REDUX

Inbox Fun

This came via e-mail today.

THINGS THAT MAKE YOU THINK

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during January....

In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January.

That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire War torn country of Iraq.

When some claim President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following.

Speciation & Set Trippin'

Scientists have announced a breakthrough, as a Butterfly unlocks evolution secret.

Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it.

Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.

The team, from Harvard University, US, discovered that closely related species living in the same geographical space displayed unusually distinct wing markings.

These wing colours apparently evolved as a sort of "team strip", allowing butterflies to easily identify the species of a potential mate.

This process, called "reinforcement", prevents closely related species from interbreeding thus driving them further apart genetically and promoting speciation.

(snip)

The Harvard team made the discovery while studying the butterfly genus Agrodiaetus, which has a wide ranging habitat in Asia.

The females are brown while the males exhibit a variety of wing colours ranging from silver and blue to brown.

Dr Kandul and his colleagues found that if closely related species of Agrodiaetus are geographically separate, they tend to look quite similar. That is to say, they do not display a distinctive "team strip".

But if similarly closely related species are living side-by-side, the researchers noticed, they frequently look strikingly different - their "teams" are clearly advertised.

This has the effect of discouraging inter-species mating, thus encouraging genetic isolation and species divergence.

"This butterfly study presents evidence that the differences in the male's wing colouration is stronger [when the species share a habitat] than [when they do not]," said the speciation expert Axel Meyer, from Konstanz University in Germany.

"This pattern would therefore support the interpretation that it was brought about by reinforcement, hence natural selection."

There is still no word yet, on how much speciation is responsible for Crips and Bloods, Norteños and Sureños, or even power ties, toupees, and Camaros.

Well that explains...

His boyish good looks.

LONDON - British Prime Minister Tony Blair has spent more than 1,800 pounds (US$3,130) of taxpayers' money on makeup and cosmetic artists over the past six years, according to the government.

Tradition in an Age of Rationalization

I love the Wall Street Journal, and not just because I'm a capitalist swine.  No, I love them because, more than other news outlest, they eschew he-said-she-said journalism or I'm-right-dumbass-becase-I've-got-a-bigger-soapbox-than-you editorializing and rise to a level of intellectually honest and insightful discourse, as illustrated by this excellent piece by Lee Harris, The Future of Tradition:

Each of these wars has its own particular antagonists, each its own weapons of combat, each its own battlefield. But the essential nature of a culture war is invariant: A set of traditional values comes under attack by those who, like the Greek Sophist, the French philosophe and the American intellectual, make their living by their superior proficiency in handling abstract ideas, and promote a radically new and revolutionary set of values. This is precisely what one would expect from those who excel in dispute and argumentation.

In every culture war the existing customs and traditions of a society are called to the bar of reason and ruthlessly interrogated and cross-examined by an intellectual elite asking whether they can be rationally justified or are simply the products of superstition and thus unworthy of being taken seriously by enlightened men and women.

Indeed, there could be no better example of this disdainful attitude toward inherited tradition than that displayed by the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada in discussing her court's legalization of gay marriage, clearly expressed by her summary dismissal of any opposition to the high court's decision as arising from nothing more than "residual personal prejudice." Against such opposition, it is no wonder that many conservatives--including many of those who call themselves neoconservatives--have attempted to combat the opponents of tradition with their opponents' own weapon of enlightened rationality.

But is it possible to defend tradition with the help of reason? Can a particular tradition be justified by reason? And what if our traditional belief conflicts with reason--can we rationally justify keeping it? Suppose we have been raised in the belief that we must wash our hands before every meal in order to appease a local deity in our pantheon, say, the god of the harvest; and suppose again that we have come to learn of the hygienic benefits of washing our hands before every meal. Must we keep the absurd tradition once we have grasped its scientific rationale? In either case, whether tradition and reason conflict, or tradition is revealed to be reason disguised, reason wins and tradition loses.

Where reason shines forth, then, tradition is no longer necessary. Hence the question before us: In a world that is being more and more rationalized, does tradition have a future? Or will we one day look upon it as we now look upon the myths of the ancient world--quaint and amusing, but of no real relevance to our lives?

Provocative questions.  As they say, read it all -- his conclusions may surprise you.

droll.

how very droll.

Now that we're done "keeping it real", we should do something about the dreaded White Man's Overbite.

GOP & NAACP: Happy Together?

RealClearPolitics posts some of RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman's July 14 speech before the NAACP.  We repost bits n' pieces approvingly.

The party of Lincoln and the African American community have a proud history together.

Our party was founded to eliminate slavery, and our first Republican President was Abraham Lincoln, the Great Emancipator.

It was the Republican Party that led the effort to pass the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments.

We spearheaded the Homestead Act of 1862 and the Morrill Land Grant College Act, which recognized that education and opportunity and property ownership were all essential to the American Dream.

(snip)

The history of the other party is a different one. Democrats were the party of Jim Crow and Democratic filibusters blocked progress for decades.

Despite this history, the Democratic Party by the 1960s had something real and tangible to overcome this legacy. Lyndon Johnson, a Democratic President, signed what in my opinion were the most important laws of the 20th century: the civil rights act, voting rights act, open housing law.

By the 70s and into the 80s and 90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out.

Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican Chairman to tell you we were wrong.

But if my party benefited from racial polarization in the past, it is the Democratic Party that benefits from it today.

I know it is not in my interest as chairman of the Republican Party for close to 90% of African-Americans to vote for the Democrat every election. But more important, it’s not in the interest of African-Americans for 90% to vote for the Democrat every election.

And it’s not healthy for the country for our political parties to be so racially polarized.

African-American voters should have the benefit of a two-party system. In recent years, the Democratic Party, in my judgment, has come to take many African American voters for granted.

Just as the Democrats came to this community in 1964 with something real to offer, today we Republicans have something that should cause you to take another look at the party of Lincoln.

Just last month, Bruce Gordon talked about a wider vision of civil rights. "We've got to get the right emphasis placed on economic equality," he said. "I happen to think that when you have economic stability and equality that often becomes an enabler for social equality."

I couldn’t agree more.

The next step in civil rights is to build on equal treatment under the law to ensure equal opportunity to pursue the American Dream -- equal opportunity in education, equal opportunity in where you live, equal opportunity in making a living, equal opportunity for a secure retirement.

To all Americans who want equal opportunity in America, give us a chance, and we’ll give you a choice.

This message -- give us a chance and we’ll give you a choice—should sound familiar. It’s the same theme that 50 years ago inspired decent Americans like Joe Mehlman to support the work of the NAACP. We’re not asking for folks to embrace all of our policies or to vote for all of our candidates. We’re not asking for agreement on everything or endorsement of our platform. All we’re asking for is a fair hearing, the chance to make our case, the benefit of the doubt that we’re sincere in wanting to renew our historic bonds.

(snip)

Renewing our common bonds is important for the African American community. As my law school classmate and friend and now Senator Barak Obama says, there’s a reason that the farmers usually get what they want in politics. All Americans – white, black, Asian, Hispanic – are better served by having two parties competing for their attention and their support.

The NAACP is too important, your mission too urgent, to be identified with one political party. As we go forward, let’s talk more, and look for more opportunities where we can work together. And when we do disagree—and we will—let’s remember our proud past and what we can accomplish when we work together.

Wrecked 'em? Damn near killed him!

Steyn speaks truth, vii

The only distraction here is the pitiful parochialism of our political culture. .

Those Reckless Bush Tax Cuts

OpinionJournal:

Let's see if we can get this straight: When tax revenues fall and budget deficits go up, it's bad news. But when tax revenues rise and deficits decline, it's still bad news.

At least that seems to be the way a sizable chunk of Washington is reacting to this week's report from the White House budget office that the federal deficit is down by nearly $100 billion this fiscal year, that the deficit as a share of GDP is down to 2.7% (very near its historical average), and that this is all happening because tax receipts are surging by more than 14%. Uncle Sam is having a better year so far than even Paris Hilton, but half of the Beltway is depressed.

John Spratt, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, seems especially upset that this revenue surge isn't coming from wage income, but rather from investment income--that is, the so-called non-withholding income tax collections, which have skyrocketed by some 30% this year. "These are typically taxes paid on one-time capital gains, bonuses, stock-options income that may not recur," he laments.

Well, sure, Congressman, the 2003 reductions in the tax rates on dividends and capital gains seem to be resulting in much higher tax revenues on . . . dividends and capital gains. This is called the Laffer Curve effect, and we thank Mr. Spratt for validating it. If he wants those revenues to "recur," maybe he'll even vote to make those tax cuts permanent.

This revenue surge from investment income also rebuts the mantra that the 2003 tax cuts were a giveaway to the rich. Nearly half of all Americans have some kind of stock ownership, and thus have shared in these gains in investment income. And if most of the extra tax income is coming from capital gains and dividend payments, that would have to mean that the rich in America are paying more taxes, not less, as a result of the 2003 tax cut.

By the way, we don't recall Mr. Spratt and other Democrats lamenting when a similar spike in taxes from investment income was boosting tax revenues to historic heights as a share of GDP during the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, as per the nearby chart. Then it was all said to be an economic miracle; now it's a windfall for the wealthy. This selective budget criticism couldn't be related to who's sitting in the White House, could it?

But you'll become a first-class asshole.

Yahoo! News:

PARIS (AFP) - French President Jacques Chirac, whose recent comments on British and Finnish cooking provoked a minor diplomatic incident, claimed that French cuisine was part of the reason for the longevity of his compatriots.

"French cooking, it should be given the tribute it is due," he said, arguing that "it has perhaps, certainly, its role in the long life of the French people."

He caused a furore earlier this month when he was overheard saying British cuisine was the worst in the world after Finland's and joking "the only thing they have done for European agriculture is 'mad cow'" at a Franco-German-Russian summit in Russia.