@dystopianfuturetoday

I'll admit to sometimes using a loose definition of fascism for rhetorical purpose, but I flatter myself I understand political theory well enough not to need wikipedia's help this time.

I want an advance to post-democratic times.

Let's glance back first to dark history and the rise of the mob. If we want to imagine democracy as a response to plutocracy, we can hear the democrats' call to arms clearly: "We're tired of these plutocrats shitting on us. Let's all shit on each other instead!"

Where voters are held to no standard they vote their own interests and prejudices, at any cost to others, at any cost to society. Democracy necessarily admits no standard. No standard for truth, no standard for justice but what the electors, palsied twitching monkeys that they are, can conjure. What's more, oligarchy is inevitable in any system, and oligarchs inevitably reflect the system that created them. A culture of selfish idiots trying to rip each other off produces an elite of the same.

Democracy isn't the ultimate development of government, as you seem to believe, it's its ultimate collapse.

So, the future. Less important to define a superior system than to recognise the corruption of our current thinking, but the path seems clear. Democracy is evil and evil is stupidity. The antidote to both evil and democracy is wisdom. Establish a sovereignty of reason and power flows to the rational. Selfishness, all forms of corruption are irrational, could only be opposed by such rulers. Plato, relatively fascistic though he was, agreed with me even a couple of thousand years ago. After all that time you're still trying to hold us back. All that time wasted.

You have never lived in a society with a constitution. Not if you live in the US you haven't. Your hated plutocrats long since overcame that last remnant of wisdom left by founders who presumably believed they wouldn't be needed so many years later. Imagine if the constitution were living thinkers rather than a dead relic; an active body to oppose corruption rather than a rotting, passive corpse waiting pathetically to fall to dust.

Are you a coward? Do you want to better society or cling to the sense of virtue your own corporate media narrators have fed you?

The truth is no one informs my political thought. It crawls implacably from the sludgy depths of hatred I've cultivated for the world in which I live.

http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 004723

USTR FOR SUSAN SCHWAB
DEPARTMENT FOR E - REUBEN JEFFERY AND EB - DAN SULLIVAN
FROM AMBASSADOR STAPLETON

SUBJECT: FRANCE AND THE WTO AG BIOTECH CASE

¶1. (C) Summary: Mission Paris recommends that that the USG reinforce
our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by
publishing a retaliation list when the extend "Reasonable Time
Period" expires. In our view, Europe is moving backwards not
forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with
Austria, Italy and even the Commission. In France, the "Grenelle"
environment process is being implemented to circumvent science-based
decisions in favor of an assessment of the "common interest."
Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with
implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation. Moving to
retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to
EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices.
In fact, the pro-biotech side in France -- including within the farm
union -- have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin
to turn this issue in France. End Summary.

¶2. (C) This is not just a bilateral concern. France will play a
leading role in renewed European consideration of the acceptance of
agricultural biotechnology and its approach toward environmental
regulation more generally. France expects to lead EU member states
on this issue during the Slovene presidency beginning in January and
through its own Presidency in the second half of the year. Our
contacts have made clear that they will seek to expand French
national policy to a EU-wide level and they believe that they are in
the vanguard of European public opinion in turning back GMO's. They
have noted that the member states have been unwilling to support the
Commission on sanctioning Austria's illegal national ban. The GOF
sees the ten year review of the Commission's authorization of MON 810
as a key opportunity and a review of the EFSA process to take into
account societal preferences as another (reftels).

¶3. (C) One of the key outcomes of the "Grenelle" was the decision to
suspend MON 810 cultivation in France. Just as damaging is the GOF's
apparent recommitment to the "precautionary principle." Sarkozy
publicly rejected a recommendation of the Attali Commission (to
review France's competitiveness) to move away from this principle,
which was added to the French constitution under Chirac.

¶4. (C) France's new "High Authority" on agricultural biotech is
designed to roll back established science-based decision making. The
recently formed authority is divided into two colleges, a scientific
college and a second group including civil society and social
scientists to assess the "common interest" of France. The
authority's first task is to review MON 810. In the meantime,
however, the draft biotech law submitted to the National Assembly and
the Senate for urgent consideration, could make any biotech planting
impossible in practical terms. The law would make farmers and seed
companies legally liable for pollen drift and sets the stage for
inordinately large cropping distances. The publication of a registry
identifying cultivation of GMOs at the parcel level may be the most
significant measure given the propensity for activists to destroy GMO
crops in the field.

¶5. (C) Both the GOF and the Commission have suggested that their
respective actions should not alarm us since they are only
cultivation rather than import bans. We see the cultivation ban as a
first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban
or further restrict imports. (The environment minister's top aide
told us that people have a right not to buy meat raised on biotech
feed, even though she acknowledged there was no possible scientific
basis for a feed based distinction.) Further, we should not be
prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting
seed business in Europe and because farmers, once they have had
experience with biotech, become its staunchest supporters.

¶6. Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target
retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a
collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the
worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and
must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an
early victory.

¶7. (C) President Sarkozy noted in his address in Washington to the
Joint Session of Congress that France and the United States are
"allies but not aligned." Our cooperation with France on a range of
issues should continue alongside our engagement with France and the
EU on ag biotech (and the next generation of environmental related
trade concerns.) We can manage both at the same time and should not
let one set of priorities detract from the other.

PARIS 00004723 002 OF 002



Stapleton

Yes, you're right.
If you imagine him as impotent, he becomes clownish though. And I like the clown in him.


In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!

@Bidouleroux

I think this needs to be clarified... When I refer to "atheists", I'm talking about the demographic that self-identifies as being atheistic. If we're talking about the best and brightest then, yes, I'd concede that atheists are, and I'm trying to minimize pretentiousness, of greater intellectual maturity and honesty than their religious counterparts. They, however, aren't representative of their demographic by definition; the best and brightest are a minority. Mature, open minded, intelligent, critical, Socratic individuals who think for themselves and take pride in the exploration of ideas are a goddamned rarity and, whether they identify as atheistic or rastafarian, they're not much different from one another in basic function. The critical analysis of ideas doesn't seriously take place, or at least it doesn't seem to... a congregation is split between the shepard and the sheep; ideas are absorbed from the figurehead, processed and adopted or rejected. The same thing occurs in secularists, atheists, humanists and so on; assimilation of ideas from figureheads or icons or humans who people feel represent their own sentiments better than they do. There's also a sort of intellectual osmosis, depending on the environment. Essentially, I've come to accept that people mostly adopt their ideas from other sources, and free-thinking individuals can do that and modify those ideas or cultivate concepts of their own, but do so on a much more active, serious, engaged level.

There was more here but it was essentially irrelevant, and I've been as excessively verbose as I'd ever like to be.

Uhg, I just watched this and am reminded how much I hate O'Reilly. So rude, arrogant, demeaning, and more!

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Truckchase:
I can't believe this is an issue up for debate. Fox news is killing our nation.

The entire farce that is the right-wing political machine that cultivates this kind of shit for their own purposes is what's killing our nation.


Enlighten me then, why is this something that is worthy of intelligent debate? In an environment free of the political machine you're inferring doesn't exist, how does this continue to get (inter)national attention?

>> ^Truckchase:

I can't believe this is an issue up for debate. Fox news is killing our nation.


The entire farce that is the right-wing political machine that cultivates this kind of shit for their own purposes is what's killing our nation.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Very cool, but having a garden does not make one a farmer.


Well, according to the English language, yes it does

Main Entry: farm·er
Pronunciation: \ˈfär-mər\
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1 : a person who pays a fixed sum for some privilege or source of income
2 : a person who cultivates land or crops or raises animals (as livestock or fish)


And what is a "Farm" you may ask?

Main Entry: 1farm
Pronunciation: \ˈfärm\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English ferme, from Anglo-French, from fermer to fix, rent, from Latin firmare to make firm, from firmus firm
Date: 14th century
4 : a tract of land devoted to agricultural purposes
5 a : a plot of land devoted to the raising of animals and especially domestic livestock b : a tract of water reserved for the artificial cultivation of some aquatic life form (a fish farm)


But you're probably wanting to use the lesser-term "Gardener" for what these people are doing, which is historically inaccurate. See, everywhere else on the planet other than good ole USA, a "garden" is a yard. And the actual term "Gardener" really means:

Gardener
Function: noun
Date: circa 1763
: a person who is engaged in the development and decorative planting of gardens and grounds


Yep, decorative planting of gardens and grounds. Not the cultivation of food and livestock/fish.

First and foremost, I hope Hitchens is able to recover from this. I saw the poor recovery percentages and can only hope that they caught it early.

I don't agree with Hitchens on everything and I think sometimes he is a pompous ass, but his passion, wit, and intelligence drew me to seek out more of him. He has been a prominent figure in giving definition to my thoughts.

Salute!

*********

After watching the video, it seems like this guy respects Hitchens and sounds sincere. I understand that some people would see him mentioning the wish that Hitchens would converted at the end as malicious, but I disagree. Again, I think he is coming from a sincere point of view. Would he be happy with a deathbed conversion? Of course! He believes that Hitchens won't be saved unless he converts. Despite my desire, my parents have become more fundamentalist over the years due to (in my estimation) very limited sources of information. My dad believes strongly, but when he does something it is out of compassion of trying to save someone; however, he doesn't force his beliefs on anyone or any issue. The difference is that people who try to force "saving" on other people are doing it for themselves, not the people they are trying to "save". Or just plain d*cks or trolling like QM.

In a way, it is quite ironic that some people here watch this video are so wrapped in their own world, their own perceptions that they twist the video so much. Not that I'm immune to being affected by my perceptions, but seriously people - step away from the mindless dogpile of knee-jerk rejection based on your beliefs.

*********

And on a slightly different subject: If I had cancer, I don't think other people praying would do a thing to cure the cancer. It could have one small effect of boosting my spirits from realizing that so many people cared for me. Many years ago, some serious shit went down in my life and my life, frankly, was looking like it was going to take a huge change for the worse. I was very depressed and despondent. At that point, many people wrote character witness letters. Apparently they were very good letters. It was amazing what people wrote and my attitude improved greatly. I have ~50 letters that are still in my desk. After 9 years, I can still only get through about half of them before it's too much. My point is that if taking an action can have a positive mental effect on the receiver and the giver, let them express it. People express compassion in different ways and the more they want to express compassion, the more they want the recipient to really, truly know how deeply and sincere they feel. Those actions can vary widely. Stop being so fucking selfish that you won't allow people to express compassion in the way they know how.


In conclusion, I thought this was wonderful and should be repeated:
>> ^SDGundamX:

I'm going to borrow Georgia Harkness's argument from her book above that when we pray for others at the very least we are taking a moment from our mostly self-centered lives in order to cultivate compassion for another human being. Personally, I think regardless of whether or not intercessory prayer works, it no more a waste of time than saying "I hope he gets better." It's an act of humanity and compassion to feel for a fellow human who is suffering.

Across all religions, there are many types of prayer, of which intercessory prayer (prayer for the benefit of others), is just a small portion. For other varieties of Christian prayer, for instance, see: Prayer and the Common Life by Georgia Harkness.

While the benefits of intercessory prayer have been scientifically studied, the results are inconclusive. As I have said in other posts, it is unlikely science ever could show conclusive results for intercessory prayer. Does that mean that intercessory prayer is a waste of time? I don't think so.

I'm going to borrow Georgia Harkness's argument from her book above that when we pray for others at the very least we are taking a moment from our mostly self-centered lives in order to cultivate compassion for another human being. Personally, I think regardless of whether or not intercessory prayer works, it no more a waste of time than saying "I hope he gets better." It's an act of humanity and compassion to feel for a fellow human who is suffering.

In the Buddhist tradition, there is no god per se and therefore prayer is really more like meditation--a way to help ourselves grow. The point of this growth is not self-serving--it is to learn how to take action to make the world a better place. In Buddhism, when you pray for others you're not just hoping they'll get better, you're also trying to think of ways you can take action to make the situation better for them. Incidentally, Christianity contains the same exact concept. As phrased by Ben Franklin: "God helps those who help themselves."

While clearly most of Hitchens' fans do not subscribe to any religion, might I suggest that if you do consider yourself a fan you try to find a way to send him words of support and encouragement. It seems a bit difficult to contact him (I did a bit of Googling while writing the post; couldn't find any contact info), but if you can find out which agency represents him you could send letters or cards care-of his agent and I'm sure he'll get them.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Ok, you pray. And I will talk to my imaginary friend too.
Prayer: doing fuck all while convincing yourself you're helping.


>> ^rottenseed:

Praying is such a masturbatory, externally useless ritual. It won't do anything, but it makes the person doing it feel better about themselves. I hope nobody prays for me when I have cancer.

Right, that is what I was trying to point out which you made much more clear

Watching the video, I don't understand how BP "owned" the oil. As far as I understand the government owns all coastal waters and BP just leases it. I think the way property and mineral rights work in the US need some slight refinement. I think it is dumb that a person can own something they do not yet have control over. Just because of the fact that you own some land, I don't think that should give you claim over things that you haven't yet cultivated from it. If we adjusted ownership claims sightly, it could give more powers to the people whom actually do the mining/making. It would place more power back into the hands of the people that do things instead of the people who buy things. I have the same kind of thoughts on intellectual property. You can't own ideas, you can only own what you do with them. In the same fashion, you can't just own the ground, you own what you do (on/in/with/from/more verbs) it. I think this slight adjustment could do great things, though I still need to work through all the logical implications (one day).

For me, that is one of the largest roles of government, defining private property. It isn't something that is an objective truth. The way that mineral rights, and intellectual rights are configured right now are horrible. They encourage large concentration of power for people who no longer produce goods, just buy ideas/property.

Though, I don't find fault with people get lots of money for something they do well, I love newegg and amazon, and have no problem with the people living the good life. I think we all find a problem with people that don't really do anything but game the system and somehow squeeze money from it without providing any real benefit, hell, even BP makes something we all need desperately. Day traders, property flippers, and the like I see as people who are found glitches in the system they are exploiting, and while there will always be such things I still think they could be mended with more clearly defining some of the base elements. The fact that BP owns the oil just due to the fact they have enough money to lease land and make more money seems off. It is like renting someone to make the money for you that you already bought.

Ten and nine years ago I was finishing high-school, slacking considerably, but still getting decent grades.

Eight years ago I was studying to become an electrical engineer. I was slacking considerably, but my grading trend from high-school did not carry over to university studies. I was in an army program which locked me in for 6 years after graduation (3 years in addition to the mandatory 3, total of 10 years including the degree), and decided I didn't know where I was going to be 10 years later. Quit and joined the army the normal way.

Seven, six and five years ago I was in the Israeli Army as an IT guy. 1.5 hours commute to a job with pay that would seem low in third-world countries. Time passed, even though it seemed to stand still.

Four years ago I attempted to resume my studies, only to realize it wasn't just the duration of the military service that bothered me, I also didn't like what I was studying very much. I dropped out for good and spent my time cultivating my online gaming addiction.

Three years ago I managed to quit playing long enough to travel to the US to attend my cousin's wedding and get a pilot's license. I spent two months there, mostly in Maryland.

Two and one years ago I decided that if I have no idea what I want to do with myself, I should keep doing what I know. I got a general IT certificate and got a random entry-level job.

In between there were depression, wars, family deaths and many many hours lost to the virtual worlds I liked exploring better than the real one. Seems sort of dull written down, doesn't it?

>> ^cybrbeast:
>> ^ryanbennitt:
>> ^cybrbeast:
You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.
Tell that to the massive fishing fleets driving species to extinction...

Regardless, that does not make your statement "We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it." any more true.
I speculate that before we drive the fish to extinction the massive fishing fleets will become uneconomical due to lack of fish. They will stop and species hopefully recover. This could be expedited by strict resolutions


A species could easily become extinct just by bringing the numbers down to a certain point. And other species could still become extinct in the process causing chain reactions. It seems like a pretty dangerous speculation.

If you're really interested in the subject. I'd suggest reading: "Cod, a Biography of the Fish That Changed the World" by Mark Kurlansky. It's a fascinating book in it's own right and definitely covers the dangers involved with this subject.

>> ^ryanbennitt:
>> ^cybrbeast:
You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.
Tell that to the massive fishing fleets driving species to extinction...


Regardless, that does not make your statement "We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it." any more true.
I speculate that before we drive the fish to extinction the massive fishing fleets will become uneconomical due to lack of fish. They will stop and species hopefully recover. This could be expedited by strict resolutions

You know there is such a thing as aquaculture or fish farming.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5883
"Nearly half of the seafood we eat today is farmed"

>> ^ryanbennitt:
Well, by 2050 we'll have 9 billion people, but by that time all our fish stocks worldwide will have collapsed completely from overfishing. We don't farm and cultivate the sea, we just hunt and poach the fish from it.