Some scientists are touting a 47 million year old primate fossil as potentially being a direct descendant of humans, though they admit that there is a lot more work to do before making that conclusion with certitude. What is not in dispute is that this lemur-like fossil is extremely well preserved.
I attended a wedding over the weekend. My family is Italian and I'm sure it's no surprise that we are overwhelmingly Catholic. However, because the ceremony wasn't being held in a church but rather in the reception hall I had thought that I would be spared having to sit through another Catholic mass. I was wrong. *sigh* As it turns out, it was a thankfully shortened version of the ceremony. I noticed that, even in abbreviated form, the priest managed to mention FIVE TIMES (we counted) that,"...God made us MALE and FEMALE so that we may join together in His love". It would have been just another day in a big Italian Catholic family except this time, seated right up front were two good friends of the bride and groom who also happened to be a lesbian couple. I've seen "the lesbian couple", as they are called in the family, a few times at family gatherings that were large enough to encompass all of us. They have been together for many years, at least as long as many of the other couples in the room. Longer than some. I couldn't help but cringe each time the phrase rolled around.
"Marriage was created by God for MALE and FEMALE...", "We join in holy matrimony this MAN and WOMAN...", etc.With each repetition of the phrase it seemed that the priest was emphasizing it more and more and from our vantage point several rows back it almost seemed like he was glaring at the lesbian couple when he said it. (Probably my imagination.)
What is the domestic damage done by a country that lurches from war to war? Chris Hedges proposes an answer at Truthdig.com: countries that are perennially at war get eaten up from the inside out:
It is a state of permanent war that is finishing off the liberal traditions in Israel and the United States. The moral and intellectual trolls—the Dick Cheneys, the Avigdor Liebermans, the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads—personify the moral nihilism of perpetual war. They manipulate fear and paranoia. They abolish civil liberties in the name of national security. They crush legitimate dissent. They bilk state treasuries. They stoke racism.
“War,” Randolph Bourne commented acidly, “is the health of the state.”
Hedges further alleges that Obama is not in a hurry to stop the wars, because it's too much of an uphill climb and it's, in the long run, beneficial to Obama (as it was to Bush):
They support its destructive fury because it funds them. They validate its evil assumptions because to take them on is political suicide. They repeat the narrative of fear because it keeps us dormant. They do this because they have become weaker than the corporate forces that profit from permanent war.
Jesse Ventura appeared on The View and spoke plain truth about torture, i.e., waterboarding is torture. If you can bear it, listen to Elisabeth Hasselbeck chattering away in support of torture (even though she claims that she is against torture). Ventura won't put up with Hasselbeck's inanity, and puts the blame squarely where it belongs, given that U.S. torture hasn't exactly been a recent revelation to anyone who gave a crap about it.
The New Yorker has published a detailed article on the track record of Supreme Court Justice John Roberts. The conclusion is that he is a "doctrinaire conservative." Here's an excerpt:
His jurisprudence, as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.
But isn't Roberts simply following the law? There is an incredible amount of existing legal precedent (thousands of cases have been decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, and many thousands of additional cases have been decided by the numerous federal courts of appeals and federal district courts. Careful readings of these cases demonstrate that considerable numbers of these legal holdings conflict in both minor and major ways with one another. This ever-growing sometimes convoluted body of decided cases is the backdrop the work of judges, and they are charged to follow precedent, except when they choose not to, and--this is a critical point--their breaks from precedent (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education) constitute some of the Court's best moments. This backdrop makes for a strange formula for jurisprudential "rigor." So let's not pretend that judges are simply sitting on the bench to "follow the law" as though they were solving binomial equations. There is immense opportunity to insert one's own personal biases in a legal opinion, thanks to the many paths offered by precedent combined with human ingenuity. Recent examples of legal analysis by Jay Bybee (now JUDGE Bybee) would suggest that there is no limitation at all--that legal reasoning is merely a political power exercised by a person wearing a robe. Lest someone think that this is a hatchet piece on Roberts, I need to point out that I am sympathetic with a few of Roberts "conservative" themes. As one example, I am highly suspicious of judicial remedies for "racial" discrimination where those remedies impose widespread societal changes based on "race." We should be moving away from a belief in "race," not further legitimizing it. My personal bias is that we need to get to the point where we can all proudly say that we are all human beings or even that "We are all Africans." No one denies that Roberts is affable or that he is a lawyer who knows "the law" inside and out. Based on the convoluted set of existing law, though, combined with the immense discretion available to judges (under the cloak of "follow the law"), lawyers and judges can almost always find principles and cases to support almost any position they care to take. Throughout the history of jurisprudence, then, recurring questions are how should a judge choose among competing precedent and how should a judge apply that precedent? The point was illustrated well by Barack Obama, who as a Senator cast a vote opposing the appointment of Roberts:In his Senate speech on that vote, Obama praised Roberts’s intellect and integrity and said that he would trust his judgment in about ninety-five per cent of the cases before the Supreme Court. “In those five per cent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision,” Obama said. “In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions . . . the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” Obama did not trust Roberts’s heart.