http://www.globalresearch.ca/bashar-al-assad-interview-the-fight-against-terrorists-in-syria/5365613?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bashar-al-assad-interview-the-fight-against-terrorists-in-syria

i think he gets it mostly right, but he doesn't answer the question of "why now?". ok, the arab spring was an opportunity. it's only half the answer.

assad was actually democratizing before this mess. he wanted to move to a party system. the west is casting the guy as this authoritarian nut, but he's actually an eye doctor by training. he inherited power from his father, but didn't want it. far from wanting to extend his power, he's been trying to step down in an orderly fashion.

so, why not just step aside? because he's trying to be responsible. he doesn't want to hand over power to an american or saudi-backed military dictatorship (see egypt). he wants to set up a democracy on his way out. maybe not a really liberal democracy, but where does that actually exist?

i know this sounds incredible, but do the research. assad is an eye doctor that wants to relieve himself of the power he inherited and didn't want and focus on his practice. seriously.

the reason the saudis are invading now is that they don't want a democracy in the region, which is the same reason they're hostile to iran.

so, do you see what they've done? they've tricked you into thinking we're supporting forces that desire democracy. in truth, we're suppressing democracy. just like we do everywhere else in the region...

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=11368

working in a university v. living on social assistance...

pros:
- don't have to teach classes
- are not forced into writing pointless papers to maintain your position
- more control over research
- do not have to communicate with institutional colleagues (can use internet instead)
- do not have to deal with peer review
- no hierarchy
- income is comparable, but assistance-based rather than debt-based.

cons:
- less people will take you seriously (less prestige, too)
- less access (perhaps marginally)
- no social support
- less incentives / more potential for distraction (it's really the latter...)

peer review is kind of a double-edged sword. i'll argue in favour of it for everybody except me. i do think i'm special...

in the above list, i mean it less in terms of formal peer review and more in terms of informal peer pressure. but i used the term consciously because they're inter-related.

i mean, it's something that's needed to catch frauds. no argument. but it also functions as a way to shut down debate. in fields like math and philosophy and economics, and even theoretical biology, there's not a lot of really valid potential for peer review that functions beyond a basic "dude, that calculation is wrong" level. it's almost all peer pressure.

escaping from that in the short term has some potential value.

in the end, it's gotta be peer reviewed. but maybe i'd rather wait until i'm almost dead and can present ideas as a whole before i bother going through it...