Colbert on White House Press

April 30th, 2006 by Pocoju

Crooks and Liars
Watch this! So funny (if you’re at all familiar with white house press briefings…)

Was he snubbed?

Stephen Colbert spoke tonight at the dinner and lampooned pretty much everything he could think of and Helen Thomas. I used the second half of his performance because it included the Generals, Scalia, the Faux press briefing and as E&P reported:

“As he walked from the podium the president and First Lady gave Colbert quick nods, unsmiling, and left. E&P’s Joe Strupp, in the crowd, observed that quite a few felt the material was, perhaps, uncomfortably biting.”

Video-WMP (low res) Video QT (it’s a big file)

“Colbert complained that he was “surrounded by the liberal media who are destroying this country, except for Fox News. Fox believes in presenting both sides-the president’s side and the vice president’s side.”

He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, as well as ” Valerie Plame.” Then, pretending to be worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, “Uh, I mean… Joseph Wilson’s wife.” He asserted that it might be okay, as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was probably not there.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Why Did The President Repeatedly Refuse To Kill Zarqawi?

April 30th, 2006 by Pocoju

Daily Kos: Why Did The President Repeatedly Refuse To Kill Zarqawi?
Wow

Frank Rich wrote in the New York Times that “[e]ach week brings new confirmation” that the Downing Street Memo was accurate. Today, we see yet another confirmation that this administration was hellbent on invading Iraq, rather than really fighting terrorists:

[Former US spy Mike Scheuer] claims that a July 2002 plan to destroy [Zarqawi’s training camp] lapsed because “it was more important not to give the Europeans the impression we were gunslingers”.

“Mr Bush had Zarqawi in his sights almost every day for a year before the invasion of Iraq and he didn’t shoot because they were wining and dining the French in an effort to get them to assist us in the invasion of Iraq,” he told Four Corners.

“Almost every day we sent a package to the White House that had overhead imagery of the house he was staying in. It was a terrorist training camp . . . experimenting with ricin and anthrax . . . any collateral damage there would have been terrorists.”

Rumsfeld and administration officials (including the President) repeatedly pointed to the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq as “evidence” of a Saddam-al Qaeda link (nevermind that Saddam Hussein was himself viewed Zarqawi as a threat and was trying to capture him).

If the President killed Zarqawi, he would have killed the ability to falsely link Saddam and al Qaeda and convince the American people that war was a necessary response to 9/11.

So, not only is the President not concerned about Osama bin Laden, but he also let Zarqawi roam free to bolster his case for war. How dare this administration and its supporters now point to our dissent as “hurting the war on terror” or to our call for an exit strategy as aiding the terrorists.

All along, the evidence has pointed to one man as “hurting the war on terror”: the President of the United States himself.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Obsession and stalking

April 30th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist Archive - Features - Love special: Obsession and stalking

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Secrets of long-term love

April 30th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist Features - Love special: Secrets of long-term love

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

How to pick a perfect mate

April 30th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist Features - Love special: How to pick a perfect mate:

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

What is this thing called love?

April 29th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist Features - Love special: What is this thing called love?

We can now look inside brains to view their patterns of activity, measure biochemical changes that take place in different forms of love, explore diverse human experiences of love, and look for the evolutionary roots of love in other animals.

If the different forms of love have any common evolutionary beginning, where should we look? Maternal love seems a good place to start. Of all the forms of love, none seems as deep, strong, selfless or enduring as the love of a mother for her child, nor is any other bond so ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. Biologically this bond makes perfect sense. In any animal that must provide care for newborn offspring to survive, the bond is essential if that mother’s genes are to be passed on to the next generation.
“Of all forms of love, none seems as enduring as the love of a mother for her child”

How is that bond created? Much of what we know about the brain chemistry of bonding comes from studies of rodents. Whether they feel “love” we cannot say, but they will bitterly defend their young. This tendency seems directly triggered by motherhood: virgin female rats, or even pregnant ones, will avoid or attack pups, but just before giving birth their behaviour changes profoundly.

What makes newborn infants so special to their mothers? The critical link turns out to be the hormone oxytocin. Late in pregnancy, raised levels of oestrogen boost the number of receptors for oxytocin in parts of the brain. During birth, the physical stimulation of labour triggers the release of oxytocin and when the hormone hits those receptors it causes the mother to become addicted to those pups and their particular smell. “Addicted” might seem like a strong word, but the process of bonding to the newborn pups involves powerful activation of a system that carries reward information around the brain. It is this same dopamine reward circuit that can be artificially stimulated by drugs like cocaine and heroin.

The reward circuits originate near the base of the brain in the ventral tegmental area (VTA). Nerve fibres from here connect to the front of the brain, most importantly to the nucleus accumbens that lies just beneath the frontal cortex, where they release the neurotransmitter dopamine. Ultimately, it is in the cortex that reward information is coordinated with emotions and memories and where, in humans, subjective feelings are created, but it is the VTA that sends on the key information about the value of an activity and helps stamp it into memory.

Oxytocin and vasopressin certainly seem important in human love. When Andreas Bartels and Semir Zeki at University College London scanned the brains of couples who had been together for several years while they looked at a picture of their partner, they found that activity rose in just those parts of the brain that are rich in receptors for these two hormones.

Oxytocin levels rise during orgasm in women and sexual arousal in men, as they do from touching and massage. Oxytocin also boosts trust, which is an important step in developing a loving relationship. In a laboratory investment game devised by neuro-economist Ernst Fehr at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, almost half the people playing the role of “investors” would hand over all their money to an anonymous trustee, with no guarantee of its return, if they sniffed an oxytocin spray beforehand.

At its height, romantic love certainly does seem to set the brain on fire. Helen Fisher’s team at Rutgers University scanned the brains of couples who were newly in love while they gazed at photos of their sweethearts. Activity soars in the brain’s reward system. That results, Fisher says, in “fierce energy, concentrated motivation to attain a reward, and feelings of elation, even mania - the core feelings of romantic love.”

Other areas linked with negative emotions and assessing other people’s intentions switch off. And they switch off too when mothers look at pictures of their babies. No wonder that love is blind and to love someone is, as François Mauriac wrote, “to be the only one to see a miracle invisible to others” (see a comic strip explaining what really goes on inside the brains of lovers, 200k file).

Not everything is the same in romantic and maternal love. Romantic love also includes activation of the hypothalamus, where the sex hormone testosterone is produced. Lust, the sexual part of love, is, unsurprisingly, switched on in romantic love but not in maternal love.

Overall, then, science tends to confirm what human experience teaches. The various forms of love - maternal, pair-bonded and romantic - are biologically related and have neurochemical circuitry in common.

But what about an even wider form of love - the religious love for God and humankind? Love that extends to strangers, outcasts and even to enemies, is central to the Christian message. Other religions stress love and compassion for fellow creatures too and Buddhism in particular has developed meditative practices intended to develop these feelings.

….

First results also show that Tibetan Buddhist monks have unusual brain activity when they meditate on loving compassion: Richard Davidson at the University of Wisconsin-Madison found exceptionally high levels of integrated electrical activity during mediation, especially in the right prefrontal cortex. Curiously enough, separate experiments have shown that areas of the prefrontal cortex also light up when a mother gazes at a picture of her child.

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Six ways to woo your lover

April 29th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist Features - Love special: Six ways to woo your lover:

From issue 2549 of New Scientist magazine, 27 April 2006, page 46

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Gravity: Were Newton and Einstein wrong?

April 29th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist SPACE - Features - Gravity: Were Newton and Einstein wrong?:

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Love and Possesion

April 29th, 2006 by Pocoju

New Scientist Features - Love special: If I can’t have you…:
The idea here is that a certain amount of possessiveness is necessary for a relationship to be successful. It shows that you are invested in your partner. It are the extremes of it, a lack or an excess, that cause problems.

Claims that romantic love is a recent cultural invention and that sexual jealousy is unknown in exotic societies are Eurocentric fantasies that have been debunked by anthropologists. Love and jealousy are universal across cultures - and across social strata. Sexual jealousy manifests itself as continued absorption with the beloved, specifically when commitment shows signs of waning. A lover’s jealousy thus has a curious status: while it can be threatening, its absence may be interpreted as a different sort of threat, namely that your lover has no interest in your fidelity because he has no deep, abiding interest in you.

Of course, male sexual jealousy is usually not lethal, and it is often effective in stopping wives straying. Does this mean that violence against romantic partners is ineradicable? Certainly not. Large cross-cultural differences in wife-beating and uxoricide prove that although possessive sentiments may be ubiquitous aspects of the male-female relationship, violence need not be.
From issue 2549 of New Scientist magazine, 29 April 2006, page 41

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

The War On Terror is a Positive Feedback Loop

April 29th, 2006 by Pocoju

Daily Kos: About that War on Terror…:
No surprises here; terrorism is up since we invaded Iraq.

Bad news always hits late on Friday.

WASHINGTON — The State Department’s annual report on global terrorism, released Friday, concludes that the number of reported terrorist incidents and deaths has increased exponentially in the three years since the United States invaded Iraq, largely because of Iraq itself.

The report also said that although the United States had made some gains in fighting terrorism, Al Qaeda and its affiliate groups remained a grave threat to U.S. national security at home and abroad — both in Iraq and elsewhere.

Of potentially greater concern, the government said, is mounting evidence that small, autonomous cells and individuals are becoming more active. Such “micro-actors” are engaging in more suicide bombings, and using increasingly sophisticated technologies to communicate, organize and plot their attacks, including the Internet, satellite communications and international commerce, according to the 292-page report. . . .

The report said there were 11,111 attacks that caused 14,602 deaths in 2005. Those figures stand in contrast to prior State Department reports, which cited 208 terrorist attacks that caused 625 deaths in 2003; and 3,168 attacks that caused 1,907 deaths in 2004.

The State Department is quick to stress that they have expanded the definition of terror, which accounts for the dramatic increase in reported attacks. However they choose to spin this, it’s obvious that the Iraq Debacle has had one dramatic effect on terrorism. It’s made it much worse. I’m with Rep. Henry Waxman.

“For the third year in a row, the Bush administration is playing games with the numbers to hide the truth: Global terrorism has skyrocketed since the invasion of Iraq.”

Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

« Previous Entries