Paul to keep donation from white supremacist

Seen on the CNN Political Ticker blog. The AP reports that Ron Paul's campaign received a donation from the owner of a white supremacist web site, "and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it."

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Assuming Ron Paul is in fact not a racist, this is awesome.

It's awesome because Ron Paul knows what he stands for and doesn't think the ideas of one small-time campaign donor should define what his candidacy is about. He's right, of course.

It's awesome because Ron Paul is not afraid to say it's ridiculous to think a politician is obliged to take on the causes of the people who fund his campaign, rather than act in the interests of the people who vote for him.

It's awesome because Ron Paul knows that his base consists of people who claim not to care what you do with your money, even if it used to be their money.

Why can't more politicians behave like this? How awesome would it be if, during a debate, when one candidate drew attention to the fact that another's candidacy was endorsed by the automobile industry, the answer was, "Yes, that's a matter of public record, but I represent the American people, not the American auto industry, and I believe we should fight global warming and be less dependent on foreign oil. That's why, in my first year as President, I'm going to push for higher mandatory fuel economy standards and give tax credits to people who ride bicycles to work!"

They can't do it, because they're all elitist power-broker Republicans and softie humanitarian Democrats. Only a no-holds-barred Libertarian would expect the public to believe he construes his obligations to his campaign supporters so narrowly.

"You gave money to Ron Paul for President, you got Ron Paul running for President. You expected something else?"

It's just so Ron Paul, which is awesome.


Note: I do not support Ron Paul. In fact, I do not expect to vote for him under any circumstances.

Turning Homosexuality On and Off

From John Tierney's
New York Times Blog, discussion of recent research showing that the sexual preference in fruit flies can to some extent be controlled with drugs.

A reader named catuskoti posted, in part:

Silly science and silly research. Why is sexual diversity believed to be a problem needing scientific investigation?

Short answer: because scientists investigate everything. Don't be confused by the use of the word problem -- A "problem" in science is really nothing more than a question. Why should sexual diversity be off-limits to the inquiries of people who want to understand what happens in our world?

Longer answer: Here are two sentences from the scientific article's abstract (follow the link above).

Mate choice is an evolutionarily critical decision that requires the detection of multiple sex-specific signals followed by central integration of these signals to direct appropriate behavior. The mechanisms controlling mate choice remain poorly understood.

Makes sense to me. Whether you think "mechanisms controlling mate choice" is a good way to describe human sexuality is another question. Fortunately, it's irrelevant here, as the article under discussion does not seem to mention any animals higher than rats (caveat: I only skimmed it). We will have to wait for analogous results in mammals, probably even in primates, before it can really be said to have anything to do with such a complex aspect of human society.

Interpreting Iran Intelligence

From the New York Times:

A new assessment by American intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that the program remains frozen, contradicting judgment two years ago that Tehran was working relentlessly toward building a nuclear bomb.

That's a relief. But what's this...

"'It confirms that we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear weapons,' [national security advisor Stephen J.] Hadley said."

Now pay close attention here. Just as Bill Clinton said "there is no improper relationship" between himself and Monica Lewinsky (their relationship had supposedly ended by the time he said that), the U.S. government "were right" about nuclear weapons development in Iran (emphases added). Because at one time, their worries were true. But, according to NYT's and CNN's headlines, not anymore. Just because they were right to worry does not mean they will be right if they worry in the near future. So now we can call bullshit on any continued alarmism from the White House or the Republican presidential campaigners, right?

[Hadley continued,] "...But the intelligence also tells us that the risk of Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon remains a very serious problem."

Crap. I was planning to submit this apparently contradictory statement to Jon Stewart-style ridicule, but I guess it's actually true, because the intelligence showed that the Iranian uranium enrichment program that is supposedly for civilian purposes but could produce weapons-grade material is still going on, and (I assume, not having read otherwise) all the public rhetoric from Tehran continues to imply that the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons.

So now what I wish I could remember is what the administration's official words were on what conditions Iran would have to meet in order for us to engage them in diplomacy.