Ancestral Knowledge

Everyone you see everyday is your kin. Everybody alive on earth today is your distant relation. Only about 2,000 generations ago, our collective ancestor walked around what would one day become sub-Saharan Africa. About 10-20,000 years after that, a group of his progeny walked off the continent of our birth, perhaps pushed by the arid climate created by the ice age, and began our species' history of exploration. An early group walked to Australia along the expanded coastline of south Asia. Another group later walked up into the middle east. From there they multiplied and split -- some went further east and became the ancestors of Asians; after a sojourn in central Asia, others forged deep into the heart of the northeastern ice, eventually emerging south into the Americas; still others (the Cro-magnon people) took a circuitous route into the central Asian steppes, later heading westward to reach the dark and cold European forests where dwelt the Neanderthals, a very different human species.

How do we know all this? Archeology gives us clues, but the pivotal player here is our DNA. All the genetic markers carried by our ancestors are also carried by us. Our blood is laden with history.

The Genographic Project is now attempting to examine the DNA of 100,000 indigenous peoples over the next five years in an attempt to definitively map the great human migrations across the globe, and build a world family tree. I bought a Public Participation Kit from the National Geographic Society to submit my own DNA for testing and analysis. This weekend I swabbed, scraped, and sealed my samples in an envelope and sent them off. In a few weeks I should be able to log onto their website and learn something about my deep ancestry. I know it makes me a huge geek, but GODDAMNIT I love this stuff.

Click on a picture for the full commentary:

Greed

This morning I awoke to white smoke and an announcement from the Holy See: "Habemos Papa!" We have a Pope! Hooray! As for Latin America and Africa, home to half the world's Catholics and an out-of-control AIDS epidemic, respectively -- better luck next time, suckers! We got a conservative new pope from Germany who was once a Nazi! I say again, Hooray! Latin American Liberation Theology (people suffering under poverty and oppression should be helped) is OUT while old school Conservatism (endure hardship in this life while focusing on rewards in the afterlife) is IN! Even though 2.3 million Africans died of AIDS last year alone, they shouldn't use condoms to protect themselves and their loved ones from disease because prophylactics make Jesus cry. Oh, how the baby Jesus WEEPS about contraceptives in underdeveloped countries!

And all you Americans hoping the new pope would be more conciliatory and considerate to the 11,000 children who were molested by Catholic priests in this country -- well, tough! We got Joseph Ratzinger, a.k.a. "The Enforcer", who was in complete agreement with John Paul II about not blaming Cardinal Bernard Law, the Bostonian archbishop responsible for the molestor switcheroo and subsequent coverup. No apologies will be forthcoming, so quit your whining and redirect your anger towards Michael Jackson.

And if there are any women out there (reportedly, females make up about 50% of Catholics worldwide) hoping for some semblance of equality in this patriarchal church, you can forget about it! The Vatican doesn't need any of your input on doctrinal matters! And as for all you homosexuals -- just STOP asking for marriage because your entire life is a great big sinful lie! Except of course for homosexual priests who molest children. You guys were okay with JP2 and you'll be okay with Benedict the XVI, as well.

What does all this have to do with Greed? Not much. Not my greed anyway. But as I wrote in my first blog on the Seven Deadly Sins, I'm already resigned to living in Hell. I've already got my plot of fiery river-front land picked out. So whether I'm greedy or not doesn't really matter. What does matter is the fact that I'm going to have a lot of hypocritical Catholics as neighbors. People who thought they were doing the right thing. People who thought they'd end up inside the proverbial pearly gates. People who didn't believe that homosexuals were evil or that rich westerners should deny contraceptives to poor Africans, but obediently went to mass every Sunday and continued to donate money and resources to a church that hurts people. I'm not saying they have to follow my lead and go 88% atheistic, but they should at least stand up for what's right. If the man-made rules the Pope says you have to follow don't make sense anymore in today's world -- TELL him, for God's sake. Wait, scratch that. Tell him for humanity's sake.

Envy

Not really, no. I realize that I'm very fortunate and for that I'm thankful. I get to freelance in a non-corporate industry and occasionally take time off to smell the roses, as well as the lotus and cherry blossoms. I'm lucky enough to exist in this most fascinating of eras, when for the first time some of us can travel to the other side of the globe, across the wide oceans and vast deserts. I have the power to change my horizons as well as my perspectives. I have the leisure time to examine some of the important questions that our species has always pondered. In some cases, for the first time in history, the answers to those questions are within reach. For example, we believe with some assurance that everyone on earth is descended from a common male ancestor who lived in Africa approximately 60,000 years ago. But what happened after that? I just ordered a Public Participation Kit from the Genographic Project, a joint scientific venture by National Geographic and IBM. I'll sample and send in my DNA, eventually learning more about where and when my ancestors migrated and settled around the globe. Filling in some blanks while contributing to cultural preservation efforts and scientific understanding of the human journey. I'll update on buccal swabbing techniques when I receive the kit in the mail.

There is much for which I am exceedingly grateful. But to whom or what do I direct all this gratitude? Some questions just weren't meant to be answered...they can, however, be scored by an internet quiz:

You scored as atheism. You are... an atheist, though you probably already knew this. Also, you probably have several people praying daily for your soul. Instead of simply being "nonreligious," atheists strongly believe in the lack of existence of a higher being, or God. atheism 88% Buddhism 75% Satanism 71% Paganism 67% Islam 54% Judaism 42% agnosticism 38% Christianity 33% Hinduism 13% Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) created with QuizFarm.com

Lust

I'm a lean dog, a keen dog, a wild dog, and lone;
I'm a rough dog, a tough dog, hunting on my own;
I'm a bad dog, a mad dog, teasing silly sheep;
I love to sit and bay the moon, to keep fat souls from sleep.
 
I'll never be a lap dog, licking dirty feet,
A sleek dog, a meek dog, cringing for my meat,
Not for me the fireside, the well-filled plate,
But shut door, and sharp stone, and cuff and kick, and hate.

Not for me the other dogs, running by my side,
Some have run a short while, but none of them would bide.
O mine is still the lone trail, the hard trail, the best,
Wide wind, and wild stars, and hunger of the quest!

--Lone Dog, by Irene Rutherford McLeod, b. 1891

Pride

a.k.a Vanity, the sin from which all others arise: guilty as charged. A few weeks ago I read a MySpace blog that really bugged me (This link sends you to my page, not hers). It displayed so much ignorance that I was forced to respond. Her blog title alone was fightin' words. My friend D*Nice once told me that arguing via the World Wide Web is futile because no one wins and both parties end up looking foolish. I still don't know whether or not I agree with this, but the reply I received several days later was too scornful and condescending for me to take the high road. The gauntlet had been thrown down, and my pride was pricked. What follows is one of my foolish and futile internet arguments. If you're a glutton for more sinfulness, you can find another one here. In both cases, the name of my nemesis is disguised because I don't have permission to reprint their writing and they're not here to defend themselves.
-----
[Original Blog of Sunday, January 30, 2005]

Democrats love america like OJ loved nicole

...if you're a Democrat or liberal, that is fine. just don't hide under the ruse that you love america.

i myself am Independent, there are some Dem ideology/policy i agree with, and some GOP ideology/policy i agree with.

but on the topic of Iraq, i have to side with the right. the left has done nothing but berate the war while begrudgingly saying "well... fine... free elections in Iraq would be a great thing... i guess..." (usually followed by a hasty "unless there is MASSIVE DEADLY VIOLENCE THAT DISRUPTS THE ELECTIONS OH THE QUAGMIRE!!!")

sometimes, i wonder if the democratic nat'l committee is the mouthpiece for al-queda.

we heard that afghanistan would never be able to hold free, successful elections. they did. congratulations hamid karzai.

we heard that the palestianian authority would never be able to hold free, successful elections. they did. congratulations mahmous abbas.

we heard that iraq would never be able to hold free, successful elections. they did. congratulations, people of iraq.

i am sorry so many in the world secretly hoped your innocent civilians would be killed in a massive outbreak of violence. and i feel sorrow for those were killed by suicide bombers. but i am very pleased to hear about iraq the model, now emerging in the middle east.
-----
From: Xopher
Date: Mar 4, 2005 11:22 PM

Hi. I hope you're not offended by me writing you out of the blue, but I think your blog of January 30 is a little bit ridiculous. I hope that you're joking about that "Democrats love America..." line. If you're not, then I would challenge you to quote any prominent, or even obscure, Democrat who has expressed the desire for violence during the Iraqi elections. You appear to be employing the Fox News technique: you claim without evidence that Democrats are actually saying things that you wish they would say. Which only makes me think you're not being honest when you state that you're an independent. You heard that Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Iraq would never be able to hold free, successful elections? Was that before or after the 1996 free, successful elections in the Palestinian Territories? Was it that evil Democratic National Committee who told you these things?

While it is good news that Afghanistan and Iraq have both held elections, there is more to democracy, freedom and stability than voting. The violence in Iraq continues apace, and large swaths of Afghanistan are still controlled by the same warlords who were loyal followers of the Taliban. In fact, democracy and reconstruction in that country are being seriously threatened by the swift rise of the drug trade, according to both the United Nations' Office on Drugs and Crime and the Bush administration's Office of National Drug Control Policy. Opium production, a staple crop now in every province, is at an all-time high.

In practice, democracy only takes hold when nurtured from within -- no matter how many elections are held. Lebanon could fast become the shining light for democracy in the Near East. Another good reason to look to Lebanon is because their yearnings for sovereignty involve ejecting an occupying power: this could be an ominous forshadowing for sovereignty movements Iraq & Afghanistan.

I apologize for the length of this message, but I just wanted to point out to you that no American in their right mind (Democrats included) would actually WANT more violence in Iraq. Like you, I am neither Republican nor Democrat...but I think we should be fair to both, on all issues.
-----
From: xxxx
Date: Mar 8, 2005 6:40 PM

my blog title was facetious.

the reason i feel the way i do is because SO many democrats were SO vocal about how iraq would never be able to hold elections. same with afghanistan. but the aftermath of the afghan elections?

nearly ignored. read charles krauthammer's "miracle begets yawn" in the dec 10 2005 issue of washington post (page A37). or william safire's "the afghan miracle" on october 6 2004.

however... you cannot deny that had the afghan election broken out in mass violence as the insurgents promised, that everyone would be condemning it and (ultimately) blaming bush.

as for the PA election of mahmoud abbas (i like to quote to make more of an impact): "You heard that Afghanistan, the Palestinian Authority, and Iraq would never be able to hold free, successful elections? Was that before or after the 1996 free, successful elections in the Palestinian Territories?

you should've told that to:

steven erlanger in the 12/29 edition of the NYTimes, section A, page 3, column 1, Conal Urquhart in Jerusalem, in the 12/28 UK's paper the Guardian page 13, Khaled Abu Toameh in the 12/22 Jerusalem Post, Section: news, pg 2.

...and that's just 3 i grabbed from a recent research paper of mine that i had by my desk.

i feel the way i do because i concetrate very much on the area. i'm a poli sci major. i am also well-versed in islam, and many early islamic scholars (such as ibn khaldun - the reason i mention that is you cannot gain an understanding of a region without also knowing its history)... i know the middle east/middle eastern events going back to pre-Islamic arabian civilization.

if i simply hated democrats (and i take offense to that, by the way, the late senator paul wellstone was a family friend) i would be bashing them over a ton of things. or quoting anne coulter.

i am independent, but something about the disappointment in the voices of many democrats when having to discuss middle eastern elections, was very unsettling to me. not that the GOP doesn't unsettle me as well, but there is a difference when one is actually HOPING for harm to befall on our troops (example: the democrats' "protest vote" against more money for troops in iraq... if one was truly concerned, i have a hard time believing one could honestly vote to render parts of their electorate vulnerable). honestly, when i say "democrats," i don't think i mean the moderates or even the heavily left-of-center. i usually am referring to the far-left extremists who've hijacked the party.

xxxx
-----
From: Xopher
Date: Mar 15, 2005 9:41 PM

Hi, xxxx. I apologize for the delayed response, but I wasn't online for most of last week. I had hoped that you were being facetious with your blog title, as well as with some of your other statements (wondering if DNC = al-Qa'ida mouthpiece; Dems loving America = a ruse; implying that Democrats secretly hoped innocent civilians would be killed in a massive outbreak of violence, etc.).

Thanks for the article recommendations. While I agree with both Krauthammer and Safire that free elections anywhere in the Near East are a positive development to be lauded, the premise that they're miraculous is laughable. What's so miraculous about the armed forces of a rich, powerful country (what some would call the world's last superpower) routing the Taliban militia within 100 days, installing a government and subsequently holding elections?

Krauthammer goes on to state that liberals are now complaining about poppies, and that this is merely a case of 'dog bites man' news. It's not just liberals, however, and it's not the same old poppy story. As I said in my previous message, even Bush's O.N.D.C.P. acknowledges that opium production is at an all-time high -- accounting for 60% of the Afghan economy. This is a 239% increase in the poppy crop since the Taliban was driven from Kabul. Antonio Costa, exec. director of the U.N.O.D.C., said that "The fear that Afghanistan might degenerate into a narco-state is slowly becoming a reality. Opium cultivation, which has spread like wildfire... could ultimately incinerate everything: democracy, reconstruction and stability."

Please understand that I'm not lamenting the departure of the Taliban (though they still run much of the hinterland) or disrespecting the courage of candidates and voters in Afghani elections; I just think we should hold off on the self-congratulatory circle jerk for awhile.

While I don't deny that had violence marred the elections I (and many others) would have held Bush partly responsible, that doesn't imply that I (and many others) wished for bloodshed. There is already a mountain of failed policy for which Bush is to blame. His detractors don't need any more evidence, especially at the cost of American lives. His Iraqi adventure has drawn vital money, troops, and supplies from the rebuilding of Afghanistan and the hunt for al-Qa'ida. I am reminded now of Saint-Exupéry's quote from The Little Prince: "Men have forgotten this truth, but you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed." I doubt Bush, who admittedly hates reading (especially about policy), ever read any Saint-Exupéry. Nevertheless, he shares the burden of responsibility for the direction of democracy in Afghanistan.

I can't help but notice that you begged the question when answering my challenge to "quote any prominent, or even obscure, Democrat who has expressed the desire for violence during the Iraqi elections". In response, you stated that "SO many democrats were SO vocal about how iraq would never be able to hold elections". If there were that many and they were that vocal, their quotes shouldn't be that hard to find.

Regarding the three articles used in reference to your research paper, none of them refuted my point, which was that I hadn't heard anyone in the media saying that Palestinian elections could never be held. The authors confirmed the sundry difficulties (including voter apathy) facing Palestinians elections, especially in Jerusalem, but none stated that "the PA would never be able to hold free, successful elections".

If Senator Wellstone was a family friend, then you have my condolences. However, you shouldn't have been offended by anything in my message. I never said that you "simply hated Democrats" (your quote), I only questioned what you wrote about them in your blog (re-read my first paragraph for a summary). Actually, now that I look over what you wrote again, it does sound like bashing. By the way, you have my thanks for leaving Anne Coulter out of the discussion.

In your last paragraph, you still appear to believe that Democrats were "HOPING" for harm to befall our troops; nothing could be further from the truth. The protest vote you cite as evidence was not a protest against funding the troops, only against the way in which that $87 billion would be spent. The Democrats in question wanted some of that money to be a loan to Iraq, while most other members of Congress wanted it to be a gift, leaving the burden on the U.S. taxpayers. Had that bill not passed, another one would have been crafted with a different spending layout -- the troops would still have been supported. Perhaps that other, unrealized bill would have allocated even more funds to body armor. Incidentally, Bush threatened to veto said bill had $10 billion of the funds been allocated in the form of a loan. Using his own logic, he was thereby threatening to not support our troops. By the way, there was plenty of high-grade body armor available on the market in the spring of 2003 -- many soldiers' families purchased it themselves. Why wasn't it bought by the government right from the start? Why didn't the Pentagon send the troops to Iraq with proper protection in the first place? Did Bush and Rummy not want to support our troops?

I laughed when you wrote that "far-left extremists" have hijacked the Democratic party because I feel the opposite is true. In my opinion Kerry -- their candidate of choice -- was a milquetoast, meandering, stodgy windbag whose position on Iraq (on many issues, actually) wasn't all that different from Bush's. And he was the face of the mainstream Democratic Party. Even Clinton was Centrist, considering his economic and social welfare agendas. The last president who had a left-leaning domestic policy was Nixon (he also successfully engaged China and the Soviet Union, the opposite approach of Reagan & Bush Jr. regarding their own percieved evil enemies). It was even known then as the "liberal consensus". Weird, eh? If Kucinich had been nominated by his party last year I'd have to agree with you, but that wasn't the case. I also happen to believe that the Neoconservatives and to a lesser extent, the Religious Right, have hijacked the Republican party. But maybe that's just me.

Anyway, I know it's hard to convey tone in email, but I want to reiterate that none of this is an attack on your background knowledge. I'm glad you take history into account and are familiar with Ibn Khaldun, though I prefer reading Khalil Gibran or Omar Khayyam. While I'm neither a poli sci major nor a Near East scholar like you, I did live there for two formative years as a child and came away enriched and fascinated. Apart from its oil, it's a long-neglected part of the world with which all westerners, Left & Right, need to come to terms.

Xopher
-----
[I'm still waiting for a reply...]

Sloth

I am a lazy man, and readily admit that I'm guilty of sloth. Instead of doing actual work I've been playing around on the internet, and I've come across two cool sites.

Sloth project #1. Surf to maps.google.com and type in your home or work address. Notice that when the map appears you can pan and scroll around without waiting for the page to reload. Cool, huh? But it gets cooler. Click the "satellite" link in the upper right. Now continue to pan around or zoom in & out. Let the malingering begin!

Sloth project #2. Surf to Gone2TheDogs.com, click on the link on the right that says, "WHAT DOG ARE YOU?" and answer the ten questions. Turns out that I'm a Pharaoh Hound, so named because of the breed's resemblence to Anubis, the jackal-headed ancient Egyptian god of death & the underworld. Sounds cool, but their looks don't always live up to their regal & divine name.

Anger

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Zalmay Khalilzad has been named by President Bush to take over from John Negroponte as U.S. Ambassador to Iraq. Before this, the article mentions, he was the U.S. Special Envoy and Ambassador to his native Afghanistan. There is no mention in the article, however, of Khalilzad's past prior to 2001.

In 1998 Khalilzad, along with his Neoconservative colleagues at the Project for the New American Century (Donald Rumsfeld, Elliott Abrams, Dick Armitage, John Bolton, Richard Perle and, of course, Paul Wolfowitz), signed a letter to President Clinton demanding military action against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, "to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies". Always with the WMDs, these guys. As I've discussed in a previous blog, the avowed aim of this group, which has now overwhelmed the leadership of the Republican party, is to intervene and remake the rest of the world in the image of the U.S., unilaterally and with military force if necessary. Which to me sounds more like Neocolonialism or Neoimperialism than traditional Conservatism.

During the Clinton presidency Khalilzad was a paid advisor to Unocal, the oil company that was trying to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Remember the scene in Fahrenheit 9/11 that showed Unocal giving flown-in Taliban officials the VIP treatment in Texas? Khalilzad was part of the U.S. contingent trying to woo them with a two billion dollar pipeline deal. While human rights organizations were blasting the Afghani warlords for their repressive attitudes toward women and religious freedom, Khalilzad defended these gangsters and pushed for the U.S. to officially recognize their regime, something which no other country in the world would do save Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and The U.A.E. Khalilzad wrote of his new buddies: "The Taliban do not practice the anti-US style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran. We should ... be willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance and to promote international economic reconstruction. It is time for the United States to re-engage." In December of 1998, after the U.S. embassy bombings, Unocal was forced to withdraw from the Afghan pipeline consortium. In other words, who cares how bad these guys are? As long as they don't bomb us, we'll give them millions of dollars and make them our business partners.

Prior to that, Khalilzad worked with Paul Wolfowitz at the State Department, where he "successfully pressed the Reagan administration to provide arms -- including shoulder-fired Stinger missiles -- to anti-Soviet resistance fighters in Afghanistan" (The Washington Post, 11/23/01). These resistance fighters were the mujahideen. The same mujahideen that eventually became, oh nothing, just a group of bitter assholes who called themselves the TALIBAN. Ever hear of 'three strikes and you're out', Zalmay? Now, some may argue that this aid was a necessary evil at the time, given the fact that the Soviets had invaded Afghanistan and we were in the middle of a cold war. The U.S. is not guilt-free in that affair, however. The Soviets always claimed they were fighting against a secret involvement in Afghan affairs by the U.S., a claim which was denied by the latter until Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a July 1998 interview with French magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, rather proudly admitted that the CIA had been giving aid to the Afghans a full six months before the Soviet invasion: the U.S. was happy to play its part in giving the U.S.S.R. its own Vietnam.

What does all this add up to? It means that the Neoconservative element at the head of our government is shameless. It means that they will continue to promote from within no matter how wrong or stupid or dangerous or short-sighted the promotees are.

In case you couldn't tell, it also means that I'm angry.

Gluttony, Part II: The Gourmand Strikes Back

Yesterday I met Shera on Melrose for brunch. We were both an hour late because of the damned DST change. Losing an hour of sleep truly vexes me. This was my second attempt to enjoy a meal at Crepe To Go, and will most likely be my last. I much prefer Acadie in Santa Monica...too bad it's far away on the west side. CTG's gimmick of naming their crepes after movie stars (I had the curry-and-sausage Bruce Lee) is cute but doesn't make up for dry crepes and smoothies over-packed with ice. I can't understand why Shera commutes all the way down from the Valley into Hollywood every weekend for the Marilyn Monroe. She always tells the Japanese proprietor to make her crepe extra crispy with just a little Nutella, and he never listens. She's friends with him anyway. When we left, I wanted a boba to wash the taste of the bad smoothie away and he told us there was a boba joint down the street next to the "bonn-dodge store". Uh, okay. We walked west looking for one of the several stores on Melrose that could easily pass as a bondage store, thinking that's what he meant. Then Shera spotted a VON DUTCH store on the north side of the street, with a Crazy Boba next door. Ain't Engrish grand?

Later, Jon came downtown and we picked up some imagawayaki from Mitsuru Cafe on our way to Daikokuya for the best ramen in L.A. Unfortunately, they're now temporarily closed on Sundays so we doubled back to Weller Court for Yakitori Kosiji, one of my new favorites in the 'hood. It's not as energetic as Kokekkoko and the set menu doesn't include hearts, gizzards and liver, but it's got more variety (with Kobe beef and pork-wrapped asparagus instead of the chicken entrails), it's delicious, and the atmosphere is relaxed and more refined. I finished my weekend with a bar of OCUMARE, another variety of Chocovic's "Unique Origin" line. This one is pure unmixed Venezuelan chocolate, with strong hints of tobacco, cedar and dried plum. I'm not talking about the taste of second-hand smoke; I mean that whiff of fresh tobacco you get when you open a new pack of cigarettes. Mix that "perfumed aroma" with "tones of exotic wood, nuts and dried fruit as well as spicy nuances," and you've got yourself some 71% cacao Ocumare. My quest for good chocolate is expanding, and I feel that it may soon lead me to Teuscher and Debauve & Gallais. $32 may seem a bit steep for an 8 oz. box of champagne truffles, (or in the case of the latter, $115 for a 1.32 lb box of "Pistoles Saveur" -- 99% cacao!), but when one is a glutton on an investigative mission to pursue the highest form of Epicurean pleasure, what's a few dollar bills? Okay, time for lunch!