The Primate Diaries

Now at Scientific American

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sun, 24 Jul 2011 18:13:00 +0000

You are being redirected to the new site. One moment please . . .

If for any reason you were not redirected, please click the screen capture above or visit: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/primate-diaries/

The Primate Diaries Has Moved to Science Blogs

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 01:37:00 +0000

My new home is at http://scienceblogs.com/primatediaries.

Update your RSS feed by clicking here and I look forward to hearing from you on the comments page!

Nature is calling . . .

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:05:00 +0000

The Primate Diaries has now been picked up by the journal Nature's online network. Click on the RSS button below to update your feed and click the image above to see the new site.

Superorganisms and Group Selection

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 23:58:00 +0000

Unicolonial ants pose challenge to "selfish gene" theory.

Unicolonial ants, such as these Argentine ants (Linepithema humile), are genetically unrelated but will cooperate to defeat a much larger adversary.
Source: Alex Wild / Live Science
It has been a mainstay of evolutionary theory since the 1970s. Natural selection acts purely on the level of the individual and any cooperation observed between organisms merely hides a selfish genetic motive. There have been two pioneering theories to explain cooperation in the natural world given this framework: the first was William Hamilton's (1964) theory of kin selection and the second was Robert Trivers' (1971) theory of reciprocal altruism.

However, both of these scenarios break down where it comes to unicolonial ants. In a new paper in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (subscription required) Heikki Helantera, of the University of Sussex, and colleagues at Rice University have investigated how previous theories to explain cooperation don't apply for these unique supercolonies.

Unicolonial ants carry polydomy [multiple nests in a supercolony that all individuals rotate through] and polygyny [multiple queens in one nest] to extremes. Colonies are huge, each being a network of hundreds or thousands of nests, each with multiple queens. There is no worker aggression, and there is free movement among nests on a vast scale. The energy that might have been put into fighting and territoriality flows into the common good, more ants.

Such a concept, a form of genuine anarchism in the animal world, was thought to be impossible given existing theory. These ants live in colonies where relatives exist but, with so much migration throughout a network stretching thousands of kilometers, each ant worker is mostly surrounded by total strangers that share none of their genes. Only one other species has ever been known to organize themselves in such a fashion (and if you're reading these words right now you know who you are).

To understand how unicolonial ants have come to be the way they are, we must first understand what they're not. Kin selection has proposed that cooperation will emerge in groups that are made up of close relatives. Hamilton's rule, beautiful in its simplicity, proposed that cooperation occurs when the cost to the actor (C) is less than then the benefit to the recipient (B) multiplied by the genetic relatedness between the two (r). This equation is written out simply as rB > C.

Lion siblings often cooperate as teams and benefit through kin selection.
Source: Scotch Macaskill / Wildlife Pictures.com
To put this into context: an alpha male lion and his brother share half of their genes, so have a genetic relatedness of 0.5. Suppose this brother recognizes that the alpha male is getting old and could easily be taken down. If so, the brother could potentially have eight additional cubs (just to pull out an arbitrary number). But, instead, that brother decides to help the alpha male to maintain his position in the pride and, as a result, the alpha ends up having the eight additional cubs himself while the brother only has five. The brother has lost out on 3 potential cubs. But, even so, because he assisted his brother he has still maximized his overall reproductive success from a genetic point of view: (0.5) x 8 = 4 > 3. He could have attempted to usurp his brother and, perhaps, had the eight cubs himself but he wouldn't have been in any better of a position as far as his genes were concerned.

Reciprocal altruism follows this same basic idea, but proposes a mechanism that could work for individuals that are unrelated. In this scenario, cooperation occurs when the cost to the actor (C) is less than the benefit to the recipient (B) multiplied by the likelihood that the cooperation will be returned (w) or wB > C. This has been demonstrated among vampire bats who regurgitate blood into a stranger's mouth if they weren't able to feed that night. Previous experience has shown the actor that they're likely to get repaid if they ever go hungry one night themselves. This theory requires that individuals be part of a single group, with low levels of immigration and emigration, so that group members will be likely to encounter each other on a regular basis.

Previously, it was argued that all ants followed an extreme form of kin selection. Because of their unique process of reproduction females develop from fertilized eggs and have paired chromosomes (that is, one from each parent). However, males develop from unfertilized eggs and only have a single chromosome from their mother. As a result, female workers share up to 75 percent of their genes with sisters but only 50 percent with their mother (or their own offspring, if they were to reproduce). Worker ants therefore have greater genetic success by not reproducing but, instead, helping to raise and protect their legion of closely related sisters.

Ant reproduction gives rise to genetic sisterhood.
Source: Unattributed
This explanation has been somewhat clouded given more recent evidence that queens engage in polyandry (mating with multiple males). A queen will frequently mate with up to five different males and store their combined sperm, around 100 million of them, in a special compartment called the spermatheca. By releasing a single sperm at a time the queen can control the number of eggs she lays. However, because there are multiple fathers, the genetic relationship between the female worker ants is reduced. Female workers may therefore only be related by 25 percent with the females they're helping to raise. Why would female workers continue to be non-reproductive and help rear distant relatives when they could have twice the reproductive success by having their own offspring? While there are strategies female workers employ to maximize their own reproductive success (like preferrentially rearing eggs that they are more closely related to or, in some rare cases, reproducing themselves) it still remains puzzling why ants have been so successful given this seeming contradiction.

If you add to this the realities of multiple queens in a single nest (polygyny) and supercolonies that are composed of thousands of such nests (polydomy), the problem becomes insurmountable. If worker ants share zero percent of their genes with those they're cooperating with, as is the case in these unicolonies, then why cooperate? What do they have to gain?

This is the problem that Helantera and colleagues are seeking to understand in their latest paper. While the authors emphasize a range of possible explanations, I want to focus on just one that has been generating a great deal of interest in the last few years: group selection.

The extreme cooperation of unicolonial ants has been suggested to be an example of selection occurring on levels higher than the individual, such as the superorganism, group or even population.

Group selection is the idea that, under certain circumstances, genes will be selected for because they benefit the overall success of the group rather then simply the individual. While it is usually assumed that these populations will have a high level of relatedness (making the promotion of the group an extended form of kin selection) the authors suggest a scenario in which group selection could apply even among unrelated group members.

Giant ants terrorize humanity in Them!.
Source: Warner Bros.
This is a possibility I like to call Ronald Reagan's Alien Invasion Hypothesis. In a speech before the United Nations on Sept. 21, 1987 Reagan stated that:

In our obsession with antagonisms of the moment, we often forget how much unites all the members of humanity. Perhaps we need some outside, universal threat to make us recognize this common bond. I occasionally think how quickly our differences worldwide would vanish if we were facing an alien threat from outside this world.

So under this possibility a common threat to all colony members would outweigh the low level of genetic similarity because, unless everyone pulls together, the entire group is in jeopardy. If one colony was competing with a rival colony then selection for individual selfishness could drive the population to extinction while selection for cooperation would allow the colony to thrive.

Under this view, extant unicolonial populations are the ones that have not yet succumbed to selfishness. Relatedness and mutual policing select against selfishness in non-unicolonial populations, but stop applying when relatedness decreases to zero. . . [However], constraints arising from the natural history of the species or pleiotropic effects of selfish genes, might prevent selfish genotypes from arising even under zero relatedness.

This cooperation could then continue long after the initial threat was gone under the force of phylogenetic inertia. Perhaps, in the future, selection would cause the unicolony to break into smaller, more genetically similar colonies once the impetus for group selection no longer exists? Or perhaps the benefits of cooperating with strangers simply outweighs the costs of competition and natural selection has produced a genuinely altruistic society?

Unicolonial cooperation has inspired activist art such as this print from the Beehive Collective.
Source: Beehive Collective
At the current time there are 31 known unicolonial ant populations around the globe. This is a small minority given the more than 12,000 described species. However, given that research on unicolonial ants is so new, there is still a great deal of research that needs to take place concerning this unique experiment of the natural world. At the very least, unicolonies provide us with a source of inspiration and the ability to marvel at the amazing beauty and diversity of the natural world. With the knowledge that stable supercolonies composed of strangers continue to thrive in nature, perhaps there's something we could learn from those creatures that first invented this approach.

References:

Hamilton, W.D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II. — Journal of Theoretical Biology 7: 1-16 and 17-52

Trivers, R.L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology. 46: 35-57.

Helantera, H., Strassman, J.E., Carrillo, J., Queller, D.C. (2009). Unicolonial ants: where do they come from, what are they and where are they going? Trends in Ecology and Evolution. doi:10.1016/j.tree.s009.01.013

Loss of Biodiversity and Extinctions

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 17:15:00 +0000

Anup Shaw over at Global Issues has collected an exhaustive collection of recent analysis on the loss of biodiversity in the last few years.

As I wrote in my recent post Rivalry Among the Reefs, the loss of up to 1/3 of coral reefs in recent years could result in unprecedented extinctions of ocean biodiversity.

While occupying only 0.2 percent of the world’s oceans, coral reefs sustain 25 percent of species diversity; an oceanographic public works project that has been in existence for 3.5 billion years. . . Current estimates are that one-third of the world’s coral reefs are in imminent danger of extinction. In an international survey of these most diverse ecosystems in our oceans, researchers determined that global climate change is increasing the average temperature of the Earth’s oceans. This is killing the photosynthetic algae that has adapted into a pristine symbiotic relationship with their hosts. Coral bleaching on a global scale is the result and mass extinction will be the inevitable conclusion unless this trend is reversed.

But loss of biodiversity in the oceans is only one region currently experiencing crisis. The collection of studies and warnings from experts around the world that Anup has gathered are truly staggering. See below for a sample of some of what he posts:

Already resources are depleting, with the report showing that vertebrate species populations have declined by about one-third in the 33 years from 1970 to 2003. At the same time, humanity’s Ecological Footprint—the demand people place upon the natural world—has increased to the point where the Earth is unable to keep up in the struggle to regenerate.

- World Wide Fund for Nature, October 24, 2006

The world environmental situation is likely to be further aggravated by the increasingly rapid, large scale global extinction of species. It occurred in the 20th century at a rate that was a thousand times higher than the average rate during the preceding 65 million years. This is likely to destabilize various ecosystems including agricultural systems.

- Jaan Suurkula, Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology, February 6, 2004

If current estimates of amphibian species in imminent danger of extinction are included in these calculations, then the current amphibian extinction rate may range from 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. It is difficult to explain this unprecedented and accelerating rate of extinction as a natural phenomenon.

- Malcom MacCallum, Journal of Herpetology, July 17, 2007

Junk-food chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land degradation, and contamination of water sources and other natural resources. For every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil. The water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per animal per day, or ten times what a normal Indian family is supposed to use in one day, if it gets water at all.

- Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 70-71

Darwin's Controversy of the Corals

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:08:00 +0000

The Reef Tank is currently hosting my new post that tells the story of one of the largest controversies in the history of science. It involves Charles Darwin, a son defending his father's honor and the threat of nuclear annihilation. Intrigued? Go over and check it out, as well as some great posts by other fellow science bloggers. Here is a quick taste:

It took the threat of nuclear annihilation between the two greatest powers of the 20th century to solve one of the most profound scientific controversies of the 1800s. In 1952 Dr. Harry Ladd, a researcher for the US Geological Survey, convinced the US War Department to drill holes deep into the Bikini and Eniwetok Atolls just prior to their obliteration by hydrogen bombs. The reason for the drilling had little to do with the nuclear tests as part of Operation Crossroads, but was simply to conduct an experiment based on the hypothesis of coral reef formation first proposed by Charles Darwin in 1837.

Read the rest here.

Drunk Gorillas of Virunga

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:14:00 +0000

Less Gorillas in the Mist and more "gorillas getting pissed."

Mountain gorilla after a few too many bamboo shots.Image: Andy Rouse / Daily Mail
This mountain gorilla has been drinking alcoholic sap fermented in bamboo shoots in the highlands of Rwanda. The next day the nature photographer, Andy Rouse, noticed that the gorillas were a bit worse for wear.

When I went back the next day, it was all very quiet, as if they were nursing
gorilla-sized hangovers.

For additional photos see the UK Daily Mail.

Bonobos in the Garden of Eden

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:22:00 +0000

Our primate cousins could turn the question of human origins upside down.

Could the bonobo homeland also be the origin of our common ancestor?
Image: Cyril Ruoso / Time

In an interview with Dan Harris on Nightline, bonobo researcher Dr. Bila-Isia Inogwabini recently suggested that humans may have first evolved in the Western area of the Democratic Republic of Congo rather than in East Africa where most of the fossil evidence has been discovered.

“I really strongly feel that people may have evolved from this region,” he said. "It’s a big claim, yes, I understand, but I really think it is worth it to put it on the table."

Genetic evidence suggests that humans, bonobos and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor between 4.6 to 6.2 million years ago (mya). One population eventually became the genus Homo while the other, Pan, diverged again about 1.3 mya to become modern day bonobos and chimpanzees. What remains unknown is where and why this Pan-Homo split occurred that sent our species along such a different evolutionary path.

The vast majority of hominin fossils have been found in eastern Africa, in what is modern day Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania. The most reasonable assumption has long been that it was in East Africa, near the Rift Valley, where the Pan-Homo division took place. However, the earliest hominin fossil find to date, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, is between 6-7 mya and was found in in the central African country of Chad (about 2,500 km away). S. tchadensis was much more ape-like than later Australopithecines and is thought to have coexisted alongside our common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos.

This early Chad find is important considering that the fossil record is so sparse between 12 mya and 4 mya (the crucial period as far as we're concerned). The only representatives of this vast period after S. tchadensis was Orrorin tugenensis (6 mya from Kenya) an ape species that may have been partially bipedal, Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba (5.5 mya from Ethiopia) and Ardipithecus ramidus ramidus (4.4 mya also from Ethiopia). All of these species were much more apelike than the Australopithecines, which first appear in the fossil record 4.15 mya in Kenya and 4.1 mya in Ethiopia. An excellent timeline at hominin.net helps put these dates and the location of the finds into context.

Fossil map showing many of the hominin fossil discoveries throughout Africa.
Image: National Geographic
While Ethiopia or Kenya would seem to be the most likely candidates for the split between Homo and Pan, the fact that the earliest known hominin has been found in Chad has raised some questions about this. Writing in the journal Nature about how the discovery of S. tchadensis changes our understanding of early human origins, Brunet. et al state:

This suggests that an exclusively East African origin of the hominid clade is unlikely to be correct. It will never be possible to know precisely where or when the first hominid species originated, but we do know that hominids had dispersed throughout the Sahel and East Africa by 6 Myr.

Furthermore, Australopithecus bahrelghazali (about 3.6 mya) was also discovered in Chad, suggesting that there is a great deal of material still to be discovered in this region. Later hominin fossils have also been discovered in South Africa (such as Australopithecus africanus and Paranthropus robustus). This means that the distribution of hominins extends all the way from Chad to East Africa to South Africa. Interestingly, the nearest central point between all these locations is the Democratic Republic of Congo.

This brings us to bonobos, the species that Dr. Inogwabini has studied for many years. Bonobos are found only in the DR Congo and had their last common ancestor with chimpanzees about 1.3 mya. Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal has argued that bonobos haven't changed much in the 4-6 million years since humans, chimpanzees and bonobos shared a common ancestor.

"The bonobo may more closely resemble the common ancestor of all three modern species," De Waal says. "It's an important issue that's yet to be resolved."

Remarkably, many of these traits are shared by only one other extant species: humans. Regular bipedalism, face-to-face mating (requiring a more ventral orientation of the vagina), reduced limb and body proportions, reduced canines, greater breadth of diet, larger group sizes and reduced competition within groups; all of these traits are shared more closely with humans than chimpanzees. Anatomically, bonobos show more similarities than chimpanzees to the early hominin Ardipithecus (5.5 mya). This could mean that bonobos are closer to the ancestral population and that chimpanzees diverged in order to adapt to different environmental pressures. But it could also be that early humans and bonobos experienced convergent evolution based on similar environments. At this point the evidence to address these questions is thin.

Bonobos are the only primate, other than humans, that regularly walk upright.
Image: Unattributed
Unfortunately, fossils are unlikely to help. Rain forest soils are notoriously bad for fossilization. The bones will decay long before minerals can replace the organic material. Even in ideal conditions (such as arid or anoxic environments) fossilization is extremely rare. So there is a certain amount of "environmental bias" in the fossil record. Unless an organism had a large enough range to be living in the right location for fossilization to occur, there will be no record that they ever existed. This could mean that the hominin fossils we do have were from individuals after they had migrated to the far edge of their original range and that the really exciting evolutionary events occurred in Central Africa. If this is the case, then the reason we have so many fossils from East Africa isn't because that was the cradle of humanity, it's just because the conditions were right for fossilization. Unfortunately, without evidence to test this hypothesis it remains in the realm of mere conjecture.

One piece of evidence that makes me think bonobos and humans might have shared more than just a similar environment has to do with a region of DNA promoting the release of oxytocin. At the AVPR1A gene both humans and bonobos (but not chimpanzees) share a repetitive microsatellite locus that Elizabeth Hammock and Larry Young have shown to be important for cooperation, empathy and social bonding. It is far more parsimonious that chimpanzees lost this repetitive microsatellite than for both humans and bonobos to independently develop the same mutation.

So if I had to make my best guess, I would put my money on the Pan-Homo split occuring in the mosaic environments of Central Africa near DR Congo. I would also predict that this common ancestor would appear more bonobo-like than chimpanzee-like. We may never know the real answer. But, considering the exciting "hobbit" fossils discovered on the island of Flores, Indonesia, it may be possible for fossilization to occur even in the rain forest if conditions are just right. At this moment, somewhere in a cave near Lac Tumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo, our common ancestor with bonobos and chimpanzees may be lying in wait for the next intrepid explorer to unearth. If so it would be the anthropological find of the century. Our long search to understand human origins would finally be at an end.

Nightline Highlights Bonobo Crisis

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:53:00 +0000

A new Nightline report travels to the war ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo to interview Bila-Isia Inogwabini, the World Wildlife Fund researcher who discovered an unknown population of nearly 2,300 bonobos. Considering that some researchers estimate there to be fewer than 10,000 bonobos alive in the wild, this discovery was hailed as a major development in the effort to save the species from extinction.

I was introduced to Bila a few years ago while working on my article Behind Enemy Lines for Wildlife Conservation. At the time he was just preparing his expedition to the Lac Tumba region of Western Congo. His team's findings were subsequently published in the Cambridge University journal, Oryx (subscription required).

Watch the Nightline report below:

For additional bonobo related posts see Bonobo (Re)Visions, Bonobos "Red in Tooth and Claw" and my interview with bonobo researcher Frances White.

Turkey Censors Darwin

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:19:00 +0000

As reported in the latest edition of Nature, government officials in Turkey have just censored the leading science periodical, Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technology) for placing Charles Darwin on the cover. The editor was subsequently fired by the government agency that supports the magazine and many Turkish scientists are justifiably outraged.

In Turkey, as in many countries, the civil service is expected to mirror the ruling party's ideology. So, although they are keen funders of research, most senior government officials, in common with most of the population, do not believe in evolution by natural selection. The education minister Hüseyin Çelik, for example, has proclaimed his belief in intelligent design.

This is unfortunate considering that Muslim scholars and scientists were at the forefront of the scientific revolution long before Europeans got their act together. It's only been in the last twenty or thirty years that there has even been a crackdown on evolutionary ideas in Turkey. According to the History of Science Society:

In the 1970s, political Islam started to gain strength in Turkey as well as the rest of the Muslim world. Evolution became a minor culture war item, as a way for Islamists to demonstrate opposition to secular life without taking the risk of naming official secularism as a target. But creationism came into its own only in the mid 1980s, when in the aftermath of a short period of military dictatorship, religious conservatives gained control of the Turkish Ministry of Education. These conservative Muslims thought evolutionary ideas were morally corrosive, yet they found themselves in an environment where science commanded significant cognitive authority. So they needed a way to suggest that evolution was a fraudulent, scientifically dubious idea. They found the resources they needed in American “scientific creationism,” and invoked Christian creationists in a curious mirror image of the way Turkish secularists regularly relied on Western scientific authorities.

So there you have it. In an effort to reject Western secular ideas, fundamentalist Turks have embraced the Western fundamentalist rejection of science and reason. You wouldn't think that the very people that are most vocal about promoting war in the Middle East (isn't it curious how those most apt to honor the "prince of peace" are so ready to go to war) would also be the ones that conservative Muslims would be listening to for their approach on science and education. I guess that just shows that there is common ground between seemingly incompatible societies (though it doesn't offer us much hope at present).

Marking Anniversary of Iraq War

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:12:00 +0000

Protests scheduled Thursday through Sunday nationwide.

Visit http://www.PentagonMarch.org for more info
As a socially conscious primate I'm committed to creating a better world than the one we have. We're now into year six of the Iraq war and year seven of the war in Afghanistan. Organizations and community members nationwide will be taking to the streets from Thursday, March 19 - Sunday, March 22 to insist that the occupations end and that no more service members or civilians be killed in this campaign.

Find an event in your city for the anniversary on March 19 and check your local Indymedia for a march this weekend.

While the Obama administration has announced the withdrawal of all combat troops by 2010, in reality it is following a preexisting Pentagon plan to shift some combat forces to Afghanistan (which is now rocking out of control) and renaming the existing combat brigades "training and assistance brigades". These troops would then continue to carry out missions in Iraq in much the same way that the "military advisers" did in Vietnam. The Pentagon has been authorized to have as many as 50,000 such troops in Iraq until long after the deadline. We're not out of this yet.

Click on the image below to download a copy of the flyer for your own community event (just cover up the top and bottom portions with your own info):

Battlestar Galactica Meets with UN

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:59:00 +0000

President Roslyn and Admiral Adama with cast of Battlestar.
Image: SciFi.com
As the popular show on SciFi heads towards its final episode Friday, President Laura Roslyn and Admiral William Adama met with a panel of United Nations officials last night (this is true) for a discussion of humanitarian issues.

This comes not a moment too soon. It's about time the United Nations embraced some new ideas that can overcome the permanent state of negotiation and lack of regulatory teeth in their General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions.

I don't know what issues were under discussion, but I can only imagine the topics included something like the following:

*Using FTL drives to transport emergency supplies into Darfur region despite President al-Bashir's decision to expel all relief workers.

*How Kamala Extract induced visions can be useful for predicting future crises and might also be fun at state dinners.

*Suggesting "cylon goo" as a means for the United States to repair its estimated $2.2 trillion in ailing infrastructure.

*How Israelis and Palestinians can be induced to get along by eliminating their "Resurrection Ship" that makes both think they can live forever.

*Encouraging embattled world leaders to adopt Admiral Adama's approach of binge drinking during times of crisis. Proven useful for overcoming such difficulties as: working with sworn enemies, handling the deterioration of your only means of defense, overcoming the death of a loved one, or just to let people know that you're really sad despite your permanently stern demeanor. The Japanese Finance Minister and French President have already led the way (not to mention the famous boozer Richard Nixon).

*How it's about time to tell the distinguished delegate from the great country of North Korea to go frak himself.

Picture Perfect

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:41:00 +0000

Caravaggio used early camera to capture his stunning images.

Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, "Judith Beheading Holofernes" (1598)
The Renaissance artist Caravaggio may have used an early form of photography, 200 years prior to the invention of the camera, in order to first capture his ultra-realistic scenes. Employing a variation of the camera obscura, first suggested by Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio used a light sensitive chemical that captured an image projected onto it through a series of lenses.

Caravaggio worked in a 'darkroom' and illuminated his models through a hole in the ceiling, said Lapucci, who teaches at the prestigious Studio Art Centres International in the Tuscan capital.

The image was then projected onto a canvas using a lens and a mirror, she said.

Caravaggio 'fixed' the image, using light-sensitive substances, for around half an hour – during which he used white lead mixed with chemicals and minerals that were visible in the dark to paint the image with broad strokes, Lapucci said.

Ironically, like the nervous system deterioration that has been proposed to explain Vincent Van Gogh's eccentric behavior, Caravaggio may have suffered the same unanticipated consequences.

One of the main elements of these mixtures was mercury – to which prolonged exposure can affect the central nervous system causing irritability and other symptoms – which Lapucci said would help explain Caravaggio's notorious temper.

Death for Blasphemy in Kabul

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:50:00 +0000

A student in Afghanistan has been sentenced to death for passing out an article about women's rights in Islam.

The student, Parwiz Kambakhsh, 24, from northern Afghanistan, was arrested in 2007 and sentenced to death for blasphemy after accusations that he had written and distributed an article about the role of women in Islam. Kambakhsh has denied having written the article and said he had downloaded it from the Internet. His family and lawyers say he has been denied a fair trial.

And this wasn't some minor court in the mountains of Tora Bora, this was the Supreme Court in Kabul that made the decision. This is only the latest in a series of assaults against freedom of speech in Karzai's government.

An Afghan journalist, Javed Ahmad, 23, who worked for the Canadian broadcaster CTV, was shot and killed Tuesday evening in the center of the southern city of Kandahar, the second killing of an Afghan journalist in southern Afghanistan in nine months. Abdul Samad Rohani, a journalist in Helmand Province, was shot and killed last year, in an attack thought to be connected to his investigation of police involvement in the drug trade.

Three other well-established journalists have left Kandahar in recent months after receiving threats from Taliban insurgents over their coverage of events.

Another journalist, Ghows Zalmai, has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for blasphemy after publishing a Dari translation of the Koran that hard-line clerics disputed, said Human Rights Watch, based in New York.

Western diplomats and human rights organizations have expressed concern that despite Karzai's assurances of press freedom and freedom of speech, journalists and civilians are under increasing threat from both insurgents and conservative religious clerics allied with the government. Karzai, his critics say, is reluctant to move against the clerics in an election year.

Afghanistan is now at the center of a perfect storm involving three disastrous elements: religious fundamentalism, a corrupt government backed by Western powers largely indifferent to human rights (or anything other than targeting "insurgents") and an economy based on being the world's largest supplier of heroin.

Meanwhile, the brave women of RAWA continue to work for peace and justice. They need economic, medical and legal support. Not increased militarism. That road will only strengthen the corrupt system that has been put in place.

Of "Foreign Entanglements" Past

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:05:00 +0000

The resignation of Intelligence Chief Chas Freeman has been creating a lot of buzz in the political blogosphere. Robert Dreyfuss has additional insight in a web exclusive posted today in Mother Jones.

In the introduction Tom Englehardt compares the "Israel Lobby" today with the "China Lobby" of the 1950s in their influence on US policy towards defending the government of Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan. He argues that, like then, the lobby restricts US movements towards rational policy approaches that could substantially resolve a seething divide.

I don't know a great deal about China policy during this period, but the analogy is an interesting one.

An "island" nation in the Middle East, Israel today plays a role arguably similar to that of an actual island which held formidable sway in American domestic politics decades ago. Known then as Formosa, it became "the Republic of China" after Nationalist Chinese leader Chiang Kai-shek, defeated in a fierce civil war by Mao Ze Dong's communist movement, moved what was left of his government there. From the late 1940s deep into the 1950s, that island version of China had a firm grip on what room for maneuver was available to any American government when it came to China policy. With various Nationalist Chinese representatives and their congressional and media allies, then known as the China Lobby, putting key issues and realities beyond discussion, the results were disastrous. It's a cautionary tale that shouldn't be ignored in the present debate.

Some Messed Up Monkeys*

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 16:09:00 +0000

"Dance, Monkeys, Dance"
ErnestCline.com
Ernest Cline, director of the recent film Fanboys, has this hilarious spoken word piece that pretty sums up my philosophy perfectly. It's put to music by The Penguin Cafe Orchestra and is accompanied by an 80's style film strip which only adds to the fun.

For more of his great work (including spoken word, info on his films and his blog) click here.

*Obligatory note: Humans are not monkeys. We're apes along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. In general, monkeys have tails whereas apes do not. But I agree that the word monkey is much funnier.

Dershowitz Responds

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:33:00 +0000

I received two rather interesting e-mails this morning in response to my post Bodyguard of Lies. In this post I critiqued Alan Dershowitz (left), professor of law at Harvard, for claiming that former Chief National Intelligence Council nominee Chas Freeman "was a 'zealot' and an 'ideologue' whose 'extremist views' can only be explained by claiming that he 'has been bought and paid for by lobbies that he does not wish to alienate.'" It's my view that this is a gross mischaracterization of Freeman's position and is little more than slander.

This morning I received two responses. The first was from Norman Finkelstein (right), a previous target of Dershowitz, who wrote simply:

The second e-mail was from Alan Dershowitz himself who was kind enough to let me know the following:

Which should I heed? While Finkelstein's note was sent thirteen minutes earlier (and would clearly preempt the second) Dershowitz sent his response via BlackBerry, a fitting coincidence considering his opinion is so deliciously ripe with irony.

Alan Dershowitz is the same person who took this:

As well as voicing our opposition to the illegal occupation and the consistent human rights violations of the Palestinian people, we as members of an institute of higher education see it as our moral responsibility to express our solidarity with Palestinian students whose access to education is severely inhibited by the Israeli occupation.

And characterized it as this:

Several months ago, a rabidly anti-Israel group on the Hampshire College campus began a campaign to try to get the college to divest from six companies that they claim helped "the Israeli occupation of Palestine." Those who came up with this formulation regard all of Israel, including Tel Aviv, Haifa and Ben Gurion Airport, as "occupied Palestine." In other words, their goal is to end the existence of Israel.

I now call on all decent people - supporters and critics of Israel alike - to make no further contributions to a school that now promotes discrimination and is complicit in evil. There must be a price paid for bigotry, and the actions of Hampshire College in singling out only Israel for divestiture is bigotry plain and simple. Silence is not an option. Inaction is not an option. Fighting back against the likes of Cynthia McKinney is mandatory for all people of good will.

Yep, I think I'll go with Finkelstein on this one.

Bodyguard of Lies

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 08:15:00 +0000

Dershowitz claims victory in withdrawal of Intelligence Chief.

U.S.-Israeli "special relationship" results in first casualty of the Obama administration.
Image: NBC News

In 1943 Winston Churchill reportedly told Joseph Stalin that "truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." Then the truth was being hidden from the Axis powers, now it is the American public that is being protected against. As the recent events over the nominee for Chief of the National Intelligence Council indicate, the truth is that the U.S. is locked into a dangerous alliance with a country that is set to take us along on their self-destructive mission.

While Obama has quietly promised Israel $10 billion in military aid his administration has asked their only critic of Israeli foreign policy, Charles ("Chas") Freeman, to withdraw his name from consideration. Freeman's stated reason for stepping down as the nominee for head of the NIC was the attacks on him from right-wing members of the "Israel Lobby".

I have concluded that the barrage of libelous distortions of my record would not cease upon my entry into office. The effort to smear me and to destroy my credibility would instead continue. I do not believe the National Intelligence Council could function effectively while its chair was under constant attack by unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country.

The obvious hypocrisy was not lost on Freeman.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel.

Even though National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair expressed determination to support his hand-picked nominee before a Senate hearing, just hours later word from the top apparently overruled this decision. Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer reportedly spoke with Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel soon before Freeman announced his withdrawal, a conversation that apparently clinched the deal. Schumer is a firm supporter of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and has shown a consistent record of bending over backwards to accommodate their wishes.

The assault against Freeman's nomination began in early February with former AIPAC official Steve Rosen. Rosen, who has been indicted for espionage in leaking classified documents to Israel, wrote on his blog that Freeman was "a strident critic of Israel, and a textbook case of the old-line Arabism" with views that were "what you would expect in the Saudi foreign ministry." A few days later Rosen attacked Freeman as someone who "regularly fulminates vitriolic anti-Israel diatribes" and claimed that he had "received funds from Saudi Arabia to engage in systematic Israel-bashing." This is patent nonsense and was easily debunked as mere libel. But that didn't stop the ridiculous claims from being picked up and amplified by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal (both owned by Rupert Murdoch). Now that Freeman has stepped down other supporters are claiming victory and repeating these lies in justification.

Writing today in The Huffington Post Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz claimed that Freeman was a "zealot" and an "ideologue" whose "extremist views" can only be explained by claiming that he "has been bought and paid for by lobbies that he does not wish to alienate."

He has a long history of playing the tunes selected for him by those who have paid him. He is an ideological zealot when it comes to the Middle East.

Meanwhile, Paul Tiller, former National Intelligence Officer and Executive Assistant to the CIA Director had a remarkably different assessment of Freeman's abilities.

I would trust that Mr. Freeman would exhibit integrity in addressing issues on the Middle East as they may pertain to Israel or any other Middle Eastern country . . . The kind of 'anti-Israeli' perspective getting criticized is of course not new criticism or by no means unique to this particular target.
I think what is being missed [in this commentary] is the whole concept that a public servant ... and foreign affairs professional with a long career under different administrations ... can do his job in the best and most objective way he thinks is possible and isn't necessarily going to be working one policy slant vs. another policy slant.

Tillar is now a professor of Security Studies at Georgetown University and his 2003 book, Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy, was praised by Philip Zelikow (a high level intelligence officer in both Bush administrations, so clearly no dove where Israel is concerned) which clearly suggests that Freeman is well within the Beltway on intelligence issues. To have Dershowitz and company react as if Bandar bin Sultan had been nominated is beyond absurd, in fact it's downright loony toons.

Opposition to Israeli policy in any form results in harsh measures.
Image: K. Bendib

Alan Dershowitz is well known for his zealous attacks on any criticism of Israel. He has accused both Presidential nominee Cynthia McKinney and the Green Party of "anti-semitism", claimed that Harvard's Steve Walt and John Mearsheimer plagiarized from "anti-Semitic, neo-Nazi and radical Islamic hate sites" in their article "The Israel Lobby" (published in the London Review of Books) and has even accused Jimmy Carter of being "complicit in evil" following his tepid criticism of Israeli policy. Last year Dershowitz spearheaded an effort to have Israeli critic Norman Finkelstein denied tenure at DePaul University, calling him "an evil man" and "an overt anti-Semite with two Jewish parents." Most recently, Dershowitz intervened in the student effort to divest Hampshire College from companies supporting Israel's occupation of the Palestinian Territories. In the press he repeatedly accused the students of "bigotry" (despite their explicit statements and trainings focused on separating Jewish culture from Israeli policy), he personally threatened the members of Students for Justice in Palestine and offered a "contribution" to Hampshire President Ralph Hexter if he reversed the college's divestment agreement.

So, in other words, an ideologue with close political and economic ties to a powerful lobby is accusing someone of being beholden to special interests? A few years ago Dershowitz wrote a book entitled Chutzpah. Clearly, he knows what he's talking about. However, in this case, he takes the concept far beyond the pale to the point of abject hypocrisy. What's most unfortunate in this whole affair is that the stalwart pro-Israel hawks have prevented any meaningful change in U.S.-Israeli policy for the occupied territories.

As Israel marches ever onwards towards the abyss it comes upon ordinary citizens (both here and in the Middle East) to reign in the destructive aspects of this so-called "special relationship" and bring a just end to more than thirty years of humiliation, war and exile for the Palestinian people. While the official "truth" may require bodyguards, justice requires nothing more than exposure.

UPDATE I: Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein responded to this post here.

UPDATE II: For more on Freeman and his withdrawal see Foreign Policy's The Cable and Foreign Policy In Focus' Commentary.

US Protestor Injured by Israeli Forces

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 23:39:00 +0000

I just received word that an American citizen, Tristan Anderson, has been critically injured by Israeli forces today. I'm relaying the information exactly as it's been communicated to me from my friends in the International Solidarity Movement.

URGENT- An American citizen has been critically injured in the village of Ni'lin after Israeli forces shot him in the head with a tear-gas canister.

13th Friday 2009, Ni'lin Village: An American citizen has been critically injured in the village of Ni'lin after Israeli forces shot him in the head with a tear-gas canister.

Tristan Anderson from California USA, 37 years old, has been taken to Israeli hospital Tel Hashomer, near Tel Aviv. Anderson is unconscious and has been bleeding heavily from the nose and mouth. He sustained a large hole in his forehead where he was struck by the canister. He is currently being operated on.

"Tristan was shot by the new tear-gas canisters that can be shot up to 500m. I ran over as I saw someone had been shot, while the Israeli forces continued to fire tear-gas at us. When an ambulance came, the Israeli soldiers refused to allow the ambulance through the checkpoint just outside the village. After 5 minutes of arguing with the soldiers, the ambulance passed."

Teah Lunqvist (Sweden) - International Solidarity Movement

The Israeli army began using to use a high velocity tear gas canister in December 2008. The black canister, labeled in Hebrew as "40mm bullet special/long range," can shoot over 400 meters. The gas canister does not make a noise when fired or emit a smoke tail. A combination of the canister's high velocity and silence is extremely dangerous and has caused numerous injuries, including a Palestinian male whose leg was broken in January 2009.

Please Contact:

Adam Taylor (English), ISM Media Office +972 8503948
Sasha Solanas (English), ISM Media Office - +972 549032981
Woody Berch (English), at Tel Hashomer hospital +972 548053082

Tristan Anderson was shot as Israeli forces attacked a demonstration against the construction of the annexation wall through the village of Ni'lin's land. Another resident from Ni'lin was shot in the leg with live ammunition.

Four Ni’lin residents have been killed during demonstrations against the confiscation of their land.

Ahmed Mousa (10) was shot in the forehead with live ammunition on 29th July 2008. The following day, Yousef Amira (17) was shot twice with rubber-coated steel bullets, leaving him brain dead. He died a week later on 4 August 2008. Arafat Rateb Khawaje (22), was the third Ni’lin resident to be killed by Israeli forces. He was shot in the back with live ammunition on 28 December 2008. That same day, Mohammed Khawaje (20), was shot in the head with live ammunition, leaving him brain dead. He died three days in a Ramallah hospital.

Residents in the village of Ni'lin have been demonstrating against the construction of the Apartheid Wall, deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004. Ni'lin will lose approximately 2500 dunums of agricultural land when the construction of the Wall is completed. Ni'lin was 57,000 dunums in 1948, reduced to 33,000 dunums in 1967, currently is 10,000 dunums and will be 7,500 dunums after the construction of the Wall.

UPDATE I: Also see the reports in today's New York Times and Ha'aretz.

UPDATE II: Anderson has undergone brain surgery and remains in critical condition. Anderson's story featured on Democracy Now!

Cruelty to Chimps in Research Lab

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:07:00 +0000

Science questions the morality of invasive experimentation.

Chimpanzees suffering from isolation and disease in the name of science.
Image: Animal Aid
The National Institute of Health scandal involving the abuse of chimpanzees has a full write up in the just released issue of Science. After working undercover and filming cases of abuse at an NIH facility, the Humane Society has published a 100-page report (summary here) calling for an end to invasive experimentation on all great apes. The video footage can be found here.

The video shows a chimpanzee falling from a perch and smacking the floor after being darted by a tranquilizer gun, an anesthetized monkey rolling off a table, a baby monkey writhing while receiving a feeding tube, and other strong images of caged primates. "A major issue for us is the psychological deprivation and torment that these animals are enduring," said HSUS President Wayne Pacelle at a press conference.

A ban on invasive experiments has already been established in Europe, where personhood rights for great apes are much further along than in the U.S. Naturally, in the interest of "balance", Science felt the need to include the opinions of those who are in favor of inflicting needless suffering on our closest relatives.

Several researchers who conduct studies on chimpanzees say the legislation is shortsighted. Geneticist John VandeBerg, the chief scientific officer at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas, says researchers there use chimpanzees primarily for testing drugs and vaccines against hepatitis B and C, diseases that he notes affect nearly 500 million humans.

Neuroscientist Todd Preuss of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta complains that the bill defines "invasive" too broadly. It would prohibit his and other groups from sedating chimpanzees to perform brain scans or drawing blood for behavioral experiments and endocrinology studies. He calls these interventions "minimally invasive."

Since Dr. VandeBerg is such a humanitarian I'm sure he wouldn't mind testing the vaccines on himself or his family (or he can give his students extra credit for each injection). Chimpanzees have emotional and sensory lives as rich as our own. The pain and stress of isolation as well as the intentional infection with debilitating diseases is needlessly cruel and should be abolished. This concern about the definition of "invasive" is the same kind of verbal gymnastics that bent the definition of torture into utter meaninglessness. If you wouldn't perform an experiment on a person you shouldn't perform it on a chimpanzee. Period.

Jane Goodall has condemned the practices by the New Iberia Research Center, where the nine month investigation took place, and is a firm supporter of the Humane Society's proposed ban.

In no lab I have visited have I seen so many chimpanzees exhibit such intense fear. The screaming I heard when chimpanzees were being forced to move toward the dreaded needle in their squeeze cages was, for me, absolutely horrifying.

Today we rightly condemn the disgusting experiments conducted as part of the Tuskegee Study in the hope of understanding the course of syphilis. The intention was humanitarian then just as it is now. But to intentionally inflict suffering in order to reduce suffering elsewhere is an empty moral argument. Hopefully in a few decades our children will read about this current squabbling over how immoral we can afford to be in the name of science with the same disgust that we feel about such experimentation in the past.

The Nature of Partisan Politics-Part II

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:17:00 +0000

Republicans from Mars, Democrats from Venus and the partisan assumptions about human nature.

Liberals embrace a human nature based on equality and cooperation.
Image: Eric Drooker, "People vs. Military"

Click here for The Nature of Partisan Politics - Part I
Liberals also have a unique perspective on human nature, though it would seem that Levin's ideological blinders prevented him from seeing it. Levin claims that liberal assumptions are based on the view that "most human problems are functions of an imperfect distribution of resources." This is a tenuous connection at best and seems intended merely to connect liberalism with Marxism. While economic justice is an important issue for liberals, the areas of concern are considerably broader than simply focusing on how resources are divided.

For example, concern for gay and lesbian rights is not based on economic inequality nor does the environmental movement build its foundation on a desire for the redistribution of wealth. In fact, the environmental movement has had a difficult time reaching out to labor unions based on the (largely erroneous) fear that the two are at odds with one another. It's also difficult to see how Levin can equate diplomacy with economic redistribution. Unless we're talking about paying someone for a peace treaty – like General Petraeus did with the Sunni insurgents in Iraq – most diplomacy is "the art of relating states to each other by agreement rather than by the exercise of force." Of course, that's the view of the renowned liberal Henry Kissinger, so shouldn't be taken in any way seriously.

However, there is a connection between such seemingly disparate issues as workers rights, environmental sustainability, a progressive income tax and gay marriage. What all these areas of concern are based upon is a moral sense of equality and fairness. Workers are small players in a larger financial system; by helping them join together in unions to collectively bargain with their employer it helps to level the playing field. For centuries the natural world has been used only for its supply of cheap resources or as a waste dump; now that the full picture of this human impact has been revealed we must advocate for our collective future. Issues of civil rights, women's rights, gay and lesbian rights or animal rights; all fall under the broad category of nurturing a society based around notions of equality. The assumption about human nature inherent in the liberal worldview is that fairness and equality can ultimately be achieved and that our innate character is both flexible as it is fundamentally decent. Liberals therefore assume that the social ills that plague our society – unemployment, crime, racism, homophobia – are all moral issues that can be resolved by improving the environment where these problems prevail.

In other words, our "deepest disagreements" are that conservatives think human nature is fixed and a problem to be guarded against while liberals think human nature is flexible and that experience either corrupts or refines. Conservative commentator Thomas Sowell calls these the "Tragic" or "Utopian" worldviews while liberal cognitive scientist George Lakoff refers to them as the "Strict Father" or "Nurturing Parent" traditions. To put these same categories into religious terms, where a conservative would thump the pulpit preaching dominion, a liberal would organize the poor around the cross of liberation theology.

The science of human nature has been studied for more than three hundred years.
Image: Vesalius, De Humani Corporis Fabrica / University of Glasgow
What's important to point out, of course, is that whatever the conservative or liberal assumptions about human nature may be, they have no bearing on what human nature actually is – something that political theorists often forget. The father of political science, Thomas Hobbes, justified monarchy based on his assumption that humans in a "state of nature" (what we would now call indigenous societies) lived a bestial existence that was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Ever since then appeals to a human nature of this sort have been used as an excuse for all manner of draconian policies to maintain order. That there have now been three and a half centuries of research in anthropology and biology on this very question doesn't seem to have filtered down yet to the level of politics.

So, which view is the correct interpretation of human nature? Clearly this question can't be fully addressed in such a short space, but the simple answer is that both are flawed, but one more than the other. Human nature is not intractable. To say that would be like suggesting a healthy lifestyle would have no effect on someone born with the genetic predisposition for a fatal disease. Biology is not destiny, but neither is it unimportant. Morality and cooperation are intrinsic properties of human nature, just as the self-indulgent and antisocial behaviors are that conservatives fear. All societies at all times in history (and pre-history) have had a firmly entrenched moral code; that this code frequently applies only to the in-group is one of the human tragedies to be overcome. Furthermore, most social species – and primates in particular – have an intuitive sense of right and wrong and will work in cooperation with their social group more often than not.

As a social species ourselves, and one that has adapted to thrive in an enormous range of habitats and conditions, we are influenced significantly by our environment and will alter our behavior based on experience. But we are not infinitely flexible. Left-wing totalitarian assumptions that human nature could be “reeducated” to fit the interests of the state were as flawed as right-wing assumptions are now that suggest homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be learned or unlearned at will. However, by influencing people's environment you can, to a significant extent, influence the social outcome. This makes having a better understanding of human nature all the more vital, since important decisions based on faulty assumptions could be corrosive to human liberty.

Conservatives show their determination to embrace partisanship on their terms.
Image: RJ Matson, The St. Louis Post Dispatch
While such ultimate questions about human nature will continue to be pursued for many years to come by both scientific thinkers and political pundits alike, Mr. Levin's current use is particularly unfortunate. It's not simply that he would seek to misuse these assumptions to beat his ideological drum; it is that his support for the intractable partisanship on which it is based would be as harmful to the nation during a time of crisis as it is personally disingenuous.

The day after the 2008 election, on November 5, when it was disclosed that Rahm Emmanuel would be the top pick for President Obama's Chief of Staff, Levin lambasted his choice as someone who was "a vicious graceless partisan: narrow, hectic, unremittingly aggressive, vulgar, and impatient." This, for Levin, was a bad sign and he criticized the new President because it "suggests both that he wants to be ruthless and partisan and that he does not have a clear sense of how the White House works." Perhaps his essay should have been titled "Partisanship is Good (But Only If My Side Wins)". With such a statement it would seem that Levin’s view of human nature has no concept of hypocrisy. Such outright duplicity not only illuminates his approach as an advocate of Ethics and Public Policy, it is the very nature of partisan politics that we should all seek to avoid.

The Nature of Partisan Politics-Part I

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:35:00 +0000

Yuval Levin justifies partisan bickering based on false assumptions about human nature.

Conservatives and liberals conflict over their basic views on human nature.
Image: Artist Unknown

As an evolutionary anthropologist and student of history, I am always fascinated to learn what politically motivated figures have to say about human nature. It’s one area of life where people require zero expertise about the subject they claim such authority in.

In the Feb. 23 issue of Newsweek, Yuval Levin, Hertog Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative think tank, continues in this fine tradition where he claims that "Partisanship is Good" because it is based on conflicting assumptions about human nature.

Our deepest disagreements coalesce into two broad views of human nature that define the public life of every free society. In a crude and general way our political parties give expression to these views, and allow the roughly like-minded to pool their voices and their votes in order to turn beliefs into action.

Levin builds his case about these two schools of thought based on the overarching connections between different policy positions. Conservatives want traditional values and a strong military because "both views express an underlying premise about the intractability of human nature" while liberals apparently want "a large welfare state" and favor diplomacy in global conflicts because "both views express an underlying sense that most problems are functions of an imperfect distribution of resources."

There are several things wrong with this argument, which I will address. But Levin then uses this appeal about separate but equal views on human nature to justify his point that Obama shouldn't complain about Republican stonewalling on his economic recovery plan. Never mind that, according to the Wall Street Journal, the tax cuts in Obama's stimulus bill (at $282 billion or 36% of the entire package) will be the largest immediate tax relief in US history. Never mind that the last three conservative administrations are responsible for 75% of our national debt (or $8.3 of the current $10.85 trillion according to the 2009 Budget Historical Tables, 7.1). And never mind that deregulation of the financial services industry, backed by conservative policies, is what led to our current crisis. Never mind all of that. Republicans are from Mars and Democrats are from Venus and we need to value both views of human nature equally.

To ridicule these disagreements and assert as our new president also did in his inaugural that 'the time has come to set aside childish things' is to demean as insignificant the great debates that have formed our republic over more than two centuries.

Of course, one has to question his sincerity about respecting different points of view considering this is the same person who wrote, “By her husbands logic, Michelle Obama must be a heavily armed xenophobic religious zealot, because boy is she bitter." This after her speech about families struggling to make ends meet that she gave on May 2, 2008, just four months before the economic crisis made front-page news.

But I won't demean Levin's argument as insignificant; to do so would not be in keeping with the great debates of our republic. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that, where it comes to the conservative view of human nature, Levin is generally correct. The range of issues bundled under "right wing" ideology include such seemingly disconnected policies as a strong religious devotion, the rejection of public assistance programs as well as a firm support for increased police and military funding. I would suggest (and I think Levin would agree) that all of these issues are based on the assumption that human nature is fundamentally flawed and that to deviate from tradition is to invite social disintegration.

Conservatives view human nature as a delicate balance between order and social chaos.
Image: Sadegh Tirafkan,"Temptation"
At first glance it’s difficult to understand why those people who are most willing to bow their heads to the prince of peace would also be interested in funding weapons of war – let alone to ignore his call to help the least among us. Likewise, it's curious that the logic of cutting our already underfunded social programs because we need to be "fiscally responsible" doesn't also apply to the $711 billion price tag for military spending in 2008-2009 (about 25% of our national budget and nearly as large as the rest of the world's military spending combined). Even in the conservative stalwart position on states' rights there is some cognitive dissonance. States should have the right to restrict abortion despite the Supreme Court's ruling, but there should also be a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts and Connecticut from allowing gay marriage. It's difficult to understand any justification that would allow someone to hold two opposing and contradictory views simultaneously on a single issue. But, rest assured, cartwheels of logic aside, there is a connection.

Underlying all of these issues lay a basic belief in traditional gender roles and an assumption that human nature is essentially base, self-indulgent and unchanging. We therefore need a strong authority to keep our rapacious vices at bay and a firm hand to guide our moral character. We should appeal to Christ for the salvation of our own wickedness, but keep a large arsenal at the ready to protect against the wickedness of others. Furthermore, governments shouldn't coddle those who make the wrong moral choices but should encourage strength and independence so they can stand on their own two feet – after all, people will only take advantage of government assistance. From this basic assumption, conservatives transform what looks like economic lunacy from one perspective into their argument for fiscal responsibility. As for the "wedge" issues of gay marriage and abortion, it is simply that allowing behavior that deviates from traditional norms could upset the balance of heterosexual monogamy. By doing so we would be flinging open the gates for a whole range of deviant behaviors and desires that would assail our carefully balanced civilization. It's not simply about sex; it's about stability. For a conservative, then, human nature has us tiptoeing precariously along the ledge between right and wrong, with temptation always grappling at our feet.

Click here for The Nature of Partisan Politics - Part II

Naomi Wolf Slams "Fake Activism"

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:00:00 +0000

"Disney-like" marches won't be effective unless risks are taken to disrupt business as usual.

"Magic Kingdom" security forces may be called if protesters are actually making change.
Image: Incredimazing
After months of planning and organizing, contacting city officials and receiving the proper zoning permits, a large protest march commences in a major U.S. city. Tens of thousands arrive and orderly march down the prearranged protest route that steers clear of the busy city center. Along the way a few hundred pedestrians look at the signs and creative costumes that protesters brought to draw peoples attention to their message. Marchers snap pictures and post them to their personal blogs so their friends can see how they spent their afternoon advocating for peace and justice. Hopefully, a few photographers and journalists from the major media outlets will be there to take their own pictures and get population estimates from the police. In the end it will have been a "successful" protest that followed all the rules and where no one was inconvenienced.

Successful, in this context, essentially means useless. As Naomi Wolf points out (and what many in the social justice movement have been saying for years) is that the only way institutions of power and authority will be willing to change policy is if they are forced to. Blocking traffic, creating inconveniences to commerce or (in rare cases where the first two have been tried and failed) targeting specific items or buildings for property destruction are the only effective ways to remove unjust policies.

Naomi Wolf, author of the classic feminist book The Beauty Myth and, more recently, The End of America and Give Me Liberty, has a few excellent comments about this in a talk she gave before the Hudson Union Society on Jan. 16.

For the full talk click here.
If we genuinely believe in creating social change then we are going to have to be willing to accept certain risks. Martin Luther King, Cesar Chavez and Gandhi understood this. So do the People's Alliance for Democracy in Thailand, the National Union of Education Workers in Oaxaca, Mexico and the Tibetan People's Uprising Movement.

Hopefully the national "leaders" of the various social justice movements (I'm looking at you A.N.S.W.E.R. and Human Rights Campaign) will be willing to take the necessary risks in order to be effective in the years to come. But, as is usually the case, it will take people on the ground to force these organizations into being effective, whether they like it or not.

Naked Mole Rats Live Longer

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:25:00 +0000

World's most cooperative mammal may hold the secret to a longer life.

The eusocial naked mole rats sleep in closely related family groups.
Image: University of Pennsylvania
Naked mole rats won't win any beauty contests but it seems they may for quality of life and longevity. A new report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (subscription required) has shown that they live nine times longer than other rodents.

According to Science Daily:

“Naked mole rats don’t show the usual deterioration of aging, such as menopause or decline in brain function,” said paper co-author Rochelle Buffenstein, Ph.D., professor of physiology at the Barshop Institute and one of the world’s leading experts on aging in naked mole rats. “They demonstrate a healthy longevity that all of us would like to emulate.”

In a rare case of eusociality among mammals (the form of cooperation shown in bees, ants and termites) naked mole rats show a genetic relatedness as high as 70%. While one would expect a greater level of inbreeding depression as a result of recessive deleterious alleles, naked mole rats are remarkably fit and this latest study only confirms this.

I'm left to wonder how much their sociality influences this increase in longevity. Since stress is one of the primary causes of deterioration in health, perhaps this unique form of cooperation is behind their more efficient removal of damaged proteins.

Lancet: Palestinian Health Declines

noreply@blogger.com (Eric Michael Johnson) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:03:00 +0000

New report by England's premier medical journal paints stark picture.

Children are hardest hit by occupation, according to report.Image: AP / Charles Dharapak
The Lancet’s report, Health in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, presents a devastating picture of the impact that war and occupation have had on the Palestinian people. Infant mortality alone, between 2000 and 2006, is seven times higher for a Palestinian child than an Israeli (27 per 1,000 compared to 3.9) even though both are separated by only a few miles.

The Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, introduced the report:

"Since 2000, the occupied Palestinian territory has experienced increasing human insecurity, with the erosion and reversal of many health gains made in earlier years... These setbacks, together with the latest Israeli air and ground attacks on Gaza, have plunged the region into a humanitarian crisis.”

The report argues that "hope for improving the health and quality of life of Palestinians will exist only once people recognize that the structural and political conditions that they endure in the Occupied Palestinian Territory are the key determinants of population health".