The Missing Link?

Today, in a special news conference in New York, scientists unveiled the fossil of a 47 million year old monkey they claim is the missing link between primates and humans. The fossil, named Ida, was found 25 years ago in Germany.

The article's author states, "With her human-like nails instead of claws, and opposable big toes, she is placed at the very root of human evolution when early primates first developed features that would eventually develop into our own.

Another important discovery is the shape of the talus bone in her foot, which humans still have in their feet millions of lifetimes later."

It certainly sounds intriguing. The following excerpt from the article explains the evolutionary period in which this specimen lived: "47 million years ago in the Eocene period...this was when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America.

During that period, the first whales, horses, bats and monkeys emerged, and the early primates branched into two groups - one group lived on mainly as lemurs, and the second developed into monkeys, apes and humans.

The experts concluded Ida was not simply a lemur but a 'lemur monkey', displaying a mixture of both groups, and therefore putting her at the very branch of the human line."

To me, it sounds like the scientists have determined not only that lemurs and monkeys were related, but that monkeys and humans are directly linked. If that is the case, I think the true missing link would be one that could show the transition from monkey to human, if there is one to be found. All Ida shows is that there was a transition from lemurs to monkeys. Hardly the missing link, as far as I'm concerned. Regardless, this will add a new element to, and heat up, the evolution vs. creation argument.

Naivety, Thy Name Is Obama

President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today, and the two talked about the various problems in the Middle East. As expected, the bulk of the conversation dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the problems with Iran.

Netanyahu said that "he was ready to resume peace talks with the Palestinians immediately but said any agreement depended on their acceptance of Israel's right to exist."

I can accept that, because it makes sense. Why should the Palestinian state issue be a one-way street? Israel is the one with the country, after all; the Palestinians can't dictate to them what they want or should get. Netanyahu did not, however, "say he was ready to negotiate a so-called two-state solution" with the Palestinians. The two-state solution calls for the creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel, and is supported by the US and a number of other countries. Again, this goes back to the Palestinians and the need for them to stop wanting to destroy Israel. The Palestinians have the Gaza strip, essentially their own territory, already; it's not Israel's fault that the Palestinians elected Hamas as their governing body. Israel must defend itself, first and foremost. An official Palestinian state is secondary. If the Palestinians can stop Hamas and the other resident terrorists from attacking Israelis on a regular basis, they may have a case for their own state. Right now it appears they can't handle the responsibility.

Concerning Iran, President Obama said, "he expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year. The president said the United States wanted to bring Iran into the world community, but declared 'we're not going to have talks forever.'"

I think Obama is overestimating his persuasive abilities here. The leadership of Iran has shown absolutely no interest in anything the international community has to say concerning what they should do with their nuclear program. They've been doing the same thing for years, pushing hard to develop a nuke while at the same time saying they are doing peaceful research. There have been no consequences, so why should they stop now because another politician asked them to?

Also, "Obama declared a readiness to seek deeper international sanctions against the Islamic Republic if it shunned U.S. attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Washington and many key allies contend Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapon.

'The important thing is to make sure there is a clear timetable, at which point we say these talks don't seem to be making any clear progress,' Obama said. 'If that hasn't taken place I think the international community will see that it's ... Iran itself that is isolating themselves.'"

Let me break that down for you: "We'll go to the UN if you don't do what we're asking, and they may issue a statement of condemnation or implement minor sanctions against you. Furthermore, if the talks aren't making any headway, there isn't much we can do, but Iran will have isolated itself even further, which makes absolutely no difference to their nuclear program."

So Obama "expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year." Wasn't it a little over a year ago when intelligence analysts said Iran was about two years away from having a nuke? So, that's one year past already, and Obama is giving them until the end of this year, so...1 year + 1 year = ? It sounds to me like we're going to keep talking and talking until Iran has a nuke, and then instead of simply talking about the "what if," we'll be talking about the "what now?"

Talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Talk to Iran tomorrow. Give them one month to cease all work on the nuclear program, begin dismantling what they have done so far, and allow UN inspectors in to verify the progress. Don't like it? Witness the implementation of harsh sanctions, and Israel, you have the go-ahead to take out the nuke development site(s). Have a good day, Iran.

What is so difficult about this? Doesn't the old saying go, "those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it?" You don't have to look very far into the past to learn that Iran isn't going to stop because you asked them to. Get with the program, people!

Biden Reveals Location of VP's Secret Bunker

You can always count on Joe Biden to say something stupid whenever he opens his mouth. This time it wasn't asking a handicapped man to stand up, or opining that people shouldn't take public transportation during the flu outbreak, however. This time he revealed the location of the secret bunker most recently used by VP Cheney, which is under the Naval Observatory, on whose grounds is the home to Vice Presidents past and PRESENT. Now he, or any other VP, won't be able to use the bunker, the "secret undisclosed location," anymore.

How idiotic do you have to be to let your political mindset dictate what you do, especially when it comes to matters of security in an emergency? What possible good can come of revealing the location? Does Biden want it to be turned into a museum? That's about the only thing we can do with the bunker now; since everyone knows where it's at, the protective value of the bunker is essentially nil. My question is, will another bunker have to be constructed, and if so, how many tax dollars will it take? Why should we have to pay for another politician's stupidity?

And, of course, Biden couldn't go without taking a shot at the Bush administration:

"He said the young naval officer giving him a tour of the residence showed him the hideaway, which is behind a massive steel door secured by an elaborate lock with a narrow connecting hallway lined with shelves filled with communications equipment. The officer explained that when Cheney was in lock down, this was where his most trusted aides were stationed, an image that Biden conveyed in a way that suggested we shouldn’t be surprised that the policies that emerged were off the wall."

Policies that were "off the wall?" Does he think policies were being made from inside the bunker? I'm pretty sure the policies were already in place, and furthermore, what was so "off the wall" about them? They helped keep us safe for almost eight years. The only thing that sounds "off the wall" to me is what comes out of Joe Biden's mouth.