Nicholas Schmidle in Slate:

Khokan belongs to a caste of Hindus known as “Mushaheris,” a Sanskrit word meaning mice-eaters. The Mushaheris are Dalits, the lowest of the low, according to the Hindu caste system. They were known as untouchables before the Indian subcontinent became politically correct. Some say that if so much as the shadow of a Dalit touches a person from an upper caste, the aristocrat should bathe thoroughly to cleanse any impurities. Dalits, numbering about 1 million in Bangladesh (and well over 100 million in Hindu-majority India), are socially immobile. Potential employers shy away from hiring someone labeled an untouchable by their co-religionists. Men and women are usually left toiling as brick-breakers. Yet the wages from breaking bricks are meager—around 70 cents a day—and not enough to buy meat. To compensate for protein deficiencies, Dalits hunt and eat anything they can find. Mice are the most common, thus the name “mice-eaters.” But mouse season recently ended, Khokan said. Kuchia were abundant. He ran off to retrieve the spoils of yesterday’s hunt: two barbequed eel heads, skewered on a knobby twig.

More here.

A “Cousin Tree” from Wikipedia:

From The Economist:

It is now generally accepted that eating less makes animals live longer. That has been demonstrated in creatures ranging from worms to mammals. Exactly why it should be so remains, however, hotly debated. So Jeremy Nicholson of Imperial College, London, and his colleagues set out to shed some light on the matter. Their results have just been published in the Journal of Proteome Research.

One theory of ageing suggests senescence is a result of damage caused to body cells by reactive molecules called free radicals. These molecules are created as a side effect of the release of energy from glucose. If that were true, a lower metabolic rate might slow the process down. The question is: does eating less result in a lower metabolic rate? The answer that Dr Nicholson and his colleagues have come up with is that it does—in dogs, at any rate.

More here.

Also in the LRB, Jeremy Harding on the French elections:

[Said] Hammouche is young – mid-thirties – and successful; the people he’s trying to place are even younger and hoping for a break; in Clichy-sous-Bois, nearly half the population is under 25, for the most part with very few prospects. However loudly the main candidates sound off about youth opportunity and youth unemployment, this feels like a race in which the contestants are appealing primarily to an older electorate, typically setting aside their differences to concur on the urgent need to keep funding research into Alzheimer’s disease. Younger voters are marginalised in the surveys by the fact that so many of them have no fixed-line phones, on which pollsters currently rely for a lot of their research. What this portion of the electorate thinks is obscure. Is it as radical as [the Friedmanite] Hammouche, or radical in the same way? The only safe bet is that it’s likely to favour change.

Royal can provide a version of the social market and Bayrou a feelgood moment, but this is not really change. As for Sarkozy, unless he can think of a way to redeem his tax and contributions cuts, he would be moving France in much the same direction it has been going. His views about French ‘identity’ and immigration are proof, in case it was needed, that he is not a right-wing libertarian of the full-fledged sort. Quite the opposite. In the absence of a model for his proposed ministry of national identity and immigration, French voters are left contemplating the purification committee set up under Vichy to target Jews, and the population office established in 1945, whose intention to screen out North African immigrants fell foul of the postwar reconstruction boom. Sarkozy is, by proper neoliberal standards, naively opposed to ‘speculation’ – which he sees as the wrong kind of capitalism – while being an EU regionalist, a staunch protectionist and a defender of the Common Agricultural Policy. He is opposed to golden handshakes for company directors and means to destabilise the 35-hour week, not abolish it. He is for republicanism with a grimace rather than a smile and the right of government to tell people what to do. The future, if Sarkozy gets it, is l’immobilisme as usual, only with fewer pleasantries and more naked confrontation.

In the LRB, Mahmood Mamdani responds to rejoinders to his piece on Darfur and intervention.

Jannie Armstrong (Letters, 5 April) suggests that the US ‘should be accused of inattention, not interference’ with regard to Rwanda and Central Africa because, in 1994, ‘US attention in Africa was firmly focused on the ongoing debacle in Somalia.’ But the debacle in Somalia was not a distraction: it was the experience that convinced the US to desist from direct intervention and return to the strategy of acting through proxies. Its proxy-based interventions in Africa had begun two decades before, in the aftermath of defeat in Vietnam: examples include the sustained nurturing of Renamo in Mozambique and Unità in Angola by South Africa. This went on for more than a decade and would not have been possible without the diplomatic and political cover provided by the Reagan-era policy of ‘constructive engagement’ with apartheid South Africa.

From a post-Vietnam perspective, Somalia was an aberration and Rwanda a return to business as usual. Armstrong is right to suggest that the Rwandan Patriotic Front ‘was more a product of regional than international politics’. The US did not manufacture the RPF, nor did it create the National Resistance Army in Uganda. But it built close relations with the latter during the late 1980s and, through it, with the RPF in the 1990s, providing crucial diplomatic and political cover even before the RPF assumed power in 1994.

Fourth is Nato’s intervention in the former Yugoslavia. Leaving to one side the merits and demerits of the interventions of 1995 and 1999, it is appropriate to consider whether the example can easily be shifted to Darfur.

From The American Scholar:

Ralph Ellison became famous in 1952 with the publication of Invisible Man, which remained for some 30 years the most widely read and respected novel by an African-American writer. Ellison died in 1994 having never produced the second novel he spent so much of his life working on. Arnold Rampersad, as fine a biographer as is working today, author of the splendid two-volume biography of Langston Hughes as well as a biography of Jackie Robinson, is fully up to answering the obvious question “Why no second novel?” But his book suggests, more interestingly, that it may be the wrong question to ask. The right one would be “How did he manage to write Invisible Man?” For, as Rampersad shows, Ellison’s instincts and core talents were not those of a novelist.

He was cerebral, judgmental, meaning-oriented oriented rather than experience-oriented in his approach to fiction. He had no impulse merely to represent life in its variety, an impulse that, like the urge to chronology, can sustain a fiction writer when all else fails. Crucially influenced in the late 1940s by Kenneth Burke and Stanley Edgar Hyman, Ellison embraced the myth and symbol school of criticism as a program for generating fiction. Idolizing Joyce and T. S. Eliot as well as Hemingway, he seems to have thought that the power of Ulysses and The Waste Land came from their mythic substrata and that if he could summon up mythic resonances, readers would respond. Thus he was deeply upset when a young scholar got the name of one of his characters wrong. It wasn’t Julian Bledsoe. It was Hebert Bledsoe, and “Hebert” was pronounced in the French way, “a bear,” and if you didn’t get that, you didn’t see that the character was an avatar of the bear archetype. Such narrowness, aggravating in an English professor, is deadly in a creative writer. Fortunately for us fans of Invisible Man, Ellison also had a powerful impulse to riff at the typewriter, which countered the effect of his theorizing. Between those two poles of prescriptive literary theory and jazz improvisation was generated his wild, semisurrealistic masterpiece.

More here.

From The National Academies:

A new study released by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that children of all ages are being exposed to TV commercials for junk foods at an alarming rate. The study concluded that children 8 to 12 years old viewed the most food ads, an average of 21 a day or more than 7,600 per year. The study also examined exposure among other age groups. Teens viewed approximately 17 food ads per day or over 6,000 a year, while children ages 2 to 7 saw about 12 ads a day or 4,400 a year. The study, considered the largest ever done on television advertising aimed at kids, had researchers look at and analyze ads during 1,638 hours of TV programming on such networks as ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, PBS, the Cartoon Network, Disney, MTV, and Nickelodeon.

Vicky Rideout, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation and co-author of the study, said that one thing she found to be significant about the study’s findings was “that most of the food ads that kids see on TV today are for foods that nutritionists would argue children probably need to be eating less of, not more of, if we’re going to get serous about tackling childhood obesity in this country … things like sugared cereals, candies, chips, fast foods, sodas, and soft drinks, which together comprise more than 80 percent of all the ads targeted at children and teens.” Nearly 25 million of children and teens in the United States are either overweight or obese.

More here.

Eric Jaffe in Smithsonian Magazine:

The final season of “The Sopranos” begins April 8. But don’t count the bureau’s Matt Heron among the millions of viewers—he’s seen enough in his 20 years on the beat. Instead, Heron tells Smithsonian.com about the mafia’s rise to power, its most influential character and its first big rat.

Why did La Cosa Nostra come over from Sicily?

It started in the early days as a strictly Italian thing, a Sicilian thing. Over time that morphed into the term “mafia,” a Sicilian term that has since become generic, like Xerox. They started coming over into this country in the latter part of the 19th century, in the 1880s or so. The first indication I’m aware of was down in New Orleans. Everyone thinks it’s New York, but it wasn’t.

Why did they come over to this country from Sicily? One, to escape economic hard times in Italy. Also, to get away from the oppression being forced on them by the ruling government in Rome. Sicily is one of the most conquered pieces of land on the face of the earth. Consequently, it’s a mixed bag of cultural influences. Sicily for the longest time was looked upon as the red-headed stepchild of Italy, especially once Mussolini came to power. The concern was keeping the Sicilian mafia under control, so lots of guys said “we’re out of here.”

More here.

Jessica Clark in In These Times:

Libertarians are a strange lot. Their targets often seem reasonable; their solutions myopic and partial. So it goes with Christopher Buckley’s Boomsday, a sub-Swiftian sendup of the looming threat of an overwhelming federal deficit, set in the carnivorous confines of D.C.’s wonkscape.

Cassandra Devine is a heroine for our spin-crazy times—or actually, for five years from now, when the first wave of Baby Boomers will be eligible to retire, an event dubbed “Boomsday.” A “strategic communicator” for excessive executives, pesticide manufacturers and mink-farmers, by night, the twenty-something blogger imbibes Red Bulls and Ayn Rand in equal measure and sets her sights on the greed of those determined to make her “Generation Whatever”—Gen W—peers foot the bill for their golden years. Her modest proposal? Offer senior citizens a reprieve from estate taxes in return for their voluntary suicide at retirement—a publicity ploy that she terms a “meta-political device.”

Leo A. Lensing in the Times Literary Supplement:

In the late 1970s, as the brilliant, brief career of Rainer Werner Fassbinder approached its zenith, the New York Times heralded the prolific young filmmaker, born in 1945, as both “wunderkind” and “messiah” of the New German Cinema. In Germany, where his work regularly provoked outrage and scandal, the left-wing magazine konkret portrayed him as “the thermometer in the asshole of culture”, ridiculing the director’s uncanny ability to operate as a constant irritant on the artistic scene. Since Fassbinder’s untimely death in 1982, from what his friend and frequent collaborator Harry Baer called an “overdose of work”, the importance of his complex cinematic and literary oeuvre has been consistently undervalued in Germany. The 2005 retrospective of the films, designed to celebrate what would have been his sixtieth birthday, was shown first in Paris at the Centre Pompidou and only then came to Berlin in a much scaled-down version. For most Germans, it seems to have been more an occasion for renewed wonderment over a delinquent native son’s international reputation than for celebration of one of their great twentieth-century artists.

Even if Fassbinder’s homeland has been slow to recognize his high standing in film history, the rest of the world has not.

More here.

Carl Zimmer in his always excellent blog, The Loom:

Trace your geneology back 25 million years, and you’ll meet long-tailed monkey-like primates living in trees. Those primates were not just the ancestors of ourselves, but of all the other apes–chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons–along with the monkeys of the Eastern Hemisphere, such as baboons and langurs. By comparing ourselves to these other primates, scientists can get clues to our evolution over the past 25 million years. Until now, most of those clues have come from fossils and studies on the behavior and physiology of apes and monkeys. But in the past few years scientists have begun to pore over a new record: the one that is inscribed in our genome and the genomes of other apes and monkeys.

The first draft of the human genome was published in 2000, and in 2005 came the genome of the chimpanzee–our closest living relative. Scientists compared the two genomes to get a sense of what the genome of our common ancestor looked like, and how the genomes of both species have changed over the past few million years. (I wrote about the first wave of chimp/human studies here). One of the biggest surprises came when one team of researchers concluded that the ancestors of chimpanzees and humans interbred for over a million years, producing hybrid humanzees.

More here.

Adam Gopnik in The New Yorker:

Every country’s difficult literary guys are different, and you know from experience how to handle the kind you’ve grown up with. Reading Geoffrey Wolff’s excellent biography of the truly ornery American writer John O’Hara, you sense that you could have managed him, for one night, with a mixture of office-adultery gossip and writerly mumblings about advances and sales. But when you come to the super-ornery English novelist Kingsley Amis you realize that you have no idea what you could possibly have said to get through an evening. Office gossip would be bound to hit a clunker, publishing talk would seem vulgar: this is a writer who devotes an entire chapter of his memoirs to the minor American Jewish humorist Leo Rosten in order to tear him apart, because, on the one evening Amis spent with him, Rosten (a) didn’t give him enough to drink and (b) misused the English expression “local” to mean a nearby restaurant instead of a neighborhood pub. With someone like that, you just hide under the sofa, or hope you never run into him at all.

The bewildering thing is that, after having seen all his cussedness catalogued and inventoried—friends insulted, children ignored, wives betrayed, with maximum pain inflicted whenever possible—everyone on his side of the pond still regards him with backhanded affection: wonderfully wicked, magnificently rude, hilariously horrible, and so on.

More here.

From The Economist:

Trees are good. Good enough to hug. Trees have a nifty biochemical strategy called photosynthesis that enables them to take carbon dioxide in through their leaves, and swap that nasty gas for oxygen, a nice one. They use the carbon thus sequestered to make molecules like cellulose, and thus more tree.

That is why some rich people who love to burn things containing carbon, such as petrol and aircraft fuel, have recently started paying others to plant trees on their behalf. Burning adds oxygen to carbon, making carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide makes the world warmer. A warmer world will mean higher sea levels. So if people burn things without offsetting the carbon dioxide thus produced, their holidays in the Maldive islands will disappear, along with the islands themselves.

This chattering-class environmental picture is not necessarily wrong, but it does include many assumptions. One of them, that planting trees will make the world cooler than it would otherwise be, is the subject of a newly published study by Govindasamy Bala, of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in California, and his colleagues. Dr Bala has found, rather counter-intuitively, that removing all of the world’s trees might actually cool the planet down. Conversely, adding trees everywhere might warm it up.

More here.

From the West Virginia Surf Report:

Each item was purchased, taken home, and photographed immediately. Nothing was tampered with, run over by a car, or anything of the sort. It is an accurate representation in every case. Shiny, neon-orange, liquefied pump-cheese, and all.

Many more such comparisons here.

Lindsay Beyerstein at Majikthise:

I’m so sick of the charges and counter-charges of “exploitation” of the Va-Tech massacre for political purposes.

If people of good will think that they have an apt political point to make, let them make it without assailing them for somehow taking advantage of the tragedy. That goes for both the gun control and the anti-gun control camps.

Current events should shape policy discussions.

It’s not a question of exploitation. It’s a matter of proffering solutions and offering critiques while our increasingly fragmented national attention is focused on an issue.

If Instapundit thinks that the concealed carry ban caused the tragedy, let him say so. I think it’s a dumb argument, but I don’t see why there should be any kind of inverse statute of limitations for offering it. Yesterday I made fun of some wingnuts for rifling through their personal anxiety closets in public, trying to come to terms with the killings–but I was mocking them for saying stupid and venal things, not for “exploiting” anyone’s death.

Trying to enforce an arbitrary line between “human” and “political” responses to tragedies is a political strategy in its own right.

More here.

From BBC News:

The problem with intelligence has been to find ways of fairly assessing both types – and many others. Try these two questions:

• How do you define “fallacy”?
• If I say to you a random series of 9 numbers, for example: 7, 4, 8, 7, 3, 6, 6, 2, 5, can you repeat them back to me in reverse order?

Can intelligence really be measured by tests like these? The Horizon programme took seven people who are all experts in their own field and put them through a range of “intelligence” tests. We had Quantum physicist Seth Lloyd; ex-Wall Street Trader Nathan Haselbauer, who runs the International High IQ society; musical prodigy Alex Prior; artist Stella Vine; RAF fighter pilot Garry Stratford; international chess grandmaster Susan Polgar and dramatist/critic Bonnie Greer.

The IQ-type tests produced predictable results. The IQ expert and Quantum physicist came out on top. But what about “creativity”? It is not really tested by an IQ test. We assessed creativity by using a test developed in the 60s: “Name as many uses as you can for a sock in 10 minutes.” The intriguing thing about this “alternative uses” test is that it is not just the number of alternative uses that count, it is the originality of them and the extravagance of the description that also count. So a sock that could be used as a “bikini bottom, tied on with string – provided you were waxed – and that you were daring”, suggested by Bonnie Greer, gets a good score.

More here.

From The National Geographic:

A changing climate may be responsible for the sharp drop in more than a dozen species of lizards and frogs in Central America, according to a new long-term study. The research adds another challenge to understanding the rapid extinctions observed in Central and South America, where more than a hundred amphibian species have disappeared since 1980. The massive decline of frog populations in particular has been widely linked to a fungus known as BD, which can wipe out a species in months. But the new study found slow, steady declines of both lizards and frogs in pristine, protected rain forests that are free of the BD fungus, researchers say.

The new study, published in the current issue of the Proceeedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reviewed data collected over 35 years at La Selva Biological Station in Costa Rica. The scientists found a 75 percent drop in local amphibian and reptile numbers during that period. Not only is BD fungus absent at La Selva, but BD is also not known to affect reptiles at all, Whitfield explained, so another factor must be to blame for the drop in numbers. His team’s findings suggest that increased rain and higher temperatures observed over the same 35-year period may be responsible. Hotter, wetter conditions speed decomposition of the fallen leaves that the animals depend on for their habitat, Whitfield said.

More here.

Ruchira Paul at (the new and improved!) Accidental Blogger:

So what is it about [It Can’t Happen Here]’s message that makes it chillingly prescient and as fresh as our currrent headlines? Consider, compare and contrast the following scenarios in the fictional reign of Berzelius (Buzz) Windrip (1934 – 1938) and that of the real George W. (Dubya) Bush (2000 to present). (Buzz was shadowed by a Rovian figure who groomed him for years to one day launch him on the national / international stage!)

• A populist leader (a Democrat in the book) is elected on a simplistic platform of petty nationalism, military jingoism, wearing religiosity on one’s sleeve and not so veiled anti-intellectualism. ( Buzz (like Bush) even pronounced the United States of America as the U-nited States of America! )
• Government was not to function just as an institution of public service but an efficient corporation as well. Buzz’s administration was proudly named the “Corporate- Government” or “Corpo” for short.  Its most trusted ally and beneficiary was big business, not the common man who brought it to power.
• The freedom of the judiciary was severely curtailed in order to strengthen presidential powers. Suspension of the habeas corpus, use of secret military tribunals, arrests on suspicion alone (while going from home to the hardware store) and concentration camps were the order of the day.  It was all made possible by invoking threats to national security.
• Dangers to peace, prosperity and national security were blamed on certain groups of “un-American” people who could be then be persecuted and their loyalties questioned. In Buzz’s case, they were communists, Jews, Negroes and atheists. The logic was that as long people can look down upon someone else, they feel good about themselves, no matter how miserable they actually are.
• Citizens and public officials  were encouraged to spy and tattle on their friends, neighbors and employees. (See Joe’s post on Michelle Malkin)
• Big city clergy of affluent churches enthusiastically supported the government’s efforts at curtailing freedoms and promoting war efforts when promised a bigger role for religion (Christianity) in public affairs.
• Drumming up public support for the invasion and occupation of other nations who didn’t play by our democratic rules and Christian values – all for the good of their savage souls.
• An actual pre-emptive invasion of Mexico on the flimsy and concocted grounds that Mexico was planning an attack on El Paso, San Antonio, Laredo and other US border towns.
• Newspapers and radio were mostly cowed down into compliance or enthusiastically on board with the government’s vision of America and the world. Public protest to the “Corpo” appeared in the form of anonymous underground pamphleteering. (Blogs?)

And there is more.  ICHH is often compared to George Orwell’s 1984 and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. But there is a crucial difference between it and its British counterparts. Orwell and Huxley described totalitarian regimes already in place where the subjects see the light from within an oppressive system.  Lewis warns about the danger of an open society sliding into a fascist mode using the very processes of democracy which we take for granted as “abuse proof.”

More here.

Joel Waldfogel in Slate:

Everyone from economists and sociologists to Oprah knows that women work more than men. Their longer combined hours, at the home and at the office, stop men from taking afternoon naps on the couch and cause fights that end with men spending nights on the couch. And yet according to new study, those longer hours are a myth, because it’s just not true that women carry a heavier load.

Three economists, Michael Burda of Humboldt University in Berlin, Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas, and Philippe Weil of the Free University of Brussels have analyzed data from surveys in 25 countries that ask people how they spend their time. Some of the countries are rich, like the United States and Germany, some are poor, like Benin and Madagascar, and some are in the middle, like Hungary, Mexico, and Slovenia. The people surveyed were asked to fill in diaries indicating how they spend each segment of their day.

More here.

Brian Hayes in American Scientist:

You’ve probably heard of Lake Wobegon, the little town in Minnesota where all the children are above average. There’s been much head-scratching about this statistical miracle. What happens to the kids who fail to surpass themselves? Are they shipped across the lake to another little town, where all the children are below average? That practice wouldn’t necessarily work to the detriment of either community. It might be like the migration from Oklahoma to California during the Dust Bowl years, which Will Rogers said raised the average intelligence of both states.

One small town that beats the law of averages is strange enough, but even more mystifying is the finding that Lake Wobegon is not unique—that in fact everyone is above average. In 1987 John J. Cannell, a West Virginia physician and activist, discovered that all 50 states report that their children do better than the national average on standardized tests. (And this was years before the No Child Left Behind Act!)

I can’t promise to resolve these paradoxes. On the contrary, I’m going to make matters worse by describing still more funny business in the world of averages. The story that follows is about a data distribution that simply has no average. Given any finite sample drawn from the distribution, you are welcome to apply the usual algorithm for the arithmetic mean—add up the values and divide by the size of the sample—but the result won’t mean much. Whatever average you calculate in this way, you can improve it just by taking a bigger sample. Perhaps this is the secret of the Lake Wobegon school board.

More here.