www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> Forwarded article below on the Mosque controversies (fwd)
Alan Sondheim on Fri, 13 Aug 2010 16:14:52 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> Forwarded article below on the Mosque controversies (fwd)




I just have to say I'm ashamed of this country, and scared - too much 
hatred against illegal immigrants (WHICH WE ALL ARE), and now Islam. Some 
of the protests are all too familiar Kristallnacht in tone - on Jon 
Stewart, there was a newsclip of a community going to burn a copy of the 
Koran on 9/11.

I can't argue this with anyone - I'm horrified and brought to tears by it. 
And we can't sit by and let a rabid racist right grow in this country - 
the affects have been seen repeatedly worldwide.

- Alan


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:20:36
From: evolutionary-psychology {AT} yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: No Reply <notify-dg-evolutionary-psychology {AT} yahoogroups.com>
To: evolutionary-psychology {AT} yahoogroups.com
Subject: [evol-psych] Digest Number 7327

There are 6 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. News: Orangutan pantomime ~ elaborating the message
     From: Robert Karl Stonjek

2a. Re: Holistic Darwinism: The new evolutionary paradigm and some impli
     From: Mike Tintner
2b. Re: Holistic Darwinism: The new evolutionary paradigm and some impli
     From: Steve Moxon

3. Bonobos and chimps
     From: mark hubey

4. The Rise of America's Idiot Culture
     From: ED

5. 8 Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants
     From: R A Fonda


Messages
________________________________________________________________________
1. News: Orangutan pantomime ~ elaborating the message
     Posted by: "Robert Karl Stonjek" stonjek {AT} ozemail.com.au rk_stonjek
     Date: Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:07 am ((PDT))

Orangutan pantomime: elaborating the message
Anne Russon1 and Kristin Andrews2

1Psychology Department, Glendon College, 2275 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, 
Canada M4N 3M6
2Philosophy Department, York University, 4700 Keele St Toronto, Ontario, Canada 
M3J 1P3

*Author for correspondence (arusson {AT} gl.yorku.ca).
Abstract
We present an exploratory study of forest-living orangutan pantomiming, i.e. 
gesturing in which they act out their meaning, focusing on its occurrence, 
communicative functions, and complexities. Studies show that captive great apes 
may elaborate messages if communication fails, and isolated reports suggest 
that great apes occasionally pantomime. We predicted forest-living orangutans 
would pantomime spontaneously to communicate, especially to elaborate after 
communication failures. Mining existing databases on free-ranging rehabilitant 
orangutans' behaviour identified 18 salient pantomimes. These pantomimes most 
often functioned as elaborations of failed requests, but also as deceptions and 
declaratives. Complexities identified include multimodality, re-enactments of 
past events and several features of language (productivity, compositionality, 
systematicity). These findings confirm that free-ranging rehabilitant 
orangutans pantomime and use pantomime to elaborate on their messages. Further, 
they use pantomime for multiple functions and create complex pantomimes that 
can express propositionally structured content. Thus, orangutan pantomime 
serves as a medium for communication, not a particular function. Mining cases 
of complex great ape communication originally reported in functional terms may 
then yield more evidence of pantomime.

Source: The Royal Society
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/08/05/rsbl.2010.0564.abstract?papetoc

Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek




Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2a. Re: Holistic Darwinism: The new evolutionary paradigm and some impli
     Posted by: "Mike Tintner" tintner {AT} blueyonder.co.uk andarot
     Date: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:28 am ((PDT))

"Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3 {AT} ...> wrote:
> 
> There is no new evolutionary paradigm along the lines outlined here.

I can't speak to the virtues of this particular approach. But as to the need 
for, and inevitability of, major paradigm shifts, I have no doubt.

What's the difference between saying humans are gene-determined, and - 
computers are RAM-determined? Well, they are to a considerable extent, but just 
looking at key parts of a machine will not explain the evolution or design of 
the machine as a whole. Nor will just in addition looking at the environment of 
the machine.

The study BTW of the evolution of actual machines has just begun. See Brian 
Arthur's The Nature of Technology, wh. I detect is already having a 
cross-cultural impact.

And, to return to the comparison with computers (& robots),  clearly a 
gene-/part-centered approach will ignore the most central, glaring and indeed 
gigantic feature of these machines - they are **general-purpose** machines - 
**creative** machines - designed so as to be capable of an infinite range of 
physical activities and mental activities, capable of surviving in an infinite 
range of environments,  (wh. makes the idea that they are 
environment-determined look somewhat bizarre).

One way or another, the recognition of humans and animals as creative machines 
will transform the sciences - you can see one of the first significant moves 
towards this in S. Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred, wh. is an attempt at a 
new creative worldview, to supplant the currently crumbling, reductionist, 
parts-centered worldview. Neither Kauffman nor, I wouldn't be surprised, 
Corning, has a fully crystallised new paradigm. But you can be sure, one is 
coming. The gene-centered POV is breathtakingly narrow in its powers of 
explanation - and cannot begin to explain the *design* of the "organismic 
machine" as a whole.




Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
2b. Re: Holistic Darwinism: The new evolutionary paradigm and some impli
     Posted by: "Steve Moxon" stevemoxon3 {AT} talktalk.net spmox
     Date: Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:55 am ((PDT))

A 'creative machine' is exactly what we're not. The more complex the organism 
then the more faithful it is to its genes -- as I explain in my paper. We never 
go off at some new trajectory.
As for computer models: they are hopeless analogies of organisms.
Systems-biology is the antithesis of a 'parts view' and this is fully here 
without any 'paradigm shift'

A paradigm shift is necessary when it's neceseray; not when it's not.

As ever, failure of philosophical understanding destroys scientific 
understanding.

Steve Moxon [author of the book, The Woman Racket: The new science explaining 
how the sexes relate at work, at play and in society, 2008 Imprint Academic; 
and the papers: 'Dominance as adaptive stressing and ranking of males, serving 
to allocate reproduction by self-suppressed fertility: Towards a fully 
biological understanding of social system', 2009 Medical Hypotheses; 'Culture 
is biology: Why we cannot 'transcend' our genes', 2010 Politics & Culture; and 
'Beyond Staged Retreat Behind Gender Paradigm Barricades: The rise and fall of 
the misrepresentation of partner violence and it's eclipse by an understanding 
of mate-guarding', in press The Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace 
Studies].

   ----- Original Message -----
   From: Mike Tintner
   To: evolutionary-psychology {AT} yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 12:18 PM
   Subject: [evol-psych] Re: Holistic Darwinism: The new evolutionary paradigm 
and some impli




   "Steve Moxon" <stevemoxon3 {AT} ...> wrote:
   >
   > There is no new evolutionary paradigm along the lines outlined here.

   I can't speak to the virtues of this particular approach. But as to the need 
for, and inevitability of, major paradigm shifts, I have no doubt.

   What's the difference between saying humans are gene-determined, and - 
computers are RAM-determined? Well, they are to a considerable extent, but just 
looking at key parts of a machine will not explain the evolution or design of 
the machine as a whole. Nor will just in addition looking at the environment of 
the machine.

   The study BTW of the evolution of actual machines has just begun. See Brian 
Arthur's The Nature of Technology, wh. I detect is already having a 
cross-cultural impact.

   And, to return to the comparison with computers (& robots),  clearly a 
gene-/part-centered approach will ignore the most central, glaring and indeed 
gigantic feature of these machines - they are **general-purpose** machines - 
**creative** machines - designed so as to be capable of an infinite range of 
physical activities and mental activities, capable of surviving in an infinite 
range of environments,  (wh. makes the idea that they are 
environment-determined look somewhat bizarre).

   One way or another, the recognition of humans and animals as creative 
machines will transform the sciences - you can see one of the first significant 
moves towards this in S. Kauffman's Reinventing the Sacred, wh. is an attempt 
at a new creative worldview, to supplant the currently crumbling, reductionist, 
parts-centered worldview. Neither Kauffman nor, I wouldn't be surprised, 
Corning, has a fully crystallised new paradigm. But you can be sure, one is 
coming. The gene-centered POV is breathtakingly narrow in its powers of 
explanation - and cannot begin to explain the *design* of the "organismic 
machine" as a whole.






Messages in this topic (2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3. Bonobos and chimps
     Posted by: "mark hubey" hubeev {AT} gmail.com hubeyh
     Date: Thu Aug 12, 2010 6:53 am ((PDT))

Can bonobos and chimps interbreed?




Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
4. The Rise of America's Idiot Culture
     Posted by: "ED" seacrofter001 {AT} yahoo.com seacrofter001
     Date: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:59 am ((PDT))




August 12, 2010
The Rise of America's Idiot Culture  The Muslim Community Center at
Ground Zero: a Manufactured Controversy
By ANTHONY DiMAGGIO

A substantial racist uproar is taking place in conservative America,
particularly in right-wing radio and television.  Reactionary pundits
are drawing increased attention to plans to build an Islamic community
center in downtown Manhattan, near Ground Zero.  Republicans and
conservatives have long been known to harbor racist views of Islam,
although they're hardly alone in this.   Many on the right frame the
entire religion as radical, fundamentalist, and a threat to national
security.  In light of this pattern, there's little surprising about
the right's most recent attack on Muslim Americans as a secret,
under the radar threat.

Islam has at times been portrayed on the right as the bedrock threat to
American cultural values, and Muslims are depicted as uni-dimensionally
set on overthrowing Christianity, enslaving the American public, and
imposing "Sharia law."  The last warning about "Sharia
law" ? repeated by pundits like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh
? among many others ? comes off as extremely ignorant,
considering that the term "Sharia" itself means Islamic law.
One should take the warnings of those who use the phrase "Sharia
law" about as seriously as someone who masquerades as a legal
scholar while talking about the importance of "American law
law."

The American right has also taken to paranoid conspiracy theories
charging that Obama is a non-citizen.  As the story goes, Obama was
really born in Kenya, and his "take over" of the White House
represents a secret victory for radical Islam, since, as we all
"know," Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist who is allied with
Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamists.  About half of Republicans
believe either that Obama is not a citizen or that they cannot be sure
of whether he is really an American citizen or not.  These views are
shared by nearly 60 percent of self-designated Tea Party supporters.

Of course, the nuances of the Islamic faith and the mainstream nature of
the American Muslim community - the vast majority who oppose terrorism,
fundamentalism, or repression of women - have been completely lost in
the smug arrogance and incompetence of racists on the right.

The reactionary right has long been opposed to anything related to Arab
culture and the Muslim religion in New York and around the country.  One
infamous example is New York's Khalil Gibran Arabic language
academy, the first of its kind for the city.  Rabid right-wingers railed
against it, especially those in the "stop the Madrassa" campaign
(many of whom worried about the dangers of "Madrassa schools,"
while apparently too ignorant to realize that the word Madrassa itself
means school).  I argued with one of the leaders of this group on Alan
Colmes' radio show a few years ago.  She seemed un-phased by the
reality that there was never any concrete evidence that the Khalil
Gibran academy was teaching Islamic values.  As she announced on the
show (despite my scorn for her comments), the very fact that there was
no visible evidence of an Islamic curriculum was proof of just how good
the schools' administrators and teachers were of hiding it.  Such
paranoia demonstrated how far conservative extremism and racism have
come in recent years.

This brings us to the most recent "controversy" related to
Islam: the Muslim community center planned for Manhattan.  Right wingers
in radio and at Fox News have gone into overdrive attacking it as a
fundamental threat to the American way of life and to American security.
Their racist diatribes have been hard for me to listen to, but they
remain important to address, if for no other reason than so we can fight
the ignorant assumptions behind them head on.

Here's a quick review of some of the most outrageous comments made
in the American media:

- On Fox News, former Congressman Newt Gingrich attacked the community
center for its planned location "right at the edge of a place where,
let's be clear, thousands of Americans were killed in an attack by
radical Islamists."  On his website, Gingrich announced that
"there should be no mosque near ground zero in New York so long as
there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia."
Gingrich's choice to spotlight the radical fundamentalist regime of
Saudi Arabia (hypocritically supported by Gingrich himself when he was
Speaker of the House in the 1990s) ? while neglecting moderate and
secular governments in the Muslim world, speaks volumes about what he
considers to be the "essence" of Islam.  Gingrich's language
is truly abhorrent; he frames those supporting the community center in
Manhattan as part of the same "they" as the Islamic
fundamentalists who perpetrated the 9-11 attacks.  As far as Gingrich is
concerned, there are no distinctions to be made in the monolithic
"threat" that is the entire U.S. and world Muslim community.

- On Fox, Sarah Palin drew attention to "those innocent victims,
those families of those who were killed in the 9-11 tragedy, it saddens
me to think that people don't understand what building this mosque
at such hallowed ground really represents."  Inextricably linked to
Palin's warnings is the assumption that the community center
represents a single, overarching fifth column threat from American
Muslims.   This much was clear when she characterized its construction
as "an unnecessary provocation" against the people of New York
and the American people more generally.

- Fox News host Sean Hannity claimed that the "Iman" supporting
the building of the community center is a figure who "supports what
happened on 9/11" and "praises Osama bin Laden."  Hannity,
of course, failed to present any evidence linking community center
supporters to defending the 9/11 attacks, but this hardly seemed to
matter to him or his guest, Jay Seculow (of the American Center for Law
and Justice), who complained that "you don't get to build a
mosque on a site that's part of ground zero" because "that
would be like putting at Pearl Harbor a monument of the Kamikaze pilots
who tried to destroy U.S. troops, you just don't do that."  In
this case, Muslim Americans who had nothing to do with 9/11 are
apparently the equivalent of Japanese soldiers who killed Americans
during World War II.

- Right wing radio icon Rush Limbaugh, not to be outdone, warned that
"the terrorists win" if the community center successfully moves
forward.  Limbaugh continued, posing a hypothetical comparing Muslim
Americans to those who lynched blacks in the post Civil War era:
"Let me ask you: What would happen, do you think, if the Ku Klux
Klan wanted to establish a memorial at Gettysburg?"  Limbaugh also
employed a World War II analogy, likening the dangers of the community
center to the destruction brought upon Japan by U.S. nuclear weapons:
"Let's go to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and let's build giant
monuments in the shape of nuclear bombs and call it the Manhattan
Project.  I mean you'd have Americans objecting to that,
wouldn't you?"

What is most disturbing about the manufactured controversy involving the
community center is the blatant arrogance and stupidity of the right in
its warnings of an imminent "threat."  Anyone who spends thirty
seconds researching the Cordoba Group, the organization responsible for
promoting the community center, would know that the group's
representative, Feisal Abdul Rauf (targeted in Hannity attacks as
pro-bin Laden and pro-9/11) is actually a public critic of Osama bin
Laden and the 9/11 attacks, and a vocal supporter of improving relations
between the U.S. and the Muslim world.  None of this is conveyed in any
of the right-wing slander above, however, as these pundits are content
to showcase their ignorance regarding the basic facts surrounding the
community center fiasco they "authoritatively" "report"
on.

I should note that all of the pundits above premise their attacks on the
Manhattan community center with statements that promotion of religious
tolerance and cultural diversity are important and necessary.  These
claims, however, mean nothing when they are followed by fear mongering
and attacks on Muslims as part of an all-encompassing threat that
derives from some sort of uniform "Muslim culture" ? one
that is seen as constituting a danger to U.S. security and the American
way of life.  These pundits refuse to distinguish between the tiny
minority of those throughout the world who support terrorism in the name
of Islam and the vast majority of Muslims who reject those beliefs.
Their reluctance to take a reasonable, level-headed approach to the
study of the Muslim faith is an indicator of their fanaticism, religious
bigotry, and racism.

Rather than asking whether the Manhattan community center represents a
threat, we should be asking ourselves what happened to our country when
national discourse is hijacked by those who not only have no interest in
facts, but see them as an active roadblock to advancing their racist
agendas.  The blatant racism and incompetence of those attacking the
Manhattan community center should be obvious enough to those who pride
themselves in promoting multi-culturalism, racial diversity, and respect
for religious freedom.  That the racist right remains so prominent in
national television and radio is a sign, more than anything else, of the
steep deterioration of American political discourse.

Anthony DiMaggio is the editor of media-ocracy (www.media-ocracy.com
<http://www.media-ocracy.com/> ), a daily online magazine devoted to the
study of media, public opinion, and current events.  He has taught U.S.
and Global Politics at Illinois State University and North Central
College, and is the author of When Media Goes to War
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583671994/counterpunchmaga>
(2010) and Mass Media, Mass Propaganda
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0739119036/counterpunchmaga>
(2008). He can be reached at: mediaocracy {AT} gmail.com
<mailto:mediaocracy {AT} gmail.com>

http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio08122010.html
<http://www.counterpunch.org/dimaggio08122010.html>







Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
5. 8 Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants
     Posted by: "R A Fonda" rafonda {AT} verizon.net rafonda2000
     Date: Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:01 am ((PDT))


     Study: 8 Percent of U.S. Births to Illegal Immigrants


       Pew Hispanic Center Report Sheds Light on Americans at Center of
       Birthright Citizenship Debate


         By DEVIN DWYER

*WASHINGTON, August 11, 2010---*

Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 belonged to illegal
immigrant
<http://newspreview.corp.dig.com/Politics/illegal-immigration-america-shadows-abc-news-special-series/story?id=11099873>
parents, according to a groundbreaking analysis of U.S. Census Bureau
data by the Pew Hispanic Center. Under the 14th amendment to the
Constitution, each child obtained U.S. citizenship at birth while one or
both of the parents remained undocumented.

The study <http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=125> sheds
new light on a group of Americans at the center of a hot political
debate
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-republican-senators-explore-change/story?id=11313973>
in recent weeks. Some Republican lawmakers have proposed revising
birthright citizenship to bar U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants
from obtaining legal status.

Pew estimates 340,000 of the 4.3 million newborns in U.S. hospitals in
2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents. In total, 4 million
U.S.-born, citizen children of illegal immigrants
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956>
currently live in the country, according to the study.

The study is the most comprehensive, non-partisan research to date on
children of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. and adds important
context, and frames the ongoing debate. Previously there have been few
reliable estimates of annual U.S. births to illegal immigrants.

Critics of birthright citizenship
<http://abcnews.go.com/WN/debate-birthright-citizenship-aims-baby-tourism/story?id=11322850&page=1>
have expressed concern over the burgeoning size of America's illegal
immigrant
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/illegal-immigration-america-shadows-abc-news-special-series/story?id=11099873>
population, estimated at 10.8 million and whose offspring in the U.S.
would be able to sponsor their parents and relatives for legal
residency. The children are sometimes referred to as anchor babies.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," said Republican Sen.
Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. "We should change our Constitution and
say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's
automatically not a citizen."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and other leading Republicans,
including Arizona senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, have indicated an
openness to exploring the 14th Amendment issue raised by Sen. Graham.
But some harbor deep reservations about changing the Constitution.

"It's a rather unseemly business and I think we ought to have some
hearings about it," McConnell said of the practice of illegal immigrant
mothers giving birth in the U.S.

"Congressional hearings are always warranted when members of Congress
raise the issue of amending our Constitution," said McCain in a
statement. "I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and
carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for
centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive
extensive and thoughtful consideration."


       Birthright Citizenship Debate: Election Year Politics?

But some lawmakers are calling the push to revise the 14th Amendment
nothing but a political stunt.

"I think it's good to take a look at all of our constitutional
amendments. But I'll tell you something: if you think it's a coincidence
that this sudden discussion begins three months before an election,
you'd be very, very mistaken," said Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie
Sanders on ABC's "Top Line"
<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/sanders-14th-amendment-100-percent-political-11314073>.


Pennsylvannia Democratic Sen. Arlen Specter, whose parents were
immigrants to the U.S., has called U.S. citizenship by birth a
fundamental right.

"The political pandering on the immigration issue has reached the
hysterical level," Specter told ABC News. "To try to direct the effort
at the children born in this country is just preposterous... How can
newborn children protect themselves if politicians want to gain
political gain... I would be shocked if this idea would gain political
traction, but I'm being shocked on a daily basis by the United States
Senate."


         History of Birthright and the 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was enacted after the
Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves, reads: "All
persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside."

"The drafter of the 14th Amendment provision on citizenship did make a
statement that it would not include foreigners or aliens," said George
Washington University constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley.
"However, other senators made it clear that they believed that this
provision guaranteed birthright citizenship."

The courts have repeatedly ruled that people who are born in the U.S.
are American citizens and if Congress passed a law changing that, it
would likely be repealed, experts say.

The Supreme Court <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/> has
only addressed the issue once, clarifying in 1898 that citizenship does
apply to U.S.-born children of legal immigrants who have yet to become
citizens.

"The legislative history may be a little mixed, but the language of the
amendment seems to speak clearly in favor of birthright citizenship,
regardless of what the intent may have been," Turley said.

The United States is one of the few remaining countries to grant
citizenship to all children born on its soil. The United Kingdom,
Ireland, India and Australia, among others, have since revised their
birthright laws, no longer allowing every child born on their soil to
get citizenship.





Messages in this topic (1)





------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/

<*> Your email settings:
     Digest Email  | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/join
     (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
     evolutionary-psychology-normal {AT} yahoogroups.com
     evolutionary-psychology-fullfeatured {AT} yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     evolutionary-psychology-unsubscribe {AT} yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org