packsaddle

You can watch and hear it here: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/powell_endorses_obama.html?nav=rss_blog

Another resurrection: John-in-KC noted (as have some others, I think) that he would like to see Colin Powell as the Republican candidate. I'm curious as to the response to today's endorsement by Powell of Obama...and his stated reasons for the endorsement.

Gold Winger, Perhaps more wasted rhetoric, but: How many chromosomes do humans have? How many chromosomes do chimps and other great apes have? But you're right, we do share a lot of traits with the other primates, especially Bonobos. Of course this is expected, considering we have a related evolutionary lineage. We ARE related to them in many ways. Thanks Trevorum, I agree. Actually I think this discussion is a nice demonstration of the power that the illusion has. We all have access to objective scientific observations regarding race and genetics - evidence that has never been available before. Some of us choose to ignore the evidence. To try to bring this back to topic, I'll raise the question again, but with regard to 'race'. Is the concept of race something that we teach, or is it the result of an innate human characteristic and would arise again and again even if somehow we didn't teach it to our children?

I don't define 'race' because I can't identify a scientific basis for it. I side with the null hypothesis. If we look at this from the other direction, with no assumption that 'race' exists, we make a null hypothesis that there are no discernable genetic patterns among humans that we can ascribe to race. For a very long time, many of us made the assumptions you seem to make, that some superficial characteristics seem to occur in patterns that we ascribe to 'race'. There was an implicit assumption that these were sufficient to support the concept of race and that they are genetically determined. In this view, the null is rejected and races, based on phenotypic characteristics, exist as genetic expressions. And therefore we have created definitions such as the one you just quoted. However, now that we have the tools to actually examine the most minute genetic differences between people, right down to individual base pairs, we can apply these tools to test the hypothesis in a truly rigorous manner. What we found is that there is no real pattern out there that can be ascribed to 'race'. And really, this also applies to skin color, eye color, hair, etc. as well. As a social construct we 'see' race. But it is an illusion. I refer you to a three-part series called "Race: The Power of an Illusion" which offers in more detail, some of what I have just written. Another way to look at this is if you take any two of the most phenotypically different people on the planet (say, just for example, an Australian aboriginal and a blonde, blue-eyed Norwegian) and compare their codes...you will find less variation between them than if you compared two microscopically-identical fruit flies from the same parental pair. Human populations have not diverged much genetically over their evolutionary history because it is so short, yet we have ascribe enough importance to phenotypes to concoct some kind of social construct, the concept of 'race'. Fruit flies, on the other hand, have had many millions of years of evolution and therefore time to elaborate larger amounts of genetic variation. If you compared YOUR code to a room full of diverse ethnic backgrounds, you could not predict, on the basis of appearance, who you would be most like, genetically. The null hypothesis is NOT rejected. Incidentally, the implications of this are really powerful. Any random male and female pair from anywhere on the planet will contain over 95% of all the human genetic variability that exists on earth. You can think of them as Adam and Eve. Another way to look at it is if some cataclysm wiped out every human on the planet except for a small village someplace, anyplace, with maybe 1000 people, nearly ALL of the genetic variability of humanity would remain intact and the species would not yet be endangered. This fact helps me to feel good about the future when stupid people challenge enemies to "bring it on". I am willing to entertain the argument that 'race', as a concept, may support a mechanism for further isolation which, if we allowed it to occur, might have led to identifiable genetic differences. We didn't. It hasn't. In the sense that you learned 'race' from parents and society, then I can accept that you may have inherited the concept socially. But on a genetic basis, there is no evidence yet upon which to establish 'races'. And the more we look, the less likely it seems that we are likely to find any. That said, sadly even today I can walk down the street to the house of the racist, fundamentalist minister who flies the Confederate flag above the American flag and listen to some very, very old ideas. Any time I want to. Edited part; typo, sorry(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Eye, hair, skin, etc. colors are mostly genetic. If you think those superficial characteristics define race, then for you race is genetic. Happy?

TheScout, back when I was a deputy registrar I had quite a few new applicants inform me that they just wanted to make sure the (n-word) didn't take over the country and therefore they wanted to vote for Reagan. I registered them. You are correct. I doubt they've changed their views since then either.

OGE, aren't you one of the people supposed to keep these things on topic? Anyway, you could add Lester Maddox and a lot more names to the list. In 1964, Goldwater only won his own state of Arizona outside the South, adding Georgia to the states that Thurmond had taken in 1948. He got their support by opposing the Civil Rights Act. I remember it well because as a child I helped campaign for him. Johnson was likewise reviled in the South because of his support for civil rights. And then Nixon employed these forces to form the Southern Strategy that allowed the Republicans to take the South. I give them credit, they did a great job. As I noted before, I'm not painting the Democrats as pure. There were plenty of Democrats who embraced civil rights for purely political reasons. But for whatever reasons, they took the high ground on civil rights and lost the South for their trouble. 1948 was a year that started the motion with Thurmond and the Dixiecrats and 1964 sealed the deal. I got to watch it all first hand. Trevorum is right. It is fascinating (oops, that was Spock). But thinking in terms of race seems unavoidable for most people.

I guess I didn't pay much attention to it. But I got to see my daughter in the crowd during the 'Hardball' segment. Looked like she had a lot of fun.

Any at all might be more than enough. To me the concept of racism is interesting because I wonder if it is an unavoidable human characteristic. Not that it is genetic but perhaps it is related to - or perhaps an outcome of our tendency to form social structures. We know that there is no genetic basis for race, at least not that we've been able to find after doing some pretty good looking. So why is it that we insist on viewing each other in racial terms? Interesting. Edited part: In the South, the Republican party explicitly capitalized on the racist reaction to integration. While I don't claim them to be pure at heart because they're not, it's hard for me to identify a similar history for the Democrats. Perhaps you can fill me in.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Lisabob, Wow, that was some bad experience your son had. I am so sorry that happened to him. I can't say it doesn't happen around here but I've never observed it. With regard to our SPL, the SM actually stepped in and gave some friendly words to set things back on a more even keel. The SPL knew he'd stepped over the line and he just couldn't figure out how to get back again. Things turned out all right for us. About the South, nah, I'll get too long-winded about the role of the Republican party and its rise from racism. Maybe some other time.

Regarding the flag thing, way back when I was a scout in the '60s, my Presbyterian church would not allow the American Flag or any uniform with the flag on it, into the church. They cited the separation concept and prohibited any symbol of any government to enter the church. I still wonder at that.

The writer in the original post is making a point about a single boy who did something that happens all the time. If he had not been in a uniform, she wouldn't have had a story. As it was, the uniform was the real story and, unfortunately, there is no way...no matter how we respond...to keep isolated things like that from happening. I think this is being waaaayyyyyy too sensitive, given the isolated incident. I think I mentioned a while back that I overheard the SPL lecturing the boys about how Hillary Clinton was a communist. At the time I just rolled my eyes. He and most of the other boys get whatever they get from school and from home, not from Scouts. I suspect the SPL was reflecting something a parent had said. It might be worth a word to the families at a larger meeting sometime, about the points of courtesy, kindness, and friendliness. Maybe 'respectful' would be a good one to consider for addition to the list. But I think I'd hold back on some broad response to a letter like that. Let her make her point, whatever it is. And get on with business.

OGE, I'll defer to Lisabob's lament and send a PM.

GW, Pro-choice is simply 'pro' 'choice'. That's a literal translation, by the way. You are free to misinterpret these simple words any way YOU choose. You are opposed to personal freedom and I am interested in protecting personal freedom. If your ideas lack sufficient reasoning, authority, or logic to convince someone that they should choose the way you want them to, then you need to work harder on your arguments. Otherwise learn to live with disappointment.

Given that we all die anyway, as a punishment for sin it seems a rather empty threat.

Pro-choice is not necessarily pro-abortion. It certainly IS pro- individual decision and pro- individual responsibility (aka individual freedom). I used to think those were 'conservative' values but I was evidently in error. But the choice can also be choice NOT to have an abortion. Right now, that is the majority of choices that are made.

Neither one of them will fix that, at least from what they have published as their current proposals. So-called 'conservatives' made the mistake, I think, of working from ideology rather than thoughtful ideas. Anyone can make that mistake and the political process seems especially susceptible, but the so-called 'conservatives' have done a spectacular job of it.

I hate to be shrill but wouldn't that be "Republican shill" rather than 'shrill'?

OGE, the Eisenhower/Stevenson campaign was fairly civil. Both were honorable men. Both would have been good Presidents. One of them was. Since that time, there has not been a single campaign that has been civil and devoid of dirty tricks. Closest one to it was Carter/Ford, both good guys in my opinion. What changed? Television changed a few things but I don't blame the media. Talk radio has been around for a very long while but I don't blame the blowhards either. I'm not sure what the answer is. I suspect, however, that given that we are electing 'representatives' as well as leaders, the dirty tricks and similar behaviors could be just a reflection of OUR willingness to allow such behaviors. Would we allow this stuff at a troop meeting? At a roundtable? It takes work to read different accounts and objectively make decisions when they don't agree. It is easy to just listen to a blowhard of any persuasion, and nod in agreement. It takes work to understand the opposing view well enough to defend it and to offer objective, constructive criticism. It is even more difficult to listen, really listen, to such criticism of your own view and to accept the possibility you might be wrong. Easy to label, demonize, or simply dismiss without thinking. It is difficult to really put yourself in the place of your opponent and try to understand his viewpoint. Easier to make him an object that can be discarded without emotion. But something about us causes us to react to these political dirty tricks by doing something almost as bad. We merely point the finger and blame when we could condemn such behavior and reject it. It's easy. To some extent, McCain sees this I think, based on his recoil from it at the recent rally. I think Obama sees it as well. These two candidates, however, are not in control. WE are in control. There is a civil way to disagree. The art is not dead. Some of us still apply it. But when some of us don't, if the rest of us don't stand up to it, we support it through inaction. It's just easier that way.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

I don't find it convincing, period. And it sure as hell is not comedy. I think Sandra Bernhard did it and now she's trying to rationalize her screwup. She's over the line as far as I'm concerned, making a disgusting statement that is to me an assault on women and blacks in general as well as Palin. I'm with Brent on this.

I am reminded of the statistical truth that in nature, nothing has a truly 'normal' distribution. I wonder if our personal definition of what is normal might actually be some idealization of our own characteristics that we think are the best? Anyway, yes the extremes are probably always going to be there. Here in the South, in some cases we've actually capitalized on some of our extremes (wretchedness, for example) - made some good money at times. While I admit that I suspect that truly 'normal' people are boring compared to those who aren't, when the mix includes politics and religion, it makes me glad to be a scientist. Not that there's anything 'normal' about scientists either. We've been blessed with plenty of 'interesting' characters.

OGE, thanks for restarting this one. I apologize for turning everyone off from the intended topic although I believe I had some help with that. I support Obama. I have some positive reasons that I will list but as I have noted in other threads, this is after I throw out the negative ones which I believe are shared by both candidates. I am deeply saddened by the lack of realism displayed by both candidates with regard to energy. Actually, it is embarrassing as well, because energy policy since Reagan has been little better than could have been expected from ignoramuses. And with the exception of a brief hiatus during the Clinton years, economic policy has been little better. The Iraq debacle is going to drain our treasury and our blood for a very long time to come and this will not change regardless of who is elected. Obama might think he can extract us from this fate but I doubt it. I hope I'm wrong. I see net positive factors in Obama's support of science and education. The two candidates don't really differ much regarding the issue of global climate change but then, they don't really have much of a way to influence things on that topic either. In general, though, while a McCain presidency would be a breath of fresh air compared to previous Republican administrations with regard to environment, I believe that Obama again has a better approach although I see flaws there as well (mostly related to energy). I see Obama as having far greater skills and opportunities to help address and perhaps solve problems related to ethnic, racial, or other social inequities. In contrast, the Republicans, at least in my region, are explicitly established on a historical foundation of prejudice. No contest. For personal qualities, I simply cannot view Obama's rise from humble origins to leading positions as a Harvard student as somehow negative. I recognize that McCain was a product of Annapolis. But he was close to the bottom of his class in comparison. Yes, I know the two are difficult to compare. I have generals and admirals in my family so I do appreciate the difference. I also am influenced by public statements by Obama's former mentors on the Harvard faculty. I believe he has the intellectual edge. At his age, I believe that Obama has a better chance of remaining in good health for two terms. I believe Obama's choice of Biden as VP candidate speaks well of a man who want's to hear truth to power from an equal intellect, with even greater experience and depth at least in foreign policy matters. By comparison McCain made a political choice. Palin isn't nearly McCain's equal by any measure. I do not consider the Presidency to be relevant to such personal issues as religion. But the Democrats historically have the edge there, at least with regard to devout, born-again Christians. I say this to emphasize that my suspicion that loud noises about religious background are mostly insincere so I place no importance on those noises, thus coming back to my original position. I am pro-choice so I see Obama as not that far from McCain, at least the old McCain before he was born again in the Rove vision. At the end of this election, I will still have high regard for John McCain. He will not be President. He will still be an honorable man and in the Senate, although perhaps nearing retirement. Obama will be President and I will disagree strongly with many of his policies (especially the idiotic ones related to economy and energy). He is also an honorable man. Once he is in office, I'll almost pity him for having to deal with what Bush left for him.

I have also used that quote now and then. Thanks Trev.

Wow, thanks for that link, it is a GREAT resource! However, on the down side, it could end up consuming many hours of my time that I could have spent mowing grass or vacuuming floors. Did I just write, 'down' side?

Yeah GWD, there are quite a few of us from the South. It would be interesting to try to get together sometime, maybe see which state has the best BBQ or something like that. Why do I always seem to gravitate to food topics? But I do love BBQ. Packhound, I graduated in '71. I'm guessing that was a while before you were there.