PROGRESSIVISM WINS

The following long piece is purely political. If you want to pass on politics today, don’t read it, but if you want to see how one commentator interprets the mid-term election as a victory for true progressivism rather than centrism, then enjoy yourself. Don’t be put off by the term, “biconceptual”! O, and by the way—Happy New Year!

[SNIP]
Building On the Progressive Victory

By George Lakoff t r u t h o u t | Guest Contributor Friday 15 December 2006

As the 110th Congress prepares to take office, the post-election tug of war for the soul of the Democratic Party continues, with Democratic Leadership Council folks spinning the election as a victory for centrism and others pointing to the role of economic populism.

The tug of war began on November 7, as Rahm Emanuel sprang to the podium in front of national TV cameras to announce a victory for centrism. Two days later, fellow centrist James Carville called, unsuccessfully, for the resignation of Howard Dean from the Democratic National Committee. Dean's 50-state strategy had been crucial in the Democratic victory. Carville and Emanuel are veterans of Bill Clinton's administration. They appear to want a centrist Congress and a centrist DNC in preparation for Hillary Clinton's presidential run.

The struggle to explain the election continues because it may well affect how Congressional Democrats will decide to act. Economic populism or centrism? The truth, I think, is both more complex and more interesting and brings progressive values to center stage.

Framing has been part of the controversy. Framing has been about the deepest progressive values, ideas and principles; future progressive policies, and the enterprise of accurately framing reality. Centrists, because of their concern with moving the party to the right, away from progressive values, have falsely framed framing itself as being mere messaging and spin.

It is time to return to accurate framing, beginning with the election itself.

The Friday night after the election, my wife and I were standing in a movie line waiting to buy tickets. A young man walked by, dressed for a date and carrying a bouquet of white roses. He stopped short, looked at me for a few seconds, pulled out one white rose and handed it to me, saying, "Thank you for helping the Democrats win the election," and walked on.

I appreciated the white rose.

But there really should be thousands of white roses handed out to the campaign workers. And a dozen for each candidate. The reason is that the new members of Congress did better than their predecessors at communicating their values to the public. Not much has been said about it, but they successfully reframed public debate and did so in the best way: they framed reality accurately.

They stopped shooting themselves in the foot, stopped accepting conservative frames, stopped listing facts and figures, and instead connected with their constituents, talked about values, said powerfully what they believed, and named what was real. That was what needed to be done on the communications front. They did it and should get credit for it. We at Rockridge Institute appreciate your achievement, and the media and all progressives should appreciate it too. The Republicans did plenty to defeat themselves, but the Democrats had to work to win it.

Framing matters, as centrists who are trying to frame the election as a centrist win know well. Framing raises the issue of moral worldviews and overall values and principles, and they in turn raise the question of what values lie behind policy prescriptions.

Centrists, who advocate moving to the right, don't want the spotlight on moral values, because moving to the right means adopting conservative moral values. Accordingly, centrists have been trying to downplay framing as if it were merely messaging - words without substance.

Centrism or economic populism? Or neither? The future of our nation may depend on what the Democrats do. And that depends, in significant part, on why they think they won.

There was a marvelous moment on NPR right after the election: Melissa Block asking newly elected representative Heath Schuler of North Carolina, a former NFL quarterback, what it meant for him to be a Democrat, given that he opposed abortion, opposed gay marriage, and supported gun ownership. "Well, it's a reflection of my district," Schuler replied.

"What makes you a Democrat?" Block asked. Schuler replied that it was what his parents and grandparents taught him: "A Democrat helps people that cannot help themselves." What about fiscal responsibility? Earmarks like bridges to nowhere are irresponsible, Schuler replied; instead we should be spending money on education, Social Security, universal health care, preserving the environment, and renewable energy.

In short, what Schuler really cares about, what he was running on, and what he got elected on were progressive policies, even though he happened to hold some conservative positions that inoculated him in his district against charges of being "too liberal."

Schuler is what I've been referring to as a "biconceptual"—someone who has progressive positions in certain areas of life and conservative positions in others. What makes Schuler a Democrat is that he identifies himself politically with the progressive values he ran on, despite having conservative positions he didn't run on.

Bob Casey happens to be a Catholic who opposes abortion rights, but every position he ran on was a progressive position. Jon Tester believes in gun ownership in Montana, but that is not what he ran on. He ran on his progressive beliefs by the dozen. These candidates ran primarily on their progressive positions. Despite having some conservative positions, they did not run primarily on their conservative positions. It was the progressive values they ran on that have given them their mandate.

And Sherrod Brown in Ohio, a state that went to Bush in 2000 and 2004, beat a "moderate" incumbent by 11 percentage points as a clear and powerful progressive voice.

Meanwhile, Harold Ford Jr. lost in Tennessee for many reasons, including a racist ad campaign against him. But among the reasons was the way he campaigned. He ran enthusiastically, using conservative code words: personal responsibility, strong moral values, character education, pro-family, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, eliminate abortions, and so on. In short, he had Heath Schuler's positions, but unlike Schuler, he ran overtly on those positions and made a big deal of it, trying to convince good ole boy Tennesseans that he was one of them. As Schuler understood, if you really have those positions and really are part of your community in that way, you don't have to say so. As Tennesseans pointed out in interviews I saw, Ford didn't seem credible running as a good ole boy. Moreover, in the campaign footage I saw, his body language betrayed him; he didn't come across as authentic, and authenticity is the name of the game. What he was running on did not, in toto, fit any consistent moral worldview. He was trying to be too many things to too many people.

In short, the Democratic candidate who campaigned on conservative values lost; those who may have had such values, but campaigned on their progressive values, won.

Like Schuler and Casey, swing voters are biconceptuals, with both conservative and progressive worldviews in different areas of life, and with both available for politics. How did these biconceptual candidates appeal to biconceptual swing voters? By taking progressive positions, and campaigning vigorously on them. How did this work? They activated the progressive values in the brains of swing voters.

Why did it work? Because swing voters, being biconceptual, already had many progressive views. A large proportion of those identifying themselves with the word "independent" or even "conservative" happen to have progressive views in many issue areas: They love the land as much as any environmentalist, even though they wouldn't use words like "biodiversity"; many are progressive Christians who take Christianity to be about helping the poor and serving the needy; many are civil-libertarians, though they would never join the "too liberal" ACLU, and most care about their families and empathize with people in dire straits. In short, these are self-identified "conservatives" and "independents" who have very real progressive values in important areas of life.

What is a progressive worldview? It's simple: You have empathy for others, and you act responsibly on that empathy, being both responsible for yourself and socially responsible as well. Progressives say, "We're all in this together," while conservatives say," You're on your own." It was running on those progressive values that won the election for the Democrats.

The idea of "biconceptualism" being conservative in some areas of life and progressive in others is crucial to understanding this election. There is no such thing as a consistent, overarching worldview that is "moderate" or "centrist"—a worldview that generalizes over all issue areas. So-called "moderates" or "centrists" are actually biconceptuals in different ways. Jon Tester's biconceptualism is very different from Joe Lieberman's. They are both called "moderates," but there is no single coherent doctrine that they share. Jim Webb, Rahm Emanuel, John McCain, Lincoln Chafee, Mike DeWine, and Olympia Snowe have all been called "moderates," but again there is no single set of principles that they all adhere to.

In this election, those candidates who defined themselves by arguing progressive positions activated the progressive worldview in those voters who had both worldviews available. In short, the so-called "moderate" Democrats talked to their "moderate" voters with the same morally grounded progressive arguments they used with their progressive base. They did not talk up all the progressive positions. But they talked up progressive positions they really held, positions that in most cases signal an identity as a Democrat.

What does this say about what the direction of the Democratic Party should be and not be? It says that the Democratic Party should not be moving to the right on the positions its candidates ran on. Success as a party depends, instead, on having a clear moral vision and carrying it out. Right now, it is the progressive moral vision that has brought them electoral success and a mandate for change.

Does this mean that the Democratic Party, as a party, should endorse all progressive positions? That is something for the party to work out, and it will certainly answer no. But, the Democrats may well wind up advocating mostly progressive positions, though far from all of them.

Take the 100-hour agenda. It breaks into two parts, for the two aspects of progressive values: empathy and responsibility. The minimum wage, college loan interest, prescription drug prices, and stem cell research are all empathy issues: they are about caring about working people, young people, old people, and those with debilitating diseases. Lobbying reform, pay-as-you-go budgeting, and enacting the 9-11 Commission's recommendations are all responsibility issues. What the progressives, blue dogs, and centrists can agree on are all instances of progressive values. (Rockridge Nation, the new community that the Rockridge Institute has just launched for progressives to frame the debate at www.rockridgenation.org, will feature a video in January in which I plan to discuss the 100-hour agenda and MoveOn.org's priorities in the context of a broader progressive vision.)

Neuroscientists know that there are two conditions for change in the synapses: repetition and trauma. The campaign provided the repetition through ads and campaign speeches. And three realities created traumas for the American public: Katrina and the floating bodies, Iraq and the bodies blown to bits, and the systematic financial and moral corruption represented by DeLay, Abramoff, and Foley. The new Democratic winners didn't shrink from pointing to those traumas, nor did they soft-pedal their progressive views. They created a narrative of good guys who care and bad guys who don't; good guys who use government to get things done for people and bad guys who are out to destroy government and don't get things done.

In the process, they have started a new progressive populism - not a mere economic populism, but a thoroughgoing progressive populism. It was not just about economic issues. It was also about renewable energy and global warming, about honest government, about a government to count on in case of disaster, about not getting people killed in Iraq day after day, about keeping good jobs here and creating more of them, and about the importance of science in fighting disease. In short, it was about government that cares about its citizens and acts responsibly toward them and toward others in the world. And as with a real populism, there was a handy oppressor: radical conservatives in Washington who were lying to the citizenry, taking bribes, outsourcing jobs, getting our troops killed, letting a beloved city die, and all the while getting rich on no-bid contracts. If that isn't rot at the top, I don't know what is.

The morals of the election are these:

Progressive values-based reframing has begun to work, because it has been paired with authenticity (saying what you believe) and with framing that highlights the very real traumas affecting the nation. The Democrats who won Republican seats did so by running on progressive values. Swing voters, who have both sets of values, responded to their campaigns based on progressive values they authentically believed in. The party, as a party, therefore should not be moving to the right and adopting conservative positions, even if a number of party members happen to hold such positions. To move to the right is to give up any claim to a consistent moral vision at the heart of the party. At the same time, the party, as a party, need not, probably should not, and certainly will not adopt all progressive positions.

The role of the progressive activists, grassroots, and netroots is to promote progressive values to biconceptuals both within and outside the Democratic Party to activate the progressive beliefs they already have, and to extend them further by speaking a progressive language and using progressive values, ideas, and arguments. The goal is not just to move the Democrats in a more progressive direction, but to move Republicans and independents in that direction as well. The idea is to benefit the nation, not just the party.

A populist progressive movement has begun, and it needs to be both studied and nurtured. And conservative values and practices, when they lead to people getting hurt and our democracy undermined, have to be attacked overtly. The villains and their villainy have to be named. What's wrong with conservatism has to be shouted from the housetops. Bob Burnett has made a good start in a paper at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/killing-conservatism_b_35771.html

This election marked a progressive victory and a victory for progressive efforts at factually accurate, values-based framing. We at Rockridge celebrate the triumph of progressive ideas and values, as well as framing that accurately portrays reality. We give a special nod to Jim Webb, both for his economic positions and coming out and calling the occupation of Iraq an "occupation." We celebrate those in the media who call the civil war in Iraq what it is.

We at Rockridge are proud of our role in the recent victory for progressive values. We will, from the outside, be cheering on those on the progressive side of the internal Democratic tug-of-war. We hope that all the biconceptual Democrats those who are Democrats because they identify with and run on their progressive values will be pulling with us.

--------

George Lakoff is the author of Moral Politics, Don't Think of an Elephant!, Whose Freedom?, and Thinking Points (with the Rockridge Institute staff). He is Richard and Rhoda Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley, and a founding senior fellow at the Rockridge Institute.
[PASTE]

XTIAN GAMES

In a recent blog I mentioned the new and real Christian game in which people are either converted to Xtianity or killed. True fun for your Christian kiddy. As I’ve also mentioned recently, I’ve taken up inventing board games just to pass the time. I’m working on my fourth one now—another one in which contestants race to a destination. In the current one, like the previous one, cowboys and cowgirls race to some destination. The last one, they raced to uncover a Wells Fargo chest of gold. The current one, they race to a fertile valley in order to stake land claims. In the initial one, players drew cards on which movement numbers are printed as well as various rewards and punishments that reflect a western story line. The current one—I think players will move a number of hexes dependent upon their mode of transportation—afoot, horseback, wagon, canoe, etcetera. They’ll also draw cards to decide various punishments and rewards they will suffer or cause opponents to suffer. I was working on the game yesterday when, out loud, I happened to say, “O, yep, a Sunday card! If you draw a Sunday card and you’re a Christian cowboy, you lose one turn.” My wife, being the good Buddhist and passive as all get out, called my bluff on that one.

I explained, “Well Sunday was a day of rest to them. It’s only right.” Then I said, “To be fair, I’ll have to reward Christians too.” Then I started to imagine religious rewards and punishments, based on religious ideas—like, if one is a Quaker, and Indians attack, you lose the game. You’re dead. Etcetera. Then I started to think about punishment cards where the minister runs away with the church treasurer and “Revival” cards where all work shuts down for five days. Then I got to the ultimate consideration of reward cards. I’d have fake miracle prayer cards where prayer seems to save a wagon train from being turned over in a wind storm or washed away by a flash flood or stops a three day rain which is slowing down one’s progress. “Fake” because the connection between the prayer and the miracle, like all of them, is purely coincidental. The connection is all in the imagination of the player. Then I realized I could make room for the truly ultimate “MIRACLE” card. If a “MIRACLE” card materializes before a player out of thin air on the card table without any help from fellow players, any humans, or himself, then, of course, that player wins the game, hands down. Players would get a real feel for the conditions that a miracle must meet in order to be a miracle or to play that card.

Skeptics will point out that a hypothetical superbeing has more important things to do then tune in on and influence a mere mortal game. He has to oversee the killing of people in Iraq or Somalia, for instance, and make sure that “that” specific little girl dies of leukemia while that other one survives. Someone needs to point that out to all the jocks we see these days, pointing to the sky or in some grandiose way indicating their thankfulness to their superbeing for the block/tackle/score that has just occurred. Of course, one problem will be with the fundamentalists who will sit at the game board waiting an eternity for the MIRACLE card to appear.

Photo: left to right, the playing pieces for "Wells Fargo" represent Annie Oakley, Hopalong Cassidy, bad guy Wilson from the movie "Shane", Red Ryder, Gabby Hayes, the Gunslinger from a scifi movie in which Brynner plays a western robot, the real Calamity Jane, next Belle Starr, and finally Will Kane of "High Noon" fame, played by Gary Cooper.

[SNIP]
DEVIOUS BUTTERFLIES, FULL-THROATED FROGS AND OTHER LIARS

If you happen across a pond full of croaking green frogs, listen carefully. Some of them may be lying.

A croak is how male green frogs tell other frogs how big they are. The bigger the male, the deeper the croak. The sound of a big male is enough to scare off other males from challenging him for his territory.

While most croaks are honest, some are not. Some small males lower their voices to make themselves sound bigger. Their big-bodied croaks intimidate frogs that would beat them in a fair fight.

Green frogs are only one deceptive species among many. Dishonesty has been documented in creatures ranging from birds to crustaceans to primates, including, of course, Homo sapiens. “When you think of human communication, it’s rife with deception,” said Stephen Nowicki, a biologist at Duke University and the co-author of the 2005 book “The Evolution of Animal Communication.” “You just need to read a Shakespeare play or two to see that. . . .”

Different species may be prone to different levels of deception. Solitary animals may evolve to be more honest than animals that spend long lives in big societies. If that is true, then humans may be exquisitely primed to deceive.
[PASTE]

Who would have thought that evolution made Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle et al the liars that they are? Will they believe in the facts of life after all?

BURY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE AND A DAFFY NEW YEAR

Yep—it’s that time of year again. It's Xmas Eve as I write this, and I don't mind telling you, that's pretty depressing. On Christmas Eve, everything goes out of the Universe. All the bustle and the energy of life goes out and the darkness of superstition descends on society. People retreat behind the walls of their homes, cluster into the gloom of their churches, abandon living, and the stores, the commerce, the everyday energy that keeps humanity alive and well darkens and dies, and one gets a notion of what it must have been like thousands of years ago, before electricity, before science brought light to the Cosmos, to human consciousness, when religion and religious zealots controlled life's story—dead, lethargic, empty religious life. That's Xmas Eve for me, and I can imagine Christmas zealots not understanding at all my feelings as they go about this empty season, making war on reason and on those of us who don't believe as they do. It's they who have introduced the idea of war into Christmas, not us, the skeptical realists.

WARNING: LOOK OUT FOR PARKING LOT SCAMMERS!

A friend of mine emailed me the following warning.

[SNIP]
A "heads up" for those of you who may be regular Home Depot customers.

Over the last month I became a victim of a clever scam while out shopping. Simply going out to get supplies has turned out to be quite traumatic. Don't be naive enough to think it couldn't happen to you or your friends.

Here's how the scam works:

Two seriously good-looking 20-21 year-old girls came over to my car as I was packing my shopping into the trunk. They both started wiping my windshield with a rag and Windex, with their breasts almost falling out of their skimpy shirts. It is impossible not to look.

When I thanked them and offered them a tip, they said "no" and instead asked me for a ride to another Home Depot or Lowe's. I agreed and they got in the back seat.

On the way, they started undressing. Then one of them climbed over into the
front seat and started crawling all over me while the other one stole my wallet.

I had my wallet stolen November 4th, 9th, 10th, twice on the 15th, 17th,
20th, & 24th. Also December 1st, 3rd, twice on the 7th, three times just
yesterday and very likely again this upcoming weekend.

So tell your friends to be careful.
[PASTE]

I don’t know about you all, but like any red-blooded, outraged male, I’m going out this weekend to look for these scammers.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH SENIOR MOMENTS?

I can’t understand all this furor about senior moments. I’ve had more than my share of senior moments with my wife since I turned 65, and they’re lots of fun. I’d even call them stimulating, exciting!










THANKING GOD!!!!!!!!!!!

Lately, on TV, in movies, all around me, I hear people rediscovering the exclamation, “Thank God” or “Thank the Lord”. I hear people thanking their hypothetical superbeing for everything from hitting a run-scoring triple with two down in the ninth to finding a lost set of keys to the summer cabin, from learning that cousin Betty survived a hurricane to getting a promotion at work, from discovering that little Eddie crossed the street safely to finding that the unopened safety pin in Baby Google’s diaper didn’t puncture the skin. In fact, when I think of all the things, both great and small, that this hypothetical superbeing is being thanked for, I realize that there must be very little room for chance or free will in the Xtian psyche.

WHAT IS SPIRITUAL CONSCIOUSNESS ANYWAY?

Evolutionary psychology shows us that everything human is based on adaptive changes to environmental pressures and that modern consciousness deeply reflects those environmental pressures as the sources of all our behaviors. Religionists want us to believe that if humans do not have some hypothetical superbeing to base our moral values in, then we are lost. They tell us that atheists must live in a meaningless universe if we do not pay allegiance to some hypothetical superpower outside ourselves to give meaning to our lives. On the contrary, evolutionary psychology gives deep meaning to all human behavior by finding the real roots of that behavior in the very nature of being human and not because we are things made of mud driven by immaterial forces to our goodness or badness. Further, as Sam Harris shows in his definition of “spiritual practice”, humans by the very nature of their psychological makeup via evolution must always be in pursuit of “spiritual” awakenings and have been on that spiritual journey since consciousness first evolved at some indeterminate time in the distant past. By his definition, to be human is to be spiritual and has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of hypothetical superbeings.

"Investigating the nature of consciousness directly, through sustained introspection, is simply another name for spiritual practice. It should be clear that whatever transformations of your experience are possible after forty days and forty nights in the desert, after twenty years in a cave, or after some new serotonin agonist has been delivered to your synapses—these will be a matter of changes occurring in the contents of your consciousness. If he loved his neighbor as himself, this is a description of what it felt like to be Jesus while in the presence of other human beings. The history of human spirituality is the history of our attempts to explore and modify the deliverances of consciousness through methods like fasting, chanting, sensory deprivation, prayer, meditation, and the use of psychotropic plants. There is no question that experiments of this sort can be conducted in a rational manner. Indeed, they are some of our only means of determining to what extent the human condition can be deliberately transformed. Such an enterprise becomes irrational only when people begin making claims about the world that cannot be supported by empirical evidence. " —Sam Harris in The End of Faith

Photo I call, Crossing the Strait.

AN APRIL HORRORSCOPE

Found this in a pile of papers ready for discarding. For six years, I published, wrote for and edited my own literary microzine, called George & Mertie’s Place. Occasionally, I wrote comic horrorscopes (sic), and the following is one of them:

According to our metaphysical source, the symbol of Aries is made by a perpendicular line with two half-moons at the top, both turned downwards so that they hold nothing. The forgetfulness that you fear will approach with advancing age is merely a lifelong, natural condition for all Aries and is as understandable as the fact your mother never trusted you with good china.

Our source further foretells: The moons cannot hold anything, hence we say that Aries people spring swiftly into action.... Unfortunately, since Aries are also forgetful, they frequently spring into wrong actions. An Aries of our acquaintance forgot she was standing next to the Grand Canyon. A second found himself plunging into the wrong motel room—not all accidents end up badly, but in his astonishment at finding a nude couple in bed, he did trip over the photography equipment scattered about the room. President Ford is an Aries.

Since Aries are ever upside down and cannot hold onto anything, their sex lives are terribly haphazard. They frequently argue about who should be on top, and 69 is a number that contorts them into frightful complications. Especially avoid entanglements with other Aries and seek partners who know their elbow from a teacup. And don't fall head over heels in love this month—you won't survive it.

Finally, beware of social engagements in April. Some esoteric astrologers explain the sigil [sign] as a primitive diagram for the implosion and explosion of spirit in and out of the material body.... Be forewarned, avoid restaurants and other close encounters—bodily explosions are apt to offend.

TERRORISTS TRAINING IN AMERICA

“’Convert or die’ game divides Xtians,” reads (almost) the headline. “Some ask Wal-Mart to drop ‘Left Behind’,” reads the subhead.

[snip] Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season and that Wal-Mart, a major video game retailer, should yank it off its shelves. [paste]

That’s right—a game for, supposedly, Christian children that teaches the same sort of lessons that radical Mullahs teach young Moslem students in their religious schools. My guess—Walmart will not yank it. Too much money to be made from the developing Christian terrorist population in America.

AN ADMISSION BY A FLAWED HUMAN ANIMAL

Since, in this blog, I spend lots of time peering at the beams in my fellows’ eyes, I thought I should admit the following: I’ve made a ton of mistakes in my life, but I won’t let regret color my thinking. If I started down that path, I might even become a—yikes—“nice”, as opposed to a “rational and skeptical”, person.

Now, back to ripping and rending.

PS: The picture is of a game I’m developing, called, “Mars and Back”.


AN EVALUATION BY A FLAWED HUMAN ANIMAL

This is for Spokane locals. Wife and I ate at the new Chinese restaurant, PFChang’s, last night after going to see “Eragon”, yet another “good versus evil” flick that plays on the predilections of people who are still stuck in their adapted, authoritarian animal instincts rather than in their more recently evolved rational synapses. Chang’s food was on par with the Mustard Seed’s while service was a tiny bit more formal. Décor matched the elegance of the Northtown Seed’s. Cost seemed not that much more expensive than Seed. Since we shared a Great Wall of Chocolate dessert, we usually don’t go in for the desserts, a straight across comparison of Seed versus Chang cost is unavailable.

BLAIR BLARE LIE FOR BUSH BLARES BRIT. GOV. OFFICIAL

[snip] The [British] Government's case for going to war [invading a sovereign nation] in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr. Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act. . . .

Mr. Ross [also] revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said. [paste]

WHAT I WANT TO SAY TO PAT ROBERTSON AND JERRY FALWELL

I reread Portnoy’s Complaint this summer and culled this interesting piece of writing by Philip Roth, a distinguised atheist.

“An atheist, I cry. I am nothing where religion is concerned, and I will not pretend to be anything that I am not! ….And I find no argument for the existence of God, or for the benevolence and virtue of the Jews, in the fact that the most re-ver-ed man in all of Newark came to sit for ‘a whole half hour’ beside my mother's bed. If he emptied her bedpan, if he fed her her meals, that might be the beginning of something, but to come for half an hour and sit beside a bed? What else has he got to do, Mother? To him, uttering beautiful banalities to people scared out of their wits—that is to him what playing baseball is to me! He loves it! And who wouldn't? Mother, Rabbi Warshaw is a fat, pompous, impatient fraud, with an absolutely grotesque superiority complex, a character out of Dickens is what he is, someone who if you stood next to him on the bus and didn't know he was so revered, you would say, ‘That man stinks to high heaven of cigarettes,’ and that is all you would say. This is a man who somewhere along the line got the idea that the basic unit of meaning in the English language is the syllable. So no word he pronounces has less than three of them, not even the word God. You should hear the song and dance he makes out of Israel. For him its as long as refrigerator! And do you remember him at my bar mitzvah, what a field day he had with Alexander Portnoy? Why, Mother, did he keep calling me by my whole name? Why, except to impress all you idiots in the audience with all those syllables! And it worked! It actually worked! Don't you understand, the synagogue is how he earns his living, and that's all there is to it. Coming to the hospital to be brilliant about life (syllable by syllable) to people who are shaking in their pajamas about death is his business, just as it is my father's business to sell life insurance! It is what they each do to earn a living, and if you want to feel pious about somebody, feel pious about my father, God damn it, and bow down to him the way you bow down to that big fat comical son of a bitch, because my father really works his balls off and doesn't happen to think that he is God's special assistant into the bargain. And doesn't speak in those fucking syllables: ‘I-a wan-tt to-a wel-come-a you-ew tooo thee sy-no-gawg-a.’ Oh God, oh Guh-ah-duh, if you're up there shining down your countenance, why not spare us from here on out the enunciation of the rabbis! Why not spare us the rabbis themselves! Look, why not spare us religion, if only in the name of our human dignity!”

—Alexander Portnoy in Portnoy’s Complaint by Philip Roth

NOT AGAIN

As I write this on a Saturday afternoon, Gonzaga is losing to Georgia, again letting an unranked team beat them, for the third time this year—if it ends up that Georgia does beat them. I can't watch, can't listen. I'm going for a walk. Of course, then they'll beat Duke next week in New York. O, the upsendowns of rooting for Gonzaga this year!


REPEAT. WE CAN’T PASS THIS ON ENOUGH TIMES.

"More than any single figure, for the right, Bork's nomination represented the culmination of a strategy put in place at the beginning of the Reagan administration to force a right-wing economic and social agenda on the country by judicial fiat. Judicial conservatism—the respectable idea of a limited role for the judiciary in a democracy—was abandoned by these right-wing judicial extremists, who belonged to a secretive legal network called the Federalist Society, which was devoted to restricting privacy rights and reproductive freedoms, rolling back civil rights gains, and thwarting the authority of government to regulate industry in the public interest. In the Reagan administration, Federalist lawyers, including Attorney General Edwin Meese, William Bradford Reynolds, Theodore Olson, and Kenneth Starr in the Justice Department, Kenneth Cribb in the White House, and Clarence Thomas at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, among many others, worked to strip away civil rights, voting rights, and environmental and consumer protections, and to defend discriminatory practices by cities, local schools, and religious institutions. Reagan-appointed Federalist judges like Bork, Antonin Scalia, and Laurence Silberman did the same from the federal bench. After years of pitched battles over the selection of judges in the Reagan era, the elevation of Bork was seen as a way to turn back decades of liberal jurisprudence by tipping the balance on the high court toward the right for years to come." —David Brock, Blinded By The Right, p. 45

MY MOST RECENT LETTER-TO-THE-EDITOR

President Bush might ignore the election and recommendations by the Iraq Commission as well, and I can explain his thinking.

“My faith frees me,” the President wrote, "frees me to make the decisions that others might not like. Frees me to do the right thing, even though it may not poll well. Frees me to enjoy life and not worry about what comes next.” Also, his often repeated claim that a hypothetical superbeing put him into office comes to mind.

If Bush doesn’t listen to those who elected him (our opinion polls), who does he listen to? I thought we elected Presidents. I thought Presidents were supposed to represent us, but Bush has never believed that he has any duty to pay attention to what mere humans expect, because, as he says, he heeds an inhuman voice. If the rest of us could only be sure that the voices in his head are not silly delusions, maybe we’d sleep better too.

If anyone needs an example of why fundamentalists are not cut out to be leaders in democracies, Bush’s own words and deeds, his pro-Hypothetical Superbeing, anti-Constitutional sentiments serve that purpose very forcefully. Fundamentalists follow kings, not electorates.

Photo of a fall patio. Only a memory now.


SPEAKING OF FAST-TALKING BY DESIGN

I’ll admit that Bush has a Texas drawl, a slow-speaking way of rambling on about nothing, so his lying ways can be called, paradoxically, slow-spoken fast-talking.

Listening to radio this morning on the way home, I was ruminating about the fast-talking they put onto the end of radio advertising which is, sort of, the small print of the audio world. They’ve been moving faster and faster into this gimmick by which they artificially squeeze every bit of dead air from between the words of people’s normal speaking rhythms. We all know that fast talkers can’t be trusted, so what are we to make of fast-talking as an ad gimmick? That’s right, don’t trust the product that uses the fast-talking technique. I don’t.

Another twist in my thinking on this is the realization that for the last 25 years, America has fallen ever faster under the spell of conservative thinking. And conservatism, in the last 25 years, beginning with Reagan’s “misspeaking”, has given us the deregulation which allows Comcast channelers without blinking an eye to claim that the movie we are now watching for the thousandth time over the last ten years is a “premier showing”—a completely dishonest use of the American language. Of course, most of us now realize what a crock the word “misspeaking” is, so Fox Network and other Republican apologists, no longer use the word “misspeaking”, they just misspeak without calling our attention to it. Their unspoken misspeaking has helped us to get into the impossible quagmire that is Iraq and that entire region. Why didn’t we listen to the slow-spoken, straight-talkers back when we could have saved ourselves the muddy boots we now wear?

Also, with the aim to consolidate its power over the American debate about American behavior, conservatism has destroyed the sort of equal opportunity media rules which made sure that most large-scale political movements got equal time in the media, thus fostering the distorting type of media adventurism called Fox by which an entire news empire bends itself to the spreading of one party’s message to the exclusion of all others. Conservatism has given us Enron and World Com’s Bernie Ebbers. It’s given us Foley and Delay and the Halliburton invasion-profiteers, big-time prevaricators like Franklin Graham and Jerry Falwell. But can the last two be said to be liars when they actual believe the fables which they spread onto their followers? To someone like me who has spent the better part of a lifetime learning the methods by which one can actually arrive at some verifiable facts, their failure to seek out better ways of arriving at the truth than oracles and wishing wells qualifies them, in my mind, as a “sort of” liar.

Well, okay, that’s it, then, for this jeremiad.

TODAY

all the snow is flown away and vanished from the ground,
and sparkly sunshine tried to show its sparkly bright,
but shine or snow or dark, my limbic self doth light
now the Grand Old Party no longer has me bound.

THIS HOLIDAY SEASON

I believe it behooves us atheists this season to compromise with those, like O!Really? and crew, who somehow fear that the small minority of us who don’t believe as they do in the reason for their season will somehow deprive them of their holy day. They are specially incensed by the movement among some Americans to use the greeting, “Happy Holiday” instead of that old clinker, “Merry Christmas”. So I suggest that we begin to say, “Merry Holiday”, a nice compromise (one-half from each greeting) between those who don’t believe in myths and those who remain as superstitious as children. Think about it?

CORPORATE GIANTS KILL THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[OPEN QUOTE] In this blog, I have noted before the ABC list of corporate giants who have lined up with Republicans Sean Hannity and Bill O”Reilly to silence the radio network, Air America. They do this, of course, by sponsoring Hannity and O?Really? and refusing to advertise on shows featuring Franken, Miller, Schultz, Rhodes and etcetera. This particular blacklist of Air America proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that corporate America loves the Republican Party and its and their own fascist practices of silencing voices of dissent. Below is another little blurb from the Washington Post about the blacklist.

[OPEN QUOTE] With or without prominent hosts, Air America has proved to be an environment that advertisers find unattractive. In October, ABC Radio informed its stations that they were to black out all ads from almost 90 companies that had bought time from ABC but did "not wish to air on any Air America affiliates." The list of companies that wanted to steer clear of Air America programs included Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, McDonald's, Cingular, Visa, Wal-Mart, Exxon Mobil, the U.S. Postal Service and the Navy.

Although many of the companies on the list advertise on conservative talk programs such as the Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly shows, Hewlett-Packard issued a statement explaining that its decision to avoid Air America was based on its desire to steer clear of "inappropriate or controversial programming environments." [CLOSE QUOTE]

PLAYING IN ONE WORLD, LIVING IN ANOTHER

The short excerpt below from Technology Review’s July/August 2006 issue presents some challenging realities. We have the picture of people playing world builders on the Internet and spending hard cash in the practice of it, while in the real world people die of starvation every day and live in real poverty. Not that I want to castigate people who like to role play on the Internet. Everyone has to have some outlet for their imaginations. Everyone needs some release from reality from time to time. But I just want to place the two phenomena side by side in your imagination for a moment so that you can contemplate the vast disparities that exist in the reality which we all pretend to share.

Now, also, I do want to tell you I’m aware that, perhaps, all this roll playing in virtual land might pay off in new ways to think about the real world in the long run. After all, anything the human brain participates in is likely to affect the arrangement of its synaptical patterns, and, since the reality we imagine outside our consciousnesses is partly the construct of those synaptical firings, who knows how it’ll all come out in the end. Each metaphor that human language has invented has come from constructions in the real world and our interactions with it. We conceptualize the world differently every time new metaphors take hold and newly created or better understood words give us new ways to divide up the visions we imagine out there in the real world. Till then, let me say with Dylan, It’s alright, Ma, I’m only dyin’.

[OPEN QUOTE] Virtual Contractors

Fully navigable online worlds are flourishing, and all that virtual real estate needs to be furnished. Fantasy worlds such as Linden Labs' Second Life and even reality-based environments such as Google Earth are built to accommodate user-generated houses and other objects, which anyone can design using in-game tools or Google's SketchUp 3-D modeling software. But if you want a modernist masterpiece on your plot of virtual land, you don't have to build it yourself. Several companies and hundreds of individuals have gone into business as virtual contractors, designing items and structures that they can sell for real-world cash.

The group most fully integrated into Second Life is Electric Sheep of Washington, DC, whose 11 designers and developers can build anything from a stately pleasure dome to an entire interactive island. For the New Media Consortium, a not-far-profit group of more than 200 teaching organizations with a focus on new media technologies, the company designed and built such an island, where the consortium held virtual classes and events attended by the digital "avatars” of people around the world.

Electric Sheep declined to discuss the fees it charges for original designs. But the company also runs SLBoutique.com, where citizens of Second Life spend about $20,000 a month buying other members' digital creations, from skyscrapers to body parts, according to the company's CEO, T. Sibley Verbek.

The 3-D environment of Google Earth isn't shared or interactive like Second life, but users can still customize their virtual experiences. Google's 3D Warehouse lists user-submitted models of real-world structures such as the Taj Mahal, which users can download into their copies of Google Earth. Enthusiasts can create new models using the free version of SketchUp or a $495 "pro" edition that offers animations and walkthroughs.

Though Google Earth models aren't bought and sold, Brad Schell, product director for Sketch Up and the 3D Warehouse, suggests that corporations could one day create virtual versions of their stores-which could then be placed into Google Earth, perhaps allowing users to roam virtual aisles for products they could order online. [CLOSE QUOTE] —DANIEL TURNER

SPEAKING OF
ALTERED REALITY

Little piece of news in the Spokesman Review today, December 7, 2006, says “Yahoo leads tech stocks lower”. Or something to that effect. It’s time, I think, if tech companies and software makers want to continue to expand their markets, that they realize they’ve saturated the market for tekkies and now need to reach out to people like myself who don’t need a lot more hard to learn upgrades, who expect free and responsible phone contact with tech companies whose software isn’t performing properly, who don’t want to spend hours learning how to operate, customize or repair software functions or hardware, who expect interchangeability and standardization of merchandise, who might even want to see regulation of the product to assure we’ll be free of the planned obsolescence that software and computer companies are blithely getting away with. The simplest example of a patently criminal highway robbery of their customers that hardware companies are getting away with is the outrageous cost of ink cartridges to go into fairly cheaply built machines. Just how expensive is ink? I suppose I ought to look that up and find out. I believe we’re probably paying twenty bucks for a nickel’s worth of ink in most cases. What surprises me is how the economic hard wiring in the brains of our children has been so badly distorted that they would allow themselves to be ripped off so easily and without complaint.

A day in a life without clouds is a day without art.

FROG, BIRD PERSPECTIVES? AND ALL I CAN SEE IS TOMORROW’S BREAKFAST

The paper from which the fragment below comes is far beyond my ken. The whole paper by Max Tegmark appears in Science and Ultimate Reality: from quantum to Cosmos, honoring John Wheeler’s 90th birthday and published by Cambridge University Press (2003). The ultimate argument of Tegmark’s long paper is that, indeed, there are an infinity of realities and many universes out there. His concept is beyond my imagination to imagine with enough force to excite me. All I can do is regurgitate it like a school boy reciting his multiplication tables:

“The second common complaint about multiverses is that they are weird. This objection is aesthetic rather than scientific and, as mentioned above, really only makes sense in the Aristotelian world view. In the Platonic paradigm, one might expect observers to complain that the correct TOE [theory of everything] was weird if the bird perspective was sufficiently different from the frog perspective, and there is every indication that this is the case for us. The perceived weirdness is hardly surprising, since evolution provided us with intuition only for the everyday physics that had survival value for our distant ancestors. Thanks to clever inventions, we have glimpsed slightly more than the frog perspective of our normal inside view, and sure enough, we have encountered bizarre phenomena whenever departing from human scales in any way: at high speeds (time slows down), on small scales (quantum particles can be at several places at once), on large scales (black holes), at low temperatures (liquid Helium can flow upward), at high temperatures (colliding particles can change identity), etc. As a result, physicists have by and large already accepted that the frog and bird per¬spectives are very different. A prevalent modern view of quantum field theory is that the standard model is merely an effective theory, a low-energy limit of a yet to be discovered theory that is even more removed from our cozy classical concepts (involving strings in 10 dimensions, say). Many experimentalists are becoming blasé about producing so many ‘weird’ (but perfectly repeatable) experimental results, and simply accept that the world is a weirder place than we thought it was and get on with their calculations.”

HEY! WHAT’S THAT BOOK HE’S CARRYING?

Speaking of other things beyond my ken, how about this person being the President of the United States? Compare him to Tegmark and you can see why men like Bush have so much fearful contempt for people who can think.

PAINTER OF BLIGHT

Not too long ago, I was happy to see a little store in my local mall going out of business. The store had been dedicated solely to the work of Thomas Kinkade, the so-called “painter of light”, who developed a simple gimmick for using bright colors in his paintings of windows and sunsets so that those easily fooled by gimcrackery could be schmaltzed from their money. His gimmick, of course, was heightened by dark showrooms with carefully placed lighting to enhance his mundane painterly effects.


Now, I see in mags dedicated to simple housewifery (like Ladies Home Journal), Thomas Kinkade has developed another piece of artifice that will certainly tug at the purse strings, er, heartstrings (that is, limbic system strings) of the gullible and easily manipulated Xtian housewife. Look left and behold Kinkade’s penny-pinching Thomfoolery.

CAMELOT REVISITED

I can’t help but be amazed by the fact that Bush has returned us to that wonderful era of Camelot we’ve not had since the days of JFK. For more than three years now, America has been fighting in the “camel lots” of good ol’ Arabia. Why has no one mentioned this before me? Or have they?

Photo outside of Seattle, coming in on the Bainbridge ferry. Clouds wonderful.

THE ACLU—BETWEEN IRAQ AND A HARD PLACE

The more the ACLU does the right thing, the more they become the enemy of the fascists among us who, by the way, do not know that they are fascists. If they did know themselves for what they were, they, of course, would not be what they are. Does anyone think that the average Nazi citizen of Germany understood in depth what was going on? Could they see themselves as they were presented to us by media propaganda. Just so—modern fundamentalists who easily support Nazi-like cruelty to those they disagree with, are unable to see themselves for what they are and for what they support nor how their support for torture makes them just like the Nazi’s they abhor. Read below from the AP:

[OPEN QUOTE] By DESMOND BUTLER, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 29, 8:59 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Khaled el-Masri, who claims the CIA kidnapped and tortured him, recounted his story on Capitol Hill on Wednesday and said he hoped he could help prevent others from suffering a similar fate.

The Kuwaiti-born German citizen said he had brought his story to Washington to encourage greater oversight of CIA activities and force the U.S. government to acknowledge what happened to him.

El-Masri said that despite the setback, he had confidence in the courts and the U.S. justice system. He previously was denied entry into the United States when he arrived to publicize the filing of his suit last year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which has supported his case. In recent weeks, he was issued a visa.

YOU SAY, “GOD”; I SAY ODD

Every time I open a paper or glance through the Internet, I come across one more personal, public apology by yet another politician or public figure or religious charlatan (are they actually not one and the same thing) in which s>he uses the name of his>er hypothetical superbeing in order to gain power, sympathy and acceptance. Last week it was Dem. Alcee Hastings who let us know that his hypothetical superbeing told him during a barroom conversation (I guess or someplace like that) that he “wasn’t finished with Alcee yet.” I really don't know how, when these people hear voices, they decide what is a real voice and what might be a delusional incident.

Here’s my new rule of thumb: when anyone, anywhere for any reason, locally, nationally, or internationally, publicly uses the name of his>er hypothetical superbeing, I no longer trust the motives of that person, Billy and Franky Graham included. I think there may have been a reason that some male religious figure suggested that the people of his religion ought to “pray in the closet” while serving others.


THE FAMILY THAT EATS PIZZA AT THE EUROPA
TOGETHER STAYS TOGETHER




This is us, left to right: granddaughter Shelby, youngest son Patrick, daughter Eva, daughter-in-law Sheila, oldest Sean, some old alcoholic who peeked in over my wife Mertie’s shoulder and Mertie. Sheila made a wonderful turkey dinner on Thanksgiving and, a few days later, we took everyone out for pizza.







WONDER HOW THEY WERE KEPT ALIVE ON THE ARK?

These weird and wonderful creatures living by methane vents in the southwest Pacific have been photographed for the first time (see images below). I do wonder how Noah got down to that depth to fetch them into his ark. I don't recall any passages which describe his deep sea diving adventures, and, of course, at that depth, no human has yet to survive. Then, another problem presents itself. How did Noah bring these fish to the surface without their blowing up? And how did he keep them alive for the days they spent on the ark, and how did he feed them their food which is available only down there around those thermal vents? Anyone who takes this story literally is so far out of touch with reality they should be institutionalized.










/

ABC’s LIST OF CORPORATIONS
THAT REFUSE TO LET THEIR ADS RUN
DURING AIR AMERICA’S PROGRAMMING HOURS

A few weeks ago, I came across a list of corporations which refuse to advertise on Air America radio, the only progressive radio network operating in America. Check out this list of businesses that want to silence voices that balance out the Druggie Limbaugh, Sean Handratty and Pat Rubbertongue—straight from an ABC memo. I'm beginning to understand that ABC, like Fox, is no longer a corporation whose objectivity, when it comes to politics, can be trusted. I can’t think of a better reason to break up these huge news operations for which there is little competition. It’s almost too late, folks. Corporate America owns just about everything that spouts news at us with a right wing, capitalistic bias. What I’m doing is sending the following short message to every corporation which accepts email communication on this list. I urge y’all to do likewise:

To Whom It May Concern,

It has come to my attention that your company is on a memo circulated by ABC Radio to its affiliates which contains a list of corporate giants who are actively trying to shut down ["Blackout"] Air America Radio by refusing to advertise during their programming segments. Such blatant support of the Republican Party, indicated by that blacklisting, by silencing Democrat voices of dissent (also consumers I might add), seems un-American, and, perhaps, restraint of trade. I do also note that Sean Hannity is connected to ABC radio sales and that some of your ad dollars may be going to support one of right wing radio's most virulent voices. I'm keeping ABC’s list of corporate giants in my wallet, and I intend to avoid using their products or services in future and to spread word of this list and its bias among my friends and acquaintances. I’m hoping that your corporation will become better citizens and support voices for change and renewal as a regular part of your corporate responsibility.

See memo here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200610310008

ABC contact: Nicole Loperena 1-212-735-1138

Respectfully,

George Thomas
Spokane, WA 99202
509/534-0500

PS: I must tell you that about 20 corporations emailed me or phoned me. More ignored me. Many of the companies that did contact me, told me that they didn't advertise on radio or that they were not aware of such bias in their advertising. Anyhow—I did have fun doing the footwork and getting the response I did get.

RUMSFELD BOOK AND TV DEAL

I heard recently that there will soon be a Rumsfeld book and TV show called If I Ordered the Torture and Detention of Thousands of Innocent Men, This Is How I Did It. Maybe there’ll be a book by Bush, My Illegal Invasion: As If I Started It or How I Killed Hundreds of Thousands of Innocent Civilians When I Illegally Invaded a Sovereign Nation, If I Did Actually Order the Invasion and Not Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Donald Duck.

WHAT WAS I THINKING? CHENEY'S SECOND THOUGHTS










How long will this drivel go on?










And to think—I once supported this guy!

YOU STAND ON THAT ISLAND. I’LL STAND ON THIS ONE

As I read in my local newspaper (that’s right, newspaper) about LX.TV whose goal is to reach the 25-49 age group with incomes above $100,000 on the Internet on “broadband only” with a culture-based show designed to appeal only to them, I thought, not for the first time, I can imagine a way in which capitalism can literally fragment a culture. This reaching for niche markets has been around a long time. There’s a new cable horror channel coming out. There’s the comedy channel and cooking channels. Etcetera. The more each of us retreats into our niches, the more separated we become as a nation. Is this possible? Or am I just imaging it? Maybe it’s just the gloomy chilly weather outside makes me think this way.

STANDING ON THE SHOULDERS OF GENETIC GENESIS DWARFS

The short passage below is from Technology Review’s description of one of the under 35

Photo is of a bridge in France I believe. It's a long one!

scientists working today to expand the range of human knowledge. The dwarfs upon whose shoulders they stand are the millions of the religious who are incapable of understanding even a tad of what these men and women are talking about. It’s a bit frightening to realize the ignorance and superstition that circles in this American culture around people of rational caliber. It’s even scary to a layman like me who understands just a little more than those who still believe in the validity of books in which fortune telling plays a significant role, books in which fortune tellers called “prophets” are honored. Just that simple awareness is pretty shocking—to know that the average Christian does not fully acknowledge to himself that the prophets he honors are no different in their methods, techniques and results than the average fortune teller down on Sprague Avenue who for a ten-spot will contact “those who are on the other side”. Because Xtian fortune tellers are cloaked in the dubious mantel of their holy books, the average literalist can’t achieve the reality based insight that all a prophet is is a fortune teller. Ask them if they believe in fortune tellers, then ask them if they believe in prophets. I’ll bet they can’t acknowledge the similarity.

I stand open-mouthed at the sight of those who remain in Dark Age darkness after all these years of progress brought about by scientific knowledge, who still kill one another over whose hypothetical superman is the more powerful delusion. They are like cavemen dancing around a bonfire, recognizing only that light, while ignoring the sunlight streaming down from above, sunburning their noggins with rational knowledge. One can only wonder when they’ll see the light!

OPEN QUOTE] Though researchers have finished sequencing the human genome, it is still far from understood. A major objective of biotechnology is to develop the experimental and computational tools necessary for deciphering the signals encoded within the genome and to understand their role in human health and disease.

Much remains unknown. It is still a matter of debate exactly how many genes the genome encodes, or even how a gene should be defined. In addition, scientists are just beginning to understand the array of regulatory sequences that punctuate the genome and dictate when certain genes are turned on and off. The complex code within these elements has yet to be deciphered.

Comparative genomics can shed the powerful light of evolution on these unknowns. Functional regions of the DNA sequence, such as genes and regulatory regions, have been well conserved, remaining largely unchanged across related species through millions of years of evolution; but DNA sequences that do not code for genes or regulatory regions change more rapidly. To help us understand the evolutionary constraints of functional elements in the human genome, the National Human Genome Research Institute has recently expanded its sequencing efforts to include additional mammalian genomes.

In my group, instead of simply searching for highly conserved elements, we search for elements that have changed in particular ways. By comparing various genomes, we have found several evolutionary signatures—common patterns in the way a particular DNA sequence has evolved over time. We are now using these evolutionary signatures to reanalyze the human, yeast, and fly genomes and have already uncovered hundreds of novel genes, novel exons, and unusual gene structures.

We have also used genome-wide conservation patterns to define subtle regulatory motifs that are another type of evolutionary signature. Coupled with rapid string search algorithms, these signatures have led to the discovery of a complete dictionary of known and novel regulatory elements in the human, yeast, and fly, revealing the building blocks of gene regulation.

These evolutionary signatures are universal across kingdoms of life. With complete genomes, we can use them to elucidate common evolutionary principles, interpret our genome, study human variation and evolution, and revolutionize our understanding of human biology. [CLOSE QUOTE]

Manolis Kellis is an assistant professor of computer science at MIT and one of Technology Review’s top 35 scientists under thirty-five years of age. He’s one of those to watch.

NOW FOR A LITTLE NIGHT MU. . . ER. . . PHILOSOPHY

Several years back, I was reading Daniel Dennett’s Consciousness Explained. It was the trigger which fired the bullet of my brain down the arc it’s been following for many years now. I was impressed by the idea that our brains are constantly rewriting us through words, constantly revising us as presented to the world outside ourselves like never finished books. Then, people, of course, think that what they are getting is a completely conscious human being:

“Our fundamental tactic of self-protection, self-control, and self-definition is not spinning webs or building dams, but telling stories, and more particularly concocting and controlling the story we tell others—and ourselves—about who we are. And just as spiders don't have to think, consciously and deliberately, about how to spin their webs, and just as beavers, unlike professional human engineers, do not consciously and deliberately plan the structures they build, we (unlike professional human storytellers) do not consciously and deliberately figure out what narratives to tell and how to tell them. Our tales are spun, but for the most part we don't spin them; they spin us. Our human consciousness, and our narrative selfhood, is their product, not their source.

“These strings or streams of narrative issue forth as if from a single source—not just in the obvious physical sense of flowing from just one mouth, or one pencil or pen, but in a more subtle sense: their effect on any audience is to encourage them to (try to) posit a unified agent whose words they are, about whom they are: in short, to posit a center of narrative gravity.” —Daniel Dennett in Consciousness Explained.

Last year, in a philosophy course I was monitoring at Spokane Community College, we had to read, as our last text, Postmodernism and the Environmental Crisis, and I came across the ideas below which also claims that not only “I” but “we”, the whole of life, are conceiving or creating ourselves by the narratives we hear ourselves telling. But what I like to take a step further is that we do not consciously create these narratives. We just sort of tell them and hear ourselves tell them and, then, we think that we are what we are telling others that we are. But this idea, if you’ll just let your imagination run with you, is a grand conception—you can see all of us hacking away with words to create this vast beaver dam of imagination against roaring water life, to make a little survival place for us to rest in, until we go to rest with the dinosaurs in the oil pits of modern life. All these voices, yammering away, since consciousness evolved, slowly hammering out the reality we all think we live in. But do we really live in the reality we think we live in? What truly is outside the stuttering of our words, beyond the boundaries of the expanding universe that our frail words try to limit with description?

“Conceiving of the world as a process of creative becoming consisting of a multiplicity consisting of different types of processes in various complex relations, each making its own unique contribution to the becoming of the world, which must be understood at least to some extent as an immanent cause of its own becoming, can allow that humans create themselves through culture, and in particular, through being enacted by, reformulating and then enacting stories about themselves and their place in the world. It can allow for people having intentions formulated in relation to the stories by which they define themselves, and through realizing these intentions, coming to embody within the world, in the relationships between people, in the relationships between individuals and society and in the relationships between humans and nature, the interpretations of the world on which these stories are based. With its rejection of reductionism, it lends itself to being formulated into a dialogical rather than a monological grand narrative, and thereby enables the achievements of all communities, societies and civilizations of the world to be appreciated.

“Once the world is conceived of as a creative process of becoming, the notion that the meaning of anything is given by the end which it helps to realize, the notion which as Nietzsche pointed out is the ultimate source of the nihilism of European civilization, can be abandoned. Each individual process or sub-process within the universe is like a melody singing itself within a symphony. While it must be evaluated in terms of its contribution to the whole symphony (which in the case of the cosmos is never complete), a symphony cannot be evaluated in terms of its final outcome, its end. The whole duration of a symphony matters, and each melody within the symphony, each note within the melody, are significant in themselves as parts of this duration. People understanding the world and themselves in such terms should be able to appreciate processes ranging from atoms, molecules, clusters of galaxies, galaxies, stars, planets, global eco-systems and species, to individual organisms, societies and cultures, as having an intrinsic significance as contributions to the unfinished becoming of the world. They should be able to appreciate the significance of their own lives and each decision and action as contributions to the world as a whole as well as to the cultures, societies and eco-systems of which they are part. But they should also be able to appreciate the intrinsic significance of their own lives as such, and that part of the significance of cultures, societies and eco-systems and the world as a whole is as conditional causes of their own becoming, for having made it possible for them to live an intrinsically significant life.

“Formulating stories about the lives of people and the history of societies in these terms will enable people to be understood in the context of and as part of nature, as destructive or constructive contributions to the eco-systems which sustain the conditions of their existence. However, such narratives must have a more complex form than the narratives which have dominated European civilization in the past—and must abandon the Oedipal form of narrative which legitimates present suffering as the unavoidable path to some final reunification of the world. Since the world is conceived of as consisting of a multiplicity of processes and sub-processes, each partially autonomous yet inseparable from a multiplicity of other processes which are the conditional causes of its existence, it is impossible to accept a linear narrative in which all but the history of the individual subject is treated as a passive background of the drama. For any individual, whether this be a person, an institution, a movement, a class, a nation, a civilization or humanity as a whole, what is required is a multi-dimensional narrative at least acknowledging thousands of different temporal and spatial orders, both within the becoming of humanity and within the rest of nature. Such a narrative should then highlight the way the becoming of any individual is promoting or stultifying other processes.

“Conceiving of narratives in this way would avoid the tendency noted by poststructuralists of reducing people differentiated from the protagonists of a story to the 'Other'. For instance, it would avoid the tendency of history to focus on the rise of Western civilization and to deny a story to societies subjugated by it, those whom Eric Wolfe described as the 'people without history’, to characterize 'women' and Orientals not in terms of their unique histories, but only in opposition to or as a counterpart to the history made by males of European descent. This does not mean that a history of humanity should not grant a central place to the rise and world domination of Western civilization; but rather than conceiving of this as progress, it should be understood as analogous to the situation in China in the third century BC. The Ch'in, founded on the mechanistic philosophy of Legalism, had by their ruthless aggressiveness ended the period of the warring states by unifying China under an extremely oppressive social order. Western civilization has through its ruthless aggressiveness united the world into one economic system. In ancient China the Ch'in were overthrown and replaced by a much more benign rule inspired by the philosophies of Confucianism and Taoism. What is required of a new grand narrative is an account of how we arrived at the present global environmental crisis, and a characterization of the challenge now confronting humanity as the replacement of the oppressive and destructive civilization which has united the world by a new global civilization based on a more adequate world-orientation in which nature, the oppressed, non-Europeans and women throughout the world are accorded due recognition.” —Arran E. Garre, Postmodernism and the Environmental Crisis, pp. 142-143


Some fun, hunh?

FIRST IN OUTLAST

Look out geriatrics, I’m going to need those walkers and wheelchairs! Just read in the paper that first borns of young mothers outlive their syblings by 1.7 times. Seems that an extensive study of the literature, hints that the eggs of young mothers or the generally better physical health of young mothers may cause their first born to outlive their siblings. Though they don’t know exactly what causes the phenomenon, they have documented it. Since my Mom was 17 when I came along and since I was even the first born of all my cousins, I’ve got this chance to live longer than I may want to. I’ll let you know as the years, fears, wear and tear pile up if this is a good thing or not.

THE FOGGIEST IDEA

Photo is from the trip to Port Angeles this summer, entering the fog in the Strait of Juan de Fuca between Port Angeles and Victoria B.C. Speaking of which—we’ll need passports the next time we take that little hour long daytrip over the water to visit our neighbors. When I was a kid, I think I recall being told how wonderful it was to be in a nation which had such friendly neighbors that we had unguarded borders. Not like those backward people in Europe.

THE END OF FAITH is

to help people ignore their mortality? No—to make one group of people feel superior to other group? No—to create untold suffering and murder between the tribe which is not one’s own? No—to foster irrational belief in what the eyes can’t see nor the ears hear? No—that would make all believers not much different from those mental health patients I used to volunteer to work with when I was a young man. Well, what then, is the end of faith? Here’s a longish article on Sam Harris who wrote the book, The End of Faith.

VIETNAM? WHAT HAPPENED THERE?

So we lost the war in Vietnam. Right? Yet, here we are a few scant decades later, and capitalists from all over the world are heading to Vietnam for an economic summit because Nam has thriven there even though socialists lead that nation and hold it in a tight reign. What's going on here? Isn't this a lot like China, another socialist/capitalist country? Hummmnnn? Gets us to thinking, doesn't it? Why in hell did we ever fight that war and lose 50,000 American lives if democracy has not won out, but capitalism has? Did we fight that war to defeat democracy yet create a capitalistic success? What is going on here? What indeed? What good things might also happen in Iraq if we just lose that police action quickly and get out of the way? Will capitalism win there too, shoving aside democracy in favor of theocracy? Maybe we need to get democracy out of the way here in America too and become a theocracy?

Perish the thought!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NEANDERTHAL EXAMPLE SUGGESTS THAT CONSERVATIVES CAN BREED WITH MODERN HUMAN LIBERALS

[OPEN QUOTE] Scientists have found new genetic evidence that they say may answer the longstanding question of whether modern humans and Neanderthals interbred when they co-existed thousands of years ago. The answer is: probably yes, though not often . . . .

Both genetic and fossil studies show that anatomically modern humans emerged 200,000 years ago in Africa and migrated into Europe 40,000 years ago. In about 10,000 years, Europe’s longtime inhabitants, Neanderthals, became extinct. The mainstream interpretation is that modern humans somehow replaced them without interbreeding.

In previous research, Dr. Lahn [Bruce T. Lahn of the University of Chicago] and associates discovered that a gene for brain size called microcephalin underwent a significant change 37,000 years ago. Its modified variant, or allele, appeared to confer a fitness advantage on those who possessed it. It is now present in about 70 percent of the world’s population. [CLOSE QUOTE] —By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD in New York Times, Nov. 9, 2006

On the left: Neander Rovermiasmus On the right: Neander Rubbertongueamus

We also have the example of James Carville and Mary Matalin, Neander and Homo Sapiens at home, but, in this case, I don't know which is the Neanderthal! Whereas, in the previous two cases, we have no doubt. Just kidden, Jimmy! I love you! Give'm hell!

LIMBAUGH IN LIMBO WHERE HE USUALLY IS

The following is an excerpt from a Limbaugh radiocast transcript after “his” defeat:

"Well, folks, I love being me. (I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it.) The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried . . . I'm not trying to tell you that this is about me. I'm just answering questions that I've had from people about how I feel. There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves—and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs. I'm a radio guy! I understand what this program has become in America and I understand the leadership position it has. I was doing what I thought best, but at this point, people who don't deserve to have their water carried, or have themselves explained as they would like to say things but somehow aren't able to, I'm not under that kind of pressure."

The photo on the right? Now what kind of male fan (and most are male) would put that photo on his wall? The gays continue to get a bad rap, eh?

Is this man a poseur, or what? His photos open up a series of questions.

Does Rush know that conservatives aren’t the posturing actors that these photographs show him to be? Does he think that these photos appeal to his audience? Worse yet—suppose they do? Does he realize what these photos say about his audience? Can he not know what a posturing idiot they make him look to be?

I don’t believe that Rush truly understands how pompous and self-aggrandizing his rant sounds as he builds himself up after the Republican defeat, trying to distance himself from his own work in trying to get Republicans elected. That’s, of course, why he’s a right wing nut job. He’s no conservative. Conservatives are conservative; they aren’t self-aggrandizing nor foppish poseurs like Rush.

Finally, does Rush realize that he feels more liberal himself now, more “liberated”, as he says? Welcome to the rest of us who know what the words liberated, liberal and liberalism stand for. We even know what true conservatism stands for.

INTUITIONS CAN DECEIVE

Here’s another segment from the essay “Evolutionary Psychology: A Primer” by Leda Cosmides & John Tooby. You can link to the whole document here:

[OPEN QUOTE] Principle 3. Consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg; most of what goes on in your mind is hidden from you. As a result, your conscious experience can mislead you into thinking that our circuitry is simpler than it really is. Most problems that you experience as easy to solve are very difficult to solve—they require very complicated neural circuitry.

You are not, and cannot become, consciously aware of most of your brain's ongoing activities. Think of the brain as the entire federal government, and of your consciousness as the President of the United States. Now think of yourself—the self that you consciously experience as "you"—as the President. If you were President, how would you know what is going on in the world? Members of the Cabinet, like the Secretary of Defense, would come and tell you things—for example, that the Bosnian Serbs are violating their cease-fire agreement. How do members of the Cabinet know things like this? Because thousands of bureaucrats in the State Department, thousands of CIA operatives in Serbia and other parts of the world, thousands of troops stationed overseas, and hundreds of investigative reporters are gathering and evaluating enormous amounts of information from all over the world. But you, as President, do not—and in fact, cannot—know what each of these thousands of individuals were doing when gathering all this information over the last few months—what each of them saw, what each of them read, who each of them talked to, what conversations were clandestinely taped, what offices were bugged. All you, as President, know is the final conclusion that the Secretary of Defense came to based on the information that was passed on to him. And all he knows is what other high level officials passed on to him, and so on. In fact, no single individual knows all of the facts about the situation, because these facts are distributed among thousands of people. Moreover, each of the thousands of individuals involved knows all kinds of details about the situation that they decided were not important enough to pass on to higher levels.

So it is with your conscious experience. The only things you become aware of are a few high level conclusions passed on by thousands and thousands of specialized mechanisms: some that are gathering sensory information from the world, others that are analyzing and evaluating that information, checking for inconsistencies, filling in the blanks, figuring out what it all means.

It is important for any scientist who is studying the human mind to keep this in mind. In figuring out how the mind works, your conscious experience of yourself and the world can suggest some valuable hypotheses. But these same intuitions can seriously mislead you as well. They can fool you into thinking that our neural circuitry is simpler that it really is.

Consider vision. Your conscious experience tells you that seeing is simple: You open your eyes, light hits your retina, and—voila!—you see. It is effortless, automatic, reliable, fast, unconscious and requires no explicit instruction—no one has to go to school to learn how to see. But this apparent simplicity is deceptive. Your retina is a two-dimensional sheet of light sensitive cells covering the inside back of your eyeball. Figuring out what three-dimensional objects exist in the world based only on the light-dependent chemical reactions occurring in this two dimensional array of cells poses enormously complex problems—so complex, in fact, that no computer programmer has yet been able to create a robot that can see the way we do. You see with your brain, not just your eyes, and your brain contains a vast array of dedicated, special purpose circuits—each set specialized for solving a different component of the problem. You need all kinds of circuits just to see your mother walk, for example. You have circuits that are specialized for (1) analyzing the shape of objects; (2) detecting the presence of motion; (3) detecting the direction of motion; (4) judging distance; (5) analyzing color; (6) identifying an object as human; (7) recognizing that the face you see is Mom's face, rather than someone else's. Each individual circuit is shouting its information to higher level circuits, which check the "facts" generated by one circuit against the "facts" generated by the others, resolving contradictions. Then these conclusions are handed over to even higher level circuits, which piece them all together and hand the final report to the President—your consciousness. But all this "president" ever becomes aware of is the sight of Mom walking. Although each circuit is specialized for solving a delimited task, they work together to produce a coordinated functional outcome—in this case, your conscious experience of the visual world. Seeing is effortless, automatic, reliable, and fast precisely because we have all this complicated, dedicated machinery.

In other words, our intuitions can deceive us. Our conscious experience of an activity as "easy" or "natural" can lead us to grossly underestimate the complexity of the circuits that make it possible. Doing what comes "naturally", effortlessly, or automatically is rarely simple from an engineering point of view. To find someone beautiful, to fall in love, to feel jealous—all can seem as simple and automatic and effortless as opening your eyes and seeing. So simple that it seems like there is nothing much to explain. But these activities feel effortless only because there is a vast array of complex neural circuitry supporting and regulating them. [CLOSE QUOTE]

GOODBYE CHILDHOOD, GOODBYE BAD GUY JACK

I remember the film, "Shane", as it came out originally in 1953. I'd have been about 15 'cause I graduated high school in 1955 at age 17, and I was, as I came later to find out, very naive and could easily be caught up by Westerns and machoism of any sort. For such a long time, I was naive. Then the French New Wave foreign films and soon after that, Federico Fellini and Ingmar Bergman complicated my simple consciousness, in addition to the dramas of Jean Genet, Williams, Sartre, Authur Miller and O'Neill, the novels of Camus and Beckett, Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Can't forget On The Road and Kerouac. What a wondrous and emotional time my early youth was as I came horrendously alive from my working class background in the 60s and 70s. O, the pain of it, the wonder of it too, the angst and ache of it! There were times I wasn't sure I'd survive those days, even times I didn't think I wanted to survive them. Now I'm alive, 69, and in the tame of my ancient calm, under the moon, stardust and snot, and it turns out, all the damn fuss and nonsense was entirely worth it, wouldn't change one heart pounding ounce of nor taunting ache of it.