Indeed. I’m mentally reshaping Eddie’s rants as being about (i) Israelis against Hamas, and (ii) Austrians in California.
2 Likes
Yes. LOL.
4 Likes
It should be noted that this “American political organization” is promising to visit on at least one neighboring state the same carnage that the USA brought to Iraq and Afghanistan. And that one candidate for this organizations nomination may have implied a similar course of action for our northern neighbors.
1 Like
Yes.
Similarly, a lot of people from outside Palestine are now advocating the destruction of Hamas. Are you getting your panties in a knot over that, as well?
Oh, and for the benefit of anyone whose reading comprehension is not yet at the post-secondary level: When I write that, I am not advocating that Canada launch air strikes and a ground offensive against the USA with the goal of destroying the Republican Party. Just to clear up any potential confusion. 
Of course. I support academic freedom, and freedom of speech in general. What, you don’t?
I have no idea what law he might have been thinking about. However, if heads of state were forbidden by law from expressing opinions about foreign politics, there is not a single one who would not be imprisoned right now.
In any event, it is a bit of a stretch to presume that the consequences when a private citizen expresses an opinion on a matter of foreign politics are the same as when a current or former head of state does so.
Of course. Why not?
BTW, I suggest you search your own messages and posts in this group for the name “Trudeau” and see how well you are doing at following your own standards.
Well, hey, if you’re so concerned that I am a direct threat to your country’s political stability, do something about it. Unlike you, I am posting here under my own name and with my professional and academic affiliations fully and openly acknowledged. So go report me to the RCMP, FBI, Dept of Homeland Security, or whomever you wish. Just let us know what response you get.
This guy, jeez.
3 Likes
Maybe his best ever.
1 Like
Not sure that logically follows. Let’s say I decide to purchase a certain chocolate bar made by Nestle. Chances are, I’m contributing to child labor in West Africa, as cocoa farms regularly employ children. Given the lack of regulation to pressure Nestle to ensure their farms aren’t hiring children, I am making a political decision to contribute to Nestle’s ongoing exploitation while simultaneously tacitly supporting their lack of regulation. Look hard enough, and this conundrum is seen in nearly every product you could purchase. And that’s ignoring the political nature of the economic structure in which capitalism is permitted to persist and thrive, with all the perks and downsides that provides. To be clear, I’m not saying we should (or even can) agonize over every purchase we make, merely stating that it is, whether we recognize it or not, a political decision.
But purchasing candy bars is not to politics as babies learning is to science.
1 Like
One might quibble about what exactly it means to “involve themselves actively” in “intra-American politics”, but I’ll say stating your personal opinion about one american political party, under your real name on an internet forum doesn’t seem all that “actively involved”.
It’s certainly not the same as, say, using a pseudonym, having multiple simultaneous accounts pretending to be a “concerned american citizen”, and posting lies concocted by a foreign intelligence agency intended to destabilize the american political system and economy, on facebook, twitter, etc. to thousands of followers.
1 Like
NOTE: As far as I can determine, @Eddie does not have multiple accounts here at Peaceful Science.
ETA: I wanted to clear that up before anyone got the wrong idea
1 Like
Not accusing Eddie of that at all. I don’t think he has either. Just to stave off any confusion, I’m talking about for example Russian bot accounts spreading misinformation during US elections.
4 Likes
Several thoughts:
(1) The now MAGA-fied Republican Party seems to be bent on destroying itself—but how much collateral damage will it inflict on our democracy in the process?
(2) I’m still a registered Republican because at least that gives me a modicum of influence in the primaries where I do my best to fight against the most radically destructive of the most dangerous candidates. If more non-MAGA Republicans voted in the primaries, perhaps some sanity could prevail. I hope. I really really hope.
(3) I too was struck and saddened by that Washington Post headline. I feel like I’m in a nightmare that doesn’t end. (I attended a Republican convention in 1974 and the person I was then would not recognize the Republican Party of today.)
(4) Anti-science, buffoonish goofballs like Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Matt Gates, and Donald Trump seem more at home as exaggerated fools in a Saturday Night Live cold open sketch than anyone who could have gotten virtually any serious attention from Republican voters back in the days of my youth. Republicans back then thought conservative meant acting like an adult and not making a fool of oneself to get constant attention.
(5) This may be irrelevant but I’ll say it anyway: Doesn’t Mitch McConnell look like Bert the Turtle from the old “Duck and Cover” public service Civil Defense films?
I’m willing to take such a cheap shot because of his anti-science record:
(6) I used to have friends who grew up in Nazi Germany and they said that many Germans originally thought that Hitler talked in extremes simply as a means of getting attention and power and that once he got to the top, he would start behaving and governing in a more responsible manner. I have friends today who said the exact same thing about Trump in 2016: that he would scale back the showboat theatrics once he got in the White House—and as an “experienced businessman” he would delegate everything he could to smart people while he sat back and supervised. They thought sanity would prevail. They aren’t saying that today.
7 Likes
Jon Stewart used to have great fun with comparing MM to a turtle.
[#TurtleBrag
(https://www.cc.com/video/quz16y/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-turtlebrag-still-war)
[#McConelling
(https://www.cc.com/video/s4z9il/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-mcconnelling)
And one featuring Bert from the Late Show …
Ii think 16 years ago I couldn’t have imagined the need to have a discussion like this one. Supporting democracy over demagoguery ought to be a given.
3 Likes
Let’s say a baby decides to drop a certain plastic duck in the bath. Chances are, they’re going to drop it from a height above the water and see how much of a splash it makes. Given the nature of plastic ducks and baths, they are performing a scientific experiment involving gravity, air-resistance and fluid dynamics. Look hard enough, and you will see that this experimentation is involved in nearly everything the do. And that’s ignoring the physical nature of the environment in which babies are permitted to play with plastic ducks in the bath, and the enrichment and learning opportunities that this provides. To be clear, I’m not saying babies agonize over every plastic duck they drop in the bathwater, but it is, whether we recognize it or not, a scientific experiment.
Sure, the babies don’t consider the gravitational equations or measure the height or drop or amount of water displaced. But people buying chocolate don’t consider the wages or standard of living of cocoa-pickers either. Delving into the deeper aspects of chocolate purchasing without also delving into the deeper aspects of babies learning is undercutting your point.
1 Like
Certainly there is a joy of learning and discovery that is inherently non-political. We shouldn’t take the state too literally.
1 Like
Yes. But the MAGA Republicans think the first Trump administration was a rousing success, and only hope a 2nd one would be the same, only more so. They’re probably shooting that WaPo article directly into their veins.
2 Likes
Hi Allen
I am a registered independent as I don’t have much faith in either party at this point. We have expanded our debt to 33.5 trillion dollars with both republicans and democrats.
The last fiscal conservative President was Bill Clinton. A close friend served in that administration in the defense department. He is quietly complementary of the then speaker Newt Gingrich who worked with Clinton to achieve a balanced budget.
Politics has become a big money scam and we mindlessly get polarized because that’s what both parties want. You become afraid of the other party and become compelled to give money to stop them. Large donors are now calling the shots.
The only solution IMO is election reform that limits political fund raising and moves the parties toward serving the people who elected them. Trump is merely the result of a broken system which he was able to take advantage of.
7 Likes
I wholeheartedly agree with Bill on this point. Mark it on your calendars. 
6 Likes
It’s the strangest feeling, I was compelled to like one of Bill’s posts. What’s that sound? Is it the fourth seal opening? Is this real life?
Someone notify @colewd that his account has been hacked.
1 Like
Some people clearly do.
FYI:
foreign election interference
(4) Foreign election interference The term “foreign election interference” means conduct by a foreign person that— (A) (i) violates Federal criminal, voting rights, or campaign finance law; or (ii) is performed by any person acting as an agent of or on behalf of, or in coordination with, a foreign government or criminal enterprise; and (B) includes any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful act or attempted act, or knowing use of information acquired by theft, undertaken with the specific intent to significantly influence voters, undermine public confidence in election processes or institutions, or influence, undermine confidence in, or alter the result or reported result of, a general or primary Federal, State, or local election or caucus, including— (i) the campaign of a candidate; or (ii) a ballot measure, including an amendment, a bond issue, an initiative, a recall, a referral, or a referendum.
22 USC § 2708(k)(4), quoted at Cornell Law School.
I’m fairly sure that @Faizal_Ali’s comment did not “violate Federal criminal, voting rights, or campaign finance law”, that he is not “acting as an agent of or on behalf of, or in coordination with, a foreign government or criminal enterprise”, that he did not “include any covert, fraudulent, deceptive, or unlawful act or attempted act, or knowing use of information acquired by theft”, etc.
Likewise any, as-yet-unexplicated, “international protocols” would be against prominent members of “a foreign government” (such as Bill Clinton) expressing preferences, not against private citizens, or even media pundits, doing so.
I would therefore suggest that any question over @Faizal_Ali’s comment is not so much “naive”, as untethered, tendentious and ludicrous. It would lose the utterer of the question all credibility (if that person had not lost it already).
6 Likes