3 replies to this topic

[MSpencer]

After conferring with Hostile earlier in the evening, I've decided to give writing for GNP as a permanent columnist a go. Most of you should know me from my time in the think tank as, well, Darwin's bulldog and the discontented, disillusioned American. I've just recently returned from a hiatus following my move to McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, where I'll now be for the next few years. My views are usually a bit to the left socially and economically, I understand the need for some rightists elements in the economy, but that doesn't mean that ideologically I support them, or that in my ideal society, they would play any role.
Essentially, I'm an optimistic academic who would like to see equal rights, universal representation, social justice, and socio-economic equality. If you had to put it succinctly, a social democrat, but according to the
American system of profiling, I fall well within the bounds of the socialists. A statement of purposes and beliefs follows.

1. First and foremost, I am committed to the ideals of a socialist economy, essentially that no good citizen of a nation shall be deprived of the very rights that should be accorded to any member of society. These things are a dwelling, a reasonable expectation of safety, a means of income to benefit our economic system and to take advantage of those things which are available to them, basic human needs such as food and water, and a reasonable expectation that their government should do for them what is both morally and socially just, and in the benefit of the people. Naturally, this goes hand-in-hand with the principles of a democratic socialist government, that the government has a standing mandate to improve the quality of life for the people within the country through any means necessary, and to strive for the betterment of society as a whole, all stratas at once. I am a socialist not from reading a book, but by seeing the injustices in society, seeing the inaction of the government, and wishing to have a society which strives to better itself as a whole. The people, as a consequence of them demanding a government, demand a common assurance of societal stability, and stability is directly related to the quality of life of the lowest levels of the society. We not only have an obligation to end poverty and suffering in our nations, but we have a duty to do such. We not only have an obligation and a mandate to improve labour conditions around all sectors of our governments, we have a duty to do such. This duty is not necessarily to our constituents, but to our society, to humanity, to our own consciences. It is our responsibility to shape the world into what we want, and a productive, fair society which has equitable rights for all people in all stratas of society is truly the hallmark of all civilizations, past and present.

2. I view multiculturalism and equal rights for people of all ethnicities as being one of those things which absolutely cannot be combated. I am solely an Anglophone, and I live in Québec, so I do have some experience in this matter. The proportional representation of cultures in a society indicates a healthy community, and it also brings diversity to a society which would otherwise fall into the curse of the United States, where people were forced to abandon the vast majority of their cultural identity during the periods of mass immigration in the 19th century. Naturally, a common language is required for commerce, general societal interactions, and government dealings, but we certainly have no right to force people to give up their first culture in order to conform to our culture.

3. On a related note, equal rights should be of paramount importance to the government of a nation. I am of the opinion that every person in society is the possessor of fundamental human rights and freedoms such as the freedom of conscience, the freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association, and that no government or citizen has the right to discriminate based on irrelevant personal characteristics such as race, colour, sex, sexual orientation, pregnancy, civil status, age, religion, political convictions, language, ethnic or national origin, social condition, or physical handicap. People, in being part of society, forfeit some rights to gain the government's sanction of others. These rights are inalienable, and should a government be found to be infringing upon, or not enforcing the protection of these rights, that government should be supplanted by a government which will fulfil the fundamental mandate of the people to provide for basic social rights.

4. I wholly reject the Thatcherian notion that socialism legislates to perform a non-vital function of ensuring that everyone has a job. Socialism is, in every sense, morally just and socially correct to believe in. Socialism is simply the belief that the government should serve the people by ensuring that no person should be deprived the right to work, and that no person should be denied basic human rights or the rights of the majority in society. True, one of the goal of socialism is to ensure that workers are treated fairly, in that everyone who wishes should have the option to get a job and transition into a career, and that labour should be organized in order to provide assurances for the working populace, that no manager, businessman, or wealthy individual shall become master of another. Essentially, socialism is a rejection of the corporate slavery which has pervaded society for long. Socialism is the belief that, ultimately, the government exists to serve the majority, not the wealthy minority, by providing for common rights which should apply to all individuals, and which would provide certainty for each individual in a society, by ensuring they have the means to get a job, by ensuring they are not unfairly treated by their employer, by ensuring that the economy stays affordable for the majority of the society, and by providing the basic human rights to all citizens. Socialism is not a choice, it is simply a consequence of our own humanity.

5. The United States illegally invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq in March 2003 in violation of the Kellogg-Briand Pact to end non-aggressive wars. True, a dictatorial regime was overthrown, but in its place, an unstable government built off of a religiously hostile majority (With the potential for genocide on the scale of Bosnia) was put in its place. Americans are dying daily in Iraq, and Iraqi civilians are being killed in appalling quantities. There is no victory in sight, we are stuck, helplessly, in the middle of a brewing civil war. No matter how trained the police are, the warlords will still be there after we leave, and if we don't leave, we will just further alienate the populace, create more enemies, and destabilize the region, thus allowing similar conflicts to dissociate to neighboring countries. Ultimately, a continued presence in Iraq will result in more American deaths, and ultimately, there can be no stopping of the up and coming civil war. In fact, the longer we stay, the worse it will likely be. Continued American presence continues to generate divisions. While pulling out may devastate American foreign policy, it was our invasion of a sovereign nation against the sanctions of 95% of the world which damaged it most in the first place.

6. I'm heavily involved in science, and I'm pursuing a degree in evolutionary biology at McGill here in Montreal. Many of you will recall my empassioned arguments against creationism (a fairy tale), intelligent design (pseudopseudoscience, there's more truth in scientology), and the rejection of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory from all sides. You might also remember the time I railed against Darwinian evolution, essentially stating that it is an outdated theory which has been improved upon substantially. Ultimately, I believe science education is of paramount importance to society. People need to know how things work, people need to understand the way the world moves in order to be a functional part of it. I view creationism as just as dangerous to modern science education as mistaking phosphate and phosphorous (One is a polyatomic ion of phosphorous and oxygen, and the other is used in numerous applications such as... incendiary bombs. Not to say the polyatomic ion isn't useful, it's the reason why you're alive, among one of its many uses). We need a well educated society to ensure that mistakes aren't made, that the people cannot live in fear propagated by pseudoscientists, and to build a more enlightened and tolerant society.
This also means that religion should have no place in government or education. Study the Bible all you like, it's influenced literature quite a bit, but religion should certainly have no effect on the education of individuals (It's criminal really), and it should have no bearing on the decisions of the government. In biology, we have to fight religion on a day-to-day basis in the field of stem cell research, among other things. Stem cell research is being blocked, largely by religious fundamentalists, on the basis that it is essentially contrary to their religious beliefs. There are some things which outweigh the individual beliefs of a group of people, one of them is the potential benefit to society, and the other is the freedom of religion. It's not against my beliefs to study stem cells, when did they become society's moral compass?

So, I hope this helps to clarify some of my views. You'll be seeing quite a bit of me, I'll be posting some articles soon. And as Hostile said, he's one to the right, Duke is one to the left, I view myself as... quite a bit more to the left, and quite a bit more libertarian. I try to keep a balanced opinion, and I try to do what I believe is morally right for the betterment of society. If that makes me a far left radical, then it makes me a far left radical, but I have trouble believing that my beliefs could be classified as such.

If anyone would like to speak with me, I'm available through the Revora PM system, MSN, or email (Contact for external email address). I'd love to hear your views in the comments section, or privately, on certain matters which I've touched on here. You can suggest an article as well, perhaps something you'd like me to take a look at, and I'll possibly write an editorial on it and post it here. I believe I have my article for tomorrow picked out already, so I'll get to writing that as soon as possible. Please check back and enjoy GNP, it will most certainly be quite interesting, and quite an adventure for us panelists.

[Tom]

Very good points. A large part of this i agree with. I suppose i should take up on my word to hostile and post my own one of these

[Hostile]

I have no problem with point 4. But there seems to be a history of abuse in this area. Because it fails to take into account human greed. It's an easily exploitable system.

Point 5 is a tricky one. Because though in hind site we might have not decided to go there, I believe the plan is to geopolitically position ourselves for a showdown with Iran/Syria.

I trully believe that the invasion of Iraq was simply part I of the plan from the start. Remember axis of evil? I believe after 911 all the heads got together and decided, "Lets change the middle east"

Iraq was an easy one to start with. Iran and Syria are next. And don't think the Saudis are not taking notice as well as the Egyptians.

I believe the US is gonna start wars in the region in order to "correct" the hodgepodge of dictatorships in the region.

Is this a good thing? I can only answer that by transporting 300 years in the future and reading the current history books. I'll have to assume most of them will be written in english.

[duke_Qa]

bah, how am i supposed to write my own epic tale now? damn you spencer, damn you for all eternity!*disappears in smoke*

hehe, yeah i would have to say that Spencer might appear more to the left than me, though i would say that my stance is based on realities of my local "political playground", while spencers opinions are as of yet based on an ideology that has no great grass root connection or experience in having power in his own "political playground".

or to put it another way, i believe in all of what spencer believes in, but i also know the realities of such a society have their downsides(but much fewer downsides than older alternatives in my opinion). man is flawed no matter how you try to control him, so you always have to be on guard and don't follow the book by the letter.