Wednesday, October 27, 2004
THERE IS ONLY ONE RACE - THE HUMAN RACE
Gene tests prove that we are all the same under the skin
By Mark Henderson, The Times UK
Racists' central argument and theories linking intelligence to ethnic origin have been destroyed
THE popular notion that skin colour can indicate physical or mental differences between groups of people has been demolished by a new analysis of the human genome, which declares race to be a biologically meaningless concept.
Every human being shares more than 99.9 per cent of their DNA with everybody else, and the tiny variations that remain differ more within ethnic groups than between them, a major review of the evidence says.
It is impossible to look at people’s genetic code and deduce whether they are black, Caucasian or Asian, and there is no human population that fits the biological definition of a race, the study found.
Ethnicity is almost entirely socially and culturally constructed, and even the trait used most commonly to define it — skin colour — varies widely among people of similar ancestry.
The findings destroy the central argument of white supremacists and other racist groups, and refute controversial theories that attempt to link intelligence or criminality to ethnic origin.
Standard concepts of race, indeed, are so misleading that they are undermining efforts to untangle the true contribution that genetics make to individuality, and ought to be abandoned by science, the researchers said.
In medicine, for example, race is often used to predict whether patients will respond to particular drugs. While this can be true on average, it leads to generalisations that deny useful medicines to millions who do not meet ethnic stereotypes.
The results have emerged from a comprehensive survey of the science of human variation published today in a special issue of the prestigious journal Nature Genetics.
The research was organised by Howard University in Washington DC, a historically black college where most of the students and academics are African-American, and other contributors included Francis Collins, a leading architect of the Human Genome Project.
Charmaine Royal and Georgia Dunston of Howard University, who led the study, said that the mapping of the human genetic code had forced a “paradigm shift” on the science of race, in which old concepts and definitions were no longer up to the job.
“Existing biological models or paradigms of ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ categorisations cannot accommodate the uniqueness of the individual and universality of humankind that is evident in new knowledge emerging from human genome sequence variation research,” they said.
“The term ‘race’, as applied to humans, is incorrectly used. Traditional ‘racial’ designations in humans are not bounded, discrete categories but are fluid, socially defined constructs.”
The human genome map has shown that if two people of any ethnic origin are selected at random, only between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 1,500 of their genes will differ. This makes our species among the most homogeneous known to science: populations of chimpanzees and fruit flies differ much more from one another in genetic terms. A typical Caucasian’s genes will be as similar — and as different — to those of another Caucasian as they will be to a black African or a Chinese person.
About 90 per cent of genetic variation occurs within ethnic groups, rather than between them. Two Africans, though both superficially “black”, will differ more from one another than from other races. This reflects the course of evolution.
Most scientists now accept that Homo sapiens emerged first in Africa, before a small group, perhaps numbering just a couple of hundred people, left about 40,000 years ago and spread through the rest of the world.
There has not been enough time for human races to diverge much in genetic terms, even before interbreeding is taken into account. “Of special importance to discussions of race, our species has a recent, common origin,” said Charles Rotimi of Howard University. “Race” was a legitimate taxonomic concept that worked for chimpanzees, but not for humans. Dr Collins said race was particularly misleading when applied to medicine.
Some ethnic groups have higher rates of certain diseases or respond less well to certain medicines. These effects, however, are true only on average, and it is individual genetic makeup that really matters. Doctors who take a race-based approach risk misdiagnosing disease or ruling out medicines that would do individual patients good.
Nature Genetics said in its editorial: “The use of race as a proxy is inhibiting scientists from doing their job of separating and identifying the real environmental and genetic causes of disease.”
Research has also shown that when scientists try to guess a person’s ethnic origin by looking at genes, they get it wrong between a third and two thirds of the time.
Another study in the project showed that skin pigmentation is also a poor marker of genetic origin, with significant overlap between populations that society classifies as different races.
Lynn Jorde and Stephen Wooding of the University of Utah said: “Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific support for the concept that human populations are discrete, non-overlapping entitites.”
WE SEEM TO HAVE RATHER A LOT IN COMMON
# Human Genome Project and rival company Celera both completed draft maps of the human genetic code in 2001, which showed that humans have about 30,000 genes — many fewer than the 100,000 once thought
# Research published last week claimed that the number of genes was even lower, about 22,300 — fewer than the plant Arabidopsis
# People share about 99.9 per cent of their DNA with each other, 98.5 per cent with chimpanzees, three quarters with dogs, half with fruit flies and a third with daffodils
# Spin-off projects include the Cancer Genome Project — to find tumour-causing genes — and the Haplotype Map — to find the genetic variants involved in other diseasesWednesday, October 27, 2004
SOCIOPATH CHECKLIST
Okay. Take a good, hard look at GW Bush and see how many of these traits fit:
Glibness/Superficial Charm
Language can be used without effort by them to confuse and convince their audience. Captivating storytellers that exude self-confidence, they can spin a web that intrigues others. Since they are persuasive, they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or emotionally.
Manipulative and Conning
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors permissible. They may appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. he dominates and humiliates his victims.
Grandiose Sense of Self
Feels entitled to certain things as "his right." Craves adulation and attendance. Must be the center of attention with his own fantasies as the "spokesman for God," "enlightened," "leader of humankind," etc. Creates an us-versus-them mentality
Pathological Lying
he has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities.
Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at his core. Does not see others around his as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
Shallow Emotions
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since he is not genuine, neither are his promises.
Incapacity for Love
While he talks about "love" he is unable to give or receive it. He is very harsh in testing it from his clients and expects them to feel guilt for their failings. Expects unconditional surrender.
Need for Stimulation
Living on the edge, yet testing the gullibility of their "clientele" with bizarre rules, punishments and behaviors. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal.
Callousness/Lack of Empathy
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Their skills are used to exploit, abuse and exert power. Since the clientele cannot believe their government would callously hurt them, they rationalize his behavior as necessary for their own "good" and ignore the abuse. When the client become aware of the exploitation it feels like a "rape" to them.
Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believes he is all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for his impact on others. he sees himself as near perfect.
Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
Irresponsibility/Unreliability
Not concerning about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blame their clients or others of their family. Blame reinforces passivity and obedience and produces guilt, shame, terror and conformity in the clients.
Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
He may frequently practice promiscuity, homosexuality, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. This is usually kept hidden from all but the inner circle. Stringent sexual control of their clients, such as forced breakups and divorces, removal of children from parents, rules for dating, etc.
Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future. Great contrast between the government employee's lifestyle and the client's impoverishment. Highly sensitive to their own pain and health.
Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
Changes their image and that of the agency as needed to avoid prosecution and to increase income and to recruit a range of supporters. Is able to adapt or relocate as needed to preserve the agency. Always "on vacation" or "retired" after pulling off a "high risk" caper with too much public attention. Can resurface later in a different agency and a new twist on the same old scam.
Other Related Qualities:
- Contemptuous of those who seek to understand him
- Does not perceive that anything is wrong with him
- Authoritarian
- Secretive
- Paranoid
- Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where his tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
- Conventional appearance
- Goal of enslavement of his victim(s)
- Exercises despotic control over every aspect of his victim's life
- Has a psychological need to justify his crimes and therefore needs his agency's affirmation
- Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
- Incapable of real human attachment to another
- Unable to feel remorse or guilt
- Extreme narcissism and grandiose
- May state readily that their goal is to rule the world
http://home.datawest.net/esn-recovery/artcls/socio.htmMonday, October 25, 2004
THE FASCISTS *WILL* HAVE THEIR ARMIES
Feeling the Draft
By PAUL KRUGMAN, New York Times
Those who are worrying about a revived draft are in the same position as those who worried about a return to budget deficits four years ago, when President Bush began pushing through his program of tax cuts. Back then he insisted that he wouldn't drive the budget into deficit - but those who looked at the facts strongly suspected otherwise. Now he insists that he won't revive the draft. But the facts suggest that he will.
There were two reasons some of us never believed Mr. Bush's budget promises. First, his claims that his tax cuts were affordable rested on patently unrealistic budget projections. Second, his broader policy goals, including the partial privatization of Social Security - which is clearly on his agenda for a second term - would involve large costs that were not included even in those unrealistic projections. This led to the justified suspicion that his election-year promises notwithstanding, Mr. Bush would preside over a return to budget deficits.
It's exactly the same when it comes to the draft. Mr. Bush's claim that we don't need any expansion in our military is patently unrealistic; it ignores the severe stress our Army is already under. And the experience in Iraq shows that pursuing his broader foreign policy doctrine - the "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive war - would require much larger military forces than we now have.
This leads to the justified suspicion that after the election, Mr. Bush will seek a large expansion in our military, quite possibly through a return of the draft.
Mr. Bush's assurances that this won't happen are based on a denial of reality. Last week, the Republican National Committee sent an angry, threatening letter to Rock the Vote, an organization that has been using the draft issue to mobilize young voters. "This urban myth regarding a draft has been thoroughly debunked," the letter declared, and quoted Mr. Bush: "We don't need the draft. Look, the all-volunteer Army is working."
In fact, the all-volunteer Army is under severe stress. A study commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld arrived at the same conclusion as every independent study: the U.S. has "inadequate total numbers" of troops to sustain operations at the current pace. In Iraq, the lack of sufficient soldiers to protect supply convoys, let alone pacify the country, is the root cause of incidents like the case of the reservists who refused to go on what they described as a "suicide mission."
Commanders in Iraq have asked for more troops (ignore the administration's denials) - but there are no more troops to send. The manpower shortage is so severe that training units like the famous Black Horse Regiment, which specializes in teaching other units the ways of battle, are being sent into combat. As the military expert Phillip Carter says, "This is like eating your seed corn."
Anyway, do we even have an all-volunteer Army at this point? Thousands of reservists and National Guard members are no longer serving voluntarily: they have been kept in the military past their agreed terms of enlistment by "stop loss" orders.
The administration's strategy of denial in the face of these realities was illustrated by a revealing moment during the second presidential debate. After Senator John Kerry described the stop-loss policy as a "backdoor draft," Charles Gibson, the moderator, tried to get a follow-up response from President Bush: "And with reservists being held on duty --"
At that point Mr. Bush cut Mr. Gibson off and changed the subject from the plight of the reservists to the honor of our Polish allies, ending what he obviously viewed as a dangerous line of questioning.
And during the third debate, Mr. Bush tried to minimize the issue, saying that the reservists being sent to Iraq "didn't view their service as a backdoor draft. They viewed their service as an opportunity to serve their country." In that case, why are they being forced, rather than asked, to continue that service?
The reality is that the Iraq war, which was intended to demonstrate the feasibility of the Bush doctrine, has pushed the U.S. military beyond its limits. Yet there is no sign that Mr. Bush has been chastened. By all accounts, in a second term the architects of that doctrine, like Paul Wolfowitz, would be promoted, not replaced. The only way this makes sense is if Mr. Bush is prepared to seek a much larger Army - and that means reviving the draft.Monday, October 25, 2004
WE MUST KICK THE EVILDOERS OUT OF THE WHITEHOUSE
NYTimes.com > Opinion > EDITORIAL >John Kerry for President
Published: October 17, 2004
Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.
We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.
•
There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.
Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.
When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.
If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.
•
The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.
He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.
The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.
Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.
American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.
Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.
•
Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.
The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.
•
We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.
Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.
If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.
The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.
•
Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.
Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.
We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.
Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.