From The Telegraph:

A crowd of onlookers gasped as the man – wearing just a pair of flipflops – risked serious injury to capture a stunning shot of the Arizona sunset.

Just minutes earlier the unknown man had been sunbathing on a rock column and even downed a six-pack of beer.

He then tucked his camera and tripod under his arm and leapt across the 8ft gap – grasping hold of the opposing rock face with just one hand.

More here.

Very interesting (at least to me) article from last year by Steven Pinker in The New Republic (if the sight of curse words offends you, do NOT read on):

Fucking became the subject of congressional debate in 2003, after NBC broadcast the Golden Globe Awards. Bono, lead singer of the mega-band U2, was accepting a prize on behalf of the group and in his euphoria exclaimed, “This is really, really, fucking brilliant” on the air. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is charged with monitoring the nation’s airwaves for indecency, decided somewhat surprisingly not to sanction the network for failing to bleep out the word. Explaining its decision, the FCC noted that its guidelines define “indecency” as “material that describes or depicts sexual or excretory organs or activities” and Bono had used fucking as “an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation.”

Cultural conservatives were outraged. California Representative Doug Ose tried to close the loophole in the FCC’s regulations with the filthiest piece of legislation ever considered by Congress…

…The Clean Airwaves Act assumed that fucking is a participial adjective. But this is not correct. With a true adjective like lazy, you can alternate between Drown the lazy cat and Drown the cat which is lazy. But Drown the fucking cat is certainly not interchangeable with Drown the cat which is fucking.

If the fucking in fucking brilliant is to be assigned a traditional part of speech, it would be adverb, because it modifies an adjective and only adverbs can do that, as in truly bad, very nice, and really big. Yet “adverb” is the one grammatical category that Ose forgot to include in his list! As it happens, most expletives aren’t genuine adverbs, either. One study notes that, while you can say That’s too fucking bad, you can’t say That’s too very bad. Also, as linguist Geoffrey Nunberg pointed out, while you can imagine the dialogue How brilliant was it? Very, you would never hear the dialogue How brilliant was it? Fucking.

More here.

Richard D. Kahlenberg in Inside Higher Ed:

Even as Barack Obama became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee last Tuesday, his continuing failure to win white working-class voters clouds his prospects for November. The inability to connect with noncollege educated whites also undercuts his claim to being a truly transformative candidate — a Robert F. Kennedy figure — who could significantly change the direction of the country. In the fall campaign, however, Obama’s suggestion that he may be ready to change the focus of affirmative action policies in higher education — away from race to economic class — could prove pivotal in his efforts to reach working-class whites, and revive the great hopes of Bobby Kennedy’s candidacy.

Affirmative action is a highly charged issue, which most politicians stay away from. But nothing could carry more potent symbolic value with Reagan Democrats than for Obama to end the Democratic Party’s 40 years of support for racial preferences and to argue, instead, for preferences — in college admissions and elsewhere — based on economic status. Obama needs to do something dramatic. Right now, while people inside and outside the Obama campaign are making the RFK comparison, working-class whites aren’t buying it. The results in Tuesday’s Indiana primary are particularly poignant. Obama won handily among black Hoosiers, but lost the non-college educated white vote to Hillary Clinton by 66-34 percent. Forty years earlier, by contrast, Kennedy astonished observers by forging a coalition of blacks and working class whites, the likes of which we have rarely seen since then.

Dave Munger at Cognitive Daily:

Anton races home at speeds well in excess of the speed limit. He’s rushing to beat his parents home so that he can hide their anniversary present so it will be a surprise. Suddenly, he hits a slick patch and runs his car off the road an into a tree. He’s okay, but the car is totaled and his parent’s surprise anniversary party is ruined.

How much is Anton to blame for the accident? If you had to rate it on a scale of 1 to 10, maybe you’d give him a 7. After all, he was just trying to do something special for his parents.

But what if instead of hiding an anniversary present, Anton was rushing home to hide his cocaine stash? Would you now say he’s more to blame for the accident? You might not when the two alternatives are placed side-by-side, but when Mark Alicke told the two versions of this story to different groups, the cocaine group rated Anton as more blameworthy than the anniversary present group.

Alicke’s study provided the foundation for an array of studies on the effects of social evaluations of individuals on apparently unrelated events, and even factual recollections about episodes.

But when a team led by David Pizarro addressed this question, no study had yet shown that unrelated details about a person could literally affect witnesses’ accuracy in recalling that person’s actions.

In the Economist:

The dollar-a-day definition of global destitution made its debut in the bank’s 1990 World Development Report. It was largely the discovery of Martin Ravallion, a researcher at the bank, and two co-authors, who noticed that the national poverty lines of half-a-dozen developing countries clustered around that amount. In two working papers* published this week, Mr Ravallion and two colleagues, Shaohua Chen and Prem Sangraula, revisit the dollar-a-day line in light of the bank’s new estimates of purchasing power. They also provide a new count of China’s poor.

Thanks to American inflation, $1.08 in 1993 was worth about $1.45 in 2005 money. In principle, the researchers could count the number of people living on less than this amount, converted into local money using the bank’s new PPP rates. But $1.45 a day strikes the authors as a bit high. Rather than update their poverty line, they propose to abandon it. It is time, they say, to return to first principles, repeating the exercise Mr Ravallion performed almost two decades ago, using the better, more abundant data available now.

Jeff Sharlet reviews Liberty of Conscience by Martha Nussbaum and Founding Faith Providence, Politics, and the Birth of Religious Freedom in America by Steven Waldman, in The Nation:

Waldman wins his centrist peace by dismissing Christian conservatives’ majoritarian bullying and secularists’ insistence on separation of church and state as “extremes” that can be reconciled by the former acknowledging pluralism and the latter accepting that separation is neither strict nor meant to be universal. Doing so, however, would require fundamentalists to give up the most important claim of their faith–its exclusivity–and secularists to ignore history. Significantly, Waldman pays only brief lip service to an essential development in American law, the principle of incorporation–the Fourteenth Amendment’s extension of the Bill of Rights to the states. Incorporation is the tidiest rebuttal to Justice Thomas’s antebellum legal dreams and Waldman’s contention that the protection of minority views as an essential function of separation is a “liberal fallacy.”

Incorporation, notes Nussbaum, is “settled law.” What’s still in dispute is the meaning of freedom, the value of equality, the ends that can be justified in attempting to achieve both and just what separation is good for, anyway. In other words, it’s all up for grabs. Waldman’s centrism may appear to support a mildly liberal resolution; his book is, in the end, a defense of separation of church and state, very narrowly defined. But by slighting the enduring strength of religious conservatism, suggesting that the right’s partisans and the left’s separationists are evenly matched and assuming that his relatively liberal views are the happy mean, Waldman undermines the case for real religious freedom and liberty of conscience. Founding Faith is one of those books that find friends and enemies on both the left and the right and thus declare themselves balanced, as if freedom and equality were sandwich meats to be weighed on a scale.

…

Morning e-Validation
—how the digital age contributes to self-esteem
Anonymous

I startup my computer,
my hard drive whirs,

Vista lights and loads,
my cursor stirs,

I call up Outlook
and find I’m in the groove,

‘cause ten subjects in my junk-mail
say, “You are approved!””………
…………………………………
………………………………..

A review of Love Marriage by Gail Tsukiyama in Ms. Magazine:

In spare, lyrical prose, V. V. Ganeshananthan’s debut novel tells the story of two Sri Lankan Tamil families over four generations who, despite civil war and displacement, are irrevocably joined by marriage and tradition. At the heart of the story is American-born Yalini, 22, the only child of Tamil immigrants. Her father eventually becomes a doctor, her mother a teacher; they make their new life in the United States. Even so, Yalini feels bound to “the laws of ancestry and society.”

Born during “Black July” of 1983, the beginning of the civil war between the Tamil and Sinhalese, Yalini is haunted by Sri Lanka’s political turmoil, caught between the political and social traditions of her ancestors and the modern world in which she lives. She can’t forget that in a Sri Lankan family there are only two ways to wed, in an Arranged Marriage or a Love Marriage, even though she knows that “in reality, there is a whole spectrum in between, but most of us spend years running away from the first toward the second.”

Uncertain what to do with her life, Yalini takes time off from school and travels to Toronto to help her parents care for her dying Uncle Kumaran, her mother’s older brother, who immigrated to Canada.

More here.

From Nature:

Your stomach may truly have a mind of its own. A tiny area of the brain may switch sleep schedules to match up with mealtimes. It’s been known for a long time that nocturnal creatures such as mice and bats flip their sleep schedules if food is only available during the day. But finding the parts of the brain responsible for the switch has proved difficult.

In a paper published today in Science, a team led by Clifford Saper from Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts suggests they have found the region of the brain responsible for the sleep-rhythm adjustment — a clump of cells known as the dorsomedial hypothalamic nucleus (DMH). This region sits close to the area of the brain that manages ordinary circadian responses to light and dark. The study shows that mice lacking a particular gene that acts in the DMH do not adjust to changes in feeding schedule. Reinstating the gene restored the behaviour.

More here.

our own J.M. Tyree on his novel in progress, Wandering Stars…

The huge anxiety of the day was the Y2K Computer Crisis, truly one of the great non-events of all time, recent history’s best joke. Remember how banks were supposed to fail, missiles would be launched by accident, airplanes would fall out of the sky, and all the rest of it? I picture people in pickups furtively raiding their local Sam’s Club throughout December (how many pallets of canned food would be enough?). I remember my own bathtub, filled to the brim on the night of the 31st, lying stagnant and warm on the morning of the 1st (what good would it have done?). The Rough Guide to the Millennium (1998) lists the following Things that might go haywire on January 1, 2000: “air traffic control systems, bar code readers, electronic bank vaults, cars, hospital equipment, military hardware, satellite receivers, telephones.” One prescient family I knew prepared for the apocalypse by investing in a stockpile of Animal Crackers, one enormous plastic barrel to get them through the end times. Nothing happened. Perhaps we really were invincible and perhaps David Bowie was right when he sang that God was an American.

Yes, everyone was dreaming of the wrong catastrophe. Of course we were all fools. But what an empire of sleepwalking! Gentle Reader, would you not take the chance to relive those days? It seems to me that such time travels might be similar to brushing past the proverbial angel with the flaming sword and gaining re-entry to the Garden. I was dreaming when I wrote this, forgive me if it goes astray…

more from Esquire here.

What should be made of the conservatism of artists such as Walton Ford and Neo Rauch, who are subjects of shows of new work in Chelsea right now?

The art world that prizes these men’s work is a self-consciously cutting-edge milieu that is far removed from political conservatism, and yet these artists’ success is thanks in no small measure to bravura displays of skill in traditional idioms, to a fond nostalgia for past worlds that produced such styles and the competence to execute them.

Pictures by Mr. Ford in particular would feel at home in a wood-paneled gentleman’s club, amid brandy, cigars, leather-bound volumes, even if right now they are to be seen in a well-lit white-cube art gallery that betokens very different cultural values.

more from the NY Sun here.

Any biography of this man was bound to contain accounts of bad behaviour, arrogance and self-pity. There is an absurd moment, when typing out A House for Mr Biswas, when he wound tape around his fingers – “So painful, the typing”. There used, in those days, to be little rubber thimbles, purchasable for a few pence, to guard against this hazard of the typist’s life, but he preferred to murmur, Job-like, “So painful, the typing”. Many will gasp at his persistent verbal cruelties – “You have no skill”, he snarls at the long-suffering Pat who is retyping his horrifying novel Guerrillas: “You don’t behave like a writer’s wife. You behave like the wife of a clerk who has risen above his station”.

Naturally, as Naipaul grew older, the bad behaviour grew to crescendos. But there is often a lordliness about it which some, such as I, may find redeems it. Two examples, one minor and one major: the minor – when he was first introduced to Auberon Waugh and was asked, “May I call you Vidia?”. His reply, worthy of Evelyn Waugh himself was: “No, as we’ve just met, I would rather you called me Mr Naipaul”; the second, which would win a prize for bad behaviour, but is also hugely comic, was his inability to inform Margaret, his mistress of long standing, that he had decided to remarry when Pat died of cancer. He sent his tall, mysterious literary agent, “Gillon Aitken to sort out the mess, taking the concept of agency to new lengths”.

more from the TLS here.

Over at the Lede:

For readers interested in contributing to help victims of the cyclone in Myanmar, here is a list of contact information and links for some agencies that plan to provide relief. The New York Times does not certify the charities’ fund allocations or administrative costs. More information about giving, for this and other causes, is available online from the GuideStar database on nonprofit agencies.

ACTION AGAINST HUNGER

247 West 37th Street, 10th Floor
New York, NY
U.S.A. 10018
(212) 967-7800

AMERICARES

88 Hamilton Avenue
Stamford, Conn. 06902
(800) 486-4357

Mark Goldberg and Julia Spiegel at bloggingheads (also see this paper by John Prendergast and Julia Spiegel):

Sumantra Bose in openDemocracy:

The global controversy over Kosovo has aroused much excitement among aspirants to self-determination worldwide, and, concurrently, considerable alarm in capitals where such state-seeking movements are a long-term headache, from Ottawa and Madrid to Delhi and Beijing (see Fred Halliday, “Tibet, Palestine, and the politics of failure“, 9 May 2008). But both the excitement and the alarm are unwarranted.

The position of the United States and most of its major allies on this matter does not signal the emergence of a more general permissiveness towards self-determination claims among these influential players in the international system (at the other end of the spectrum, Russia’s position on Kosovo is determined by the Kremlin’s decision to promote a muscular foreign policy in Europe and Eurasia; remote and peripheral Kosovo is merely a pawn in that strategy). So while the Ahtisaari plan describes Kosovo as “a unique case that demands a unique solution”, its recommendation of “independence, to be supervised for an initial period by the international community”, can be characterised as a nearly unique solution to a not particularly unique case.

And that is where the espousal by most of “the west” of Kosovo’s independence throws up some troubling questions.

Randal Jelks over at the Immanent Frame:

The East Coast media establishment—both “conservatives” and “liberals”—continue to ask the same question about Senator Barack Obama: why did he keep his membership at Trinity United Church of Christ, where the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the pastor? The question is asked as though Obama is naïve and Wright is a madman, neither of which is true. But what I find rather more amusing, or perhaps alarming—at least from a religious perspective—is that most of the media personalities who ask this question appear to have never belonged to any kind of religious community themselves. And this is, to a large extent, why there is so much misunderstanding about the relationship between Obama and Wright.

Senator Obama attended Trinity United Church of Christ not simply because of Reverend Wright, but in order to belong to a religious community that offered both the promise of personal community and a transcendent vision—a vision of how people who profess a belief in God through Jesus Christ should live together in service to one another and to those around them. That vision of community came through the organizational, oratorical, and musical talents of the church’s senior pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

Richard Ingham in Cosmos:

“In the field of AIDS, a huge number of mistakes have been made over the past 25 years,” sighs a leading French researcher, Olivier Schwartz of the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

On the plus side, the men and women in lab coats made good headway against HIV. They provided an arsenal of drugs that, with the advent of the triple “cocktail” of antiretrovirals in the mid-1990s, have helped turn HIV from a death sentence to a manageable disease.

But there is still no vaccine, for the virus has turned out to be an unimaginably slippery, mutating foe – quite possibly the most elusive pathogen to have emerged in human history. Attempts to make an HIV-thwarting vaginal gel, or microbicide, have been similarly frustrating.

Thus, in the 21^st century, the main shield against HIV is the rubber condom, invented in the 19^th century – or sexual abstention, which is timeless.

Then there was catastrophic delay, among politicians, policymakers, religious leaders and the public too, about rooting out the taboo, stigma, myth and complacency in which AIDS proliferates.

This work still remains dangerously incomplete.

Don Gorman talks to Shiela Jasanoff, professor of Science and Public Policy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, in Seed:

Seed: How have you seen the campaigns responding to this surge of political engagement from the American science community?

SJ: Senator Hillary Clinton took the opportunity of the 50th anniversary of the launch of Sputnik to speak at the Carnegie Institution of Washington about what she’d do for science. She said she would restore the integrity of science in Washington, and lift the stem cell funding ban. Clearly her handlers thought from the start that an important speech about science would be an astute and salient thing to do.Seed: How would you advise the incoming administration on science’s engagement with the democratic process?

SJ: I think the challenge is about democratizing science itself: that is, bringing a sense of democracy back into the ways in which we develop and do science in society. I would say that’s the big challenge for the new administration.

Seed: So you’re suggesting that it’s science, rather than government, that isn’t open and democratic enough?

SJ: We should be thoroughly concerned about aspects of our lives that are being planned and designed in invisible places by experts who we don’t know how to interrogate. We don’t have a delegation or representation where these kinds of ideas are being generated and when decisions are being made. We need better democracy in science.

From The Telegraph:

She thinks much of her own character was informed by the war, through her parents. Without it, she might not have been writer, not had what Graham Greene said all writers must have, a chip of ice in her heart. ‘Well, I’ve often thought about it. I was born out of the First World War. My father’s rage at the trenches took me over when I was young and never left. It is as if that old war is in my own memory; my own consciousness. It gave me a terrible sense of foreboding, a belief that things could never be ordinary and decent, but always doom-ridden. The Great War squatted over my childhood. The trenches were as present to me as anything I actually saw around me. And my parents never passed up an opportunity to make me feel miserable about the past. I find that war sitting on me the older I get, the weight of it. How was it possible that we allowed this monstrous war? Why do we allow wars still? Now we are bogged down in Iraq in an impossible situation. I’ll be pleased when I’m dead. That will let me off worrying about all these wars.’

It is an extraordinarily comment, delivered in a matter-of-fact voice. And it reminds me of something she writes in Alfred & Emily: ‘You can be with old people and never suspect that whole continents of experience are there, just behind those ordinary faces.’ In Lessing’s case, you could never guess from her small but kind eyes that she hated her mother.

More here.

From Science:

In a stroke of unprecedented good luck, an international team of astronomers has caught a stellar explosion called supernova at the very beginning of the blast. Although the spectacular deaths of massive stars have been well-studied, astronomers have never been able to observe one any sooner than a few days after its beginning.

The supernova called 2008D neatly and surprisingly solved such problems for its discoverers, led by astrophysicist Alicia Soderberg of Princeton University. On 9 January, she and her colleagues were using the x-ray telescope aboard NASA’s Swift spacecraft to observe a month-old supernova called 2007uy, located in a galaxy called NGC 2770, nearly 90 million light-years away. Suddenly, a blinding light appeared elsewhere in the galaxy, and Soderberg and her colleagues immediately recognized it was the beginning of an entirely new supernova. They contacted colleagues across the United States and seven other countries, who quickly trained eight more telescopes and arrays on the event. In Nature tomorrow, the 43-member team reports that the characteristics of the x-ray burst they detected and then studied for 30 days conforms exactly–in terms of the brightness of the radiation, its precise rate of dimming, and the speed with which debris traveled through the galaxy–to what astronomers had been assuming for decades about the shock wave of a supernova blowing apart the outer layers of a star. They detected no gamma rays associated with the blast, confirming another prediction of the models.

More here.