SocraticGadfly

March 08, 2006

Damn, even Khalilzad is off the Iraqi reservation

Even U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad is losing faith in the chances of success there.

Reports the Guardian:
Khalilzad told the Los Angeles Times Iraq had been pulled back from the brink of civil war after the February 22 bombing of a Shia shrine in Samarra. However, another similar incident would leave Iraq “really vulnerable” to that happening, he said. “We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?” He added that the best approach was to build bridges between religious and ethnic communities.

Ah, Zalmay? That should have been happening, oh, at least two years ago.

Meanwhile, his comments caught official Washington so fast that Donald Rumsfeld couldn’t even spin them.
Rumsfeld said sectarian violence had been exaggerated by the media. When asked how that squared with Khalilzad's view, he replied: “Well, he's there. He's an expert. And he said what he said. I happen to have not read it, but I am not going to try to disagree with it.”

Meanwhile, Khalilzad also recognizes, two years or more too late, that we didn’t send enough troops there at the start. However, in the same breath, he gets back on the BushCo “stay the course” mantra.
Khalilzad suggested the situation was so dangerous that without a substantial US presence, a civil war could suck in other Arab countries on the side of the Sunnis and Iran on the side of the Shias, creating conditions for a regional conflict and disrupting global oil supplies. "That would make Taliban Afghanistan look like child's play," he said.

No shit, Sherlock. But, that’s only if you’re correct about this happening.

Rather, given the history of dislike of outsiders in Iraq, any direct Iranian intervention would serve to temporarily unite most Iraqis. So, despite Khalilzad grasping that the situation is fucked up, he still doesn’t really have a clue about what the country is like.

March 03, 2006

Cultural imperialism rears its ugly head in science

The latest twist in a claimed case of backward evolution appears to be a bribe-style silencing of further research by the Turkish scientist who started the ball rolling.

Turkish researcher Uner Tan, who claims to have discovered a case of “backward evolution” among a family of wrist-walking eastern Anatolian peasant farmers, is crying foul against three British researchers, including internationally renowned psychologist and cognitive scientist Nicholas Humphrey.

Tan claims that Humphrey and two other scientists paid the family 1,000 euros plus gas and electric service being installed and turned on. He says the deal included exclusive rights to further research, thereby shutting him out of the picture, and rights to a documentary film to be run on the BBC. Picture an American family getting paid $50,000 or more for exclusive scientific research rights and you get the idea.

It raises questions of whether the payment is tantamount to bribery. Science research participation payments are not supposed to be so high as to provoke that worry, nor so low as to be trifling or paternalistic.

Humphrey claims he is properly crediting Tan in any further research he does. But, beyond that, he’s not talking much. Neither is film producer Jemima Harrison.
“I’m suspicious all over the place,” said Arthur L. Caplan, director of the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics in Philadelphia. He said the deal should have been pre-reviewed by one of the ethics panels that research institutions appoint for such purposes.


I would definitely agree. Humphrey would never pull something like this on a fellow British scientist, or an American or German one. Not likely with a Japanese one, either. But to do this to a Turkish scientist not only smacks of being rude and grasping, it also looks a lot like cultural imperialism or something similar.

As for Australian psychologist Thomas Suddendorf’s claim Tan is skating on thin ice, I Googled Tan when the story first came out. He’s written and co-written articles in leading American and European neuroscience journals. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary.

Specific to this disorder, on its genetics, he showed it occurs at a spot on the human genome called 17p that is far different from the analogous chimpanzee genetics, and a genetic area that has been linked to bipedalism, supporting his contention this is indeed, at least possibly, “backward evolution.”

Humphrey piled on, calling Tan’s theories bizarre.

Rather, what seems to be bizarre is the trampling of someone pushing the envelope on traditional science, and trying to do it in a Muslim, although state-secular, country.

 ==

Update, March 19, 2023: World Science has apparently hauled down all its stories, and it's not just link rot. "Uner Tan" is nowhere to be found on its website. So, maybe I've been too harsh on Humphrey. Also, Tan passed away last year. As for the "syndrome," it does appear that Tan misinterpreted it, that it's not an "atavism" or "reverse evolution," and other things. And, such disequilibrium has been documented elsewhere. Now, as much or more than cultural imperialism, it is a question if Tan (and colleagues) were doing something close to clickbait science.

Further undercutting Tan? Per the movie that Humphrey et al did, on advice of a Turkish medical doctor mentioned in it, the family bought gymnastics parallel bars to practice upright walking, and a couple of years after the initial scenes were filmed, a retrospective has one kid doing just that. And, Humphrey et al invited Tan et al to participate in their paper about the family but "this did not prove workable." So, probably still an ethics issue on the amount of money paid the family, but not cultural imperialism.

That said, the paper, while rejecting "evolutionary atavism," does note that the family may shine light on evolutionary intermediates to human bipedalism.

February 15, 2006

More NASA censorship comes to life

College dropout cum BushCo science guru George C. Deutsch and his minions believe that star death is unreal.
In a different example of spinning science news last month, NASA headquarters removed a reference to the future death of the sun from a press release about the discovery of comet dust around a distant star known as a white dwarf. A white dwarf, a shrunken dense cinder about the size of earth, is how our own sun is fated to spend eternity, astronomers say, about five billion years from now, once it has burned its fuel.

“We are seeing the ghost of a star that was once a lot like our sun,” said Marc Kuchner of the Goddard Space Flight Center. In a statement that was edited out of the final news release he went on to say, “I cringed when I saw the data because it probably reflects the grim but very distant future of our own planets and solar system.”

An e-mail message from Erica Hupp at NASA headquarters to the authors of the original release at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., said, "NASA is not in the habit of frightening the public with doom and gloom scenarios.”

My fucking doorknobs.

As Dennis Overbye points out, the death of a star, not to mention the whole mainstream cycle of stellar evolution, has been accepted part and parcel of the astrophysics textbook for 50 years.

But, as he also points out, the Big Bang is right up there with evolution as a creationist/intelligent designist bugaboo.

What fucking morons.

Home abortions are safe

Won’t that just chap the Religious Right’s ass? But it’s what The Guardian says.
Women who are less than nine weeks pregnant can safely have medical abortions at home, according to the head of a government-backed pilot project.

Can we now please add “private” to “safe” and “legal”?

Green Party: Public campaign funding bill is rigged

The Green Party says HB 4694, touted for public financing of Congressional campaigns, is biased against third parties. Originally posted at Democracy in Action.

Now, the bill does a number of good things, including barring paid, professional petition-signature gatherers. (Not sure how this or other bill provisions will pass the “money is speech” SCOTUS sniffer, but that’s another story.

But, there are legitimate third-party concerns.

A 10 percent of the total vote bar for partial funding is too high; 5 percent, or even 3 percent for a dribble of partial funding, would be much better.

Now, I don’t believe the Green Party’s official claim that liberal Democrats are sponsoring this bill because of a panic over a Green insurgency. Nonetheless, it has troubling provisions, most notably this.

Section 301: Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection;


`(k) No person may make any independent expenditure with respect to an election for the office of Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress.'.

So, if you fall below 10 percent of total votes on a petition as a third-party candidate, and don’t qualify for the federal “grassroots” funding, that apparently means you can’t spend anything on the campaign? That’s what it looks like.

And I don’t blame the Greens for screaming bloody murder.

Sections 302 and 325 go too far on restricting “attack ads,” too.

Plus, it does nothing to address spiraling TV time costs with the stick of TV broadcast license review.

And, I haven’t mentioned all of the First Amendment concerns this bill raises, just a couple.

February 14, 2006

Fareed Zakaria’s Euro-dishonesty

Zakaria claims “Europe is in deep trouble.”
These days we all talk about the rise of Asia and the challenge to America, but it may well turn out that the most consequential trend of the next decade will be the economic decline of Europe.

It’s often noted that the European Union has a combined gross domestic product that is approximately the same as that of the United States. But the E.U. has 170 million more people. Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the United States, and, most important, that gap has been widening for 15 years. If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German.

Sounds horrible, right? But, Zakaria conveniently omits a serious bit of information.

The EU of 2006 is NOT the EU of 1991. Half its membership has been added since then.

From Wikipedia:

Added in 1995: Austria, Finland, Sweden

Added in 2004: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia.

That’s actually one more new member than the membership before that point.

As I e-mailed Fareed:
You nowhere mentioned that the EU of 15 years ago is NOT the EU of today. Many of the post-1990 countries of the EU are, of course, from the former Soviet bloc and came into the EU with lower standards of living.

I'm guessing that your omission was deliberate.

It’s obvious he’s comparing apples and oranges to anybody with a fifth-grade education. We’ll see if he responds.

Here’s the place to give him some e-mail.