Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism

For four years, I have written about the alarming loss of neutrality and objectivity in journalism — a trend that is reflected by many polls showing that the majority of the public no longer trusts the media for fair and honest reporting. While I have regularly criticized President Donald Trump, I have also objected to unrelentingly biased reporting as well as embarrassingly soft coverage of former Vice President Joe Biden. Now, Stanford Communications Professor Emeritus Ted Glasser has publicly called for an end of objectivity in journalism as too constraining for reporters in seeking “social justice.”

In an interview with The Stanford Daily, Glasser insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.”  Thus, “Journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.”

Dressing up bias as “advocating social justice,” does not remove the taint of yellow journalism.  It is the same rationalization for shaping the news to fit your agenda and treating readers as subjects to be educated rather than informed.

While other professors in The Stanford Daily disagreed, Wesley Lowery, who has served as a national correspondent for the Washington Post, also rejects objectivity.  In a tweet, Lowery declared “American view-from-nowhere, “objectivity”-obsessed, both-sides journalism is a failed experiment…The old way must go. We need to rebuild our industry as one that operates from a place of moral clarity.”

These are major voices in media.  Glasser is a Stanford Department of Communication professor emeritus and served as the director for Stanford’s Graduate Program in Journalism. He is also the former president of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication.

Glasser doubled down in an interview with Campus Reform, stating “My understanding of journalism, like my understanding of history, rests on the premise that there is no finally correct description of anything — only interpretations.” He added that “I’m not a big fan of the term ‘objectivity’ or ‘objective truth’ because it gets us talking about all the wrong things.”

That relativistic view, of course, would wipe away any semblance objective reporting. Indeed, he is rejecting the very notion of objectivity or any “correct description of anything.”

It is a liberating notion for writers like Glasser and Lowery.  They can assume the mantle of social warriors and join whatever movement they prefer.  They can then discard pesky notions of journalism as striving to offer unbiased accounts for the public to reach their own conclusions.

The alarming aspect of these views is that they are prevailing. It is now common to hear academics and reporters reject “both sideism” as a trap and even a form of racism. Even the publishing of opposing views is now considered dangerous as shown by the removal of New York Times editor James Bennet, who resigned in the recent controversy over an editorial by Sen. Tom Cotton.  I supported Bennet’s decision to publish that editorial and denounced the cringing apology of the Times after a backlash. Yet, the same journalistic figures at the New York Times who pushed for his removal have continued to espouse unhinged and untrue conspiracy theories in the name of advocacy.

With the collapse of objectivity will come the collapse of journalism. While academics revel in their ability to dispense with limitations of neutrality, many of their newspapers and news organizations are declining with the free fall of credibility with the public.  As a result, the media has hit a historic low, with less than half of the populace finding it credible. Some polls show that the only group deemed less trustworthy than Trump is the media. The Knight Foundation has found that three-fourths of the public believe the media is too biased; some 54 percent believe reporters regularly misrepresent facts, and 28 percent believe reporters make things up entirely.

Notably, as these journalists saw away of the branch upon which they are sitting, the impact may be more than the destruction of the media market.  Few people want to fed a diet of what Professor Glasser believes is morally fight as opposed to factually true. The problem is that this view will remove any real distinction between journalism and political science department; between reporters and social warriors.  While they will continue to enjoy free speech protections, courts gave become less inclined to support the protections afforded to the free press because there would be no discernible press as opposed to politics or propaganda.

Most importantly, what will be lost is one of the most important protections of liberty found in a free press. It has been the media that has triggered most reforms in our history from the Pentagon Papers to Watergate. Yet, this was only because the public trusted the media because of the very objectivity and neutrality values that Glasser, Lowery, and other now reject.

314 thoughts on “Stanford Journalism Professor Rejects Objectivity In Journalism”

    1. Either old or edited by someone like Commit. Reich and others have made it pretty clear that race is tied to biology down to the level of our genes. No escaping it now. That’s why Reich is urging responsible people to accept the facts and prepare to handle them decently.

  1. ” . .  the majority of the public no longer trusts the media for fair and honest reporting “. Well that’s a day late and a dollar short! It should have read: ” The majority of the public distrusts and despises those media who report anything counter to their deeply held beliefs ( rightly or wrongly ) which they embrace as being fair and honest reporting “

  2. Objectivity IS the majority.

    It is the 25 percentile to the 75 percentile.

    Anything below or above that 50 % area is NOT objective.

    This Stanford professor is being plum dumb on this notion asserted.

  3. There is but one species of humans, Homo sapiens. There are several genetic variants, determined by region of origin. In no particular order:
    Australian aborigines together with New Guinea highlanders;
    East Asians, including Southeast Asia but separately the Philipinos and again separately two groups of Pacific Islanders;
    Two or more groups in Sub-Saharan Africa, the Bantus being predominant but also the San, the pigmys and all the peoples of the mountains of Ethiopia;
    all the rest of us, Indo-Europeans, Semites, etc.

    1. David: no one is disputing that there’s only one human species.

      But Young believes that there are multiple extant human subspecies, each of which corresponds to a human race. That’s what we’re debating.

      I disagree with him, because biologists disagree with him. Biologists say that there’s only one extant human subspecies: H. sapiens sapiens (and another that is extinct: H. sapiens idaltu, and another that’s extinct but debated whether it’s a subspecies or a separate species: H. neanderthalensis / H. sapiens neanderthalensis).

      1. CTHD — The usage
        Homo sapiens sapiens
        was dropped around 1980. Let’s not bring it up again.

        By convention, the Neanderthals and the various Denisovians are classified as distinct species of genus Homo, but ones that interbred with H. sapiens. Its arbitrary and not worth bothering with.

        But I will point out that up until, say 1950, Tibetans were a subspecies as only Tibetans could survive in Tibet.

          1. David, thanks. I actually had some of that in the back of my mind when Commit kept arguing that there is only one human subspecies. It didn’t make much sense, if there is only one then it is just a species, not a subspecies.

            If I have time tomorrow I might get back to this. If we accept that humans are animals and if we accept that the morphological differences we can see are real, and if we accept the genetic differences that exist, then starting with the definition of subspecies and working up I am not sure that it is easy to avoid having some of those populations fit easily into subspecies boxes. When I roughly tried it I tried to think of reasons they wouldn’t and couldn’t come up with anything.

            In the end, under some terms or labels it is obvious that we are going to be divided into layer after layer down to each unique individual. Could end up like that movie GATTACA.

            1. Call the divisions varieties. That avoids the problematic words “races”.

              I earlier listed the varieties as I see them; more or less.

              1. In some of my earlier conversations with Commit that is exactly what I suggested. I told her she could try using subspecies but it likely would lead to political disputes and I recommended using varieties instead because the term is more neutral. Then in that odd way she does she went on about not understanding variety and, yammer, yammer, yammer. Seemed like ‘variety’ lasted a couple days, or years.

                I preferred the term variety and I suspect Reich might too. But now I am wondering if one could falsify the notion that races or varieties might also technically qualify as subspecies applying the definition to the known facts.

              2. David:biologically, varieties aren’t subspecies. Young claims that human races are subspecies, for example: “race is a genuine way of sorting different biological varieties of people and that the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species.’” Again: do you agree with him that human races are human subspecies?

                1. taxonomy is conceptual. nature differentiates however it does. we observe and group and our groupings have a methodology and general scientific agreement, but the area of measuring and classifying human differences is fraught with a century of serious conflict as we all known. hence there is a degree of politicization.

                  taxonomy has rules but the differences which give rise to a category of a different species can be interesting. there is the story of Darwin the Galapagos counting this little bird with a one inch beak, and the same kind but for a two inch beek. same in all respects but the beak– and the beak obviously matters.

                  point is nature does what it does, and we interpret it.

                  here’s an interesting thing. most species can’t interbreed with fertile offspring, if live offspring are possible at all, but some can

                  wolf and dog can reproduce and bear fertile offspring although they are diff species.

                  “varieties’ of domestic dogs as different as poodle and rottweiler may have very close DNA, but oh how the differences really matter!

                  1. Kurtz — Good points. I think Commit is so in thrall to authorities that she thinks taxonomy is more real than nature itself. Nature can evolve faster than her fixed ideas. She can’t toy with ideas, which is strange to me.

                    Behind it all I think ideology is driving her argument. She has held that race is a social construct rather than biological. That notion simply cannot survive existing science, but still she clings to it.

                    1. Certainly society, ie, people and their habits, sees and acts on race in ways that are both related to obvious physical differences like skin color,– but also in more subtle ways that relate to “social constructs” like nationality or legal definitions of race; or for that matter, religious taboos on intermarriage.

                      Such as, the “one drop rule” which had an enduring impact on segregation and thus intermarriage;

                      or, consider, Mosaic law forbidding Israelites from marrying non-Israelites.
                      We also hear how they trace “who is a jew” through the mother.
                      and yet there is the Levirate– the Cohanim– both parents must be Jewish for inclusion

                      in my view, race emerges both from evolutionary pressures, like, skin color; but also from social factors, such as, the things above.
                      Social norms or customs themselves may be seen through the lens of “EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY,” ie, Sociobiology– social customs are forms of group adaptation to environmental pressures of one thing or another.

                      Hence tribal group formation can be a resource-competition strategy which works well in scare primitive societies. etc

                      of course in some sense when you say “social construct” you are toying with a concept that is very plastic. words are social constructs but do they not refer to real phenomena? here we get into Martin Heidegger again. Dont get me started!

                  2. BTW, Kurtz, I’m well aware that “taxonomy is conceptual,” and that “nature does what it does, and we interpret it.” I’ve previously pointed out to Young that taxonomy is a biological construct, and he dismissed it as “blather.” Frankly, it’s amusing that he claims “she thinks taxonomy is more real than nature itself” when he’s the one who’s arguing that human races are taxonomically classified as subspecies.

                    1. CTHD, do you feel a mission to engage Trump voters here and beat them in arguments? I feel like you approach this like debate team.

                      I do not feel this way. These conversations may have some effect on other readers, and perhaps that motivates all of us to a degree. But deep down, I don’t think many people will notice nor be motivated to change votes, so winning does not matter for the outcome of the election. May I suggest instead and invite everyone to sincere dialogue regardless of who you plan on voting for come November.

                      Let’s find common ground where we can. even as we argue vociferously those points which seem worthy of it

                    2. Kurtz, there can only be sincere dialogue when both people aim for that. I’m always willing to have that kind of exchange with someone if they’ll join me in it, but I can’t do it by myself, and when someone repeatedly insults me, I think it should be called out.

                      I don’t expect that I’ll change anyone’s mind here.

            2. “Commit kept arguing that there is only one human subspecies”

              You’re a liar. I never said that. I said over and over that there’s only one extant human subspecies.

              “only one human subspecies” =/= “only one extant human subspecies.”

              It’s as if we’re looking at a bouquet of flowers, and I say “there’s only 1 red flower,” and you lie and pretend that I said “there’s only 1 flower.” You’re intelligent enough to know what “extant” means (or to look it up if you don’t know) and to pay attention to the significance. You simply don’t care to pay attention to details that are personally unimportant to you.

              “I am not sure that it is easy to avoid having some of those populations fit easily into subspecies boxes. When I roughly tried it I tried to think of reasons they wouldn’t and couldn’t come up with anything.”

              Then learn more biology. You actively resist learning things that undermine what you want to believe. The question isn’t whether *you* can think of reasons but whether *biologists* can think of reasons. Are you a narcissist who thinks that your personal beliefs about it matter more than biologists’?

            3. Could end up like that movie GATTACA.

              You may not realize it but GATTACA are also letters of nucleotides which form the skeleton on DNA, meaning you may have offered the best explanation yet of the trolls on here: genetic mismatch of nucleotides, i.e. aberrant mutations.

              Well done, Young.

          2. Weeel, there’s an argument that there are several human subspecies: the pigmys and the San, the highlanders of Tibet and the Andes maybe have sufficient morphological differences to qualify.

            1. David: please cite current biological research that agrees “there are several [living] human subspecies.”
              If you think there a multiple extant human subspecies, please list them all and give their subspecies names.

        1. David, H. sapiens idaltu not yet been discovered in 1980.

          And Young is the one who is claiming that there are multiple extant human subspecies. Do you agree with him? If so, then I’ll ask you to do the same thing I asked him: provide a complete list of the various human subspecies with their subspecies names.

            1. “Just another early human”

              An early human that was another subspecies of H. sapiens.
              H. sapiens idaltu and
              H. sapiens sapiens
              Two distinct H. sapiens subspecies.

              “As for current groups which might be subspecies, I have previously mentioned some: pigmys, the San, the highlanders of Tibet and the Andes.”

              One can conjecture all day long. But do you have evidence that would convince biologists that you’re right? If there’s good evidence for it, how do you explain that biologists haven’t already come to this conclusion?

              1. Commit– “how do you explain that biologists haven’t already come to this conclusion?”

                Fear would do it. When you can lose your job for saying all lives matter do you think someone with a career is going to stick a toe in this light docket?

                And you are doing an appeal to authority again. Doesn’t prove a thing.

              2. CTHD — Biologists aren’t interested. This is the province of the anthropologists.

                But if subspecies is to grandiose for you, call the groupings races. See my link at the beginning of all the comments on this thread.

                1. David, this discussion isn’t a matter of what’s “grandiose.” It’s about whether Young’s claims about human races being subspecies are or aren’t true.

                  Here are some examples of his claims:
                  — “It occurred to me that in lieu of using the term ‘race’ … you could use the term you have already recommended as scientifically sound: sub-species.”
                  — “that definition of subspecies [which she originally provided] can be logically applied to what we think of as human races”
                  — “race is a genuine way of sorting different biological varieties of people and that the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species.’”
                  — “the use of the term sub-species … fits fairly closely to what we have known as race in the past”
                  — “every major race category on Earth fits as a sub-species”
                  — “One thing I hit on that was used in biology and that seems to correspond closely to ‘race’ is ‘sub-species’. I am not wed to the term. There may be sound reasons for not using it in that way, but I haven’t seen them yet.”

                  And some biologists clearly are interested, as they write about these issues. Both Young and I have linked to things written by biologists, some of them peer-reviewed research, and others op-eds or other discussions written for the public. I think you commented on Reich’s NYT article, and here’s a response from biologists and others to his NYT column:

                  If you want to see more responses:
                  Clearly some anthropologists are interested as well, as are some other researchers (e.g., medical faculty).

                  1. CTHD– Did you actually read the articles you linked to? The second one doesn’t actually raise arguments on the issue of Reich’s arguments. It mostly just cites and promotes the Buzzfeed article, so dismiss that.

                    The Buzzfeed article is another political argument rather than a science argument. It is also a political attack on Reich, not a scientific response.

                    The quality could almost be predicted by the authors. Several are in black or African type studies, others are in other fields where they clearly would have little professional contact with the field of genetics.

                    HOWEVER, you have given an excellent example of why, as you asked, biologists or geneticists have not spoken up if subspecies and race are similar.

                    I answered you: FEAR. Well, this is why. You dare step into this field with an objective analysis and the mob, and it is a mob, comes after you. This Buzzfeed article is the product of an academic mob.

                    They are desperately trying to preserve the notion that, as you said, “Race is social construct, not a biological one.” If anyone dares produce actual evidence that race is also biological they will attack, and if possible, destroy.

                    1. Nothing in Reich’s book excerpt implies that he thinks races are subspecies of homo sapiens. As is obvious from a historical perspective, there is no problem with sexual intercourse between our races and in fact the eventual disappearance of these races is almost assured if we don’t blow ourselves up first.

                    2. Book – – You missed the part where I said, more than once, that I didn’t care whether races could be treated as subspecies. I raised it as a possibility that it was consistent with the definition of subspecies. It still looks very possible.

                      However, I cited Reich’s article for a different purpose, namely to show that the idea that race is a social construct rather than biological is utter nonsense. I think that point was made clearly enough by Reich.

                      So, since Commit tells us she lived among Pygmies and found them just like other people, do you imagine she dated a Pygmy? I don’t suppose they could go to a movie together. I’m not sure what a Pygmy night on the town would be like without towns.

                      The fact that this hypothetical is so silly tells me that perhaps we are not as much alike as we are told.

                    3. So, since Commit tells us she lived among Pygmies and found them just like other people,

                      You mean Gainesville’s latest yarn is that he’s a broad from Rhode Island who was also Colin Turnbull’s research assistant? What fun.

                    4. Clearly biological differences occur between races – hellooo! – but if variations between members of the same race are greater than that between races it is primarily a social construct. More importantly, if we survive much longer – 100 years? – there will be no races left as we define them. Even more importantly, in a democracy which respects and promotes individual rights and equal opportunity, learning biological differences between races is useful only to the extent it is helpful resolving diseases and physical problems unique to specific races. I hope we agree on that.

                  2. CTHD — As I understand it, a subspecies has two defining characteristics:
                    1. Doesn’t breed outside the subspecies — much;
                    2. Morphological distinctions from the rest of the species.

                    Both pygmies and the San satisfy both characteristics. Substituting physiological for morphological in the above, we have the Tibetan and the Andean highlanders.

                    Perhaps the Inuit satisfy these criteria. So might other groups.

                    1. Andaman Islanders likely do as well. They shoot arrows at anyone who comes near and have been isolated for ages.

                      There is a prevailing dogma that society not recognize differences that the populations themselves are willing to acknowledge and that they are generally pleased with.

                    2. Just on North Sentinel Island, not the rest of the chain. There have been attempts to estimate the population by scanning from a distance. It appears the residents number in the two digits.

                    3. David,

                      A few things that puzzle me about your comment:

                      You propose that both (African) Pygmies and San are subspecies of humans. What about the rest of the people of Africa: according to you, what subspecies do they belong to? Are there only 3 African subspecies in your thinking (African Pygmies, San, everyone else)?

                      And do you group all African Pygmy peoples together, even if they’re geographically and culturally separated, such as the Baka, the Mbuti, the Batwa?
                      How about African Pygmies and East Asian Pygmies (the Taron): do you group them together?

                      Also, I lived/worked in a country with a number of tribes, including one of the Pygmy tribes.
                      Have you ever lived in a country with Pygmies?
                      The reason that I’m asking is that I’m curious about the evidence you’re drawing on in your claim “Doesn’t breed outside the subspecies — much.” Are you just assuming this, or do you have actual research to draw on? Because that’s not so clear to me having lived there.

                    4. Commit– What did you do to the Pygmies while you were there? Would you go on a date with a Pygmy?

                      If you were in Europe you would socialize with a European. Just wondering.

                    5. Art Deco — Thanks. I didn’t know that. I wonder if they have accumulated a lot of genetic problems from inbreeding? Seems like it would be a very interesting genetic study.

                      I think the Indian government has some sort of reservation to protect them, like a human zoo that you can’t get too close to.

                    6. CTHD — My year long course on Sub-Saharan Africa was in 1965. Never been there. I leave it to others, who might care about whether there are 0, 1, or several African pigmy subspecies. Without some genetic information I wouldn’t say about the Asian pigmys, but I would suppose these are a separate subspecies.

                      As for the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa, I suppose that there are many subspecies as these peoples are not all Bantus. There is quite a variety just in Ethiopia.

                  3. BtB, notice that despite Young’s claim that “race is also biological,” he still can’t bring himself to actually list what he believes these biological races to be. Maybe he’s too afraid to test his belief by actually naming them and defending how they’re biologically determined.

                    And if he weren’t so inattentive, he’d have seen that the second link includes links to many other responses to Reich’s column (which was the reason I included it), and he could test his conjecture that everyone is simply afraid and a mob. He’d also have seen additional comments from Reich, such as “‘Race’ is fundamentally a social category — not a biological one — as anthropologists have shown.” No doubt Young will be disappointed that Reich says this.

                    1. CTHD, the discussion is interesting to a point, but the real unspoken issue here for Young is giving some biological basis for his oft demonstrated anti-black racism. He rarely misses an opportunity to express it, though in this discussion he is on his best behavior. As long as he keeps it there, fine and carry on.

                      But, given that variations within the races are greater than those between the races and that the differences between races are on their way out as intermarriage – or pairings of whatever type – is increasing and not reversible as the globe shrinks and freedom increases, and that most democracies – a growing category of nations – aspire to equal rights and opportunity regardless of sex or race, these differences become irrelevant except as science may identify solutions to afflictions specific to those of a particular race or racial heritage.

      2. I disagree with him, because biologists disagree with him.

        That’s an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.

        Start with the definition of a subspecies and then look at different populations, say Pygmy and European and taking morphology and genetics into consideration say why they would not fit the description of subspecies.

        I won’t say it can’t be done, but when I made a rough stab at it I couldn’t find a reason why they did not fit the definition.

        I am not as committed to it one way or the other as you are. It is a puzzle. You seem to assume that everyone is as attached to an opinion as you are. Most of the time they are not.

        1. “That’s an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy.”

          Nope. This is yet another fallacy that you don’t understand correctly. It’s an appeal to authority but NOT a fallacious one.

          “‘Some appeals to authority are fallacious; most are not. A fallacious one meets the following condition: The expertise of the putative authority, or the relevance of that expertise to the point at issue, are in question.’ … You appeal to authority if you back up your reasoning by saying that it is supported by what some authority says on the subject. Most reasoning of this kind is not fallacious, and much of our knowledge properly comes from listening to authorities. However, appealing to authority as a reason to believe something is fallacious whenever the authority appealed to is not really an authority in this particular subject, when the authority cannot be trusted to tell the truth, when authorities disagree on this subject (except for the occasional lone wolf), when the reasoner misquotes the authority, and so forth. Although spotting a fallacious appeal to authority often requires some background knowledge about the subject or the authority, in brief it can be said that it is fallacious to accept the words of a supposed authority when we should be suspicious of the authority’s words.” (, emphasis added).

          No doubt you’ll call this more “blather” instead of choosing to learn when an appeal to authority is actually fallacious.

          “I couldn’t find a reason why they did not fit the definition.”

          Then read more biology and learn why biologists don’t consider Pygmys and Europeans to be different subspecies.
          Ask yourself if you understand something that biologists don’t, or if instead biologists understand something that *you* don’t. I vote for the latter.

          1. Young, I’ve been following your argument with CTHD and it’s clear you’re not understanding what you’re trying to prove.

            You started with, different human races are essentially subspecies. That’s not correct. Look at it this way. Let’s use canines as an example. Dogs are canines and there’s one subspecies that we are all familiar with as pets. That subspecies has different breeds (races) that we recognize. Now we also know that wolves are canines too because they are of the same general species as dogs. Both are canines, but wolves are NOT a different breed of dog. We don’t call them dogs do we? They are a subspecies. Foxes are also canines, but they are not a breed of dog. There ARE different breeds of foxes belonging to the same subspecies. Hyenas are canines too, but are still not a breed of dog. They are another subspecies of canines.

            Modern humans are one species with different races (breeds). Neanderthals are also human, but a different subspecies. They’re not a different race of humans. Does that makes sense?

            Biologists categorize “races” as “breeds” of humans within one species. Not different subspecies as you seem to be arguing.

            CTHD, asked you to name the other subspecies of humans present that are NOT “breeds” of the same species because you’re claiming “race” is a subspecies. Biologists don’t agree with your assertion. CTHD is making this point to you. In order to prove your argument correct you have to show her the subspecies you’re referring to that currently exist around us that you refer a “races”.

            1. Svelaz — Commit is in thrall to her authorities. She would never have been able to break clear of the Ptolemaic system because all she could do is cite authorities inside the system. No escape.

              But you can try this yourself. It isn’t harder than sorting egg size and packaging them appropriately.

              Start with the usual definition of a subspecies for animals. Territorial range, basically ‘native to’ and then morphological and genetic differences. Then sort. Your subspecies trays will look very much like race trays but likely will be greater in number and more complex because so much more has been learned.

              I am not desperate to prove races and subspecies are similar categories. I don’t care. I began with the definition and asked myself why races would not fit into subspecies categories. I did not see a reason they couldn’t. Commit always says ‘biologists say, rant, rant, rant” but WHY do they say that if they do? Apparently they say it because they say it. Anybody who has done cross of an expert witness knows better than to leave it at that.

              Google subspecies of tigers and look at them. I can hardly tell them apart. There are obviously greater morphological differences between a Pygmy and a European than between acknowledged subspecies of tiger.

              That would make some think about it.

              1. “She would never have been able to break clear of the Ptolemaic system because all she could do is cite authorities inside the system. No escape.”

                Bullsh*t. Here you are imagining scenarios again and then pretending that your imagination is reality. I have no problem considering conjectures, and if there’s good evidence for them, switching to them as a better explanation. The thing is: you actually have to understand the current system in order to demonstrate that it needs to be modified. You have to gather evidence and analyze it for both confirming AND disconfirming evidence of your conjecture. You aren’t doing that. You’re treating your conjecture as if it’s a fact and ignoring the disconfirming evidence. You’re pretending that terminology is simple “blather” instead of recognizing that it communicates meaningful information, and that meanings sometimes shift over time — or terms are rejected in favor of a new one that is more effective — but that happens by treating them as meaningful, not “blather.” Your approach is actually anti-scientific.

                “WHY do they say that if they do?”

                If you want to know, look it up! Learn more biology! Read why they say it. But don’t expect that I’m going to tutor you while you insult me and dismiss concepts that you need to learn as “blather,” while also refusing to provide a link for something that you yourself claimed. Why should I help you when you refuse to do something simple to help me? You reap what you sow.

                “There are obviously greater morphological differences between a Pygmy and a European than between acknowledged subspecies of tiger.”

                But morphological differences are not the sole determinant of subspecies classifications. FFS, learn more biology. Think about the content of the articles I’ve cited, like “It cannot be emphasized enough that genetic variation alone is insufficient to define a subspecies.” The same goes for morphology.

                Or think about the analogue with species: “Appearance isn’t everything. Organisms may appear to be alike and be different species. For example, Western meadowlarks (Sturnella neglecta) and Eastern meadowlarks (Sturnella magna) look almost identical to one another, yet do not interbreed with each other — thus, they are separate species according to this definition. Organisms may look different and yet be the same species. For example, look at these ants. You might think that they are distantly related species. In fact, they are sisters—two ants of the species Pheidole barbata, fulfilling different roles in the same colony.” ( The same holds for subspecies: appearance isn’t everything.

                In determining subspecies, biologists consider morphological evidence, paleontological evidence, genetic or genomic evidence, behavioral evidence, physiological evidence, geographical and ecological evidence, …

                “That would make some think about it.”

                Yup. Lots of biologists have thought about it. You claim to want to understand why they think what they think, but you can’t be bothered to look it up for yourself.

              2. Young, I appreciate your thought provoking conversation here. This conversation has really not been a bad one from both sides, compared to some others i have seen or participated in on the topic over the years. we could have done worse.

                The wonders of biology never cease! I was just listening to an interview on Lex Fridman’s channel with Roger Penrose about the biological basis of “consciousness.” Now there’s a thorny issue! Most seem to simply dismiss the notion and say consciousness is just a mirage. Penrose, the physicist, dimisses this quickly by observing that in anesthesia, consciousness is suspended, but not life. Evidently, then, consciousness is a real phenomena and not just an illusion, as some contend, and moreover, it must have some biological basis that is something beyond mere computational activity by the brain. And yet, then, what?


                boy if you want as really thorny issue in biology, it doesn’t get more messy than “consciousness.”

                1. Kurtz– Thanks. I have enjoyed this too and gained from it. Even with Commit whose comments sometimes seem like I am watching clothes being washed in a front end washer.

                  David has had helpful input too.

                  I have wondered about machine consciousness. I don’t think massive computing power is the only way to go. I have a bird that is literally bird brained but it is clearly conscious. Watching and noticing how it goes out when the lights go out I think consciousness might be linked to information flow and management. Might be easier to attain it in machines with continual information flow from sensors coupled with a means to interact. Consciousness might be the big river of information flowing through our minds and bodies coupled to memories and instincts. Stop the river and the lights go out. Just a guess.

            2. I am not sure this account of canis lupus by CTHD is precisely correct. i am not grading papers so I’ll just post this from wiki. i hope you enjoy this information as much as I do. I am a big fan of Jack London (they call him a racist too!)


              The wolf (Canis lupus[a]), also known as the gray wolf or grey wolf, is a large canine native to Eurasia and North America. More than thirty subspecies of Canis lupus have been recognized, and gray wolves, as colloquially understood, comprise non-domestic/feral subspecies. The wolf is the largest extant member of Canidae, males averaging 40 kg (88 lb) and females 37 kg (82 lb). Wolves measure 105–160 cm (41–63 in) in length and 80–85 cm (31–33 in) at shoulder height. The wolf is also distinguished from other Canis species by its less pointed ears and muzzle, as well as a shorter torso and a longer tail. The wolf is nonetheless related closely enough to smaller Canis species, such as the coyote and the golden jackal, to produce fertile hybrids with them. The banded fur of a wolf is usually mottled white, brown, gray, and black, although subspecies in the arctic region may be nearly all white.

              Of all members of the genus Canis, the wolf is most specialized for cooperative game hunting as demonstrated by its physical adaptations to tackling large prey, its more social nature, and its highly advanced expressive behaviour. It travels in nuclear families consisting of a mated pair accompanied by their offspring. Offspring may leave to form their own packs on the onset of sexual maturity and in response to competition for food within the pack. Wolves are also territorial and fights over territory are among the principal causes of wolf mortality. The wolf is mainly a carnivore and feeds on large wild hooved mammals as well as smaller animals, livestock, carrion, and garbage. Single wolves or mated pairs typically have higher success rates in hunting than do large packs. Pathogens and parasites, notably rabies, may infect wolves.

              The global wild wolf population was estimated to be 300,000 in 2003 and is considered to be of Least Concern by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Wolves have a long history of interactions with humans, having been despised and hunted in most pastoral communities because of their attacks on livestock, while conversely being respected in some agrarian and hunter-gatherer societies. Although the fear of wolves exists in many human societies, the majority of recorded attacks on people have been attributed to animals suffering from rabies. Wolf attacks on humans are rare because wolves are relatively few, live away from people, and have developed a fear of humans because of their experiences with hunters, ranchers, and shepherds.

              1 Etymology
              2 Taxonomy
              2.1 Subspecies
              2.2 Evolution
              2.3 Admixture with other canids….

              See also: Wolf (name)
              The English “wolf” stems from the Old English wulf, which is itself thought to be derived from the Proto-Germanic *wulfaz. The Proto-Indo-European root *wĺ̥kʷos may also be the source of the Latin word for the animal lupus (*lúkʷos).[4][5] The name “gray wolf” refers to the grayish colour of the species.[6]

              Since pre-Christian times, Germanic peoples such as the Anglo-Saxons took on wulf as a prefix or suffix in their names. Examples include Wulfhere (“Wolf Army”, or “He whose army is the wolf”), Cynewulf (“Royal Wolf”), Cēnwulf (“Bold Wolf”), Wulfheard (“Wolf-hard”), Earnwulf (“Eagle Wolf”), Wulfstān (“Wolf Stone”) Æðelwulf (“Noble Wolf”), Wolfhroc (“Wolf-Frock”), Wolfhetan (“Wolf Hide”), Isangrim (“Gray Mask”), Scrutolf (“Garb Wolf”), Wolfgang (“Wolf Gait”) and Wolfdregil (“Wolf Runner”).[7]

              Canine phylogeny with ages of divergence

               Gray wolf Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate I).png

              Coyote Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate IX).png

              1.10 mya

              African golden wolf Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XI).jpg

              1.32 mya

              Ethiopian wolf Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate VI).png

              1.62 mya

              Golden jackal Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate X).png

              1.92 mya

              Dhole Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XLI).png

              2.74 mya

              African wild dog Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XLIV).png

              3.06 mya

              Side-striped jackal Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XIII).png

              Black-backed jackal Dogs, jackals, wolves, and foxes (Plate XII).png

              2.62 mya
              3.50 mya
              Cladogram and divergence of the gray wolf (including the domestic dog) among its closest extant relatives[8]
              In 1758, the Swedish botanist and zoologist Carl Linnaeus published in his Systema Naturae the binomial nomenclature.[3] Canis is the Latin word meaning “dog”,[9] and under this genus he listed the doglike carnivores including domestic dogs, wolves, and jackals. He classified the domestic dog as Canis familiaris, and the wolf as Canis lupus.[3] Linnaeus considered the dog to be a separate species from the wolf because of its cauda recurvata—its upturning tail—which is not found in any other canid.[10]

              Main article: Subspecies of Canis lupus
              In the third edition of Mammal Species of the World published in 2005, the mammalogist W. Christopher Wozencraft listed under C. lupus 36 wild subspecies, and proposed two additional subspecies: familiaris (Linnaeus, 1758) and dingo (Meyer, 1793). Wozencraft included hallstromi—the New Guinea singing dog—as a taxonomic synonym for the dingo. Wozencraft referred to a 1999 mitochondrial DNA study as one of the guides in forming his decision, and listed the 38 subspecies of C. lupus under the biological common name of “wolf”, the nominate subspecies being the Eurasian wolf (C. l. lupus) based on the type specimen that Linnaeus studied in Sweden.[11] Studies using paleogenomic techniques reveal that the modern wolf and the dog are sister taxa, as modern wolves are not closely related to the population of wolves that was first domesticated.[12] In 2019, a workshop hosted by the IUCN/Species Survival Commission’s Canid Specialist Group considered the New Guinea singing dog and the dingo to be feral dogs Canis familiaris, and therefore should not be assessed for the IUCN Red List.[13]

              …..[skip to topic “admixture”]

              In the distant past, there has been gene flow between African golden wolves, golden jackals, and gray wolves. The African golden wolf is a descendant of a genetically admixed canid of 72% wolf and 28% Ethiopian wolf ancestry. One African golden wolf from the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula shows admixture with Middle Eastern wolves and dogs.[26] There is evidence of gene flow between golden jackals and Middle Eastern wolves, less so with European and Asian wolves, and least with North American wolves. This indicates the golden jackal ancestry found in North American wolves may have occurred before the divergence of the Eurasian and North American wolves.[27]

              The common ancestor of the coyote and the wolf has admixed with a ghost population of an extinct unidentified canid. This canid is genetically close to the dhole and evolved after the divergence of the African hunting dog from the other canid species. The basal position of the coyote compared to the wolf is proposed to be due to the coyote retaining more of the mitochondrial genome of this unidentified canid.[26] Similarly, a museum specimen of a wolf from southern China collected in 1963 showed a genome that was 12–14% admixed from this unknown canid.[28] In North America, most coyotes and wolves show varying degrees of past genetic admixture. The red wolf of the southeastern United States is a hybrid animal with 40%:60% wolf to coyote ancestry. In addition, there was found to be 60%:40% wolf to coyote genetics in Eastern timber wolves, and 75%:25% in the Great Lakes region wolves.[27]

              In more recent times, some male Italian wolves originated from dog ancestry, which indicates female wolves will breed with male dogs in the wild.[29] In the Caucasus Mountains, 10% of dogs including livestock guardian dogs, are first generation hybrids.[30] Although mating between golden jackals and wolves has never been observed, evidence of jackal-wolf hybridization was discovered through mitochondrial DNA analysis of jackals living in the Caucasus Mountains[30] and in Bulgaria.[31]

              1. Thanks. Very interesting.

                I wonder if wolves were wiped out they could re-evolve from wild dogs? Iterative evolution. The like has recently been observed with a previously extinct bird.

                Could Neanderthals re -evolve from us?

                1. it says Italian wolves have a lot of dog ancestry in the article

                  the question of Neanderthals is interesting. I have read some say it was a subspecies and not a different species.

                  Europeans have a lot of Neanderthal DNA. Maybe they were really smart but too nice. Homo Sapiens exterminated and assimilated them, it seems.

                  1. Neanderthal- Subspecies or species. Taxonomy again and either might do. It appears they mixed with humans on a couple of occasions separated by thousands of years. I know I have Neanderthal ancestry and you likely do,, as well as Steppe ancestry.

                    They had bigger brains than we do and maybe were smarter. Nature had a comment a few years ago about math ability maybe coming from Neanderthals.

                    It could be they vanished because with the climate changing they didn’t need big brains anymore. Brains are resource costly and would fade if not rewarded, like underground fish losing their eyes.

                    It is thought chimps may have evolved down from a more clever ancestor common to humans and chimps. Evolution doesn’t care about ‘progress ‘ it is about adaptation and efficiency.

          2. Commit — You tell me to read more biologists to learn why biologists don’t consider Pygmy and Europeans subspecies.

            If it is easy why don’t you tell me? I gave my reason for saying they appear to be and invited you to falsify it. You haven’t.

            I don’t think you understand why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.

            It does not depend on whether the authority is right or not.

            1. “If it is easy why don’t you tell me?”

              Because you’ve already shown me that it will not be easy to explain to *you*, as you regularly ignore things that you don’t want to pay attention to.
              Because I’m not your unpaid tutor.
              Because you get off on insulting me.
              Because you regularly project nonsense onto me instead of aiming for sincere discussion.
              Because you have refused to do easy things for me instead of thinking of it as a two-way street.

              You want to be able to treat me like sh*t without any negative consequences for you. Grow up and learn to treat people properly, and maybe you’ll get more help.

              “I don’t think you understand why an appeal to authority is a logical fallacy.”

              I don’t think you understand that much of the time it *isn’t* a fallacy, or how to distinguish between the fallacious and non-fallacious use of appeals to authority. I even quoted information about this for you from an academic source, but you couldn’t be bothered to think about it. This is actually a great illustration of why I shouldn’t waste my time trying to help you learn something.

              1. Commit — on appeal to authority: “I don’t think you understand that much of the time it *isn’t* a fallacy”.
                You are confusing whether the authority is right or wrong with citing an authority as a premise in a logical argument which is a fallacy even when the authority might be right.

                An argument should stand on it’s own. When you appeal to authority you are not making an argument; you are just saying go ask someone else.

                1. No, Young, I’m not confusing those things. I already addressed your mistaken understanding of when an appeal to authority is fallacious, and you simply don’t want to learn from it:

                  And since you’re also reenforcing some of what I wrote in my 1:52pm comment, AND after all these comments you still haven’t attempted to name all of the human subspecies you purport to believe exist, I’m done with this exchange. Bye.

  4. It ain’t me
    It ain’t me
    I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no, no

    Annnnnnnnnnnd Trump’s rally is again playing ‘Fortunate Son’ at tonight’s rally — a song sharply critical of powerful people who avoided serving in Vietnam, like Trump did.

        1. “Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles than George W. Bush or Barack Obama did in their first terms, and there are still roughly as many US bases and troops overseas as when he was elected…..

          Trump has shrouded his war-making in even greater secrecy than Obama. The US military has not published a monthly Airpower Summary since February 2020, nor official troop deployment numbers for Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria for nearly three years. But the United States has dropped at least twenty thousand bombs on Afghanistan since Trump came to power, and there is no evidence of a reduction in bombing under the peace agreement the administration signed with the Taliban in February. Some US troops have been withdrawn under that agreement, but the remaining 8,600 are still being replaced as their tours end, keeping US troop strength at about the same level as when Obama left office.

          Trump made a great show of repositioning US troops in Syria in October 2019, leaving the United States’ Kurdish allies in Rojava to confront the Turkish invasion alone. But there are still at least 500 US troops in Syria, and Trump deployed 14,000 more US troops to the Middle East in 2019, including to a new base in Saudi Arabia.

          Trump has vetoed every bill passed by Congress to disengage US forces from the Saudi war in Yemen and to halt the sales of US-made warplanes and bombs, which the Saudis use to systematically kill Yemeni civilians. He created a new conflict with Iran by pulling out of the nuclear deal, and in January 2020, he capriciously flirted with a full-scale war on Iran by ordering the assassination of Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani and Iraqi military commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis in Iraq.

          Trump’s bizarre decision to move the US Embassy in Israel to a plot of land that is only partly within Israel’s internationally recognized borders – and partly on Palestinian territory that Israel is illegally occupying – quite literally took US international relations into uncharted territory. Then Trump unveiled a so-called peace plan based on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ambition to annex the rest of Palestine into a “Greater Israel” with vastly expanded – but still unrecognized and illegal – international borders.

          Trump has also backed a coup in Bolivia, staged several failed ones in Venezuela, and targeted even the United States’ closest allies with sanctions to try to prevent them from trading with US enemies. Trump’s brutal sanctions on Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Cuba are not a peaceful alternative to war, but a form of economic warfare just as deadly as bombs, especially during a pandemic and its accompanying economic meltdown…..”

          1. Here’s the legacy of your Nobel Peace Prize winner, Book.

            “President Obama’s Legacy Is Endless War”


            “Obama’s predecessor insisted that he didn’t need approval from Congress to launch a war; yet in the two major wars he fought, George W. Bush secured congressional authorization anyway. By the time Obama hit the dais at Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, our 44th president had already launched more drone strikes than “43” carried out during two full terms. Since then, he’s launched two undeclared wars, and—as Obama bragged in a speech last year defending the Iran deal—bombed no fewer than seven countries.”

            Then there is his legacy in Libya. For which he and Hillary will always be remembered as war criminals.

    1. Joe Biden avoided serving in Vietnam. But we don’t hear about it, do we?

      Biden received five student draft deferments during the Vietnam War because of childhood asthma.

        1. Joe Biden’s crack head son Hunter is now estimated to be worth millions for doing nothing but selling influence and cashing in on daddy’s political office making highly questionable, lucrative deals that enriched the Biden family. The Biden family has cashed in on Joe’s political office over decades. Joe’s ‘service’ to the nation as a ‘public servant’ has netted his family tens of millions so that when Joe leaves office, he and his family are now uber wealthy because of it. Shameful? Sleezy? Corrupt? You bet. ‘Lunch bucket Joe’ IS the Swamp.

            1. No equivalence. Trump kids ran successful businesses BEFORE their father became POTUS. Biden family became wealthy BECAUSE of cashing in on daddy’s political office. Big difference.

              1. You mean Trump University or Trump steaks and water?:

                “SHANGHAI (AP) — The Chinese government granted 18 trademarks to companies linked to President Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka Trump over the last two months, Chinese public records show, raising concerns about conflicts of interest in the White House.

                In October, China’s Trademark Office granted provisional approval for 16 trademarks to Ivanka Trump Marks LLC, bringing to 34 the total number of marks China has greenlighted this year, according to the office’s online database. The new approvals cover Ivanka-branded fashion gear including sunglasses, handbags, shoes and jewelry, as well as beauty services and voting machines….”


                Then we have Jared:

                “A real estate company part-owned by Jared Kushner has received $90m in foreign funding from an opaque offshore vehicle since he entered the White House as a senior adviser to his father-in-law Donald Trump.

                Investment has flowed from overseas to the company, Cadre, while Kushner works as an international envoy for the US, according to corporate filings and interviews. The money came through a vehicle run by Goldman Sachs in the Cayman Islands, a tax haven that guarantees corporate secrecy….”


            2. “While Joe Biden served as vice president, his son Hunter received offers from foreign governments and oligarchs in areas where he had little or no expertise. That his foreign partners included a rival state, Communist China, makes these arrangements particularly brazen, even by Washington’s swampy standards.

              Newly released Secret Service travel records for Hunter paint a clearer picture of how extensive these efforts were. The documents, reviewed by Judicial Watch, show that between 2009 and 2014, Hunter made 411 trips across 29 countries. While some of those trips were perhaps leisure and others related to his volunteer work for the World Food Program, many of them appear to be connected to deals that he or his associates either secured or sought with foreign governments and oligarchs.

              For example, Hunter visited China five times between 2009 and 2014. Most notoriously, he traveled with his father aboard Air Force Two in December 2013 as part of an official visit with Chinese officials. Ten days after their return to Washington, Hunter and his associates partnered with the state-owned Bank of China to formally establish BHR, a new, first-of-its-kind fund aimed at making investments outside China through the newly established Shanghai Free Trade Zone.”


        2. Speaking of the great rock band Creedence Clearwater Revival, a better song is Suzy Q
          I want a campaign rally like the USO show in this epic movie

          but we’re dug in too deep or moving too fast for that now! we only have 2 ways out of this. 5 to one, one in five. Your ballroom days are over, baby. Night is drawing near.
          Shadows of the evening, crawl across the years

    2. Joe Biden and Bill Clinton also “avoided” serving in Vietnam. As did a multitude of other young men during that time period.

      So tell me Book. How much time have you spent in combat?

      1. Rhodes, I’ve spent no time in combat and my father had neither millions, nor a high school degree. At birthday parties for me and on Father’s Day, no one has thought of playing Fortunate Son as part of the festivities but I also don’t post photoshopped shirtless pictures of myself on a buff 40 year old body, nor do my friends photoshop my head on Washington’s as he crosses the Delaware. Hey, Biden’s from Pa and Delaware. He should do that!

        1. “I’ve spent no time in combat”


          Nor have Bush II, Biden, Trump, Obama, or Clinton. In fact, 3 of those 4 never served in the military.

          To summarize: Biden, Trump, and Clinton, avoided serving in Vietnam.

          BTW, your father didn’t need to be a millionaire to avoid serving in Vietnam. In fact, the majority of men who managed to avoid the draft were middle class.

          I’ve never known a single Vietnam combat veteran who held a grudge against people who managed to avoid what they had to endure in that useless war used to feed billion$ into the MIC courtesy of LBJ as soon as they got rid of Kennedy.

  5. CTHD – Race 2

    Part of what you are missing is the consequence of advances in genetics. Consider this article:

    Reich is doing very significant genetic research on human populations that has greatly expanded our knowledge of human development. See his book, “Who We Are and How We Got Here”.

    He understands the ‘social construct’ notion of race and admits to part of it, as do I, but he warns that there is a solid biological basis for those populations identified as races.

    He notes the rigid orthodoxy that race is *only* a social construct and warns against it. The advances in genetic research are destroying that conceit and he is gravely concerned that if thoughtful people don’t catch up with the science the field is going to be heavily in the hands of those with iniquitous intentions.

    He says:

    “But over the years this consensus has morphed, seemingly without questioning, into an orthodoxy. The orthodoxy maintains that the average genetic differences among people grouped according to today’s racial terms are so trivial when it comes to any meaningful biological traits that those differences can be ignored. *** I have deep sympathy for the concern that genetic discoveries could be misused to justify racism. But as a geneticist I also know that it is simply no longer possible to ignore average genetic differences among “races.”

    “I am worried that well-meaning people who deny the possibility of substantial biological differences among human populations are digging themselves into an indefensible position, one that will not survive the onslaught of science. I am also worried that whatever discoveries are made — and we truly have no idea yet what they will be — will be cited as “scientific proof” that racist prejudices and agendas have been correct all along, and that those well-meaning people will not understand the science well enough to push back against these claims. This is why it is important, even urgent, that we develop a candid and scientifically up-to-date way of discussing any such differences, instead of sticking our heads in the sand and being caught unprepared when they are found.”

    “While most people will agree that finding a genetic explanation for an elevated rate of disease is important, they often draw the line there. Finding genetic influences on a propensity for disease is one thing, they argue, but looking for such influences on behavior and cognition is another.
    But whether we like it or not, that line has already been crossed.”

    CTHD, While you are arguing about the importance of naming or syntax, much more profound issues are in play.

    As Reich points out, there are many levels of sorting that are possible for human populations and whether we call each level a race, subspecies or variety is less important than understanding them and learning how we are going to address them.

      1. David, yes it is a good link. Reich is brilliant and his research is beyond belief. So much has been learned from the studies of his team. Interesting side note, gathering DNA from thousands of years ago is not easy, but they have had luck with ear bones. Somehow DNA can survive well in those bones.

        With his studies, and also from European labs, it has been possible to track the first farmers from where farming originated in Anatolia and then moving into Europe. They seemed to stay separate from the existing hunter/gather population and, of course, outnumbered them greatly for having more food. Eventually they did mix to some degree, just as there appear to have been about two mixing events with Neandertals years before that. It is because of DNA studies that we know that Steppe raiders, Yamnaya, raided east and west overwhelming earlier populations. It appears that in Europe they killed most of the men and took the women. I saw an article on Spanish male haplogroups before and after the arrival of the Yamnaya, and the resident male line was essentially exterminated in its entirety and replaced with Yamnaya male descendants, Haplogroup R1b which I and probably you, and most of Europe has. R1a appears to have gone east.

        I really hope that someday they can find Sumerian DNA and find out who those people were but their remains were not well preserved. Later they mixed with Semitic Akkadians and so a ghost of their DNA should be in those remains. Still, I would like to learn who Gilgamesh was.

        It’s an exciting field to follow even as a bystander.

        1. David, Another interesting find was that American Indians appear to have a Eurasian origin and carry both early European genes as well as Asian genes.

          For years indications of European ancestry showed up in pre-Columbian remains and nobody could understand it. Now it is clear.

          You have probably seen, too, that some South American Indians have traces of Pacific Islander ancestry. Another previously unknown contact between ancient peoples.

          1. Young, the indigenees of the Americas are descended from about 4 tribes from what is now far northeast Siberia. However, some went west to become ancestors of the peoples of the far north in Europe.

            As for the Pacific Islanders, yes, some visited South America and brought back sweet potatoes to some of the islands.

            1. I will have to check Reich’s book on that. I used to think the same as you on this issue, but I think that the idea of their originating in Eurasia and passing through Siberia and Berengia is the latest. I will check.

            2. David “As for the Pacific Islanders, yes, some visited South America and brought back sweet potatoes to some of the islands.”

              Yes, and left some of their genes behind in South American tribes.

    1. “whether we call each level a race, subspecies or variety is less important than understanding them”

      Not if one is claiming — as you did — that human races are subspecies of H. sapiens. You claimed that, making it important whether it’s true. Unless you’re someone who just does care about whether your claims are true or false (which could well be the case).

      Note that Reich doesn’t once mention subspecies. Here’s his contact page:
      Why don’t you just email him and ask if he agrees with you, and if not, whether he’d point you to a good discussion.

      And I’m still waiting for you to list all the human races/subspecies that you claim exist.
      Go ahead, Baker started you off. Do you agree with him that Caucasians are H. sapiens albus?

      Reich says “we now know that genetic factors help explain why northern Europeans are taller on average than southern Europeans.” Are you going to conclude that northern and southern Europeans therefore belong to different races/subspecies? Reich notes that “‘whites’ represent a mixture of four ancient populations that lived 10,000 years ago.” So are you instead going to say that there are 4 white races/subspecies, and many whites are mixed race? And who do you include as white? Do you include Ashkenazim? (They weren’t considered white for a long time.) Do you include people of Italian ancestry? (They weren’t considered white for a long time.) You don’t actually do the work that your conjecture requires.

      This is a central challenge for you in claiming that races are subspecies: you need to actually identify the subspecies and provide a clear biological basis for your groupings. Are you going to make North Africans a separate race/subspecies or group them with sub-Saharan Africans?

      Or consider Reich’s discussion of prostate cancer. He compares West African and European ancestry, but doesn’t compare West African and Central or Eastern or Southern or Northern African ancestry. Is the difference he’s describing really a racial one, or is he highlighting a difference that something other than “race”? I’m not disputing the difference that he claims. I’m questioning whether it can accurately be called a “racial” difference. I don’t think he’s gathered enough information to answer that question.

        1. David, that’s what I’ve been telling Young, but he insists that there are multiple subspecies of humans at the present time. So tell *him*, not me.

        2. there may be none that fit that bill, but there sure are varieties. aka “different populations” aka races.

          variety may bring with it very, very significant heritable differences, in some particulars. such as, the 100 meter dash, for example.

          I think we white Americans are very uncomfortable with talking about races as such. I am white but I spend a lot of time with northern Chinese immigrants. I have a functional low level understanding of spoken Mandarin. I have noticed, among themselves, they are not obsessed with the category, and don’t talk about it much. But if they want to make a point about race, they make it without shyness or reserve.

          speaking of which. To show how overly sensitive some people are about race relations in America, the teaching of Mandarin has now drawn the attention of the fanatics.

          Na ge 那个 means, literally, that one. It is also a “filler” like um, uh, etc. If a person is trying to remember a word or thing, they might tap their head and say, nage, nage nage.

          It roughly sounds like niga

          maybe turley will add this to his list of stories about “professors under fire:”

      1. You are working very hard to confuse yourself. If you think way back I suggested that subspecies might be an alternative expression for race. I added that I don’t recommend that you use it because of the pc difficulties. Another suggestion was variety. I am not committed to either one. I am simply working with ideas. I didn’t expect Reich to address subspecies. Why would he? He is not as addicted to labels as you are. He wants to know what is going on.

        What is important in his article is that what most people think of as races and also subdivisions of those populations are revealing much more genetic variation than many people [including you perhaps] are prepared to face, that those genetic differences generally correspond to social constructs of race and that those differences also cause variations in aptitude and behavior. That is a much bigger thing than arguing endlessly about which labels belong on which boxes.

        I worked with a friend from Stanford Law school and we confronting some peculiarities about our understanding of the case. Then he said, “One thing about law school is that it increases your tolerance for ambiguity.” I have thought many times since then that he was so right. I think that same style of thinking is part of what makes Kurtz so easy in discussing this. Lawyers learn to juggle ambiguities and proceed because you have no choice. You can play with your labels forever because it makes no difference.

        1. No, Young, I’m not confused. You’re simply working hard to lie about me.

          “If you think way back I suggested that subspecies might be an alternative expression for race.”

          I know! You’ve written things like:
          — “It occurred to me that in lieu of using the term ‘race’ … you could use the term you have already recommended as scientifically sound: sub-species.”
          — “that definition of subspecies [which she originally provided] can be logically applied to what we think of as human races”
          — “race is a genuine way of sorting different biological varieties of people and that the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species.’”
          — “the use of the term sub-species … fits fairly closely to what we have known as race in the past”
          — “every major race category on Earth fits as a sub-species”
          — “One thing I hit on that was used in biology and that seems to correspond closely to ‘race’ is ‘sub-species’. I am not wed to the term. There may be sound reasons for not using it in that way, but I haven’t seen them yet.”

          “Another suggestion was variety. I am not committed to either one. I am simply working with ideas.”

          But “subspecies” and “variety” aren’t synonyms in biology. I haven’t ever challenged your use of “variety” (though initially I didn’t understand what you meant by it, and said so). I’ve been challenging your claims that races are subspecies. And you’ve avoided dealing honestly with why biologists do *not* consider races to be subspecies.

          “[Reich] is not as addicted to labels as you are.”

          Bullsh*t. This nonsense of yours underscores a key problem in talking with you: you consider professional vocabulary to be mere “labels” instead of understanding that terminology is introduced in order to advance and communicate understandings via research. Reich uses “subspecies” and all sorts of other specific terminology (e.g., “haplotype homozygosity,” “CpG dinucleotides”) in his writing. He didn’t use “subspecies” in that NYT column for a reason: he isn’t claiming that human races are subspecies.

          Reich also never said anything even remotely close to “those [genetic] differences also cause variations in aptitude and behavior.”

          And I’m quite comfortable with ambiguity when it exists. Over and over again you project beliefs onto me that aren’t mine because it’s too hard for you to deal honestly with my actual beliefs, which are more nuanced than yours. Ironically, you are addicted to labeling me with labels that aren’t accurate. For the record, your false claims above, equating “race” and “subspecies,” are not an example of ambiguity; they an example of you clearly having a mistaken belief.

  6. CTHD – note on Race conversation

    Abstract — You were wrong. You erred with a global, science is settled, type, statement: “biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens.”

    It would have been better if you had said “*some* biologists say that all living humans belong to a single subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens.” which I would have found to be likely.

    I suggested that human races might be treated as varieties or sub-species and you countered with:

    “The term “sub-species” has a specific biological definition (see the link I gave earlier), and races are not sub-species,” and you suggested that when I renew the subject I not “forget the part about biologists disagreeing with [me on the question of races being treated as subspecies] and you added that my “claim “the concept of race is cognate with the more precise term ‘sub-species’’ is false.”

    The thing about your saying biologists state that races were not sub-species intrigued me [I didn’t deny it was possible for some] and I asked you for a reference so that I could read their opinions for myself. You kindly provided two references.

    The first was an article about the discovery of an earlier hominid that could not morphologically be classified with existing humans, homo/sapiens/sapiens, the last term being a subspecies.

    From that you assumed that there was only one sub-species of existing humanity because the expression went only to one, though I did not see that the article expressly said that races could not be subspecies. What you overlooked is that the classification could be refined to homo/sapiens/sapiens/X allowing for the “X” to stand in for races, varieties or sub-species revealed with greater resolution. Put simply, that citation does not answer the question.

    The question *is* expressly answered in your second citation. Templeton, “Human Races: A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective” (1999).
    After a lengthy demonstration Templeton concludes that, “ human races do not exist under the traditional concept of a subspecies as being a geographically circumscribed population showing sharp genetic differentiation.”

    That would seem to satisfy your claim that biologists disagree with my suggestion that races might be classified as sub-species.

    The problem with that is that TEMPLETON [YOUR RECOMMENDED AUTHORITY] SAYS:

    “RACE IS GENERALLY USED AS A SYNONYM FOR SUBSPECIES, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population.”

    In other words, I was right to say that ‘race’ could be, and has been, substituted with ‘sub-species’ in classifying populations.

    Templeton fights against that ‘generally used synonym” but he begins by excluding elements that might bugger his analysis. In other words, conclusion first and then find or fiddle the analysis.

    Finally, his conclusion rests on his claim that humans do not have “sharply genetically differentiated populations.” Actually, recent research shows that humans do. Templeton is wrong.

    Since you like experts, you should know of Dr. John Baker, biologist and zoologist, at Oxford University who useD both ‘subspecies’ and ‘variety’ as substitutes for ‘race’ in his book, ‘RACE’.

    More in my next post.

    1. Young, you clearly don’t know biological naming conventions. Species names use binomial nomenclature: the name of the genus comes first and is capitalized, the specific (species) name comes second and isn’t capitalized (e.g., Canus lupus). Subspecies names use trinomial nomenclature: the name of the genus comes first and is capitalized, the specific name comes second and isn’t capitalized, and the subspecies name comes third and isn’t capitalized (e.g., Canus lupus familiaris). When you say “the classification could be refined to homo/sapiens/sapiens/X allowing for the “X” to stand in for races, varieties or sub-species revealed with greater resolution,” you’re talking about quadrinomial nomenclature. But biologists don’t use quadrinomial nomenclature for subspecies. They use trinomial nomenclature. H. sapiens sapiens IS the subspecies name for modern humans. It’s the single subspecies for all modern humans. If you add some varietal name for a quadrinomial nomenclature, you’re no longer talking about subspecies, but about a group that’s smaller than a subspecies.

      Which is why you aren’t linking to any biological text using something like “homo/sapiens/sapiens/X” to name human subspecies.

      As for “RACE IS GENERALLY USED AS A SYNONYM FOR SUBSPECIES, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population,” you’re an inattentive learner:

      A few weeks ago, you said “Even Wikipedia allows that subspecies can be used for ‘race’.,” and I pointed out to you “if you’d bothered to click on the word “race” on the page you linked to, you’d have seen that it referred to NOT to Words often have more than one meaning. Sometimes the meanings are specific to a technical field, like biology or law. This is part of what’s annoying in trying to discuss things with you: you’re sloppy. You could easily have discovered your mistake before repeating it to me, but you simply didn’t bother.”

      You’re making the same mistake here. You see “race” and you think it means “human races.” But in the sentence “Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population,” he isn’t using the word “race” to mean human races. He’s using it in the biological sense for diverse plant and animal subspecies.

      “I was right to say that ‘race’ could be, and has been, substituted with ‘sub-species’ in classifying populations.”

      But not in human populations! Because you’re confusing the two distinct meanings of “race.” For example, one could talk about races of wolves rather than subspecies of wolves, as Canus lupus has lots of subspecies/races. But you can’t do it with humans because there is only one extant human subspecies. There is only one extant biological “race” of humans because there is only one extant subspecies of humans.

      Again: lots of words have more than one meaning. Sometimes the meanings are specific to a technical field, like biology or law. When a skilled user of legal vocabulary encounters a word that has both a specific legal meaning and a different everyday English meaning (e.g., “motion,” “appeal”), you don’t have trouble figuring out which meaning is intended. Same with biology: when a biologist reads that sentence, they understand that “race” is meant in the biological sense, not in the sense of either a 100 meter dash or in the sense of caucasian, etc. If you need help keeping track of the different meanings of “race,” use “race-b” (for the biological meaning) and “race-h” (for the human grouping). These aren’t synonyms.

      “his conclusion rests on his claim that humans do not have “sharply genetically differentiated populations.” Actually, recent research shows that humans do. Templeton is wrong.”

      No, he isn’t wrong. And despite you repeatedly and ignorantly calling me “secretarial,” you’re again demonstrating that you lack an understanding of how terminology is used in RESEARCH. That you, personally, consider a genetic analysis that distinguishes between Ashkenazi vs. Korean ancestry to be “sharply differentiated” doesn’t mean that a *biologist* considers it to be a sharp differentiation. A biologist will tell you that there’s considerably less variation among all humans across the continents than among chimp subspecies living near each other:

      1. differentiation and how sharp it is, not merely a matter of counting alleles and forming statistical models. it is about judging them which makes the information relative to human differences.

        CTHD, you are grinding some axe, clearly., which makes you pretty normal. normal university educated people recoil at the bogeyman word “race” and freak out over the notion that a variety could be a subspecies. the terminology should not be so provocative.

        and as any dog owner knows, very small variations in heritable characteristics can make YUUUUGE differences in the dog. compare the poodle to the rottweiler. again, statistics are just numbers, we need to see what the numbers relate to in the world which they measure, to judge their relevance when we use terms like “sharply differentiated,.”

        if you want to dig into some interesting genetic studies by the way, there are abundant studies of jewish ancestry groups along many characteristics, inherited diseases like tay sachs, iQ, you name it. Ashkenazi/ Sephardic/ Mizrahi are the three frequent comparison groups.

        try and relax and you may enjoy these studies rather than feeling compelled to just get argumentative about them

        1. Kurtz, the poodle and the rottweiler are different *breeds*, but they aren’t different *subspecies*. All domestic dogs belong to a single subspecies, Canus lupus familiaris.

          1. I stand corrected on this point of taxonomy about canus lupus familiaris.

            And yet my point still seems sound. Depending on the context, a slight genetic difference among varieties, can be very profound

            I recall an interesting interview i heard on NPR with Temple Grandin. She is autistic but has a teaching position at university and has done a book on “Dogs”

            in it she recounts some interesting studies on the differences in dog behavior among varieties of domestic dogs

            the study related to what sort of “wolf behaviors” would be shown and to what degree between three types. Toy, hunting dogs, and working dogs

            Of course working dogs like Alsatians look most like wolves. and of course toy dogs the least. not surprisingly, toy dogs showed the least wolf behaviors

            but in a little bit of a surprise, turns out the hunting dogs show the most wolf type behaviors. check it out, very interesting

            1. Dogs demonstrate that very small genetic differences can make for enormous differences in appearance, behavior and intelligence.

      2. CTHD– So much blather. It seems not to have occurred to you that what is observable in nature should control conventions, not the other way around. This is what Allan and I have identified as your secretarial instinct. Good to a point but blinders beyond.

        I also noticed that you omitted any discussion of John Barker who uses subspecies and variety as terms that are synonyms for human race.

        I have more to add in my next post, but I expected this type of response from you. Kurtz is offering good advice on how to discuss this. You should consider taking it.

        You are freaking out over the word ‘race’ and are incapable of a disinterested discussion on the subject. I imagine you looking like Phyllis Diller. Relax. I have broadened my perspective discussing it with you, but every discussion with you [unless one is in total agreement] is like trying to give a bath to a cat.

        1. I’m not “freaking out,” Young. You want to believe that about me because it makes you more comfortable. Every time you make a comment like “your secretarial instinct,” it’s a self-own about how little you (and Allan) understand about research. You choose to keep illustrating your Dunning-Kruger tendencies.

          “I also noticed that you omitted any discussion of John Barker who uses subspecies and variety as terms that are synonyms for human race.”

          You didn’t say anything worth commenting on. I just did a quick search and found that he was “a longtime participant in the British eugenics movement.” So you’re citing a eugenicist to advocate for your position. That’s an interesting tactic. I see that he says “Hitler … is chiefly known as a man of action” and comments on “Hitler’s remarks on the ethnic problem.” Yes, Baker’s book is clearly a wonderful reference for you to highlight. /s

          He apparently hypothesized polygenesis too — that different human races evolved from different ape species. Do *you* believe that? If not, why would you think that an author who posits that is reliable? You do know that that’s not the scientific consensus, right? He claims “the Europid (‘Caucasian’) race of man is named H. sapiens albus.” You let me know how many living biologists agree with him on that.

          You’re only further demonstrating the weakness of your argument. Either that, or you didn’t even skim the book.

          1. I would not expect a book from that time to be right on everything just as I would not expect Templeton to be right on everything. Whether or not he liked Hitler is outside the question. I think a lot of our American left leaning politicians liked Mussolini and Hitler at one time. I am not going to push their statues over because of something like that. Members of the Obama administration praised Mao and Che on occasion and they were both killers.

            Polygenesis was a reasonable hypothesis at one time, at least insofar as it concerned hominids. I assumed it was entirely resolved but in the last few weeks I read that there is some thought that some modern human remains carry homo erectus elements. I don’t know if that will prove to be true, but I don’t dismiss the possibility because ‘the science is settled’. It isn’t. It is very much alive.

            If you read Reich’s article are you still persuaded that “Race is social construct, not a biological one.”?

      3. But you can’t do it with humans because there is only one extant human subspecies.

        You do understand, don’t you, that this is begging the question.

        1. No, actually, it isn’t. This is the second time that you’ve responded about that fallacy in a way that suggests you don’t actually understand the fallacy.

          I’m not trying to prove that there’s only one extant human subspecies. I already gave you two references for that. Do you need more? And it’s a basic fact that a number greater than 1 (which is what you claim about the number of human races) is not equal to 1 (the number of extant human subspecies that biologists say there are). I assume that your math background is good enough to understand that if a>1 and b=1, then a =/= b.

          1. CTHD – If you try to prove there is only one extant human subspecies with a proposition that essentially says there is only one extant human subspecies you are essentially begging the question. It is a variant of ‘The Bible is true because it says it is true.’

            1. “If you try to prove there is only one extant human subspecies with a proposition that essentially says there is only one extant human subspecies you are essentially begging the question.”

              I agree that if your “if” clause were true, then I’d be begging the question. But in this case, your “if” clause is false, so I’m not begging the question.

              1. Then what actual proof do you have that there is only one human subspecies? Start from what defines a subspecies and work from there. Don’t link to other people. That is ‘an appeal to authority’, another logical fallacy.

                Last time you tried it you landed on the geographical term. There are black people in America so they don’t have a specific territory. Well, there are kangaroos in American zoos but that doesn’t mean they don’t have a territory for evolutionary purposes in Australia.

                I guess that you need to think of it as ‘native to’ a geographical area to get around the issue of the modern diaspora.

                If you begin with the definition of a subspecies and then consider the morphological and genetic differences of various human populations it is harder to say that they are not subspecies. I am not saying it can’t be falsified, but it doesn’t look easy when you start from fundamentals.

                1. “what actual proof do you have that there is only one human subspecies?”

                  EXTANT subspecies.

                  I have never claimed and do not believe that “there is only one human subspecies.” In fact, I’ve repeatedly told you that there is more than one subspecies of H. sapiens. But only one is still living.

                  And my proof is that biologists agree that all living humans belong to a single human subspecies.

                  “Don’t link to other people. That is ‘an appeal to authority’, another logical fallacy.”

                  FFS, learn when an appeal to authority is a fallacy and when it isn’t. Learn that appeals to authority often aren’t fallacious. I haven’t been using it fallaciously.

                  “there are kangaroos in American zoos”

                  And they were brought there by people, so it’s a false analogy. And I think you know that, but you’re so desperate to avoid dealing with how biologists actually think about geographic ranges that you try to use it anyway. I’ll remind you what I quoted about this earlier: “Biologists look at current geographic ranges, and they even specify percentages of geographic separation (e.g., “The standard level for defining a subspecies is based on the ‘75% rule’ (Amadon 1949, Mayr 1969). Stated simply, to be a valid sub-species, 75% of a population effectively must lie outside 99% of the range of other populations for a given defining character or set of characters,” You also ignore that in other animal species, if there’s a huge amount of interbreeding among groups that differ morphologically, biologists don’t consider them distinct subspecies, because subspecies are effectively reproductively isolated (whether through differences in geographic range or selection of mates) even though they’re capable of interbreeding. According to you, domestic dogs breeds are distinct subspecies because they differ so much morphologically. But biologists consider all domestic dogs to be a single subspecies, Canus lupus familiaris. You say “No reason why we should have different rules than the other animals on this issue,” but in fact you’re choosing different rules than other animals. Which is why biologists — who understand this better than you do — disagree with your conclusions.”

                  “start from fundamentals.”

                  Learn how biologists interpret those fundamentals. Stop pretending that your personal interpretation is what matters.

      4. CTHD, Here is one statement that Templeton relies on for his entire argument and it is clearly wrong:

        “The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans.”

        See my other note on Reich.

        1. You’re wrong that “Templeton relies on [this] for his entire argument.” It’s a conclusion, not a premise, and the evidence he discusses in his argument is what leads him to that conclusion.

          And again, you have to first determine what a biologist means by “distinct evolutionary lineage.” That you call it “blather” to attend to domain-specific terminology only shows that you do not understand the work of research. The issue isn’t what “distinct evolutionary lineage” means to *you*, but what it means to *biologists*. You seem to think you know, so why don’t you define it? Then check whether you’ve correctly interpreted what Templeton and other biologists use it to mean.

          You should also read responses from biologists to Reich’s NYT column, like this:

          If you want to see more responses, but not limited to biologists:

    2. John Barker:

      “In Race, Baker used a restrictive sense of the term “civilization”, giving 23 criteria by which civilizations might be identified. Based on these criteria, Baker declared that Mesoamerican societies such as those of the Aztecs and Maya were not civilizations, and that no indigenous civilizations ever arose in Africa. He enumerated five civilizations sensu stricto and explored the relationship between the biological traits and the cultures of these five civilizations.[5] In this book, Baker speculated that different human races evolved from different subspecies of apes (known as Polygenism). Baker claimed that “negrids” were less evolved, and also inferior, to races Baker described as civilized. Baker also claims that all black people have a “fetid smell”.[6] According to a 1974 review by A. O. Ladimeji in Race & Class, Baker misrepresents or misunderstands the history of the study of race. Per Ladimeji, “Most of Baker’s biological data comes from the nineteenth century with no corroboration from recent research.” Ladimeji wrote that most of Baker’s more outlandish claims had already been refuted by available studies at the time of publication.[6]”

      Yeah, sounds real mainstream.

        1. Young, CTHD, is correct here. She pointed out exactly what the problem with the argument is. You really don’t understand how the terminology differs.

          You think race as a term for subspecies, but biologists don’t use it to categorize human subspecies.

          She gave you a very good example.

          Look at the term “appeal”. In the legal profession it doesn’t mean attractiveness or pleasurable interest. Obviously you would know that. In the legal profession it clearly means an urgent request. CTHD points this out to you, but your inability to make the distinction is what’s causing your incorrect assumptions.

        2. Baker’s book is several hundred pages. I found a copy online though, and skimmed it, which is why I was able to quote from it in my response to you.

          Have YOU read it, Young?

      1. most of the foundational research in physical anthropology was done in the 19th century. contemporary research on race has focused on genetics.
        but the findings of physical anthropology which informed categories of physical race are still sound and sometimes remain in use in such things as criminal forensics where for example skeletons may be measured to infer the race of victims.

        the problems of the Third Reich lead to a rejection of physical anthropology in academic circles in favor of what is called cultural anthropology, margaret meade and so forth

        I think that Baker’s book Race is valid for purposes of physical anthropology.

        It was recommended to me believe it or not by a tenured professor of anthropology who taught at a major American university.
        I will not say that person’s name for obvious reasons, although retired.

      2. Polygenism is a minority viewpoint in anthropology. Most anthropologists do adhere to one origin out of Africa.

        However, polygenism is not inherently “racist” nor is it entirely devoid of empircal support. a better term for the current thinking on topic is “multiregional hypothesis”

        this article on wiki gets pretty deep into genetics, beyond my comprehension level. i have a good book at home that is more understandable but i cant recall the title

        here is another article. just fix the link

        I like to approach these topics in a mood of “gewohrfenheit–” wonder! Heidegger used it a lot.

        1. I was not familiar with the term, but it fits. Interesting approach. I thought polygenism was finished until I read that maybe we have h. erectus genes… maybe. Anybody who thinks about this with fear of being called racist might as well give up at the start. We are what we are and that is more complex and interesting than is generally suspected. Political fixations don’t help much either. Expecting to have to change one’s mind often is a better approach.

  7. Reading a few quotes back there was talk about Fracking and the Wonderful ex VP saying he’ll ban it if elected. The problem with this statement and those supporting a ban is they have no blumeing idea of which they speak. If Fracking is banned there be no more oil wells, natural gas wells and in some cases water wells. Before making a outlandish statement they should at the minimum learn when and how wells are brought on line. Fracking has been used in the hydro carbon arena since before most those writing on this site where born. In fact I tracked numerous gas and oils wells starting in early 1980’s, in Texas, Utah and Northern Colorado. If you want to write with some semblance of authority research the subject.

  8. will journalists objectively cover this publication by a Chinese virologist which claims and supports with DNA analysis, that Sars-Cov-2 was synthetically produced in a lab?

    when the former Nobel prize winning virologist who discovered the HIV Luc Montaigner said so, the press claimed he was over the hill.

    Dr Yan is not over the hill. And the analysis is available now for peer review. Let’s see who in the mainstream media will report this. Anybody? I’ll see in a few days, it’s quite fresh newsflash, this

    HUGE implications if it holds up. HUGE.

    September 14, 2020Journal article Open Access
    Unusual Features of the SARS-CoV-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route
    Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

    The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.

    1. “Kevin Gosztola

      In documentary from German public TV, former CIA director Leon Panetta acts as a public face for the US prosecution against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. The CIA has been possibly the most aggressive agency in the war on WikiLeaks.

      Wikileaks – USA against Julian Assange (english subtitles)

      Criminal or revolutionary? The rise and fall of Julian Assange – from a celebrated publicist to an eccentric who was decried as a spy and rapist. Assange’s fiancée also speaks for the first time on…”

      Wikileaks – USA against Julian Assange (english subtitles)

      07.09.2020 ∙ Reportage & Dokumentation ∙ Das Erste

      1. Arsonists have been caught setting fires all over the place in Cali. PG&E reached an $11 billion settlement with a group of insurers to cover most of the claims from wildfires caused by its faulty power lines in California in 2017 and 2018. But you go on “believing” what you are told to believe. Oh no! Climate change! Vote for Democrats before the planet is destroyed!

      2. Also: “A wildfire that has burned almost 10,000 acres and forced the evacuation of half a Southern California city was sparked by a pyrotechnic device at a gender reveal party, fire investigators announced Sunday.”

      1. If it bothers you Kurtz, vote Democratic. We have long favored campaign finance reform and would appoint judges who would reverse Citizens United. That’s GOP trash. You’re smart enough to know that right?

        1. Citizens United is a SCOTUS decision based on first amendment .I think the First amendment is overdue for some changes. Maybe campaign reform and restrictions on what people can do with their money is in order. But for now it’s a straightforward decision based on ample case law and reasoning. Personally I don’t really like it but it is based on fundamental notion that donations are a form of speech which they definitely are. Political donations as a form of political speech are at the core of free speech protections even more so than obscenity that’s for sure.

          But i understand the Dem approach to SCOTUS is just pressure them to change the law in a way you like. And they often accomodate. They’re robed anti-democratic tyrants on more days than one in their history.

          1. Kurtz, your ignorant comment about Dems and the SC aside – as if political considerations by the GOP regarding the court are below their high motives (we haven’t stolen a seat before) – quit complaining about money in politics if you’re stupid enough to support the party that wants even more of it.

        2. Again, the complaint against Citizen United is that corporate bodies which might support Republicans are permitted to organize fancies only public employee unions and the New York Times Company should have that franchise.

    1. Trump is right. Climatologists say we are in a cooling period. The “science” is not “settled.” Climate change is not the “cause” of Cali forest fires. They want you to believe their spin without facts. Yosemite and Redwoods have survived massive fires, because of good forest management –which Democrats politicians refuse to do! Why? To foolishly make their “case” that these fires are being caused by “climate change”? Arsonists have been caught setting fires all over the place in Cali. PG&E reached an $11 billion settlement with a group of insurers to cover most of the claims from wildfires caused by its faulty power lines in California in 2017 and 2018. But you go on “believing” what you are told to believe. Oh no! Climate change! Vote for Democrats before the planet is destroyed!

      If more people actually believed the Democrat political fear mongering lies and spin on “climate change” then Donald Trump would not be president today. But he is. And he is about to be reelected. Enjoy.

Leave a Reply