Botero, the colombian painter at the Marlborough NYC gallery imagines a fat, modern Jesus, possibly diabetic. Thats a Via Crucis in itself.
Archive for October, 2011
Science Daily news,october 25, higlights a recent paper from Georgia Insitute Tech: Nalini Polavarapu, Gaurav Arora, Vinay K Mittal, John F McDonald. Characterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation. Mobile DNA, 2011; 2: 13 DOI: 10.1186/1759-8753-2-13. The punch lines: “Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology have now determined that the insertion and deletion of large pieces of DNA near genes are highly variable between humans and chimpanzees and may account for major differences between the two species.”
The fact that the variabiality is found doesnt point to a mechanism to emerge two different species. We are still in the dark as to what is regulated and translated and how these differences account for the astounding phenotypic disparities, fortunately, between chimps and us. A puzzling observation is that according to the team: we may have dragged some cancer propensity in exchange for a larger brain and presumably “higher” cognitive faculties.
In Yvonne Rekers, Daniel B.M. Haun and Michael Tomasello. Children, but Not Chimpanzees, Prefer to Collaborate. Current Biology, 2011 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.08.066, Tomasellos’ group at the Planck say (via Science Daily): “A preference to do things together instead of alone differentiates humans from one of our closely related primate cousins,” said Daniel Haun of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. “Once we know the underlying motivations of this tendency, we will have learned something new about human nature that differentiates it from chimpanzee nature.”
It is a bewildering thought to jump from different intercalated sequences, pressumably regulatory, to children cooperating. An uber reductionist would jump to oxytocin and prairie vole social and bonding “genes”, search for D-cycloserine receptors, shown to enhance pair bonding, whatever that is.
Is it that simple? Humans a product of regulatory short sequences?
A vengeful people: la venganza es mala, mata el alma y la envenena. El chapulin colorado, mexican heroe.October 28, 2011
Vengeance, revenge, is violent business, and equalizes perpetrators and victims in the irreversible space of death. International revenge is tricky business, it involves: history-unknown for most- countries, philosophies and real people willing to exercise “revenge” by sanctioning the moral right to validate the killing of the perpetrator-now vicitm-; a deserving fate. American Indian women I have met told me: “dont get mad, get even”: perfect vengeance. Vengeance, it has been said it is best served cold and inflicted a posteriori. However, our addicition to morally sanction the world without us in the equation sends us in a slippery moral slope. Should we be surprised by, say, Sebag Montefiores’ article in the NYT declaring that Gaddafi got what he deserved. That is, allegedly, being raped, and nonallegedly shot? My answer is no. And being enough reasons to execute Gaddafi, according to many, is what makes Sebag’s position truculent and a cold calculation that emerges his conclusion. Although Sebag M is british, he represents a common stance of enlightened neocons arguing for a reason-based, cellular equivalent of morality, which of course is as of today, non existent. And this cellular morality enacts itself in the just killing-of Gaddafi-and the written vengeful opinion supporting it. (De Dora at RSpeking keeps pontificating about a morally based law (as if it had not been all along the purpose of the legislator)).
Should we be surprised that Krauthammer at the WP says the same thing? And much worst: “So he was killed by his captors. Big deal. So was Mussolini. So were the Ceausescus. They deserved far worse. As did Gaddafi. In a world of perfect justice, this Caligula should have suffered far more, far longer. He inflicted unimaginable suffering upon thousands. What did he suffer? Perhaps an hour of torment and a shot through the head. By any standard of cosmic justice, that’s mercy. Moreover, Gaddafi’s sorry end has one major virtue: deterrence-On the contrary: there is good evidence that the effect may be the opposite-You are a murderous dictator with a rebellion on your hands. You have a choice. Relinquish power and spare your country further agony, and you can then live out your days like Amin — or like a more contemporary Saudi guest, Tunisia’s Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali. Otherwise, you die like Gaddafi, dragged from a stinking sewer pipe, abused, taunted and shot. It’s not pretty. But it’s a precedent. And a salutary one-rathammer, what are you on??? One that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, for example, might contemplate. Continue to fight and kill, and expect thereafter no belated offers of asylum — not even the due process of a long, talky judicial proceeding in The Hague with a nice comfy cell, three meals a day and the consoling certainty that your captors practice none of your specialties: torture and summary execution. Call it the Gaddafi Rule: Give it up and go, or one day find death by “Libyan crossfire.” Followed by a Libyan state funeral. That’s when you lie on public view for four days, half-naked in a meat locker.”
Krauthammer is beyond bigotry; dont forget you are part of the establishment that allowed Gaddafi in the first place. And part of the politburo that advised on foreign policy for a long time. To advance an opinion like this, you must pass a consistency morality check. You cant possibly pass it, Kraut.
The same bigotry you inflict in the world you inflict upon your fellow citizens with your discourse of hate, privilege and revenge.
or just two fat white rednecks? Or as a friend pointed out: They are sooo spherical.maybe a subspecies…Homo sphaericus….
I highlight Rovecop because he has launched a frontal attack on, everybody: GOP candidates-to-be-nominated and of course Barack. Rove cant stand that President will beat, easily, Romney, Roves’ dauphin, for lack of any choice. Moreover, if the trends holds, I anticipate a faster recovery rate. Hail the Chief.
And Limbaugh? his despicable self is relegated, we are in a Rush hiatus. Thank the Lord.
H. Newton masterpiece
Once again Dr Gutting, at the NYT gutts Pinkers’ book, the better angels. This is gutting ridiculous. Dr. Gutting assumes that the Pinkers’ proposal, “we are getting smarter” is true. But, we are not getting “smarter”: we may know more about the universe, but thats’ it. There is no data to assume our generations are getting smarter, if we could find a “resonable” definition of “intelligence” or “being smart” (to not screw up?). I find it amazing that Pinker and Gutting and all others promoting the success of neocapitalist science can get away with weak arguments, flawed logic and desperate data. I call it neocapitalist science because these guys endorse the capitalist race science based to heaven-but many are atheists-on earth.
Goes Gutting : ” The two key empirical claims that Pinker puts forward are suggested in the title: that the level of human violence (war, murder, etc.) has been decreasing over the centuries and that the human ability to reason has been correspondingly increasing. He goes on to explain the first claim by the second. Our ability to reason causes us to be less violent: “A smarter [more rational] world,” he says, “is a less violent world.”
We know very well that Pinkers’ arguments in favour of decreasing world wide violence are thinly thin. The fact that even in the case if it was true, to attribute this to reason, is a bit logically and historically preposterous. Hence, the clincher: we are morally”better”-enlightened-because of reason-we are smarter-.
While at the grind, i read in the Sunday NYT Review an article by S Marche “Wouldnt it be cool if Shakespeare wasnt Shakespeare” taking on the conspiracy theories that other than the Bard himself wrote his work. He concludes:
“The problem is that not everybody does deserve a say-in anything-. Just because an opinion exists does not mean that the opinion is worthy of respect. Some people deserve to be marginalized and excluded. There are many questions in this world over which rational people can have sensible confrontations: whether lower taxes stimulate or stagnate growth; whether abortion is immoral; whether the ’60s were an achievement or a disaster; whether the universe is motivated by a force for benevolence; whether the Fonz jumping on water skis over a shark was cool or lame. Whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is not one of these questions. Unfortunately, the nonquestion of Shakespeare’s identity is now being asked on billboards all over the world. It will raise debate where none should be. It will sow confusion where there is none. Somebody here is a fraud, but it isn’t Shakespeare.”
I suggest this applies quite to the question of “ascending intelligence” and less violence today as developed by Pinker. Remarkable: somebody floats a “reasonable idea’ and lord and behold it takes a life of its own. Examples: we live in a “less’ violent world-ask the people of Sinaloa, Mx-selfish gene-which still waits for further explanation, meme, multiverse, the singularity, the megafauna extinction by humans, Jared Diamonds’ floting ideas from the disseapereance of humans in Rapa Nui to other more bizarre ones, so forth. It seems to me all these ideas surge from the angst of their creators trying to find a ‘scientifically” informed meaning in the world that mirrors the clockwork of reason and the scientific method (more to follow).
This line of reasoning applies, a propos of violence, what Sebag Montifiore writes in the NYT-again- that “dictators deserve the death they get”. Here we have a subversive, revisionist (if possible both together) statement to appease our fear witnessing a horrendous unavoidable event.
This somehow startling pustch to invest morality with a reasonable scientific “foundation” is well, “unreasonable”. Shouldnt we advocating saner laws, equality, equity, diversity and all that will enhance the shared human condition, rather than proselityzing with confused scientific bs? At Rationally Speaking, pun intended, De Dora writes : “But the relationship between morality and law runs much deeper than one failed amendment. Indeed, this country’s foundational philosophical concepts — life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness —(very self evident for everybody else in the universe) are rooted in morality!!!!!!!!!! So are fundamental principles found in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to freedom of speech and belief, the right to assembly, the right to privacy, and the right to a fair trial. This list continues on, from basic crimes like murder, rape, and robbery, to insider trading and so-called sin laws, like cigarette taxes or seat belt fines. Each one of these examples is based on some prior moral notion about what is right or wrong, or what is good or bad. In short, as Barack Obama argues in his book, The Audacity of Hope (for reference, page 218, though I suggest you read the entire book), I propose that most law, either in spirit or letter, is nothing but encoded morality.” (arghh..200 years later actually 1000 if you count the Carta Magna.). This guy works fo the NYC branch of the CFI; no wonder. He says ABSOLUTELY nothing.
Ms Biekempis has written a delightful piece about “american males”. Probably she is persona non grata from Texas onwards.
“The stereotypical American male is a rugged individualist. He values family and faith, and does honest, manual work to provide for his loved ones and his community.” (right: ask Chaz Bono, who is not even a male)
“This American male relishes the great outdoors – an untamed, manly realm where he and other like-minded dudes appreciate natural beauty by shooting wild animals and angling over-fished rivers. Even his more cosmopolitan, white-collar counterparts – whom “true” American males dismiss as effete and over-educated – aspire to this aesthetic, and will pay large sums of money for jaunts to “dude ranches”, high-end camping trips and garages full of tools they never use. This American male – ever a fan of plaid shirts, woodsy aftershave, rare steak and domestic beer – views red-blooded gunslingers such as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood as role models, toward which “real men” should aspire.
This American male is also irrelevant.” Precious.
The relevant american male is half black, big ears and shrewd. More than we realize. I made a comment suggesting the Machiavellian angle to Baracks’ presidential behaviour. Today at the NYT, Friedmans’ calls the president: Barack Kissinger Obama. He intended to highlight the shrewd nature of Barack foreign policies, but he forgets Kissinger is a war criminal. I will stick to my Machiavellian analogy. Take note Friedman, please.
Never… ever..imagined, but we are not arabs neither they are us.
Raping Gaddafi before shooting was cultural? (if proven true)
In other places, traitors and snitches and debtors (usually drugs and sharkloans) are sent away with a bottle (usually broken) in their rectum.
This is SO sad and demeaning if nature, human- maybe not- wasnt more demeaned every day…
I am frozen..with Gaddafis’ cadaver (actually rotting in a helpless cold room). Deserved pax americana?
The answer is: we have no idea what goes on in the minds that US drones help.
I do hope so. It would be good for the WORLD.
Hail the HalfBlack Prince.