A Nation under God,
Can We Really Give These Murders
An Approving Nod!

If Our Pledge Does Mean
Mean Anything to Us,
Openly These Murders
Our Country Should Discuss!

If We Don’t Believe in Liberty and Justice for All
As the Pledge Does Say
Then Lets Start Teaching Our Children
The New Words Today!

Liberty and Justice the New Words Might Be
God Lets Us Kill
If Public Homage -
They Don’t Pay to Me!

I Write this Anonymous Poem
Anonymously You See,
For I Now Fear That My Government
Might Do the Same Thing -
to Me!

2 comments January 30th, 2006

Capitalism can ruin everything

A recent article ['Suicide Seeds' Could Spell Death of Peasant Agriculture, UN Meeting Told] reports the horrors of genetically modified [GM] “suicide seeds”, designed to produce crops with sterile seeds, thus not allowing reproduction. One result of their proliferation, the article points out, would be the destruction of peasant agriculture.

I sent the article to my biochemist friend, B., who argues convincingly that GM crops hold great promise for increasing productivity and thereby helping feed the poor. B. is often outraged at what he believes is a knee-jerk anti-technology view of the left that ignores the potential in GM while only focusing on horrors, real and imagined.

But B. is no fool, as his response indicates:

This is a perfect example of how capitalism and the profit motive screws everything up. From an environmental viewpoint, the terminator/suicide seeds are probably the smart thing to do, since they pretty much ensure that nothing gets loose and wreaks havoc (e.g., by replacing “natural” indigenous plants). So, in the kind of society I would like to live in, this would probably be the way to go. However, this would require that free replacement seeds be given to the farmers each year, rather than making them buy them all over again. And of course under capitalism they’ll never do this because it would greatly reduce profits. Without free replacement, the sale of terminator seeds is grossly unfair, and I don’t blame the farmers for getting quite upset about it.

1 comment January 29th, 2006

Global warming in action: Tuvalu drowning

Photographer Gary Braasc has some beautiful yet frightening of Tuvalu, one of th first countries scheduled to disappear from the earth: Postcards from the Edge: Photos of Tuvalu show global warming in action. Like people here and elsewhere, the people on Tuvalu are sure that God will protect them.

Add comment January 29th, 2006

Spying illegal. It’s that simple!

A New York Times editorial today:

A bit over a week ago, President Bush and his men promised to provide the legal, constitutional and moral justifications for the sort of warrantless spying on Americans that has been illegal for nearly 30 years. Instead, we got the familiar mix of political spin, clumsy historical misinformation, contemptuous dismissals of civil liberties concerns, cynical attempts to paint dissents as anti-American and pro-terrorist, and a couple of big, dangerous lies.

The first was that the domestic spying program is carefully aimed only at people who are actively working with Al Qaeda, when actually it has violated the rights of countless innocent Americans. And the second was that the Bush team could have prevented the 9/11 attacks if only they had thought of eavesdropping without a warrant.

Regarding cliams that the spying was legal:

The secret program violates the law as currently written. It’s that simple.

One might imagine that congressional Democrats would speak, think, and act so clearly. But one would then be imagining that the delusional fantasy that there was an opposition party in this country bore some resemblence to reality.

Of course, the New York Times editorial ends with its own delusional fantasy:

The Senate Judiciary Committee is about to start hearings on the domestic spying. Congress has failed, tragically, on several occasions in the last five years to rein in Mr. Bush and restore the checks and balances that are the genius of American constitutional democracy. It is critical that it not betray the public once again on this score.

No Congressional “hearings” in this climate will stop this gang. At best, they will simply say they will stop their nefarious activities and continue in secret as if nothing has happened. To get a sense of how these guys operate, see the new Newsweek article: Palace Revolt: They were loyal conservatives, and Bush appointees. They fought a quiet battle to rein in the president’s power in the war on terror. And they paid a price for it.

Nothing short of mass popular mobilization will stop the drift toward dictatorship. The President, who claims absolute powers, would accept no less.

Add comment January 29th, 2006

Earth: What’s the point of no return?

Following James Lovelock’s recent claim that the earth was beyond the point of no return, the Washington Post reports that climate scientists are actively discussing if and when we are approaching that point [Scientists Debate Issue of Climate's Irreparable Change: Some Experts on Global Warming Foresee 'Tipping Point' When It Is Too Late to Act].:

This “tipping point” scenario has begun to consume many prominent researchers in the United States and abroad, because the answer could determine how drastically countries need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming years. While scientists remain uncertain when such a point might occur, many say it is urgent that policymakers cut global carbon dioxide emissions in half over the next 50 years or risk the triggering of changes that would be irreversible.

As we have near 60-degree temperatures in Boston at the end of January:

The debate has been intensifying because Earth is warming much faster than some researchers had predicted. James E. Hansen, who directs NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, last week confirmed that 2005 was the warmest year on record, surpassing 1998. Earth’s average temperature has risen nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past 30 years, he noted, and another increase of about 4 degrees over the next century would “imply changes that constitute practically a different planet.”

“It’s not something you can adapt to,” Hansen said in an interview. “We can’t let it go on another 10 years like this. We’ve got to do something.”

And Europe better get ready for much of the continent to become incapable of sustaining populations remotely resembling those resident there today:

Many scientists are also worried about a possible collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation, a current that brings warm surface water to northern Europe and returns cold, deep-ocean water south. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who directs Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, has run multiple computer models to determine when climate change could disrupt this “conveyor belt,” which, according to one study, is already slower than it was 30 years ago. According to these simulations, there is a 50 percent chance the current will collapse within 200 years.

Massive change in climate is not an abstraction. It has happened within a few years in the past:

Scientists who read the history of Earth’s climate in ancient sediments, ice cores and fossils find clear signs that it has shifted abruptly in the past on a scale that could prove disastrous for modern society. Peter B. deMenocal, an associate professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, said that about 8,200 years ago, a very sudden cooling shut down the Atlantic ocean conveyor belt. As a result, the land temperature in Greenland dropped more than 9 degrees Fahrenheit within a decade or two.

“It’s not this abstract notion that happens over millions of years,” deMenocal said. “The magnitude of what we’re talking about greatly, greatly exceeds anything we’ve withstood in human history.”

In response, the administration tries to silence scientists who sound a warning, reports the New York Times [Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him].

Given the magnitude of the danger, major changes are needed yesterday. Minor changes, like the Kyoto accords will do little to stem the tide of disasterous climate change these scientists are discussing. Nothing less than near immediate major changes in social organizations stands a chance of reversing these trends.

Wouldn’t you think that newspapers that report the world may be irreversibly changing for the worse would make it a priority to report on the danger. Just as war news dominates the fromt pages for much of a war’s duration, one might expect that the survival of civilization might just become a staple on the front pages. But that might be a downer and not help sell papers.

Add comment January 29th, 2006

Bury war once and for all?

In his recent article, After the War, Howard Zinn raises the prospect, as well as the necessity, of abolishing war once and for all. While correct on the necessity of this step if civilization is to survive, Zinn, unfortunately, gives little sense of how we flawed humans can bring this about. But he does raise one of the four most important questions facing the human race.

Excerpt:

And while we work with increased determination to make this happen, should we not think beyond this war? Should we begin to think, even before this shameful war is over, about ending our addiction to massive violence and instead using the enormous wealth of our country for human needs? That is, should we begin to speak about ending war—not just this war or that war, but war itself? Perhaps the time has come to bring an end to war, and turn the human race onto a path of health and healing.

A group of internationally known figures, celebrated both for their talent and their dedication to human rights (Gino Strada, Paul Farmer, Kurt Vonnegut, Nadine Gordimer, Eduardo Galeano, and others), will soon launch a worldwide campaign to enlist tens of millions of people in a movement for the renunciation of war, hoping to reach the point where governments, facing popular resistance, will find it difficult or impossible to wage war.

Add comment January 22nd, 2006

Dishonest and unethical treatment

Bill Sweet, a volunteer for the AFSC in Cambridge MA sent me the following reaction to my article To heal or to patch? Military mental health workers in Iraq. He has kindly given me permission to post it:

I just finished reading your article on the mistreatment of traumitized soldiers in Iraq. As a person in recovery from trauma, I can’t think of a more damaging situation for a trauma patient than being “treated” by a “professional” therapist than dishonesty. The dishonesty of having an agenda other than the patients health and recovery as the goal of treament. These people rationilize a behavior that is more than cruel, unethical, and abusive. It is clearly criminal. This article points out the agenda of the military very clearly. It also proves that brainwashing and the breakdown of the humanity of soldiers can get them to do things, at least once, that are completely contrary to who they really are.

Add comment January 20th, 2006

Talking Points: (Un)Intelligent design

The New York Times online Talking Points feature had a nice summary of issues in the Intelligent Design controversy on Wednesday. As this article is blocked by the Times Select, I’ve posted it here.

Excerpt:

In the case of whales, for example, “Pandas” asserts that while Darwinists generally believe that whales evolved from a land mammal, “there are no clear transitional fossils linking land mammals to whales.” But Kevin Padian, from the University of California at Berkeley, the only paleontologist who testified at the trial, described a series of fossil finds that most scientists would deem transitional. He showed slides of an extinct land animal whose ear features are found only in whales, not in other land creatures. He showed another land animal that had developed large and paddlelike limbs, a third with hips decoupled from the backbone, allowing the backbone to move up and down as in a whale’s swimming motion, and others with nostrils moving backward along the skull to mimic a whale’s blowhole. Many of these fossils were discovered after the publication of “Pandas” in 1993, but others were older. One had been known since the Civil War.

A central argument made on behalf of intelligent design is that some biochemical and molecular processes within the body - like the complex biochemical cascade that produces blood clotting, the multifaceted immune system and the whiplike structures known as flagella that propel bacteria through water - have so many interacting and essential parts that they could not have emerged gradually through slight modifications of precursor systems through the pressure of natural selection. Instead, the whole system must have been created in one fell swoop.

Yet expert testimony showed the fallacy of this reasoning. Structures and processes that look “irreducibly complex” at first may not look so on closer inspection, and biological processes that can’t be explained today may well be understood tomorrow as science advances. As the National Academy of Sciences has pointed out, natural selection can bring together biochemical components to make a system that serves one function initially and then later combine that system with other components to produce a complex system with an entirely different function.

The bacterial flagellum, for example, may have evolved from a simpler syringelike system that helps nasty bacteria inject their poisons into a human cell. The flagellum system has some 40 protein parts, and research has already shown that 10 of them match those used by nasty bacteria to make their molecular syringes. Presumably, as research continues, scientists will learn that many of the 30 other parts also had different uses in precursor systems. The flagella were not discussed in “Pandas” but have emerged as a staple argument for intelligent design. There are still sharp disputes over how the flagella might have developed, but in the end, science is likely to discover that the flagella were crafted gradually by natural selection instead of in one fell swoop by an intelligent designer.

Add comment January 20th, 2006