Meet Ardipithecus: the newest/oldest member of our family

The current issue of Science introduces us to our oldest known ancestor: Ardipithecus. Coming only after fifteen years of meticulous research by Tim White and his team, this announcement is a cause for celebration for those of us who treasure hard-earned evidence-based knowledge. At Daily Dish, though, Andrew Sullivan introduces Ardipithecus with a disclaimer: "If by any chance you are a fundamentalist Christian, skip this post. You can't handle the truth." I haven't yet received the issue of Science featuring Ardipithecus, but I am very much on the lookout. In the meantime, Karl Zimmer of The Loom offers a highly readable overview of the newly released findings:

Ardipithecus’s feet were mosaics too. The four little toes were adapted for walking on the ground. Yet the big toe was still opposable, much like our thumbs. This sort of big toe helped Ardipithecus move through the trees much more adeptly than Lucy. But Ardipithecus could not climb through trees as well as, say, chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have lots of adaptations in their arms and shoulders to let them hang from branches and climb vertically up trees with incredible speed. Ardipithecus had hands were not stiffened enough to let them move like chimpanzees. Ardipithecus probably moved carefully through the trees, using its hands and feet all at once to grip branches.

It's not every day that we push back one-million years further regarding our understanding of our ancestry. This is an extraordinary discovery by Tim White (who was also part of the time who uncovered "Lucy" (Australopithecus afarensis) in the early 1970's. Today, I will revel in the thought that, more than four million years ago, our tree-crawling ancestors were living valiantly and carefully enough to pass on their genes so that we modern house-dwelling (and car-dwelling) humans could scientifically contemplate their way of life. It is all so very bracing . . .

Continue ReadingMeet Ardipithecus: the newest/oldest member of our family

Conservative judge once again advocates decriminalization

Retired Judge James Gray has impeccable conservative credentials. I've posted about him previously. In a recent article in the Daily Pilot, he most reasonably suggests that most Americans would share most of the following goals:

1. Reduce the exposure of drugs to and usage of drugs by children;

2. Stop or materially reduce the violence that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs, especially to police officers and innocent by-standers;

3. Stop or materially reduce the corruption of public officials, individual people and companies, and especially children that accompanies the manufacture and distribution of drugs;

4. Stop or materially reduce crime both by people trying to get money to purchase drugs and by those under the influence of drugs;

5. Stop or materially reduce the flow of drugs into our country;

6. Reduce health risks to people who use drugs;

7. Maintain and reaffirm our civil liberties;

8. Reduce the number of people we must put into our jails and prisons;

9. Stop or materially reduce the flow of guns out of our country and into countries south of our border;

10. Increase respect for our laws and institutions.

What is a good way to simultaneously further all of these goals? All we need to do is to treat the manufacture and sale of drugs "just like we treat alcohol." Consider #2 in more detail--attempting to curtail violence on the streets. Judge Gray offers a hypothetical:

Today if Budweiser has distribution problems with Coors, they don’t take guns to the streets to resolve them. Instead they file a complaint in court, and have it peacefully adjudicated by judges like me.

Consider also, common sense economics: if drugs were not punished with criminal sanctions, the price of drugs would fall and "drug addicted people would only need to steal half as much to get their drugs." The case for decriminialization is utterly compelling to anyone who takes the time to consider the sceop of the current problem. For instance, it's time to stop throwing 700,000 people into jail every year just because they use marijuana. Many of these people are (other than the marijuana offenses) peace-loving tax-paying citizens with families. It's time to stop the insanity.

Continue ReadingConservative judge once again advocates decriminalization

Andrew Sullivan pycho-analyses Liz Cheney’s approval of torture

Andrew Sullivan has taken some time to consider why Liz Cheney would approve of the use of torture. For one thing, torture is (amazingly) not shameful to the far right; rather, it's red meat to them. Sullivan quotes Adam Serwer on this point:

For the GOP, torture is no longer a "necessary evil." It is a rally cry, a "values" issue like same-sex marriage or abortion. They don't "grudgingly" support torture, they applaud it. They celebrate it. Liz Cheney's unequivocal support for torture methods gleaned from communist China has people begging her to run for office.
And thus, Liz, is given a second reason to defend her father, who should be treated as the war criminal he is. Her first reason, of course, is family loyalty:
Family members are always, and understandably, the last defenders of the criminal. The Cheneys' natural inability to see Cheney in any reality-based perspective renders them psychologically able, even eager, to defend evil as a force for good in ways more forthright than others. Why this should be a plus for Cheney among the GOP rather than an obvious conflict of interest is part of the right's current derangement. They too cannot hold the concept of their own moral fallibility in their fearful, clenched minds.
Sullivan's entire post is well worth a read.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan pycho-analyses Liz Cheney’s approval of torture

Abandoning one’s adoptive child

What am I supposed to think when a woman steps forward to publicize her decision to give up an adopted child that she had raised for 18 months? This story leaves me bewildered. I don’t think the story tells me enough to allow me to know what to think. I keep wondering, "What if it had been her biological child? What would I think then? Would I have an opinion in that case, or would I be in this same puzzled/confused state that I'm now experiencing? How could I possibly render judgment without knowing a lot more about all of those involved? Even though I am sorely tempted to be angry with this adoptive mother at a gut level. But, as indicated in the video, this woman has parented her own biological children too. But that can cut two ways. And why aren't we told anything at all about the adoptive father and his history and attitudes regarding this baby? And what about the claim that the baby is doing "well" with his new family? That cuts both ways too, in my opinion. What's really going on here? Were there financial issues? Racial issues? Medical issues? Such a frustrating story to me. What is the take-away message from this story? It makes me feel like a voyeur and it makes me want to accuse MSNBC of irresponsibly packaging this story. Note: For those who don't know me, I am an adoptive parent of two girls from China who I very much consider to be my daughter forever, no matter what happens--and that's how my wife and I looked at adoption from Day One. I wonder how much my personal history colors my views on this abandonment story.

Continue ReadingAbandoning one’s adoptive child

Nader in Omaha

Tuesday afternoon, I was privileged to be able to attend a speech by Ralph Nader, followed by a question-and-answer session and a book-signing. He was promoting his new book, Only the Super-rich can save us! If you weren't aware that he has a new book out, you aren't alone. In fact, his presence in Omaha wasn't well-publicized. I managed to see this article in the local paper which alerted me to both the fact that he had a new book out, and that he was in Omaha. I was fortunate enough to be able to arrange for some time off work, and went to the 3:00 session at McFoster's Natural-Kind Cafe. Unfortunately, I completely forgot my role as a blogger and so I was woefully unprepared to take notes or photos. So rather than direct quotes, I'll discuss some of the main themes of his speech, as well as the question-and-answer session. Nader was scheduled to speak at 3:00 p.m., but didn't actually take the podium until about 3:15, largely due to the enthusiastic crowd gathered around him peppering him with questions and having their books signed. He spoke for about a half-hour, then took questions for roughly another hour. I estimated the crowd to number about 80, and it was standing-room only in the small upstairs room at McFoster's. His speech stuck pretty closely to the themes of the book, which asks us to re-imagine the last several years. The book begins with the disastrous fumbling of Hurricane Katrina, and a fictionalized Warren Buffet aghast at the apparent inability of a former first-world country to provide relief to its own citizens. Using his vast economic resources, he marshals the needed supplies and delivers them to a devastated New Orleans. The experience haunts him though, and he decides to convene a group of billionaires to solve some of the most pressing crises confronting American democracy. Using untold billions of their own, they are able to finally provide an effective foil against the big-money interests that would continue using the system to unjustly enrich themselves.

Continue ReadingNader in Omaha