Recently I had the pleasure of just such an encounter. While discussing the topic of evolution, the gent in question played what he thought was his trump card. If evolution is true, then how come humans aren’t evolving anymore?He actually believed this to be a rational question.

Well, first off, when you consider the time-frame in question (and we’ll get back to the belief espoused by many Fundies and Intelligent Design folks that the universe is only between 7000 to 15,000 years old) the mutations that resulted in the current human race can be traced back, in theory, using both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA to a single female common ancestor in Africa around 200,000 years ago.

But, of course, the question remains: what made us “human?” What diferentiated us from our primitive ancestors and why?

Research shows that humans (homo sapiens) and chimpanzees (pan troglodytes) are 99.4 genetically compatible and that the species diverged roughly 5 to 7 million years ago. Humans have a total of 23 chromosome pairs, chimps have 24. Research suggests that two pairs of the 24-chromosome model fused to become the human 23, but this alone didn’t make us Homo the Sap.

Andrew G. Clark of Cornell University recently finished a very innovative study. Using a super-computer, he lined up a partial chimp DNA map of 18 million sequences along with the genome of a human and a mouse. (He would have used a rat, but Dick Cheney refused to give a sample…) The prupose was to determine which human genes were evolving at the greatest speed, the idea being that these genes might be the ones responsible for our “humanity.” Starting with 23,000 genes, he reduced this number to 7,645 that most differed from chimps and mice. The team then isolated the genes responsible for the development of sense of smell, digestion of protein (since chimps, although omniverous, are predominantly vegetarians) development of long bones (such as the femur, tibia and fibula) hairiness and hearing.

The results seem to indicate that at one point in history, human sense of smell and amino-acid metabolism genetically diverged from those of the upper primates in order to better facilitate seeking out desirable and more varied food, and to digest the same with regard to assimilating proteins. This coincided with the archeological evidence that early humans began eating meat around two million years ago. This new amino-acid metabolism may have resulted in triggering changes in other proteins. According to a stydy done by RIKEN Genomic Sciences Centre in Japan, certain proteins, including those that affect brain tissue, may have been genetically altered over time by our species’ switch to a more meat-related diet.

Then, the Howard Huges Mediacl Institute isolated the ASPM gene whose mutations affect the size of the cerebral cortex. This protein is much more complex in humans than in other primates and might have been a decisive factor in evolving our “humanity.”

It has also been suggested that our genes governing the development of hearing might have been a direct contributor in the development of language by allowing more subtle sound differentiation. Chimps have lower hearing accumen the humans. In particular, one gene, alpha-tectorin, determines the makeup of the tectorial membrane in the inner ear.

There’s also endogenus retroviruses, which Creationists hate, calling them “intelligent common design” because they appear in both human and chimp genomes, are identical and indicate a common ancestor around five to seven million years ago. They code for viral proteins only used by viruses, but even if these little buggers had a function for the human organism, the odds against two species sharing such a thing is one in 10 to … well, followed by one hundred zeros.

But back to the original lintheaded question - are humans still evolving today? Well, yes, of course they are, but very subtly. Take, for example, Yersinia pestis, a bactirium living on rats that caused the Bubonic or Black Plague which affects the human immune system making the victim more susceptible to opportunistic diseases such as typhus, TB, smallpox, etc, plus its own nasty symptons.

Diseases like the Black Plague and HIV gain access to the human body by creeping past the cell membrane by creating a chemokine receptor. The design for these receptors are found in our genes. For people who had a high resistance to the Plague or HIV, the gene involved in the production of chemokine receptors is defective. If two parents, both with the defective gene produce a pair, this results in no receptors at all and HIV is shut out by the body’s natural defenses. This genetic mutation, known as Delta 32, is found in its highest frequencies in English, Scandinavian and Germanic peoples, most likely the same gene that gave their ancestors resistence to the Black Death.

One of the things that inhibits our ability to actually see evolution of the human species happening is our longer life spans and a population of over 6 billion. However, that doesn’t mean it’s not occuring - it is, but at a rate measured in centuries.

Now - if only a mutation could occur that would wipe out stupidity…

States Lt. Watada, “The war in Iraq is in fact illegal. It is my obligation and my duty to refuse any orders to participate in this war.” Further, “An order to take part in an illegal war is unlawful in itself.” He also concludes that the war is a result of “deception and manipulation…and willful misconduct by the highest levels of my chain of command,” and there is “no greater betrayal to the American people.”

Now I used to be an Army Guy, so I dug out my old U.S. Army Field Manual in which, under provision 27-10, it states that it is a soldier’s duty to refuse an illegal order. Another person court martialled was Pablo Paredes, who, in his deposition stated that sending Marines to fight an illegal war and possibly commit war crimes would make him complicit in and culpable for those crimes. Quoth he, “I believe as a member of the armed forces, beyond having a duty to my chain of command and my President, I have a higher duty to my conscience and to the supreme law of the land. Both of these higher duties dictate that I must not participate in any way, hands-on or indirect in the current aggression that has been unleashed o Iraq.” He received no jail time.

Now we know damn well that the US armed forces in Iraq have committed war crimes. The Haditha Massacre was just one. ON November 19th, 2005, one year after fighting in Fallujah, Marines from Kilo Co. went on a three to five hour shooting spree allegedly in revenge for the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas who had been killed earlier that day by an IED. They murdered 24 unarmed Iraqi civilians in what was described as “execution style.” One of the victims was a 76-year old amputee in a wheel chair. Others were mothers with children who were shot in prayer position. Six of the children ranged from ages 1 to 14. The story was finally broken, after almost a year’s attempt to hush it up, by Time Magazine in March of 2006, and after an investigation by Congressman John Murtha, himself a former Marine who was told by Marine investigators that troops shot a woman “in cold blood,” amongst other tings. There was even a videotape.

And, of course, there was the totally indiscriminant attack on Fallujah itself that left thousands of civilians dead in retaliation for the killing of four arrogant Balckwater mercenaries. We won’t even bother to get into Gitmo.

So who is ultimately culpable for war crimes, if, indeed, anybody is? I seem to recall Attorney General Alberto Gonzales advising Chimpy that the war in Iraq was, quote, a “new paradigm,” and that the President could suspend the Geneva Conventions on account of their being “quaint” and “obsolete.”

$^&*(7867%*&h0oi0j n()(*)42…

Sorry - just my jaw hitting the keyboard. “Quaint?” “Obsolete?” Are you sh–ting me?

Let’s go back to the sagacious wisdom of the US Army Field Manual:

“Military commanders may be responsible for war crimes committed by subordiante members of the armed forces, or other persons subject to their control. Thus, for instance, when troops commit massacres and atrocities against the civilian population of occupied territory or against prisonersof war, the responsibility may rest not only with the actual perpetrators but also with the commander. Such a responsibility arises directly when the acts in question have been committed in pursuance of an order of the commander concerned. The commander is also responsible if he has actual knowledge, or should have knowledge, through reports received by him or through other means, that troops or other persons subject to his control are about to commit or have committed a war crime and he falis to take the necessary and resonable steps to insure compliance with the law of war or to punish violators thereof.”

About as long-winded as military documents usually are, but I think it says it all. No uncrossed “t’s” or un-dotted “i’s” here.

A report in 2005 by Human Rights Watch states the following:

“Secretary Rumsfeld shoud be investigated for war crimes and torture by US troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanomo under the doctrine of “Command Responsibility.” Secretary Rumsfeld created the conditions for US troops to commit war crimes and torture by sidling and disparaging the Geneva Conventions, by approving interrogation techniques that violated the Geneva Conventions as well as the Convention against Torture, and by approving the hiding of detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross. From the earliest days of the war in afghanistan, Secretary Rumsfeld was on notice through briefings, ICRC reports, human rights reports, and press accounts that US troops were committing war crimes, including acts of torture. However, there is no evidence that he ever excerted his authority and warned that the mistreatment of prisoners must stop. Had he done so, many of the crimes committed by US forces could ahve been avoided.”

Since 2002 at least 86 detainees have died under US custody and at least 27 were determined to be criminal homicides.

It might also interest the reader that the US is the only major western nation that has refused to ratify the statutes of the Interantional Criminal Court which only prosecutes crimes against humanity such as torture or the indiscriminant murder of civilians if the country which should have jursidiction is unable or unwilling to prosecute. The US under Bush renounced the ICC in May of 2002, prior to the invasion of Iraq and has since bullied from more than 100 countries bilateral immunity aggreements that they will not extradite Americans indicted by the ICC to the court at the Hague. The Bushites cut off foreign aid to any who did not comply. Also, in August of 2002, the Repug-controlled Congress passed the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002 which authorizes the President, by any means necessary, to affect the release of any American who is detained by or on behalf of the ICC. It also denies military assistance to any nation that ratified the treaty.

One Nation, under Cheney, with Liberty And Justice as We define it.

Oh, and just in case anyone thinks that torture is justified for the preservation of the sacred shibboleth of National Security, let’s go back to the Army Field Manual:

“Experience indicates that the use of prohibited techiniques is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation sources. Use of torture and other illegal methods is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.”

And more importantly, ”

Look - another soul flying out the window…

Senator McCain, during his presidential campaign of 2008, claimed that he “knows how to win” in Iraq, although he was a bit vague with the details. Perhaps he’d fly a flighter-bomber over Iraq, bail out of it, get beaten within an inch of his life by an angry mob and spend 5 years in jail. This, after all, is how he won the Viet Nam war - another stellar example of a Republican administrations’ foreign policy delusions.

Analysis (v): A journalistic practice that is the equivalent of trying to pick usable meat off the carcass of the Thanksgiving Turkey two weeks after Thanksgiving.

Usually practiced by 24 hour news networks such as CNN who have an entire day of broadcast to fill with perhaps a total of two hours of actual news to report. Hence, the iteration and reiteration of analysis in which the pundits interview each other and otherwise participate in the metaphorical equivalent of filling up the Grand Canyon with styrofoam peanuts using a hand trowel. It was once observed by the late Murray Kempton that editorialists are those who appear after the battle to shoot the wounded. Analysts are those who follow to pillage the pockets of the dead for loose change. Fox News appears later to yank out gold filings.

.

New York Times reporter Paul Krugman did a study of incomes a few years ago. Here’s what he found.

Between 1972 and 2001, the top 10% had income gains of approximately 1% a year for a total of 34% gains over the years ‘72 to ‘01 collectively.

During that same span of years, the top 1% had income gains of 87%.

The top .01 had gains of 497%.

As the TV commercial says, “What’s in YOUR wallet?”

After WW II, Harry Truman initiated steps that essentially put the US back onto a war footing, a condition that would exist for many decades to come. Prior to FDR, his predescessors governed a republic which could be defined as a system that operates with a set of checks and balances designed to limit the concentration of political power by the federal government. Presidents after Truman presided over a system that was virtually defined by the concentration of power, especially increasingly within the executive branch. This re-definition of what government was created massive changes in what the government defined as policy.

The teacher, activist, theologian and author Reinhold Niebuhr (who staunchly warned against the hubris of what he called “managing history”) had this to say:

“The democratic techniques of a free society place checks upon the power of the ruler and administrator and this prevent it from becoming vexatious.”

That is, until through public apathy or an electorate managed by a purposeful campaign of fear-mongering, allow the ruler and administation to re-write the laws to their own advantage. David Addington, chief of staff to VP Dick Cheney summed up the goals of the Bush administration quite sucinctly when he said “We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.” That larger force in 2008 was the electorate who finally woke up in sufficient numbers to realize that the sucessors of Bush really didn’t have their best interests at heart any more than Bush and Cheney did.

In his second inagural address, Chimpy McShooters espoused three main points of America’s destiny. First, that History “has a visible direction, set by liberty and the Authority of Liberty.” Secondly, that as the self-proclaimed Land of Liberty, the US serves as a vanguard of history which, by re-defining and perfecting its concept of Freedom, present a model of its meaning to the rest of humanity, great unwashed that they are. Thirdly, that Providence has annointed the United States as an Agent of Liberty, a product whose brand must be exported to the rest of the world. Invading Iraq, according to Smirky, reafirmed and reinvigorated the nation’s “great liberating tradition.” In point of fact, he put it even plainer so that perhaps even someone like Sarah Palin might understand.

I leave you to put your own interpretation on such a statement of hubris, but I take it to mean that the US then defined its right to take what it needed from anyone anywhere simply because, to paraphrase Rumsfeld, it was easier to change someone else (especially with a gun) than to change ourselves. Self-righteousness welded to consumerism. I doubt the Founding Fathers would have even recognized such a statement as an expression of a democratic ideal.

Andrew J. Bachevich writes: “The ideology of national security does not serve as an operational checklist. It imposes no specific obligations. It functions the way ideology so often does - not to divine truth or even to make sense of thins, but to provide a highly elastic rationale for action. In the American context, it serves principally to legitimate the exercise of executive power. It removes constraints, conferring upon presidents and their immedate circle of advisers wide prerogatives for deciding when and how to employ that power.”

Or, in other words, the appearance of the democratic process can be used to legitimize executive power-grabs that then use the military as the most convenient method of extending their newly seized powers. Or, if the only tool you’ve chosen is a hammer, your tendency is to view every problem as a nail. Especially if you’re predisposed to chickenhawkishess. And it’s made so much easier when not only the citizen, but the Congress abrogates their role in the process by not only allowing but legitimizing, (if only through ’silence implys consent’) the accretion of power for the few at the expense of the nation as a whole.

Paul Wolfowitz expected the Iraq war to be transformative, that overthrowing Saddam would be the “moment in history when the West defined itself for the 21st century.” He believed, from the planet he was currently living on, that the war in Iraq would create “an opportunity for Americans and Arabs and other people of good will” to live in peace and harmony for ever and a day. He confessed that he found it “hard to believe” that any other outcome was possible.

Government by the delusional. After WW II, the idea of preemtive war and US global dominance by force or threat of force of arms might have titilated the Prussians but wouldn’t have played in Peoria. By the time of Bush, Cheney and Wolfowitz, the concentration of power and the separation from reality that such concentrations of power have a tendancy to evoke had become so pronounced that the invasion of Iraq was virtually inevitable and the American people and its representatives, the Congress, were dragged into it in part by their abrogation of critial thought and the necessity to play their role in the democratic administration of the Republic.

We’re an empire now and when we act, we create our own reality….We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Wolfowitz himslef once said “No US president can justify a policy that fails to achieve its intended results by pointing to the pruity and rectitude of his intentions.”

Well said, Wolf-halfwitz. Because that’s exactly what you and Cheney and Rummy and Rove are all trying to do right now, except that they still don’t believe they failed. Almost 5000 Americans dead soldiers might disagree.

So now it’s all in Obama’s lap and the Right are ranting and drooling that he’s ruining their great democracy. They are fools, liars and hypocrites.

What’s your excuse?