Summer Frivolity: Berkeley Fighting Terrorists, Stanfurd Assisting Them
Most of you are probably familiar with John Yoo. He is a professor at Boalt, and like any noble patriotic American, he assisted our fine government when they asked him. When Bush needed legal cover in order to get away with
In contrast, Stanfurd has been working to aid terrorists in their war against America. Here is the information from the LA Times:
About a third of an ounce of botulinum toxin poured into a milk truck en route from a dairy farm to a processing plant could cause hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions of dollars in economic losses, according to a scientific analysis published Tuesday despite efforts by federal officials to keep the details secret.
The study by Lawrence M. Wein and Yifan Liu of Stanford University discusses such questions as how terrorists could release the toxin and what effective amounts might be.
Awesome Stanfurd! Keep up the good work.
Kidding aside, I agree with the comment in the article that this information is available to terrorists from other sources, and that reports like this actually do more good in helping us to prepare than by aiding the terrorists. Furthermore, universities must remain vigilant against the specter of increasing encroachment from the government into educational research.
Damn straight, stupid Stanfurd liberals. Ever since Stanfurd became a more liberal campus, both facult-wise and student-wise, we’ve also become more conservative in respective ways.
Comment by Anonymous — July 13, 2005 @ 11:10 am
If this information IS already available… what were they researching?
Comment by Beetle — July 13, 2005 @ 12:09 pm
Yes I would like to drink on Saturday!
Comment by John — July 15, 2005 @ 10:50 am
Since when did Cal become “more conservative”? What moron said that?
Comment by anonymous — November 28, 2005 @ 7:38 pm
Cal become more conservative since Prop 209 came into effect. This brought many Asians to Cal, who are far more socially conservative than white people. Jesus, how did this emerge months later?
Comment by Anonymous — November 28, 2005 @ 8:32 pm
Could we get some more anonymous commenters? I don’t think I’m annoyed yet.
Also, it’s really impressive how you conservatives build “facts” out of thin air. I always hear you guys claim asians and other minorities (especially african americans) as social conservatives without any actual evidence. This case is especially hilarious since the data pretty clearly shows more asian prefere Democrats than Republicans. I guess those asians must be real economic liberals, eh? That you would apply it to Berkeley is especially hilarious since in California, even Barbra Boxer got more asian votes than her Asian Republican oppenent, Matt Fong.
There’s a reason Asians come to the bay area instead of “socially conservative” places. Good old-fashioned social liberalism is about plurality and letting people follow their own customs and religions. Social conservatism isn’t.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 29, 2005 @ 4:18 am
Tommaso,
there are plenty of public opinion polls that show how different groups stand on particular issues, and like you said, none of these wieners offer any of them as evidence to back up their claims…
but theres a different reason asians come to the bay area. its closer to asia. oh, and the whole history of the gold rush, railroad, etc, etc. the history of asians in CA, and the bay area in particular HASNT been “about plurality and letting people follow their own customs and religions”. it HAS been about the exact opposite. and even more, it HAS been about economic exploitation. you should know this.
and in general its really silly to pretend that immigration is driven by the social environment in the host locale. immigration is usually about economic considerations, and people move no matter how the host country goes about integrating (or not integrating) them.
Comment by mano — November 29, 2005 @ 4:48 am
Tomasso, want some evidence? Minorities are on average 80% religious while white people are on average 69% religious. Also, since I understand that Tomasso isn’t a minority, if you spend any time at all in an Asian family you will see the social conservatism on average. Ever watched Gilmore Girls?
Comment by Anonymous — November 29, 2005 @ 8:46 am
You are right Mano. Social acceptance isn’t as high on immigrants lists as is other much more important factors. It is a factor, however.
As for Anonymous, since when does religion prove social conservatism? The vast majority of liberals are religious. American Catholics (though not the Catholic hiearchy) especially are more apt to be liberals than other religions and thats exactly the religion disproportionatly represented in immigrants. I am a liberal becuase I am a Catholic and the data shows that the same is true for many asians.
As for my nationality. Both my parents were born and raised in Sicily. My great aunt lived the first 30 years of her life in Sicily and came to American in the 1950s. We’ve only had one political conversation. She explained that being a woman in Sicily sucked and that though she didn’t like divorce and things like she was much happier to live in America where a femminism had opened so many doors for her daughter. Make of that what you will.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 29, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
tomasso, I hope that wasnt the sound of you pretending to be a minority.
Comment by bob — November 29, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
Well my apologies if you’re a minority/foreigner. But my original point, which you have not addressed is the social conservativeness of Asians. I am an Asian-American and can attest to the extreme conservatism of Asians in general. This is true for most Asian households. Although they tend to either not vote, or vote slightly more Democrat (the exit polls has Asians at 44% voting for Bush in 2004), they are socially conservative. I am not Hispanic but I imagine that a similar situation exists with them.
Comment by Anonymous — November 29, 2005 @ 1:05 pm
Its funny, you give folks like these anonymous wieners the opportunity to come back with some actual facts to support their bullshit assertions, and they just flat out refuse to do it. Its such a deliberate ignorance.
anyway, one good way to gauge immigrant political attitudes is to take a look at who wants them to vote and who doesnt. for example:
Comment by Anonymous — November 29, 2005 @ 1:15 pm
I never said immigrants. I said minorities. Plus, there are a lot of conservative Democrats.
Comment by Anonymous — November 29, 2005 @ 1:47 pm
Hey Tommaso-
Did you notice that Catholics favored Bush over Kerry in 2004, 51% - 48% ?
Have you ever been to a Call to Action or VOTF meeting? It’s a bunch of people with gray hair, stuck in the 60’s. The Catholic Left is dying a quick death. This is the John Paul II generation.
Comment by carlito — November 29, 2005 @ 2:22 pm
From the Exit polls:
Asians and Latinos voted 44% for Bush, and races in the “Other” category voted 40% Bush. And for all the talk about Bush’s policies being anti-gay, 23% of gays voted for him. Moreover, most people who said gays should have civil unions voted for Bush over Kerry (52%-47%)
Comment by Anonymous — November 29, 2005 @ 2:43 pm
conclusion: the US is fucked.
Comment by mano — November 29, 2005 @ 3:57 pm
Chancellor Tien. Look it up.
Comment by anonymous — November 29, 2005 @ 4:41 pm
The world is fucked? So voting for Democrats is the answer? Geez, mano. From a “revolutionary” like yourself, I wouldn’t expect it would matter which party people vote for.
When the republicans and democrats start standing for the same thing, we’ve been fooled.
Comment by DTI — November 29, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
Well yes, Catholics are split between the left and right. If anything that strengthens my argument that Catholic Asians shouldn’t be expected to be any more conservative than regular Americans.
As for pretending to be a minority I guess in a technical sense Italian-Americans are very much a minority in American and the Bay Area. Though I wouldn’t compare the racism faced by recent Italian immigrants (like my aunt) to those faced by Asian Americans the experience of emigrating from a very socially conservative area is the same.
I have noticed that politically active Catholics have been aligning more with conservatives. Though this is lamentable I have a hope that this will transfer some measure of social justice into the conservative movement which has been completely lacking. With any luck, the Republicans might be transformed into a kind of European-style Christian Democrat party for America.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 29, 2005 @ 4:56 pm
any “catholic” who votes for politicians that support abortion has removed himself from the Church
Comment by carlito — November 29, 2005 @ 5:28 pm
DTI: wtf? lost your reading comprehension? i said the US is fucked, not the world. and i didnt/wouldnt ever advocate voting for democrats.
Comment by mano — November 29, 2005 @ 5:34 pm
sorry for some reason i thought it said the world
Comment by DTI — November 29, 2005 @ 5:54 pm
I’m a minority too! Name someone else who is 7% french, 15% irish, 24% spanish, 13% italian, 6% danish, 25% portugese, and 10% english!
Comment by minority white man — November 29, 2005 @ 6:01 pm
“I’m a minority too! Name someone else who is 7% french, 15% irish, 24% spanish, 13% italian, 6% danish, 25% portugese, and 10% english!”
lol manoob and da affirmative action circle jerk crew just got ownT.
-smashT
” =) “
Comment by smashT — November 29, 2005 @ 6:55 pm
Anti-choice Catholics in this country are fools if they think the Republican Party will ever outlaw abortion. The American public (and a large minority of Republicans) support Roe v. Wade. Even a third of Catholics do! It’s political permanence is underscored everyday that a “pro-life” president and a “pro-life” house sit on their asses instead of trying to pass an anti-choice amendment. They certainly aren’t shy of passing anti-gay and anti-flag-burning amendments. In a way I think that’s the real insult. Republicans think an anti-choice amendment is such a loser they won’t even try to drum up a phony attempt at passing it like the anti-gay amendment.
People like yourself, carlito, who want to equivocate voting Republican with voting against abortion are just encouraging Catholics to give up the vast majority of their political goals (social justice, anti-death-penalty, etc.) for fools gold.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 29, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
If I’m anti-choice, Tomasso, then my opponents are anti-life.
I’m sick of choice and life. People should just call it out for what it really is. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion.
Comment by Anonymous — November 30, 2005 @ 12:23 am
well, actually, I would say the same thing about voting for Schwarzenegger and Giuliani and Specter and all the baby killers in the republican party.
and yes, if you support abortion then you have separated yourself from the Catholic Church.
Comment by carlito — November 30, 2005 @ 8:44 am
Anon, anti-abortion is clear, but pro-abortion is a sucky counter-designation, since people who are pro-choice arent necessarily advocating abortion, they are advocating access to it. yeah it means they dont see it as murder, but that doesnt mean they think its like, something to celebrate.
Comment by mano — November 30, 2005 @ 9:52 am
Thanks but no thanks, Anonymous. I’m not any more pro-abortion than I am pro-root-canal. In my perfect world, no one would ever have to get either. That’s not some eccentric personal view, pro-choice Americans have consistently supported the idea that abortions should be safe legal and rare.
I think one of the really sad things about the Roe v. Wade debate is that pro-life forces, lead by some really far far right people, have blocked middle way attempts at working with pro-choice groups to ensure that fewer abortions are needed. Even a majority of American Catholics have no problems with birth control and we can assume a lot would support its use to prevent abortions. That view isn’t reflected by the pro-life political arm of the Republican Party. A lot of them act like the point of being pro-life is to scare people into not having sex by threatening them with having to take care of children. How else to explain the “pro-life except rape or incest” routine which is held by so many Republicans?
Let’s just call it pro-life and pro-choice like the media does. It’s imperfect. But it’ll have to do.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 30, 2005 @ 11:54 am
Are my posts being blocked for some reason?
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 30, 2005 @ 11:55 am
I think one of the really sad things about the Roe v. Wade debate is that pro-life forces, lead by some really far far right people, have blocked middle way attempts at working with pro-choice groups to ensure that fewer abortions are needed. Even a majority of American Catholics have no problems with birth control and we can assume a lot would support its use to prevent abortions.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — November 30, 2005 @ 11:58 am
That view isn’t reflected by the pro-life political arm of the Republican Party. A lot of them act like the point of being pro-life is to scare people into not having sex by threatening them with having to take care of children. How else to explain the “pro-life except rape or incest” routine which is held by so many Republicans?
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino take 2 — November 30, 2005 @ 12:02 pm
Calstuff seems to be blocking me from posting my next paragraph. What’s up with that?
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino take 2 — November 30, 2005 @ 12:03 pm
Opus Dei has taken control of calstuff. bow down.
Comment by carlito — November 30, 2005 @ 12:29 pm
Because you mentioned incest, dude. I think this will be moderated, too. Just be patient.
Comment by Beetle — November 30, 2005 @ 1:50 pm
Hmmm. From now on I’ll call it the less offensive “parent-on-progeny-action”.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino take 2 — November 30, 2005 @ 2:02 pm
WTF how many Republicans do you know that are pro-life on rape? Come on now.
Comment by Anonymous — November 30, 2005 @ 9:13 pm
Yeah, that’s the point. If it really was a matter of saving lives, being conceived by rape wouldn’t matter.
Comment by Beetle — November 30, 2005 @ 9:33 pm
Tomasso seems to apply his reasoning that Republicans are bad to mean that they don’t want abortions in any case. A person with feelings that Democrats are bad to interpret them as allowing abortions right before the baby’s head is about to depart the uterus.
News flash. Most Americans support abortion when the mother’s life is threatened, incest or rape, and oppose abortion in the third trimester. It’s not as polarizing as all or nothing, and certainly people who are all or nothing are in the very small minority yet very vocal minority. Maybe that’s why Tomasso is baffled because he sees so many pro-life and pro-choice protestors supporting extremist views.
Comment by Anonymous — November 30, 2005 @ 10:19 pm
What are yuou talking about? Seriously, I thinkyou misunderstood my point becuase you seem to be taking a tone where you disagree with me but then turn around and agree with every point I make.
To recap:
1. We’re talking about pro-life Catholics. The vast majority of these people do not believe in abortion ever. Not even in case of rape or inc*st.
2. I agree with you that most Republicans do support abortion in some cases.
3. The “extreme” pro-life position held by Catholics is morally and intellectually coherant: If you really believe a fetus is a human being then killing it is always wrong (except perhaps if the life of the mother is threatened).
4. The “not-extreme” pro-life position which (you agree) is held by most Republicans is immoral and intellectually incoherant. If it is ok to abort a fetus caused by rape, then you obviously don’t consider the fetus a human being. The only remaining reason to oppose abortion is presumebly becuase you think babies are a good way of punishing sluts.
This was a sub-point I was making while on the way to arguing that pro-life Catholics would do better to recognize that Republicans are not serious about abolishing abortion (even with all the provisos of the “non-extreme” kind).
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — December 1, 2005 @ 7:43 am