Stem Cells and Burnt Manure

Monday, March 9th 2009 – President Obama strikes again and has ordered the legal ban lifted on stem cell research. This medical procedure sees laboratories harvest stem cells from embryos, umbilical cords and adult bone marrow that have just been formed and thus do not yet have an assigned task. The goal is to be able to dictate the future development of these cells into brain cells to treat Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s or new marrow to cure leukemia or nerve cells to reverse paralysis, or Lymphocytic, T and White blood cells to cure AIDS, etc. This new legislation ends an 8 year ban on any further breakthroughs in the field instituted in 2001 by none other than former-president George W. Bush.

Bush’s ban and subsequent vetoes to block a senate reversal of the ban were motivated religiously as he has often admitted to the public. Along with the Vatican and anti-abortion groups, Republicans have today renewed their disgust of stem-cell research by calling it a mistake and a ‘slippery slope’. Their argument is seemingly based on ethics and science because they do not wish us to ‘grow’ stem cells and thus encourage women to abort in order to contribute to medical cures that could or couldn’t be just around the corner. Furthermore, the ‘slippery slope’ refers to the inevitable and eventual cultivation of human beings through cloning that will be made possible by stem cells for the sake of procreation, harvesting organs and other Orwellian nightmares. I do not deny or mock these fears, they are certainly valid. The problem is that president Obama directly reassured these fears as soon as he lifted the ban: ‘…only research meeting strict ethical guidelines would be allowed, under no circumstances would stem cells be used for research into human cloning’. Perhaps groups that oppose the legislation simply read the headlines and jumped straight to the streets in protest. Also, the preoccupations of the opponents are frustrating to me because they claim scientificity, whereas they are clearly moral. And, if asked, the groups I mentioned will never shy away from affirming that these morals stem from their faith, their religious beliefs. President Obama can in no way be reproached for retracting politics and Church from scientific endeavour; this is how the American nation was painstakingly founded over two centuries ago.

To continue the logical thought of these opposition groups, we should allow and/or ban all medical research according to religious morals. Who says they have to be exclusively Christian morals?

In the late Ist century AD, a man named Pliny the Elder realised that knowledge could be simply forgotten unless someone writes it down. This is why he devoted his life to writing the Historia Naturalis or the Natural History of the World. From tomatoes to coal, to lavender and Kidneys, to chimeras and faraway giants, Pliny collected data (be it written, told, rumoured…) and put to paper everything known about everything at the time. In chapters 28 to 32, Pliny elaborates medicine, or more precisely, the pharmacological recipes known to Pliny that could cure all things. Based on his religious beliefs (certain substances are associated with certain Gods giving them certain properties) and his own brand of logic, Pliny gave us what was right, respected and morally acceptable as medical practice in the Greco-Roman world that began our era. For example, drops of pigeon blood mixed with a concoction of spleenwort, honey and red wine could be applied to a wool bandage and placed over the eyes to cure bloodshot eyes. Also, to get rid of pesky malaria (called Quartan fever at the time), one would bind a nail used in crucifixion to one’s head with a cotton bandage and sprinkle burnt manure over the nail. It sounds like magical nonsense to us but they felt as strongly about this as the Republicans, anti-abortion activists and Catholic clergy seem to feel against stem-cell research.

To conclude, medicine should never be impeded or promoted by religion. Otherwise, we again fall into the ‘whose religion is more legitimate game’ and although the Christian Churches would like to believe, they do not win this by default in a free world. I say Voodoo sacrificial rituals, Muslim abstinence from harmful alcohol and Scientologist consumption of fresh babies for eternal youth cannot be discounted in the legislation of scientific research if Catholicism indeed has a ‘moral’ say in it.

(Pictured: Pliny's Historia Naturalis - Stem cells with an added fluorescent marker.)

End.

Saddam 2: Judgement Day

February 27, 2009 – Last Friday, US President Barack Obama announced an end to the war in Iraq. He elaborated a gradual plan that will reduce to zero the amount of American soldiers in Iraq by December 2010. This ambitious and hasty plan has clear goals to transfer all public and national security matter in Iraq to their own police and military forces. Furthermore, the withdrawal plan hopes very hard that the country’s radical factions will not quickly seize power as soon as the massive threat of American retaliation evaporates. Finally, there may exist a tacit objective in this plan: the patching up of the money haemorrhage that is the war in Iraq and to repatriate these much needed trillions of dollars back into the American recession.

Whereas most of President Obama’s new legislation since his inauguration day has been met with fervent opposition by members of the government, this measure was gladly supported by all involved. Iraq’s Prime Minister al-Maliki is confident his troops can efficiently replace the United States forces and American General Gates agrees. Democrats love the idea but then again, they would still give their left testicle (or ovary?) to please Obama these days. Finally, the Republican members of parliament and senate are timidly rejoicing that the troops and the financial resources supporting them are finally coming home. This war in Iraq seemingly no longer benefits anyone (not for oil, democracy, US presence in the Middle-East) and therefore it will end without opposition.

This all sounds nice and well but there seems to be a heavy amount of idyllic hoping in a plan that will remove 142,000 American soldiers from a heavily war-torn and politically unstable country in a short amount of time. If only there was a way to predict a realistic outcome to this policy. If only the United States had already invaded Iraq once before and then withdrew hastily. Oh gosh, they seem to have done the exact same thing in 1990-1991. What can we learn from this clear cycle of history repeating?

Firstly, we must contextualise both wars and see if their development and conclusion are similar enough or too different to compare.

Regarding the premise of both wars, Saddam Hussein was an equally major factor. He Invaded neighbouring Kuwait in 1990 and was generally threatening the region in 2003; the United-States thus deemed it necessary to directly intervene with the full might of their modern military. We could debate all-day about the ‘true’ motivations for both wars or how ‘legitimate’ they were but it definitely boils down to the threat to the Middle-East and world stability (both political and economic) that Saddam Hussein represented.

As for participants, we have an important difference between the two conflicts. It is well known that the United-States entered Iraq unilaterally in 2003 because the United Nations refused to condone the invasion of a country and the ousting of its government. The UN has always followed a strict non-intervention policy when faced with civil wars or internal conflicts; the situation was no so in 1990. Having invaded Kuwait, Saddam broke the UN’s prime rule: if one member country invades another, the United Nations will host a military action to defend the victim. This rule was established in 1945 to prevent the kind of expansionist incursions perpetrated by the Nazis from ever occurring again. This explains why dozens of countries including some whom did not participate in 2003 (Canada, France) and many from the Muslim world (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) joined the United-States and the United-Kingdom to protect Kuwait and push back the Iraqi armies in 1991.

Now for ‘occupation’, there are other crucial differences: duration and degree. Following the highly successful expulsion of Saddam’s troops from Kuwait, the American troops followed them back into Iraq. The ground attacks were minimal yet the coalition bombarded all Iraqi installations (both governmental and civilian) for just under a year. They indeed controlled many regions of Iraq but did not in fact administer them politically as they do today. Following this year of successful pounding, the coalition troops stopped near Bagdad, turned around, and returned home. The United Nations would never have approved an American coup in another member country and President George H. W. Bush did not want to endanger the international image and relationships of the US. Although a controversial decision amongst the American people, Bush followed his allies to the negotiation table and permitted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. As for 2003, Saddam’s infrastructure was summarily destroyed, President W. Bush declared victory and Saddam was hung for crimes against his own people. This rapid sequence of events was followed by 6 years of ‘occupation’.

Finally as a result with the American withdrawal in 1991, the country of Iraq was completely destabilised even though the ruling power was allowed to remain in power. Saddam Hussein’s oppressive machine had been crippled and thus the ethnically and religiously diverse country rose up to install complete chaos. The southern Shiite Muslims and the Northern Kurds took the opportunity to voice their disagreement with Saddam’s unlimited power in Bagdad. The inevitable result involved massive terrorism by these factions and brutal repression by Saddam. With the coalition gone, the inhabitants of the Middle-East were able to return to dynastic and generational conflicts that concerned them much more than what boundaries are respected, who has what oil field and who supports the current government.

With this contextualisation and comparison, I fully expect a similar situation to occur at the end of 2010. The United States and United-Kingdom will instantly leave a vacuum measuring 150,000 soldiers, trillions of dollars and massive amounts of organisation and technology that the Iraqi government has no hope of possibly replacing. The dust will inevitably settle and the various factions will quickly forget the preoccupation of the Western visitors and will begin anew their fight for supremacy, be it religious, political or cultural.

I too will hope for the best as President Obama inspires us to do, but I will remain realistic in the face of historical evidence.

(Pictured: The aerial bombardment of 1991 demonstrated a monstrous technological gap between the US and Iraq - President Bush delivers his famous 'Mission Accomplished' speech on May 1st 2003, perhaps a tad too early.)

End.

2008 Poll Results and News Round-Up

With a rather slow news week and a year 2009 well under way, here are the poll results for the second half of 2008.

The question was: "What is the next most likely global conflict", and the results were absolutely fascinating. Whether the news reflected tensions between Russia and the European Union, tensions within the Union or tensions in the Middle-East, the votes would dramatically shift towards a different answer.

Only 1% or 1 vote went to a war between South-East Asia and NATO. I find this theory interesting seeing as SE Asia would have a lot more soldiers than NATO and Indonesia IS the biggest Muslim country on the planet (and thus the biggest de facto enemy of America and its allies). Fortunately, relations between the two regions are friendly and stable.

A further 2% or 4 votes went to the option of an all-out African war. This low favour was very surprising considering the civil wars in Sudan, Algeria, Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Malawi, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and Western Sahara to name a few. I found it only natural that the thousands of ethnic groups of the dark continent would eventually rise up to redefine their space (Ancient colonial boundaries imposed by European colonialists and based on natural resources rather than tribal and ethnic tradition). It seems as though others don't fear this apocalyptic outcome.

The third option, and my personal favorite, saw 7% or 12 votes go to a renewed war (maybe cold, maybe white hot) between the Russian federation and NATO. I can imagine the renewed struggle for Russian or American influence in ancient Soviet states, in China, in the Third World. I also imagine a renewed race to send a man to Mars by 2020 and to develop new bomb technology that would be reminiscent of James Bond-type deathrays. Oh well, people are not as obsessed with Putin and the good-old cold waras I am (impending nuclear doom makes you think).

More concretely, the prospect of a great European Union civil war seems to have roused my European fans. With 35% or 58 votes, all is not well with the great Euro family. Not everyone has been happy with the inclusion of poor countries in with the rich ones or about the favoritism certain countries seem to enjoy or simply the flat out racism involved with associating the different ethnic groups of Europe. I could imagine a scandinavian bloc negotiating neutrality just after invading the Baltic states. I can see Switzerland invading Luxembourg, Southern France and Northern Italy to creat a Great Switzerland. I can see Germany building a great big titanium wall around themselves sporting banners that say "we are staying out of this one". I can even see old Hapsburg descendants assassinate the parliaments of Austria and Hungary, recreating the legendary empire and subjugating the Balkans. I guess this will be for another time. This result long held the prime position in our poll yet the recent events of Israel and Palestine finally shifted it a different way.

With a whopping 55% or 90 votes, my readers believe that an invasion of the Middle-East is the context and catalyst of the next major global conflict. I thought long and hard how to interpret this and I came to the conclusion that the results could possibly have been very different if the poll was conducted in 2009. With a new Democrat in the White House and a general recession, bordering on depression for some, the potential invasion of a dozen countries is much less desirable for the Western powers. The United States would not dare invade anyone else at the moment due to lack of economic means and motivations. Furthermore, Obama is like Jesus II (the return) and would never do such a vile thing. I prefer another possibility than the classic American imperial war machine creeping up on the ancient biblical lands.

Since this poll result is not very specific, let me propose a differing context. With increasing consumer power and a growing middle class, China will soon need incredible amounts of fossil fuels to power their economy and society. Furthermore, major producers such as Russia, the United States, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Canada may not be so forthcoming to export all their oil to the same nation and thus create the next superpower to be dominated by. As reserves dry up by 2025-27, China may become desperate and will envisage the powering of their economy by any means necessary. They may offer to assist the American President (presumably Chelsea Clinton) to help out their mission in Iraq and anti-terror raids in Afghanistan and as such will slowly extend their communist influence in the region. By 2032, the Communist party of China will have organised elections in each Middle-Eastern country, influencing the election of Pro-China Communist presidents and ministers everywhere from Egypt to Pakistan. As such, the Middles-Eastern countries will vote in bloc to remove the Western military forces and will form a united confederation loyal to China. Around 2040, they will have a combined military force that will pressure the exodus of Israel and thus the ultimate recuperation of the Holy land.

It may seemed a bit far-fetched but if you are willing to fear an invasion of the Middle-East as the next global conflict, I propose that my way is the most probable since it follows a well-established historical pattern. In the 40s and 50s, the Soviet Union slowly began imposing their influence on specific countries. They eventually installed puppet gouvernments, close economic ties and even military unity and loyalty.


Round-up

Here is another intereting story going on this week - I also suggest a few interesting historical links to this story (click).

-Feb. 16th, 2009: 2 nuclear submarines collide
-Apr. 26th, 1986: Chernobyl Nuclear reactor goes critical
-Mar. 1st, 1954: US Bomb makes islands unihabitable forever

(Pictured: 1989, Chinese tanks confront protesting Students in Beijing, a clear sign that the officials of China do not mess around with such things as negotiation - The future overlords of Arabia)

End.

My intolerance is more righteous than yours

February 8th, 2009 – An apocalyptic battle of ideas and influence is being waged worldwide on bus panels. In the blue corner, Ariane Sherine and verious atheist, non-believer and agnostic associations have begun publicity campaigns on public transpoortation in most major cities. Notably in London, 800 double-decker buses are circulating with the slogan ‘There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.’ In the red corner, David Larlham, his biblical society and the Catholic Church in general will soon begin a counter-attack by using the very same buses. Although less comical and certainly not original, the slogans will read : « Psalm 53 : the fool hath said in his heart, there is no God. »

We can certainly question the motivations and projected goals of these two campaigns but there seems to be one clear message in each. Firstly, the Atheists have a tongue-in-cheek attitude towards the Church’s dogma and therefore thought it would be funny to waste a hundred thousand dollars on posters saying so (keep in mind they are not selling anything). Secondly, we have the Church that, once again in its infinite contempt for the little man and his personal opinion, has dubbed ‘idiot’ and ‘damned to the firy depths of hell’ anyone who disagrees with them.

OK, so my objective summation of the two points is actually heavily biased but hey, you cannot study history without holding a grudge for Religions. To me, this concept and it’s self-proclaimed officials have provoked slaughters, hardships and atrocities countless times in the name of higher morality. That being said, my regular readers will know that I cannot possibly be against the Church’s information or disinformation campaign, it is information and leaves personal decision in the hands of individuals. Going too far, The Catholics are now quite mad and have asked officials to step in and remove the atheist « propaganda ». These same officials then said that they will not « act as censors » and that the Atheists have just as much right to buy advertisement. Meanwhile, Atheist organisations are positively giddy that the Catholic clergy is playing their famous « whose religion is more credible » game with them that is usually reserved for more high-profile religions such as scientology.

I will leave you with two things, first a quote by Richard Dawkins (author of « the God Delusion ») on the subject. He said « I don’t object at all to the Christian ads that are going up, especially if they make people think. If more people think for themselves, we’ll have fewer religious people. » Secondly, I leave you with a historical list from my upcoming book. Here is a perfect example of the dire consqeuences that emerge from seemingly banal differences in opinion.

The Crusades
Although the term crusade could, and does, apply to hundreds of religiously-themed conflicts throughout History, the term classically refers to the eight Catholic/Muslim battles for the Holy Land, Jerusalem.

1. The first Crusade (1096-1099) – This conflict opposing “international” Catholics (allied with the Templar Knights) and Muslims (allied with the Jews of Jerusalem) is the only one in which the main objective, Jerusalem, was achieved by the Catholics. Led by a papal legate, the 100,000 crusaders’ main obstacle was to be dissension and quarrelling amongst themselves. Through distractions such as widespread Jewish extermination on their way, several leadership challenges, disease and random conflict, a mere 13,000 crusaders made it to the Holy Land. They were able to occupy the land only because the Muslims were even more divided than they were.

2. The second Crusade (1145-1149) – Following the conquest of Jerusalem, the Muslims had united under a new ruler (Zengi) and had gradually retaken the European territorial possessions. The French and Germans answered the Pope’s call for Crusade; a call which innovatively came with a promise of debt reduction and heavenly benefits from the Vatican. The 30,000 crusaders failed utterly in the Holy Land because their aim was too wide. Along with Jerusalem, they were fighting the Muslims in Spain (successfully) and pagans in North-East Germany (unsuccessfully). The Europeans were shaken to their core due to the failure of their divinely inspired and endorsed campaign.

3. The third Crusade (1187-1192) – 40 years later, a new Muslim Ruler, Saladin, effectively restored the Muslim temples of Jerusalem by destroying all Western presence. 25,000 French, German and English crusaders met an untimely setback when the German Emperor leading the new Crusade drowned in southern Turkey. Few soldiers remained determined to attack Saladin’s army and although they recaptured several cities and outposts around Jerusalem, they never had the strength to regain the Holy City.

4. The fourth Crusade (1198-1204) – With Germany in civil war and France at war with England, the fourth Crusade lacked royal blessing and money. The plan was to attack Egypt by sea and then zip up to Jerusalem by both the Mediterranean and on land through the Sinai. Things went wrong along the way. Firstly, the noblemen that were involved in the ordeal did not have the funds to pay the Venetian boatmakers. Secondly they accepted a bribe from the usurped king of Constantinople in exchange for their help regaining his crown. Finally, when the few remaining crusaders won the Eastern throne for him, the King did not pay and so their last push actually won Constantinople for the West. The warriors of God never made it near the Middle-East.

5. The fifth Crusade (1217-1221) – This time trying to avoid financial obstacles, the Pope set up an impeccable direct funding plan. The crusaders were to retake the above-mentioned Egypt plan yet a lack of Royal involvement and internal dissensions only permitted them to gain a small foothold on the Nile Delta.

6. The sixth Crusade (1228-1229) – German Emperor Frederick II took upon himself to declare his own crusade. With a well-mounted, German expedition, he assailed the Middle-East and negotiated with the Muslim leaders. Although he regained Jerusalem for the Catholic West, the Pope was irked and thus excommunicated Frederick. This is the technicality why we do not consider the sixth crusade a success.

7. The seventh Crusade (1248-1254) – During Frederick and the Pope’s quarrel, Turkish Muslims invaded Jerusalem and thus Louis IX of France organised his own Crusade with preliminary aims towards Egypt. Once again, despite fantastic organisation and strategy, a combination of dysentery, seafaring and underestimating of their enemies brought about very little success for the French Crusaders in Egypt, never-mind the Holy land.

8. The Last Crusade (1270) – A joint operation between Louis IX and Prince Charles of England aimed again for the Eastern Mediterranean coast, but also Tunis. Trying to destroy a maritime Muslim base in Carthage, Louis IX attacked the Tunisian coast and won just before dying of dysentery. At the other end, the English left Sicily by boat and were generally decimated by unfavourable weather. Both fronts were quickly abandoned and the Holy Land was effectively conceded to the Jews and Muslims forever.

(Pictured: A Crusade engraving showing Godly redemption in favour of slicing up Jews and Muslims - One of the London Buses in question)

End.

OMG! A GMO! NO WAY!

January 29th, 2009 – Professor Pamela Ronald from the University of California-Davis has presented to the world a new strain of flood-resistant rice crop. Very few news outlets have even mentionned this revolutionary breakthrough but I certainly will and I hope you will agree it was important enough for your consideration.

Professor Ronald and her team spent the last 13 years genetically modifying rice crops, splicing in a gene that would make them much more resistant to water. After a three-year test in India and Bangladesh, the new crop was found to survive 5-6 times longer than conventional rice plants underwater and thus the farmers ultimately harvested 3-5 times more rice than usual. This highly successful experiment and test will mean that tens of millions of Asian and African and South-American inhabitants will not succumb to famine this year.

Mainstream media have largely ignored this achievement even though professor Ronald’s team has tried to inform the population. A more sensible and politically correct commentator might say that they were busy with the Superbowl, what type of shoes Michelle Obama was wearing and how much more money automobile companies will need before we want to buy their luxury cars again. I for one will be very blunt : the media and the liberal/leftist elites of North America have purposely ignored or sidelined this type of agricultural innovation for decades.

This new rice is not bio, it uses chemicals and pesticides and it is the very definition of a genetically-modified organism (GMO). Health nuts aside, Americans have constantly been told by do-gooders to eat certain product made from certain farms that meet a certain certification and ultimately that all-natural food will be healthier and more tasty. Because they firmy believe the benefits of their bio foods and because it has become a multi-billion dollar industry, the proponents of ‘health food’ or ‘all-natural’ products have spent countless millions in advertisement, popular polls and shifty research that demonize all GMOs. In the case I am citing and in many more in the past, it would sort of be arrogant and stupid of them to protest the feeding of the hungry and the preventing of famine; alhough if you take them to the letter and only grow ‘organic’ food as our ancestors did, our planet could only grow food for about 3 billion people (Who’s gonna tell the other 3.5 that they will now be shot in the head to save the culinary whims of the Western World?). This is why they simply ignored these types of innovation and convinced most media and most of the population to do the same. Case and point, I present to you Mr. Norman Borlaug.

Mr. Borlaug still works today at the age of 94 and although very little people have heard of him, he has probably had more positive impact on the planet and saved more people than Mother Teresa, Ghandi, Superman, Xenu and Jesus combined. Official and academic organisations have roughly calculated Mr. Borlaug’s impact on world society as ‘saving over a billion people from starvation’. How can I possibly not know about this man you might ask. My above explaination is the only theory that fits in my opinion (combined with the sad fact that the Western World rarely cares about the death of millions in Africa and Asia).

Norman Borlaug could have stayed in Minnesota where he received his PhD in 1942 but he went straight to Mexico and in a short decade, began a what researchers call ‘the Green Revolution’ worldwide. Being one of the first specialist of plant genetics, Borlaug developped high-yield and disease-resistant crops for Mexico, Pakistan and India. The result? In 1943 Mexico imported only half of the necessary wheat to feed its people, in 1956 they were self-sufficient and in 1964, Mexico was exporting half a ton of wheat every year. Today, he continues to improve crop genetics for sub-saharan Africa and South-East Asia, as if he hasen’t done enough.

In case you may think I made him up, you can check Mr. Borlaug’s profile by searching for the awards he was discerned including some of America’s greatest honours (the Presidential medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal), India’s top award for a non-citizen (Padma Vibhushan) and the freakin’ Nobel Peace Prize of 1970.

I like to think I did my part today : I will have spread the information of this great breakthrough to a few more people that would have never heard of it. I also subverted the hypocritical and egotistical designs of liberal/I know what’s best/bio food lobbies and finally I have taught a few people about Norman Borlaug, by many standards the greatest human being to have ever lived.

Here’s hoping that professor Ronald will also be okay with the inevitable shunning and obscurity she will have to toil with for the rest of her career.

(Pictured: Norman Borlaug with a few kids that definitely don't care that the only food they have was genetically engineered - Over half the world depend on rice as a primary source of food and living.)

End.