Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in laszlo kovacs' LiveJournal:

[ << Previous 20 ]

Friday, January 23rd, 2009
10:32 am	I wish I had a double Looks less upright, less fevered, less fun... www.nytimes.com/2009/01/24/world/asia/24norkor.html (Comment on this)
Sunday, December 7th, 2008
3:48 am	From Nature Online - sweet-- the time in nigh for sweeping "recreational drugabuse" reform Towards responsible use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by the healthy Henry Greely1, Barbara Sahakian2, John Harris3, Ronald C. Kessler4, Michael Gazzaniga5, Philip Campbell6 & Martha J. Farah7 Henry Greely is at Stanford Law School, Crown Quadrangle, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305-8610, USA. Email: hgreely@stanford.edu Barbara Sahakian is at the Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, and MRC/Wellcome Trust Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, Cambridge, UK. Email: jenny.hall@cpft.nhs.uk John Harris is at the Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation, and Wellcome Strategic Programme in The Human Body, its Scope, Limits and Future, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, UK. Email: john.harris@manchester.ac.uk Ronald C. Kessler is at Harvard Medical School, Department of Health Care Policy, 180 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts 02115-5899, USA. Email: kessler@hcp.med.harvard.edu Michael Gazzaniga is at the Sage Center for the Study of Mind, University of California, Santa Barbara, California 93106-9660, USA. Email: m.gazzaniga@psych.ucsb.edu Philip Campbell is at Nature, 4 Crinan St, London N1 9XW, UK. Email: nature@nature.com Martha J. Farah is at the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, 3720 Walnut Street, Room B51, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6241, USA. Email: mfarah@psych.upenn.edu Top of page Abstract Society must respond to the growing demand for cognitive enhancement. That response must start by rejecting the idea that 'enhancement' is a dirty word, argue Henry Greely and colleagues. Today, on university campuses around the world, students are striking deals to buy and sell prescription drugs such as Adderall and Ritalin — not to get high, but to get higher grades, to provide an edge over their fellow students or to increase in some measurable way their capacity for learning. These transactions are crimes in the United States, punishable by prison. Many people see such penalties as appropriate, and consider the use of such drugs to be cheating, unnatural or dangerous. Yet one survey1 estimated that almost 7% of students in US universities have used prescription stimulants in this way, and that on some campuses, up to 25% of students had used them in the past year. These students are early adopters of a trend that is likely to grow, and indications suggest that they're not alone2. In this article, we propose actions that will help society accept the benefits of enhancement, given appropriate research and evolved regulation. Prescription drugs are regulated as such not for their enhancing properties but primarily for considerations of safety and potential abuse. Still, cognitive enhancement has much to offer individuals and society, and a proper societal response will involve making enhancements available while managing their risks. Paths to enhancement Many of the medications used to treat psychiatric and neurological conditions also improve the performance of the healthy. The drugs most commonly used for cognitive enhancement at present are stimulants, namely Ritalin (methyphenidate) and Adderall (mixed amphetamine salts), and are prescribed mainly for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Because of their effects on the catecholamine system, these drugs increase executive functions in patients and most healthy normal people, improving their abilities to focus their attention, manipulate information in working memory and flexibly control their responses3. These drugs are widely used therapeutically. With rates of ADHD in the range of 4–7% among US college students using DSM criteria4, and stimulant medication the standard therapy, there are plenty of these drugs on campus to divert to enhancement use. C. GALLAGHER/SPL Adderall is one of several drugs increasingly used to enhance cognitive function. A newer drug, modafinil (Provigil), has also shown enhancement potential. Modafinil is approved for the treatment of fatigue caused by narcolepsy, sleep apnoea and shift-work sleep disorder. It is currently prescribed off label for a wide range of neuropsychiatric and other medical conditions involving fatigue5 as well as for healthy people who need to stay alert and awake when sleep deprived, such as physicians on night call6. In addition, laboratory studies have shown that modafinil enhances aspects of executive function in rested healthy adults, particularly inhibitory control7. Unlike Adderall and Ritalin, however, modafinil prescriptions are not common, and the drug is consequently rare on the college black market. But anecdotal evidence and a readers' survey both suggest that adults sometimes obtain modafinil from their physicians or online for enhancement purposes2. A modest degree of memory enhancement is possible with the ADHD medications just mentioned as well as with medications developed for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease such as Aricept (donepezil), which raise levels of acetylcholine in the brain8. Several other compounds with different pharmacological actions are in early clinical trials, having shown positive effects on memory in healthy research subjects (see, for example, ref. 9). It is too early to know whether any of these new drugs will be proven safe and effective, but if one is it will surely be sought by healthy middle-aged and elderly people contending with normal age-related memory decline, as well as by people of all ages preparing for academic or licensure examinations. Favouring innovation Human ingenuity has given us means of enhancing our brains through inventions such as written language, printing and the Internet. Most authors of this Commentary are teachers and strive to enhance the minds of their students, both by adding substantive information and by showing them new and better ways to process that information. And we are all aware of the abilities to enhance our brains with adequate exercise, nutrition and sleep. The drugs just reviewed, along with newer technologies such as brain stimulation and prosthetic brain chips, should be viewed in the same general category as education, good health habits, and information technology — ways that our uniquely innovative species tries to improve itself. Of course, no two enhancements are equivalent in every way, and some of the differences have moral relevance. For example, the benefits of education require some effort at self-improvement whereas the benefits of sleep do not. Enhancing by nutrition involves changing what we ingest and is therefore invasive in a way that reading is not. The opportunity to benefit from Internet access is less equitably distributed than the opportunity to benefit from exercise. Cognitive-enhancing drugs require relatively little effort, are invasive and for the time being are not equitably distributed, but none of these provides reasonable grounds for prohibition. Drugs may seem distinctive among enhancements in that they bring about their effects by altering brain function, but in reality so does any intervention that enhances cognition. Recent research has identified beneficial neural changes engendered by exercise10, nutrition11 and sleep12, as well as instruction13 and reading14. In short, cognitive-enhancing drugs seem morally equivalent to other, more familiar, enhancements. Many people have doubts about the moral status of enhancement drugs for reasons ranging from the pragmatic to the philosophical, including concerns about short-circuiting personal agency and undermining the value of human effort15. Kass16, for example, has written of the subtle but, in his view, important differences between human enhancement through biotechnology and through more traditional means. Such arguments have been persuasively rejected (for example, ref. 17). Three arguments against the use of cognitive enhancement by the healthy quickly bubble to the surface in most discussions: that it is cheating, that it is unnatural and that it amounts to drug abuse. In the context of sports, pharmacological performance enhancement is indeed cheating. But, of course, it is cheating because it is against the rules. Any good set of rules would need to distinguish today's allowed cognitive enhancements, from private tutors to double espressos, from the newer methods, if they are to be banned. We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. As for an appeal to the 'natural', the lives of almost all living humans are deeply unnatural; our homes, our clothes and our food — to say nothing of the medical care we enjoy — bear little relation to our species' 'natural' state. Given the many cognitive-enhancing tools we accept already, from writing to laptop computers, why draw the line here and say, thus far but no further? As for enhancers' status as drugs, drug abuse is a major social ill, and both medicinal and recreational drugs are regulated because of possible harms to the individual and society. But drugs are regulated on a scale that subjectively judges the potential for harm from the very dangerous (heroin) to the relatively harmless (caffeine). Given such regulation, the mere fact that cognitive enhancers are drugs is no reason to outlaw them. Based on our considerations, we call for a presumption that mentally competent adults should be able to engage in cognitive enhancement using drugs. Substantive concerns and policy goals All technologies have risks as well as benefits. Although we reject the arguments against enhancement just reviewed, we recognize at least three substantive ethical concerns. The first concern is safety. Cognitive enhancements affect the most complex and important human organ, and the risk of unintended side effects is therefore both high and consequential. Although regulations governing medicinal drugs ensure that they are safe and effective for their therapeutic indications, there is no equivalent vetting for unregulated 'off label' uses, including enhancement uses. Furthermore, acceptable safety in this context depends on the potential benefit. For example, a drug that restored good cognitive functioning to people with severe dementia but caused serious adverse medical events might be deemed safe enough to prescribe, but these risks would be unacceptable for healthy individuals seeking enhancement. Enhancement in children raises additional issues related to the long-term effects on the developing brain. Moreover, the possibility of raising cognitive abilities beyond their species-typical upper bound may engender new classes of side effects. Persistence of unwanted recollections, for example, has clearly negative effects on the psyche18. An evidence-based approach is required to evaluate the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement. At a minimum, an adequate policy should include mechanisms for the assessment of both risks and benefits for enhancement uses of drugs and devices, with special attention to long-term effects on development and to the possibility of new types of side effects unique to enhancement. But such considerations should not lead to an insistence on higher thresholds than those applied to medications. We call for an evidence-based approach to the evaluation of the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement. The second concern is freedom, specifically freedom from coercion to enhance. Forcible medication is generally reserved for rare cases in which individuals are deemed threats to themselves or others. In contrast, cognitive enhancement in the form of education is required for almost all children at some substantial cost to their liberty, and employers are generally free to require employees to have certain educational credentials or to obtain them. Should schools and employers be allowed to require pharmaceutical enhancement as well? And if we answer 'no' to this question, could coercion occur indirectly, by the need to compete with enhanced classmates and colleagues? Questions of coercion and autonomy are particularly acute for military personnel and for children. Soldiers in the United States and elsewhere have long been offered stimulant medications including amphetamine and modafinil to enhance alertness, and in the United States are legally required to take medications if ordered to for the sake of their military performance19. For similar reasons, namely the safety of the individual in question and others who depend on that individual in dangerous situations, one could imagine other occupations for which enhancement might be justifiably required. A hypothetical example is an extremely safe drug that enabled surgeons to save more patients. Would it be wrong to require this drug for risky operations? Appropriate policy should prohibit coercion except in specific circumstances for specific occupations, justified by substantial gains in safety. It should also discourage indirect coercion. Employers, schools or governments should not generally require the use of cognitive enhancements. If particular enhancements are shown to be sufficiently safe and effective, this position might be revisited for those interventions. Children once again represent a special case as they cannot make their own decisions. Comparisons between estimates of ADHD prevalence and prescription numbers have led some to suspect that children in certain school districts are taking enhancing drugs at the behest of achievement-oriented parents, or teachers seeking more orderly classrooms20. Governments may be willing to let competent adults take certain risks for the sake of enhancement while restricting the ability to take such risky decisions on behalf of children. The third concern is fairness. Consider an examination that only a certain percentage can pass. It would seem unfair to allow some, but not all, students to use cognitive enhancements, akin to allowing some students taking a maths test to use a calculator while others must go without. (Mitigating such unfairness may raise issues of indirect coercion, as discussed above.) Of course, in some ways, this kind of unfairness already exists. Differences in education, including private tutoring, preparatory courses and other enriching experiences give some students an advantage over others. Whether the cognitive enhancement is substantially unfair may depend on its availability, and on the nature of its effects. Does it actually improve learning or does it just temporarily boost exam performance? In the latter case it would prevent a valid measure of the competency of the examinee and would therefore be unfair. But if it were to enhance long-term learning, we may be more willing to accept enhancement. After all, unlike athletic competitions, in many cases cognitive enhancements are not zero-sum games. Cognitive enhancement, unlike enhancement for sports competitions, could lead to substantive improvements in the world. Fairness in cognitive enhancements has a dimension beyond the individual. If cognitive enhancements are costly, they may become the province of the rich, adding to the educational advantages they already enjoy. One could mitigate this inequity by giving every exam-taker free access to cognitive enhancements, as some schools provide computers during exam week to all students. This would help level the playing field. Policy governing the use of cognitive enhancement in competitive situations should avoid exacerbating socioeconomic inequalities, and should take into account the validity of enhanced test performance. In developing policy for this purpose, problems of enforcement must also be considered. In spite of stringent regulation, athletes continue to use, and be caught using, banned performance-enhancing drugs. We call for enforceable policies concerning the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs to support fairness, protect individuals from coercion and minimize enhancement-related socioeconomic disparities. Maximum benefit, minimum harm SPL The prescription drug Ritalin is illegally traded among students. The new methods of cognitive enhancement are 'disruptive technologies' that could have a profound effect on human life in the twenty-first century. A laissez-faire approach to these methods will leave us at the mercy of powerful market forces that are bound to be unleashed by the promise of increased productivity and competitive advantage. The concerns about safety, freedom and fairness, just reviewed, may well seem less important than the attractions of enhancement, for sellers and users alike. Motivated by some of the same considerations, Fukuyama21 has proposed the formation of new laws and regulatory structures to protect against the harms of unrestrained biotechnological enhancement. In contrast, we suggest a policy that is neither laissez-faire nor primarily legislative. We propose to use a variety of scientific, professional, educational and social resources, in addition to legislation, to shape a rational, evidence-based policy informed by a wide array of relevant experts and stake-holders. Specifically, we propose four types of policy mechanism. The first mechanism is an accelerated programme of research to build a knowledge base concerning the usage, benefits and associated risks of cognitive enhancements. Good policy is based on good information, and there is currently much we do not know about the short- and long-term benefits and risks of the cognitive-enhancement drugs currently being used, and about who is using them and why. For example, what are the patterns of use outside of the United States and outside of college communities? What are the risks of dependence when used for cognitive enhancement? What special risks arise with the enhancement of children's cognition? How big are the effects of currently available enhancers? Do they change 'cognitive style', as well as increasing how quickly and accurately we think? And given that most research so far has focused on simple laboratory tasks, how do they affect cognition in the real world? Do they increase the total knowledge and understanding that students take with them from a course? How do they affect various aspects of occupational performance? We call for a programme of research into the use and impacts of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals. The second mechanism is the participation of relevant professional organizations in formulating guidelines for their members in relation to cognitive enhancement. Many different professions have a role in dispensing, using or working with people who use cognitive enhancers. By creating policy at the level of professional societies, it will be informed by the expertise of these professionals, and their commitment to the goals of their profession. One group to which this recommendation applies is physicians, particularly in primary care, paediatrics and psychiatry, who are most likely to be asked for cognitive enhancers. These physicians are sometimes asked to prescribe for enhancement by patients who exaggerate or fabricate symptoms of ADHD, but they also receive frank requests, as when a patient says "I know I don't meet diagnostic criteria for ADHD, but I sometimes have trouble concentrating and staying organized, and it would help me to have some Ritalin on hand for days when I really need to be on top of things at work." Physicians who view medicine as devoted to healing will view such prescribing as inappropriate, whereas those who view medicine more broadly as helping patients live better or achieve their goals would be open to considering such a request22. There is certainly a precedent for this broader view in certain branches of medicine, including plastic surgery, dermatology, sports medicine and fertility medicine. Because physicians are the gatekeepers to medications discussed here, society looks to them for guidance on the use of these medications and devices, and guidelines from other professional groups will need to take into account the gatekeepers' policies. For this reason, the responsibilities that physicians bear for the consequences of their decisions are particularly sensitive, being effectively decisions for all of us. It would therefore be helpful if physicians as a profession gave serious consideration to the ethics of appropriate prescribing of cognitive enhancers, and consulted widely as to how to strike the balance of limits for patient benefit and protection in a liberal democracy. Examples of such limits in other areas of enhancement medicine include the psychological screening of candidates for cosmetic surgery or tubal ligation, and upper bounds on maternal age or number of embryos transferred in fertility treatments. These examples of limits may not be specified by law, but rather by professional standards. Other professional groups to which this recommendation applies include educators and human-resource professionals. In different ways, each of these professions has responsibility for fostering and evaluating cognitive performance and for advising individuals who are seeking to improve their performance, and some responsibility also for protecting the interests of those in their charge. In contrast to physicians, these professionals have direct conflicts of interest that must be addressed in whatever guidelines they recommend: liberal use of cognitive enhancers would be expected to encourage classroom order and raise standardized measures of student achievement, both of which are in the interests of schools; it would also be expected to promote workplace productivity, which is in the interests of employers. Educators, academic admissions officers and credentials evaluators are normally responsible for ensuring the validity and integrity of their examinations, and should be tasked with formulating policies concerning enhancement by test-takers. Laws pertaining to testing accommodations for people with disabilities provide a starting point for discussion of some of the key issues, such as how and when enhancements undermine the validity of a test result and the conditions under which enhancement should be disclosed by a test-taker. MIKA/ZEFA/CORBIS When should cognitive-enhancing drugs be permitted in the classroom? The labour and professional organizations of individuals who are candidates for on-the-job cognitive enhancement make up our final category of organization that should formulate enhancement policy. From assembly line workers to surgeons, many different kinds of employee may benefit from enhancement and want access to it, yet they may also need protection from the pressure to enhance. We call for physicians, educators, regulators and others to collaborate in developing policies that address the use of cognitive-enhancing drugs by healthy individuals. The third mechanism is education to increase public understanding of cognitive enhancement. This would be provided by physicians, teachers, college health centres and employers, similar to the way that information about nutrition, recreational drugs and other public-health information is now disseminated. Ideally it would also involve discussions of different ways of enhancing cognition, including through adequate sleep, exercise and education, and an examination of the social values and pressures that make cognitive enhancement so attractive and even, seemingly, necessary. Many kinds of employee may benefit from enhancement. We call for information to be broadly disseminated concerning the risks, benefits and alternatives to pharmaceutical cognitive enhancement. The fourth mechanism is legislative. Fundamentally new laws or regulatory agencies are not needed. Instead, existing law should be brought into line with emerging social norms and information about safety. Drug law is one of the most controversial areas of law, and it would be naive to expect rapid or revolutionary change in the laws governing the use of controlled substances. Nevertheless, these laws should be adjusted to avoid making felons out of those who seek to use safe cognitive enhancements. And regulatory agencies should allow pharmaceutical companies to market cognitive-enhancing drugs to healthy adults provided they have supplied the necessary regulatory data for safety and efficacy. We call for careful and limited legislative action to channel cognitive-enhancement technologies into useful paths. Conclusion Like all new technologies, cognitive enhancement can be used well or poorly. We should welcome new methods of improving our brain function. In a world in which human workspans and lifespans are increasing, cognitive enhancement tools — including the pharmacological — will be increasingly useful for improved quality of life and extended work productivity, as well as to stave off normal and pathological age-related cognitive declines23. Safe and effective cognitive enhancers will benefit both the individual and society. But it would also be foolish to ignore problems that such use of drugs could create or exacerbate. With this, as with other technologies, we need to think and work hard to maximize its benefits and minimize its harms. Join the debate on this topic at Nature Network http://tinyurl.com/6nyu29 Top of page References McCabe, S. E., Knight, J. R., Teter, C. J. & Wechsler, H. Addiction 100, 96–106 (2005). Maher, B. Nature 452, 674–675 (2008). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | Sahakian, B. & Morein-Zamir, S. Nature 450, 1157–1159 (2007). | Article | Weyandt, L. L & DuPaul, G. J. Atten. Disord. 10, 9–19 (2006). Minzenberg, M. J. & Carter, C. S. Neuropsychopharmacology 33, 1477–1502 (2008). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort | Vastag, B. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 291, 167–170 (2004). Turner, D. C. et al. Psychopharmacology 165, 260–269 (2003). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Grön, G., Kirstein, M., Thielscher, A., Riepe, M. W. & Spitzer, M. Psychopharmacology 182, 170–179 (2005). Lynch, G. & Gall C. M. Trends Neurosci. 29, 554–562 (2006). Hillman, C. H., Erikson, K. I. & Kramer, A. F. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 9, 58–65 (2008). | Article | Almeida, S. S. et al. Nutr. Neurosci. 5, 311–320 (2002). Boonstra, T. W., Stins, J. F., Daffertshofer, A. & Beek, P. J. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 64, 934–946 (2007). Draganski, B. et al. Nature 427, 311–312 (2004). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Schlaggar, B. L. & McCandliss, B. D. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 475–503 (2007). Farah, M. J. et al. Nature Rev. Neurosci. 5, 421–425 (2004). | Article | Kass, L. R. et al. Beyond Therapy: Biotechnology and the Pursuit of Happiness (President's Council on Bioethics, 2003); available at http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/beyondtherapy. Harris, J. Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People (Princeton Univ. Press, 2007). Schacter, D. L. Seven Sins of Memory (Houghton Mifflin, 2002). Moreno, J. D. Mind Wars: Brain Research and National Defense (Dana Press, 2006). Diller, L. H. Hastings Cent. Rep. 26, 12–18 (1996). | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort | Fukuyama, F. Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2002). Chatterjee, A. Neurology 63, 968–974 (2004). Beddington, J. et al. Nature 455, 1057–1060 (2008). | Article | Top of page Acknowledgements This article is the result of a seminar held by the authors at Rockefeller University. Funds for the seminar were provided by Rockefeller University and Nature. Competing interests statement The authors declare  competing financial interests. N (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 5th, 2008
2:00 pm	November 3, 2008 Open letter to Senator Barack Obama Dear Senator Obama: In your nearly two-year presidential campaign, the words "hope and change," "change and hope" have been your trademark declarations. Yet there is an asymmetry between those objectives and your political character that succumbs to contrary centers of power that want not "hope and change" but the continuation of the power-entrenched status quo. Far more than Senator McCain, you have received enormous, unprecedented contributions from corporate interests, Wall Street interests and, most interestingly, big corporate law firm attorneys. Never before has a Democratic nominee for President achieved this supremacy over his Republican counterpart. Why, apart from your unconditional vote for the $700 billion Wall Street bailout, are these large corporate interests investing so much in Senator Obama? Could it be that in your state Senate record, your U.S. Senate record and your presidential campaign record (favoring nuclear power, coal plants, offshore oil drilling, corporate subsidies including the 1872 Mining Act and avoiding any comprehensive program to crack down on the corporate crime wave and the bloated, wasteful military budget, for example) you have shown that you are their man? To advance change and hope, the presidential persona requires character, courage, integrity-- not expediency, accommodation and short-range opportunism. Take, for example, your transformation from an articulate defender of Palestinian rights in Chicago before your run for the U.S. Senate to an acolyte, a dittoman for the hard-line AIPAC lobby, which bolsters the militaristic oppression, occupation, blockage, colonization and land-water seizures over the years of the Palestinian peoples and their shrunken territories in the West Bank and Gaza. Eric Alterman summarized numerous polls in a December 2007 issue of The Nation magazine showing that AIPAC policies are opposed by a majority of Jewish-Americans. You know quite well that only when the U.S. Government supports the Israeli and Palestinian peace movements, that years ago worked out a detailed two-state solution (which is supported by a majority of Israelis and Palestinians), will there be a chance for a peaceful resolution of this 60-year plus conflict. Yet you align yourself with the hard-liners, so much so that in your infamous, demeaning speech to the AIPAC convention right after you gained the nomination of the Democratic Party, you supported an "undivided Jerusalem," and opposed negotiations with Hamas-- the elected government in Gaza. Once again, you ignored the will of the Israeli people who, in a March 1, 2008 poll by the respected newspaper Haaretz, showed that 64% of Israelis favored "direct negotiations with Hamas." Siding with the AIPAC hard-liners is what one of the many leading Palestinians advocating dialogue and peace with the Israeli people was describing when he wrote "Anti-semitism today is the persecution of Palestinian society by the Israeli state." During your visit to Israel this summer, you scheduled a mere 45 minutes of your time for Palestinians with no news conference, and no visit to Palestinian refugee camps that would have focused the media on the brutalization of the Palestinians. Your trip supported the illegal, cruel blockade of Gaza in defiance of international law and the United Nations charter. You focused on southern Israeli casualties which during the past year have totaled one civilian casualty to every 400 Palestinian casualties on the Gaza side. Instead of a statesmanship that decried all violence and its replacement with acceptance of the Arab League's 2002 proposal to permit a viable Palestinian state within the 1967 borders in return for full economic and diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel, you played the role of a cheap politician, leaving the area and Palestinians with the feeling of much shock and little awe. David Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, described your trip succinctly: "There was almost a willful display of indifference to the fact that there are two narratives here. This could serve him well as a candidate, but not as a President." Palestinian American commentator, Ali Abunimah, noted that Obama did not utter a single criticism of Israel, "of its relentless settlement and wall construction, of the closures that make life unlivable for millions of Palestinians. ...Even the Bush administration recently criticized Israeli's use of cluster bombs against Lebanese civilians [see www.atfl.org for elaboration]. But Obama defended Israeli's assault on Lebanon as an exercise of its 'legitimate right to defend itself.'" In numerous columns Gideon Levy, writing in Haaretz, strongly criticized the Israeli government's assault on civilians in Gaza, including attacks on "the heart of a crowded refugee camp... with horrible bloodshed" in early 2008. Israeli writer and peace advocate-- Uri Avnery-- described Obama's appearance before AIPAC as one that "broke all records for obsequiousness and fawning, adding that Obama "is prepared to sacrifice the most basic American interests. After all, the US has a vital interest in achieving an Israeli-Palestinian peace that will allow it to find ways to the hearts of the Arab masses from Iraq to Morocco. Obama has harmed his image in the Muslim world and mortgaged his future-- if and when he is elected president.," he said, adding, "Of one thing I am certain: Obama's declarations at the AIPAC conference are very, very bad for peace. And what is bad for peace is bad for Israel, bad for the world and bad for the Palestinian people." A further illustration of your deficiency of character is the way you turned your back on the Muslim-Americans in this country. You refused to send surrogates to speak to voters at their events. Having visited numerous churches and synagogues, you refused to visit a single Mosque in America. Even George W. Bush visited the Grand Mosque in Washington D.C. after 9/11 to express proper sentiments of tolerance before a frightened major religious group of innocents. Although the New York Times published a major article on June 24, 2008 titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama" (by Andrea Elliott), citing examples of your aversion to these Americans who come from all walks of life, who serve in the armed forces and who work to live the American dream. Three days earlier the International Herald Tribune published an article by Roger Cohen titled "Why Obama Should Visit a Mosque." None of these comments and reports change your political bigotry against Muslim-Americans-- even though your father was a Muslim from Kenya. Perhaps nothing illustrated your utter lack of political courage or even the mildest version of this trait than your surrendering to demands of the hard-liners to prohibit former president Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention. This is a tradition for former presidents and one accorded in prime time to Bill Clinton this year. Here was a President who negotiated peace between Israel and Egypt, but his recent book pressing the dominant Israeli superpower to avoid Apartheid of the Palestinians and make peace was all that it took to sideline him. Instead of an important address to the nation by Jimmy Carter on this critical international problem, he was relegated to a stroll across the stage to "tumultuous applause," following a showing of a film about the Carter Center's post-Katrina work. Shame on you, Barack Obama! But then your shameful behavior has extended to many other areas of American life. (See the factual analysis by my running mate, Matt Gonzalez, on www.votenader.org). You have turned your back on the 100-million poor Americans composed of poor whites, African-Americans, and Latinos. You always mention helping the "middle class" but you omit, repeatedly, mention of the "poor" in America. Should you be elected President, it must be more than an unprecedented upward career move following a brilliantly unprincipled campaign that spoke "change" yet demonstrated actual obeisance to the concentration power of the "corporate supremacists." It must be about shifting the power from the few to the many. It must be a White House presided over by a black man who does not turn his back on the downtrodden here and abroad but challenges the forces of greed, dictatorial control of labor, consumers and taxpayers, and the militarization of foreign policy. It must be a White House that is transforming of American politics-- opening it up to the public funding of elections (through voluntary approaches)-- and allowing smaller candidates to have a chance to be heard on debates and in the fullness of their now restricted civil liberties. Call it a competitive democracy. Your presidential campaign again and again has demonstrated cowardly stands. "Hope" some say springs eternal." But not when "reality" consumes it daily. Sincerely, Ralph Nader (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, September 6th, 2008
8:00 am	Motherfucker! I however was victorious today 89-54 The Islands of Stomach are 1-0, under the steam of Drew Brees and Frank Gore. --regarding Brady...I'm a little surprised by the journalistic outpouring words like 'hero' and 'courage' are being thrown around in the place of 'villain' and 'heartthrob' (Comment on this)
Saturday, July 19th, 2008
10:01 pm	quantumfuckingleap seriously. one of the best movies of alltime. (6 Comments |Comment on this)
Saturday, May 17th, 2008
3:58 pm	warhol crossed with solondz? this is what happens when you forget to die. (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Monday, March 10th, 2008
9:56 am	Espanol to Ingles Dos: Mi ropa favorita   "My clothing is my favorite wool jacket. My jacket is black and gray with six botóns. The wool is very comfortable in winter and in summer impractical. Much liked my jacket because it is very durable and can take with all my pants. The jacket is of Cherokee strike and I bought the store Target for very cheap price. Specifically, my clothes are shirt / jacket hybrid and I use a lot more. When I use my jacket, I can work in construction with little perturbo. The jacket is not trendy, but I prefer classic clothes because I am man classic." Texts from foreign lands should be automatically translated.  I've already begun work.  A(nother) new language. Anything to distract Chomsky. -My current listen when overheard by my peers betrays a false identity too fully worn for words. Current Music: Beckett- Krapp's Last Tape (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Monday, March 3rd, 2008
10:16 pm	Close to Home (Comment on this)
Friday, February 1st, 2008
9:52 am	papel de español: numero uno  My amazing Monday Me typical Monday I consist of school, television, and food.  I have Monday is very interesting.   In the morning I me awake at half past six and as to have breakfast.  At half past seven I bike ride to the university.  At eight in the morning this the class of literature of James Joyce; the class is very difficult and insist a lot to read.  At nine in the morning I road to the library and study for two hours before the Spanish class with the very intelligent teacher, Mrs Melissa Caddy.  After class of Spaniard, I return to my apartment and as my lunch.  To one thirty, I return to North Texas and I attend the class of geology and laboratory.  Finally, my day of school is complete.  I return my apartment and as supper with my girlfriend.  Stefanie is good cook and he prepares very alimentary food.  Last, we look at television and we impress of quality.   As the evidence shows, my typical Monday is very interests.  I write and I write excellent.   Translation courtesy: Translation Services (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
9:12 pm	Fact The protagonist of James Joyce's Ulysses, Leopold Bloom, was visualized during the writing as resembling in dress and manner Charlie Chaplin's Little Tramp.  Exhaustive evidence of this can apparently be found in Joyce's personal journals from 1916-1922.  I think it's now safe to argue that the Little Tramp is the most influential figure of twentieth century popular culture. Current Mood: speculative Current Music: henry thomas - fishing blues (2 Comments |Comment on this)
Friday, January 25th, 2008
12:49 am	Organazized.   a grocery list is inscribed upon the back. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, January 24th, 2008
11:28 pm	poetry American football, known in the United States simply as football, is a competitive team sport known for mixing complex strategy with intense physical play. The object of the game is to score points by advancing the pointed-oval shaped ball into the opposing team's end zone. The ball can be advanced by carrying it (a running play) or by throwing it to a teammate (a passing play). Points can be scored in a variety of ways, including carrying the ball over the goal line, catching a pass from beyond the goal line, tackling an opposing ball carrier in his own end zone, or kicking the ball through the goal posts on the opposing side. The winner is the team with the most points when time expires at the end of the last play. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, January 22nd, 2008
10:14 pm	God hates Terry Gilliam Another magnum opus run aground by unforeseen obstacles, in this case the death of Heath Ledger. Tideland must've truly been awful. (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Thursday, January 17th, 2008
9:02 am	Update   Coming Home 2/16/2009 in other Steve James-produced documentary fallout, "Bo" Agee, father of Arthur was shot and killed in an alleyway in Chicago in 2004, while Curtis Gates, brother / mentor / father figure of William was shot in 2001.  Bummer.  Current Mood: Steve James Forever Current Music: Ty Stamp Mix (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008
8:50 pm	Ulysses 101: Create an assignment # 1  Vintage (1961) Gabler (1984) Compare and contrast page 1 of the Gabler edition of Ulysses with the 1961 "approved and reset" text from the "original facsimile."  Note any and all discrepancies. Total A-age. I rather enjoy this.  I should probably be killed.   JC, the copy editor extraordinaire! Don't worry: I will post all of these in their entirety as the semester wears on. Current Music: gagaku (1 Comment |Comment on this)
Saturday, January 12th, 2008
2:02 am	two moon july David Byrne - Report From L.A. courtesy - Ubuweb ubu.com (Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 21st, 2007
9:07 am	Edit 5:27 PM --If the performance is dogged and the image is all choppy, your computer sucks.  Looks like gold on my unit. Any complaints can be sent to the Paris Hotel / Casino, Las Vegas, NV. Enjoy NOVfest. Current Music: godspeed! (3 Comments |Comment on this)
Tuesday, November 20th, 2007
10:46 am	dvdbeaver.com   Depthy analyses of DVDs--their quality, both technologically and educationally. (Comment on this)
Monday, November 5th, 2007
9:32 pm	I admire Dungy's ingenuity, but takes more than piped in crowd-roar to stymie the Pats. HYMF! (Comment on this)
Monday, October 29th, 2007
11:13 am	Long Ride I had the pleasure of being a surrogate Warm Shower for Bryan this weekend.  Dude's name was Kyle and he was from Ames, IA.  Obsessed with two things: The IronMan and being generally pretty awesome.  He rolled into Denton 5400 miles into a cross country trip that snaked through IA, NE, WA, OR, Northern CA, Death Valley,  Las Vegas, AZ, NM, the long desolate stretch of 380 from Socorro through Denton to Greenville whereupon he will catch 69 to Jasper at which point he will find himself approximately three days from NOLA.  Then along the gulf coast through the tip of FL into GA to visit step-family and then make a bee-line back to IA so with any good fortune he can beat the snow.  He says America is good. He was cool and unaffected; some people just do it.  He was the toast of Jeff Zorn's over-inflated, Greek-as-fuck Halloween Party. His Blog is exhaustive and enthusiastic.  Read it. Oh and it was a NEAR-PERFECT weekend for the HYMF! files. Do Reggie Wayne and Peyton Manning have a relationship this visually gratifying?  I think not. (Comment on this)