Biotech giant Monsanto has been genetically modifying the world’s food supply and subsequently breeding environmental devastation for years, but leaked documents now reveal that Monsanto has also deeply infiltrated the United States government. With leaked reports revealing how U.S. diplomats are actually working for Monsanto to push their agenda along with other key government officials, Monsanto’s grasp on international politics has never been clearer.
As Paul marches along to Republican primaries and caucuses, he could wind up picking up delegates in nearly every state. That could result in some deal-making if no candidate has a majority of delegates heading into the Republican Party convention in August.
“It’s a real concern,” Jack Burkman, a Republican consultant unaffiliated in the 2012 race, told us.
Of course, Alinsky’s intellectual influences were not limited to Catholic social thought. Contrary to Gingrich’s ignorant slur, he frequently quoted Jefferson and Madison and had contempt for young leftists in the 1960s who disdained the American flag. “The responsible organizer would have known,” he wrote in 1971, “that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag while the flag, itself, remains the glorious symbol of America’s hopes and aspirations.” But Alinsky frequently spoke at Catholic venues and regularly advised young seminarians who were eager to improve the well-being of the men and women they would soon be serving, many of whom were poor and needed help organizing themselves to demand jobs and better services from the local authorities.
In 1969, Saul Alinsky received the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award, given annually by a coalition of Catholic groups in the Midwest to commemorate an encyclical about human rights and alternatives to war written by Pope John XXIII. Most honorees have been ardent reformers of one faith or another: Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, Daniel Berrigan, and Jim Wallis are on the list—as is Lech Walesa.
Newt Gingrich would, no doubt, point to some of those names as proof of how the Left can seduce innocent devotees of his new-found faith. But he might find it difficult to criticize the woman who received the award seven years after Saul Alinsky: a community organizer from Calcutta named Mother Teresa.
“Do I worship modern medicine? Is science my religion? Not at all; there is no aspect of modern medicine or science that I would exempt from the most rigorous scrutiny, and I can readily identify a host of serious problems that still need to be fixed. That’s easy to do, of course, because the worlds of medicine and science are already engaged in the most obsessive, intensive, and humble self-assessments yet known to human institutions, and they regularly make public the results of their self-examinations. Moreover, this open-ended rational criticism, imperfect as it is, is the secret of the astounding success of these human enterprises. There are measurable improvements every day.”—Thank Goodness! by Daniel C. Dennet (via scipsy)
In both cases, the children have grown up not knowing that their biological fathers – whom they have not seen in decades – were police officers who had adopted fake identities to infiltrate activist groups. Both men have concealed their true identities from the children’s mothers for many years.
“If individuals have free speech rights, citizens who band together as unions and corporations also have free speech rights. We don’t lose our freedom of speech by exercising our freedom of association.”— Institute for Justice attorney Steve Simpson, on tomorrow’s anniversary of Citizens United. (via barticles)
Author Brisbane of the New York Times has been mocked through the internet for his recent post entitled: Should the Times be a Truth Vigilante? The response to this from most has been along the lines of, “Duh!” People want journalists to report the truth, and to do so vigorously. But the point…
We should also note the American responses to the same question. The difference is remarkable, and it shows what a huge gap in perceptions and understanding there is between Americans and Iraqis. 48% of Iraqis overall believe that political freedom has worsened since the invasion, but 50% of Americans believe it has improved. In fairness to the American respondents, the American public has been routinely deceived and misled about the nature of the new Iraqi government and political conditions in “democratic” Iraq, so it would be easy for a casual observer to conclude that conditions are greatly improved. Of course, this result is heavily influenced by the 67% of Republicans who believe that political freedom has improved since the invasion. I’m sure most Republicans genuinely believe that, because this is what their leaders and pundits have been telling them for years. It speaks volumes that this view is wildly at odds with the views of the Iraqis who have lived through the invasion and occupation years.
American respondents also have a far more positive view of other aspects of life than Iraqis, and this is even more pronounced when looking at Republican respondents. Incredibly, 51% of Republicans say that personal safety and security in Iraq have improved since 2003. No less incredible, 43% of Republicans say the same for economic development/employment, 48% say that education has improved (which is virtually the opposite of the Iraqi response), and 46% say that government has improved (again completely at odds with the Iraqi view). I suppose I shouldn’t find these responses to be quite so surprising, but they do show how deep inside a partisan and pro-war bubble many Republicans are that they can give responses so divorced from the realities in Iraq. Support for the war is probably causing Republican respondents to imagine that conditions in Iraq are better than they are, but it is also possible that more Republicans continued to support the war until the very end because they didn’t have very good information about what the war was doing to Iraq.
Americans and Iraqis are also far apart in their assessment of who benefited the most from the war. While 39% of Americans said that the Iraqi people gained the most, 4% of Iraqis said the same. In fairness, another 40% of Americans answered that no one gained from the war, which is at least closer to the truth. Iraqis answered that Iran and the U.S. benefited the most. 22% of Americans agreed that the U.S. benefited most (who are these people?), and just 5% of Americans said that Iran benefited the most. There is finally some agreement among Iraqis and Americans that withdrawing from Iraq is good for their respective countries: overall 60% of Iraqis and 74% of Americans see withdrawal a positive development. Contra Marc Lynch, withdrawal was a good policy decision and a wise political move. There is no constituency for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq outside of Republican dead-enders. 59% of Republicans see withdrawal as a positive thing.
Also, treat them better, scientists! Turns out everyone knows that rodents used in lab research aren’t so healthy. Most are overweight and don’t exercise much, and I can’t think of any biomedical outcome these factors wouldn’t affect. This is part of an interesting piece on the ethics, use, and appropriateness of different animal research models from Slate. Transgenic guys, too - crazy!