They went that a way... Inappropriate Response is an ex-blog. We can now be found over at Progressive Reaction, to which the moirabreen.com domain name will soon redirect.

Universal parody parity policy. A Mr. Shawn Hampton, of Colorado Springs, tells the BBC "Have Your Say" forum that

"All debt should be cancelled for developing countries, and it is high time that we do away with the concept to rich and poor and strive for world-wide economic parody."

Preach it, brother! For years, I've been trying to convince M. that our household economy isn't nearly parodic enough, but the stonefaced killjoy insists that books be balanced, bills be paid. Faugh!

Oh, and by the way, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. I changed the background and links colors to leave the blog more festive and unreadably ugly than ever. Enjoy. And one final linklet to add to your holiday cheer - Peter Briffa resolves all those thorny ethical questions surrounding euthanasia. Thanks, Peter.

Anyway, I'll return to these parts in January, after the 6th.

this is a test top line here

More pre-Clovis dates. Fascinating new datum supporting much earlier human habitation of North America:

Radiocarbon tests of carbonized plant remains where artifacts were unearthed last May along the Savannah River in Allendale County by University of South Carolina archaeologist Dr. Albert Goodyear indicate that the sediments containing these artifacts are at least 50,000 years old, meaning that humans inhabited North American long before the last ice age.

The findings are significant because they suggest that humans inhabited North America well before the last ice age more than 20,000 years ago, a potentially explosive revelation in American archaeology. [...]

"The dates could actually be older," Goodyear says. "Fifty-thousand should be a minimum age since there may be little detectable activity left."

UPDATE: Here's a little more from CNN. Excerpt:

If true, the find represents a revelation for scientists studying how humans migrated to the Americas.[...] "It poses some real problems trying to explain how you have people (arriving) in Central Asia almost at the same time as people in the Eastern United States," said Theodore Schurr, anthropology professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a curator at the school's museum.

"You almost have to hope for instantaneous expansion...We're talking about a very rapid movement of people around the globe."

Schurr said that conclusive evidence of stone tools similar to those in the old world and uncontaminated radiocarbon dating samples would be needed to verify the findings as old as 50,000 years ago.

"If dating is confirmed, then it really does have a significant impact on our previous understanding of New World colonization," he said. [...]

University of Wisconsin at Madison professor, geologist Thomas Stafford, said that the shocking results would shake scientists' theories about human development, but would lead to new ideas.

"It's a slow process," he said. "You have preconceived ideas...Until someone rocks the boat, you really don't think about something new."

UPDATE II: Nice overview from the Christian Science Monitor.

Please write. I'm pleased to see that the Washington Post is covering the attempted stealth amendment to NAGPRA. The reporter, Guy Gigliotta, gets the issues straight:

After eight years of bitter controversy, the ultimate fate of the ancient hunter known as Kennewick Man may hinge on a quiet attempt by outgoing Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell to change "is" to "is, or was."

Campbell (R-Colo.) is sponsoring a bill innocuously titled "Native Americans Technical Corrections Act of 2004," which proposes in Section 14 to amend the definition of Native American in a 1990 law requiring the repatriation of remains to modern indigenous tribes.

Instead of defining Native American as "of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States," the law would read "is, or was indigenous to the United States."

Scientists intent on studying the Kennewick remains say the bill, if passed, would effectively overturn an appeals court ruling allowing their research to go forward and instead cede control of the bones to a coalition of four northwestern tribes that want to rebury them. [...]

"There's so much at stake," said National Museum of Natural History anthropologist Doug Owsley, one of the eight internationally known scientists seeking access to the remains. "It is unfortunate that they're trying to slip this in under disguise. It should be done in open discussion."

Campbell's office is being disingenuous:

Campbell's office says the bill's passage -- which could occur by voice vote during Congress's lame-duck session -- does not necessarily mean that the Kennewick remains will be off-limits, only that Native American remains and artifacts may be linked to tribes or clans that no longer exist.

For the Kennewick bones to be handed over for reburial, Campbell's office says, the four tribes still must show not only that Kennewick Man "is, or was" Native American, but also that he has a "cultural affiliation" to the modern-day tribes seeking his remains.

Yeah, right. Access to culturally affiliated artifacts and remains is already guaranteed under NAGPRA as it is now written. Since the four tribes, through protracted litigation, have been unable to demonstrate any affiliation to the Kennewick remains, one has to ask from where that "not necessarily" is conjured, if "was" changes nothing of import.

Supporters of the amendment also expand on the tactic of ignoring the substance of the controversy and maintaining that the debate is all about their ancestors (not what it is actually about: "whose ancestors? and "who were these people?"). Note that the particular reference below is to "the" ancestors rather than "our", but that this indicates no change in claims to primacy in all cases:

For the Native American tribes, the Campbell amendment, as well as the original 1990 law, has a purpose that goes beyond Kennewick: to give indigenous people the first voice in how ancestral remains will be treated.

"We're not opposed to science -- we're not Luddites," said Audie Huber, acting natural resources director for the Umatilla Tribes and spokesman for the Umatilla, Yakama, Nez Perce and Colville tribes, who seek control of the Kennewick remains.

"The authority over the graves of the ancestors has to end up in someone's hands," Huber said. "The problem is that the tribes have always been the ones that have been forced to compromise."

Unfortunately, this constantly repeated attempt to move the focus back to that question-begging "our", and away from the real issues, is often successful with reporters and readers.

(Related links.)

Springfield demographics. I'd say most of this is pretty accurate, but I'm not buying that small-business owner Apu votes Democratic. And Krusty - wasn't he at the meeting of the evil Republican cabal once? As for Bart - oh c'mon. That little thug will definitely vote Republican when he grows up.

"Vote today and vote joyfully." I admit I have harbored partisan vitriol, though I hope I have the self-knowledge to recognize it for what it is - unworthy - and the self-control to sequester it and refrain from expressing it. Oh, I've passed the equinoctial line on occasion in public. The spouse surely gets an earful now and again, and I can really get rolling when my brother calls and we egg each other on. But a spouse is a spouse, and one of the joys of sibling-hood is the opportunity, even into middle and old age, to figuratively hang out again, eternally ten years old, way up in the branches of the oak tree, smoking purloined Camel cigarettes, completely relaxed in one's opinions and attitudes.

But there is the private self and there is the public self, and the ten year old must be left behind when we venture out into the public square - especially on Election Day, when we should take particular care to be (in the words my daughter uses to describe that which is fitting in dress and behavior) "crisp and correct". To make ourselves worthy to the past and the future, as Orrin Judd outlines in fine post this rainy election morn:

When we go to the polls today we will add one more stone to the long wall that our forefathers built up before us and which our children will certainly keep adding to long after we're gone. It is a privilege that should humble us and for which we must be grateful. It is a trust that's been handed down and that we're obligated to hand on in turn. [...]

No one likes to lose, but to get ourselves crazy over a process that's this natural and of this duration is profoundly unhealthy. We hope and believe that Mr. Bush will win, but have to remain cognizant of the entirely understandable reasons that he might not. As Eric Hoffer put it:

Free men are aware of the imperfection inherent in human affairs, and they are willing to fight and die for that which is not perfect. They know that basic human problems can have no final solutions, that our freedom, justice, equality, etc. are far from absolute, and that the good life is compounded of half measures, compromises, lesser evils, and gropings toward the perfect. The rejection of approximations and the insistence on absolutes are the manifestation of a nihilism that loathes freedom, tolerance, and equity.

Mr. Kerry and his supporters are free men as surely as we and we're all in this grope together.

Today is not a day for partisan passion or knots in the stomach, not a day to whip yourself into a frenzy about the nation going to heck in a handcart if your guy loses, but a day to marvel at what we have here, the Republic blessed by Providence and kept by millions of hands and hearts and minds since 1789. Vote today and vote joyfully, for we are a people too favored by fortune to ever take lightly this gift, that we get to be those little men in the little booths making the crosses that determine who gets to represent us.

I am fortunate in that my little corner of the heartland, as far as I've observed, has been untainted by shrillness and nastiness. This is Iowa, after all. I'm not annoyed at all by the barrage of "please vote Kerry" calls I've been getting in the last few days. (Kerry only, oddly. I'm registered as an Independent; I suspect the Bushies have written off the university town I live in.) Not annoyed at all, because the polite, pleasant voices at the end of the line betray no anger or fanaticism, but rather radiate optimism, civic virtue, and faith in the democratic process.

Long live the Republic.

Voting Casa Fleck y Breen. I endorse this endorsement.

I went in for early voting (for Chimpy McDeath, if you didn't follow the link), hoping that would get the bad taste of this election out of my mouth. Didn't work. Nor did I keep my resolution to ignore all political news for a week after voting. I'm not taking it as hard as the Fleckster, though, who will go to the polls on election day with death in his heart. "I know what this is all about", he says, "God is punishing me for making fun of all those Nader voters 4 years ago".

No surprise here. I received a copy of the World Archeological Congress's endorsement of Senator Nighthorse Campbell's amendment to NAGPRA. There is nothing surprising about the content of this press release; its signer, Claire Smith, current president of the Congress, offered this scholarly judgment on the Kennewick case:

I am proud that one of our first resolutions called for the return of bones of the 9,600 year old Kennewick man to the local Native American tribes. This Congress is the first time scientists have banded together to support these Indigenous people on the issue of respectful treatment of the mortal remains of their dead."

Now, if you follow this blog, you will notice immediately the sleight of hand being practiced in the above two sentences. Not only is the whole controversy over "whose dead?" completely swept aside, it insinuates that those scientists wishing to study K-man are against "indigenous peoples" having rights to their own dead.

Unsurprisingly, the same stunt is pulled in this press release:

President of WAC, Dr Claire Smith, stated "The respectful treatment of the mortal remains of the dead is a fundamental human rights issue. We need to recognise and acknowledge the special significance of Indigenous ancestral remains to Indigenous peoples. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that human remains are assumed to be Native American if they pre-date the documented arrival of European explorers. This change is consistent with the spirit of the original NAGPRA legislation and is simple good sense."

Astonishing, no? "We need to recognise and acknowledge the special significance of Indigenous ancestral remains to Indigenous peoples." Leaving aside the bizarrely patronizing generalizations about what is or is not of special significance to "Indigenous" peoples, who disagrees that people ought to deal with their dead as they see fit? But is there a sentence left out between this sentence and the one that follows it in the above quote? Because it surely is a whopping non sequitur: "The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that human remains are assumed to be Native American if they pre-date the documented arrival of European explorers." One assumes Dr. Smith has put her name to this release in her role as a scholar and a scientist. However, I'm at a loss to understand how this means anything at all in a context of science and scholarship. Read outside of that context, it is, of course, perfectly lucid. But what scholar could assent to such an "assumption", much less its codification into law? (As an aside, what exactly qualifies one as "Indigenous"? Do they all think alike? Or is it certain beliefs about human remains that separate the "Indigenous" from the merely "indigenous"?)

I put the text of the release, fiskatorily unrendered, in the extended entry, if you're interested, but will comment on a couple more things:

"Claims by some scientists that this amendment has the potential to cripple the field of physical anthropology are irresponsible scare-mongering," said Dr Smith. "Physical anthropology has been successfully done for the past 14 years under NAGPRA and this amendment will not change this practice in any way.

I will note only that Dr. Smith, as far as I can discern, is not a physical anthropologist, and that the American Association of Physical Anthropologists sees things differently. Continuing:

It only clarifies the intent of the original law and resolves ambiguities that have arisen. The amendment does not affect the requirement that Native American claimants demonstrate cultural affiliation before being entitled to the return of human remains."

One wonders what demonstration of cultural affiliation Smith relied upon to argue in favor of the re-interment of Kennewick Man? Apparently, by "clarification" and "resolution of ambiguities" Smith means "just resolve all disputes in favor of tribal claimants". Well, that would certainly be clear and unambiguous.

"This is not a controversial amendment. What really concerns me is the reaction to this amendment from some of the scientists involved in the Kennewick case. That kind of hostility to the legitimate concerns of Native peoples causes mistrust and is very damaging to our discipline. In contrast, international experience shows that research on human remains increases when Indigenous peoples and archaeologists work together cooperatively.[emphasis added]

Bad scientists. Bad, bad scientists. That certainly makes things easier, doesn't it? We don't have to deal with any fundamental disagreements over world views, establishment of religion, or the proper limits of science, or messy stuff like that. It's all about a few scientists with bad attitudes. (I'd be very interested to know what examples of scientists evincing "hostility to the legitimate concerns of Native peoples" she has in mind. Why do I suspect that "presuming to dispute the relationship of K-man to modern groups" is qualification enough for the "hostility" label?) And once again we have that odd and patronizing reference to an abstract "Indigenous peoples". (No "Indigenous" people are archaeologists themselves? For that matter, are there archaeologists and Archaeologists?)

Naturally we'd all prefer co-operative endeavor to a situation of fundamentally irreconciliable positions that require adjudication. But not all disagreements are rooted in somebody's (guess whose) bad attitude, and sometimes, as is manifestly the case in the Kennewick dispute, the "Indigenous" disputants have the wrong of it. Vandalizing a piece of legislation to ensure that any disputes shall be settled in favor of one side, as is the aim of this amendment, cannot transform the essential absurdity of the WAC's position into "simple good sense".

Also: A new "scare-mongering" article detailing the consequences of the proposed amendment has been made available: What is the Significance of "Is"? Another Attempt to Amend NAGPRA.

Here we go again. Another reason why one should be concerned about that proposed stealth amendment to NAGPRA that I've been writing about all month. Spirit Cave Man, whose mummified remains are older than the skeleton of Kennewick Man, was discovered in Nevada in 1940 and later carbon-dated to over 10,000 years before the present. The Nevada Division of Museums and History gives this synopsis of the legal history concerning Spirit Cave Man:

Spirit Cave is located on public land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). They are responsible for determining the fate of the Spirit Cave remains and associated funerary objects in compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). The Fallon Tribe filed NAGPRA claims in 1997 and 1999 requesting repatriation of the Spirit Cave remains from BLM. In 2000, after ongoing consultations and extensive scientific studies by both governments, the BLM issued its final determination that the remains were unaffiliated with the Fallon Paiute-Shoshone tribe and not a lineal (direct) ancestor. In 2002, however, the Fallon Tribe received a positive finding from the National Park Service, NAGPRA committee that the remains were, indeed, affiliated with their tribe.

The tribe used this recommendation to appeal their case to the Secretary of the Interior who assigned the appeal to the national level of the BLM. In 2003, the national head of the BLM met with the tribe in Fallon regarding their appeal of the state BLM's determination. In 2004, following their own review and study, the head of the BLM upheld the Nevada BLM's determination. The tribe will most likely pursue the matter in the courts at a future date.

Now the Fallon Paiute have filed a lawsuit to obtain the remains:

The Fallon Paiute have filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of Nevada against the Bureau of Land Management. The tribe hopes to overturn the Nevada BLM determination that Spirit Cave man is culturally unaffiliated with any modern American Indians. It is our understanding that the Fallon Paiute have also filed to claim these remains. Evidently the suit was filed in late August and was 'lost in the DOJ shuffle' so the BLM just heard about this as recently as this past week. The BLM's reply to the lawsuit is due the last week of October. Spirit Cave man is older than the Kennewick Man. [Thanks DoJ! - mb]

I just received this alert so right now I'm just trying to find out more.

Dash it all, how inconvenient. In the disclosure notice concerning my financial institution's online bill paying service, I find:

Additional payments not allowed by Bill Payer include court-ordered payments such as alimony, child support, and speeding tickets, non-U.S. payees, or terrorists. Payments for Municipal Utilities are permitted.

Guess you still have to make your payments to terrorists via the old-fashioned check or money order method.

Thanks, guys. Thanks to Transterrestrial Musings, Mike at Knowledge Problem, Razib at Gene Expression, Random Mentality, Mossback's Lunch, The Laughing Wolf, Unqualified Offerings, and Under the Sun for getting out the word on the proposed stealth amendment to NAGPRA.

UPDATE: Pleased to add Overlawyered to the list this morning.

If I missed you, let me know.

UPDATE II: Also of interest is the response received by a citizen who expressed his opposition via a voice mail message to the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, from Lee Frazier (listed as "Majority Professional Staff" for the committee):

"I received your voicemail. S.2843 is still pending floor action. The Senate is recessed now and will be until Nov. 16. I expect we will try to pass the bill again after that date, probably by unanimous consent."

Nothing to see here folks, move along. That link is an email address - hint, hint. It's also been suggested to me that it might be a good idea to phone, fax, or email the Senate Majority leader to urge holding back S.2843:

Bill Frist:

Phone:
Washington:
202-224-3344
202-228-1264 (fax)

Nashville:
615-352-9411
615-352-9985 (fax)

Web form here.

"What a great deal of mischief two little words can work." There's a good editorial in today's Rocky Mountain News on the proposed amendment to NAGPRA:

"Why is this revision such a mistake? Because it could significantly reduce - and perhaps cripple - legitimate scientific inquiry into the origins of human settlement in the Western Hemisphere. The retiring Campbell apparently hopes that one of his last acts in Congress will be to undermine the sort of vital study that is undertaken in virtually every other region of the globe."

Updates on NAGPRA amendment, K-Man case. Here is the American Association of Physical Anthropologists Position Statement on S. 2843:

The American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) participated in the development of the Native American Graves Protection Act (NAGPRA) and was part of the coalition of Native American and scientific groups that worked for its passage. We continue to support NAGPRA's key goal of ensuring that culturally affiliated, federally recognized Native American groups are allowed to make decisions regarding the disposition of their ancestral remains.

NAGPRA was carefully crafted to balance the legitimate interests of members of the scientific, museum, and Native American communities. The AAPA strongly opposes any amendments to NAGPRA that are not a result of a full and open discussion involving all concerned parties.

The Native American Technical Corrections Act (S. 2843), sponsored by Senator Campbell (R-CO), is the product of a process that involved no consultation with the AAPA or many of the other organizations that supported the passage of NAGPRA. We strongly oppose this amendment because of the deeply flawed process through which it was developed. No changes to this important legislation should be made without fully airing them in public hearings where all affected parties have an opportunity to present their views.

And on the Kennewick Man case, the scientists' attorneys' have filed a response to tribes' motion to intervene. This short document provides an interesting synopsis of the case history. Short version: "This motion is nothing more than a dressed-up repeat of arguments this court rejected just a few weeks earlier."

(Related links.)

FAX, PHONE, EMAIL. The Center for the Study of the First Americans has put out a NAGPRA alert that I'm reposting in its entirety here. Please write your congressman.

NAGRPRA ALERT!

Proposed Amendment Imperils Study of Ancient Human Remains

THE PLAY. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Colorado, has sponsored a bill (S-2843) in Congress that seeks to amend the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). If enacted the proposed legislation would dramatically impact efforts to preserve human remains found on federal land and to study them to learn about America's past.

HIDING THE PLAY. The proposed amendment hidden in Section 14 of the bill states: "Section 2(9) of Public Law 101-601 (25 U.S.C. 3001 (9) is amended by inserting 'or was' after 'is'." Although supporters of the bill would like us to believe that the "correction" made by these few words are "non-controversial," they are anything but that.

WHAT THE BILL WOULD DO. The purpose of Section 14 of the bill is to overturn the court decisions in the Kennewick Man lawsuit by changing NAGPRA's definition of the term Native American. By inserting the words 'or was' the amended definition would now include all human remains that pre-date European contact (1492), even if the remains are not from Native Americans. It presumes that any remains found this century, even if 50,000 years old, are somehow related to modern American Indians and should be placed off limits to scientific study (and buried if tribal groups so wish).

UPSETTING THE BALANCE OF POWER. NAGPRA was supposed to balance the interests of Native American s and the scientific community. Senate Bill 2843 would upset that balance. It would allow tribal groups to claim exclusive ownership of all prehistoric human remains found on federal land even if those remains have no relationship to any living American Indians. During the Kennewick Man Lawsuit, four western tribes claimed the 9300 year-old skeleton as their ancestor, and their claim was supported by the Secretary of Interior, the National Park Service, and the Army Corps of Engineers. Both the Portland District Court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that there was no credible evidence to show that the skeleton was related to the claiming tribes or any other living American Indians, and consequently could not be deemed Native American for the purposes of NAGPRA. If Senate Bill 2843 is passed, the Kennewick skeleton would now be regarded as Native American. As a result, it would be subject to repatriation and disposition (i.e. burial) under NAGPRA. Efforts to study the skeleton might be denied, since both the tribes and the Department of the Interior assert that NAGPRA prohibits study for research purposes.

WHAT YOU CAN DO. SB 2843 has the potential to cripple the field of physical anthropology and studies concerning the peopling of the Americas. All American's own this country's past and should share equally in what we can learn about our common human heritage. Call and write your senator and house representatives now! Passage of this bill is eminent and could occur within a matter of days. Although the Society for American Archaeology represents itself as a supporter of scientific study, its leadership has gone on record in support of SB 2843, an antiscience measure. The only way to stop this bill is through a grass root movement. Call and write now before SB 2843 becomes law! Address information for Senators and Representatives and additional information on SB 2843 can be found at Friends of America's Past. Telephone calls and faxes are the most effective. [Edited on 13 October to reflect slight changes in wording of original document -mb]

Babies, bathwater, etc. Apropos of which, I came across Steve Sailer's comments concerning a recent earnest, right-thinking argument for legalizing polygamy:

Notice the sleight of hand here as Turley claims that "polygamy is actually one of the common threads between Christians, Jews and Muslims," but the only evidence he cites is that "Martin Luther at one time accepted polygamy as a practical necessity."

Well, isn't that special! Obviously, opposition to polygamy is one of the defining characteristics of Christianity and the West. Monogamy is a cartel among men to share women relatively equally, to compete on quality of wife but to not compete on quantity of wives. This cartel, along with some other customs like opposition to cousin marriage, underlies the West's traditional advantage in trust and cooperation among males. [...]

The shallowness of analysis, the fetishization of anti-discrimination and minority rights, and the refusal to even think about the reasons behind the great traditions of our culture makes this a prize example of the destructive trends at work in the West.

A shallowness and fetishization aptly, if inadverdantly, captured by whoever wrote the headline: "Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy" - "hypocrisy" being the gravest of the vices to the adolescent, as "at least I'm not a hypocrite" is the summit of moral attainment and moral reasoning.

In the past I've had friendly arguments with two types of defenders of legalized polygamy (in practice, of course, what we're talking about is polygyny) - one who scants history, and the other who scants biology. The first is the indignant libertarian purist, who tends to argue as if he believed that our existing culture of liberty rose out of nowhere, or rather is in some way a parthenogenetic product of the Englightenment, which itself was sui generis. This permits a ronco-matic appeal to religious freedom, full stop, without having to puzzle too hard over whether some ideas of arguably religious provenance might be foundational. The second, bless his heart, is the delusional male who hasn't stressed his noggin overmuch reflecting on the nature of polygynous societies.

(Surely, reader, you're not going to tell me that you didn't see earnest, right-thinking excoriations of anti-polygamy laws coming soon to editorial pages near you?)

Position Statement on the Eternal Now. Sad to relate, the Society for American Archeology, despite a spot of mewling about lack of consultation on the proposed disturbing amendment to NAGPRA, is content to toady along with legislation whose effect, as accurately characterized by Timothy Sandefur "would severely limit the ability of scientists to study ancient remains found on federal land...SAA says that they're just fine with the destruction of ancient skeletal remains, intended to appease American Indian creationists; they just oppose the way the amendment was introduced (rather quietly, and without substantial public comment)". Sandefur does not speak too harshly.

The SAA doesn't represent science:

The Society for American Archaeology supports the tribes' recent amendment to expand NAGPRA's definition of Native American to include everyone here before 1492 (Frank McManamon's "1492 Rule"). Who will speak for science and the public interest in Washington now? Other scientific organizations, including state historical commissions, amateur archaeology groups, etc., must voice their views on this important issue. The message: Congress must look beyond SAA for reasoned comment on this issue. SAA's position does not represent the scientific community nor the public's interests in preserving the past. [emphasis in original]

For another sample contrary view read the position statements of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists on Kennewick Man and Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains.

It's not uncommon, when exploring this issue, to come across statements to the effect that, "well, Kennewick Man (or other unidentifiable remains) ought to be turned over to claiming tribes in order to redress the history of abuses by archeologists and collectors and to restore trust in the relations between archeology and American Indians." These rather thoughtless comments indicate a failure to grasp that this redress was the reasonable intent of NAGPRA in its original formulation. What is promoted and accepted here is not reasonable redress. This feckless willingness to acquiesce in the closing off of all enquiry into the unknown history of humans in the New World can be seen only as a manifestation of the pathological "infinite repentence" mindset. Anybody got a better explanation?

More blogger fashion. Planning your blogging wardrobe for the cold months ahead? Need some cozy accessories to go along with your silk blogging pajamas? Discovering at Kris Denniger's Random Mentality that I'm not the only one in Iowa who blogs begloved, I surmise that others might appreciate my winter typing tip: wino gloves.

Well, I don't know the official description, but that's what I call 'em. Warm gloves with the individual fingers cut off at the middle knuckle, like - well, the gloves of movie hobos and winos. OK, they're from REI (one of those clever and useful Christmas gifts that one would never buy for oneself), and the resemblance to wino-wear ends at the configuration of the finger fabric. Over the fingers goes a toasty full-hand mitten, which is held back by velcro snaps when it's time to tap. Highly recommended, expecially for people like me, who hate stuffy overheated houses in winter and tend to keep the thermostat set at an un-American (so I'm told) low.

Another I'm officially effin' old moment. A "25th anniversary legacy edition" of London Calling. Ah, sweet bird of youth.

(via Relapsed Catholic)

Obstructionism, etc. A brief summary of the current state of the Kennewick case and related matters can be found here. Note the continued obstructionism of the Corps of Engineers:

The Army Corps continues to resist approving the more than 40-page study plan the scientists submitted in the fall of 2002. The Corps is asking for more specifics. To address the Corps' concerns and to provide more specifics, the scientists need to see the bones to assess their current condition. However, the Corps apparently won't allow a condition assessment until after they approve the final study plan.

The scientists may need to return to the Court to seek help through a morass of constraints. Out-of-pocket legal expenses continue. [Link added - mb]

More on S.2843. Richard Bennett has some more more commentary on the pending stealth amendment to NAGPRA, with helpful, useful links. Which you should use.

Vulcanism today. Alan Sullivan has the static (updated every 5 minutes, but heavy traffic precludes accessing the latest) Mount St. Helens webcam image at the top of his blog today.

UPDATE: Dipnut has some nice pics of Helens and other peaks from his various adventures in the Cascades.

"Quietly expanding NAGPRA's intent is 'non-controversial'?" Because I believe it's important, I'm reposting Friends of America's Past's expanded statement on the pending "stealth amendment" to NAGPRA. I ask you, if you are at all concerned with free enquiry into the North American past, to respond to the plea to "[c]ontact your Senators and Representatives in Washington DC and voice your concern that this reportedly 'non-consequential' amendment to S.2843 has passed committee review without the benefit of public review or any consideration of the far-reaching consequences."

Without mentioning NAGPRA by name, Colorado Senator Campbell introduced an amendment that significantly changes the intent and scope of NAGPRA. By referring to Public Law 101-601 rather than calling attention to the more familiar NAGPRA, the clear intent was to slip this amendment by unnoticed. No time was allowed for discussion of this amendment. Although the original framers of NAGPRA recognized that the scientific community and the general public have a significant interest in understanding our nation's factual prehistory, these interests have been quietly set aside with two words: 'or was'. A press report (www.Indianz.com 10/1/04) quoted a Senate staffer who said the amendment was "non-controversial".

The statute's definition of Native American was a central issue in the Kennewick Man case. In fact, the government argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if the bones of "Adam and Eve" were found within our borders, they would be considered Native American under NAGPRA. As a result they would have been given to claiming tribes, reburied, and the public would have no legal right to object. This new amendment effectively allows any federally recognized tribes to claim any and all ancient remains even though they can produce, as the Ninth Circuit Court stated, "no cognizable link" to the remains. This new definition puts all ancient remains such as Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Gordon Creek, Horn Shelter, and Arlington Springs under NAGPRA.

If this new wording had been part of NAGPRA in 1996 when the Kennewick remains were discovered, the skeleton would have been deemed Native American, given to the claiming tribe (Umatilla), and reburied without study. Although NAGPRA requires that a tribe produce evidence of a relationship to an identifiable prior group, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to set aside this requirement. Former Secretary Babbitt did so at least twenty times, allowing repatriation to claiming tribes without requiring any evidence beyond their beliefs. The government and tribes have argued that under NAGPRA, Native American remains cannot be studied for research purposes. NAGPRA does include such a statement.

Expanding NAGPRA in this way imposes a simplistic view of the past: that the only inhabitants of the continent were the ancestors of modern American Indians. Time and time again, scientists have refuted this idea. Two words 'or was' denies factual understanding of the complexities that surely existed in the peopling of the Americas by giving American Indians exclusive control over our nation's prehistory. In the Kennewick Man case, the government and tribes argued unsuccessfully all the information obtained during government studies is proprietary to the tribes should not be accessible to the public. With NAGPRA's amended language, the public would be denied access to any information discovered about the earliest people to inhabit the continent. All information about our prehistory would belong exclusively to the tribes.

Contact your Senators and Representatives in Washington DC and voice your concern that this reportedly 'non-consequential' amendment to S.2843 has passed committee review without the benefit of public review or any consideration of the far-reaching consequences.

Senate Bill 2843 "Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2004"

Amendment Section 14: Amendment of Definition

Section 2(9) of Public Law 101-601 (25 U.S.C. 3001(9)) is amended by inserting 'or was' after 'is'.

The Debate? Yeah, I watched it. Why? I dunno. If your vote depends on your impressions in these debates, you're a stupid schmuck who has no business going near a polling booth.

I'm sick of Bush's Dick-and-Jane rhetoric; Kerry is an insect husk. OK, Kerry did provide a classic wtf moment with "Treblinka", which I suspect would have been a more celebrated gaffe by this morning if it had been Bush's. (Not to diss Kerry on that score - I'd outdo anybody in howlers if I had to go in for public speaking.)

Yeah, I'll probably watch all the other debates, too. Why? I dunno.

"Is" vs. "Was". A bill has been introduced in the Senate including an amendment to define any pre-Columbian artifacts or remains as "Native American". What is the import of Section 14 of Senate Bill 2843? It reads:

" Section 2(9) of Public Law 101-601 (25 U.S.C. 3001(9)) is amended by inserting `or was' after `is'.

Section 2(9) of Public Law 101-601, better known as the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, states:

"'Native American'" means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States."

If you've been following the Kennewick Man case, it's no mystery where this is going. As Friends of America's Past comments, it's all about "Quietly expanding NAGPRA's intent": [Note: the following passage was edited on 2 October to reflect additions and clarifications in the linked article - mb]

Without mentioning NAGPRA by name, Colorado Senator Campbell introduced an amendment that significantly changes the intent and scope of NAGPRA. By referring to Public Law 101-601 rather than calling attention to the more familiar NAGPRA, the clear intent was to slip this amendment by unnoticed. No time was allowed for discussion of this amendment. Although the original framers of NAGPRA recognized that the scientific community and the general public have a significant interest in understanding our nation's factual prehistory, these interests have been quietly set aside with two words: 'or was'. A press report (www.Indianz.com 10/1/04) quoted a Senate staffer who said the amendment was "non-controversial".

The statute's definition of Native American was a central issue in the Kennewick Man case. In fact, the government argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that if the bones of "Adam and Eve" were found within our borders, they would be considered Native American under NAGPRA. As a result they would have been given to claiming tribes, reburied, and the public would have no legal right to object. This new amendment effectively allows any federally recognized tribes to claim any and all ancient remains even though they can produce, as the Ninth Circuit Court stated, "no cognizable link" to the remains. This new definition puts all ancient remains such as Spirit Cave, Wizards Beach, Gordon Creek, Horn Shelter, and Arlington Springs under NAGPRA.

If this new wording had been part of NAGPRA in 1996 when the Kennewick remains were discovered, the skeleton would have been deemed Native American, given to the claiming tribe (Umatilla), and reburied without study. Although NAGPRA requires that a tribe produce evidence of a relationship to an identifiable prior group, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority to set aside this requirement. Former Secretary Babbitt did so at least twenty times, allowing repatriation to claiming tribes without requiring any evidence beyond their beliefs. The government and tribes have argued that under NAGPRA, Native American remains cannot be studied for research purposes. NAGPRA does include such a statement.

Expanding NAGPRA in this way imposes a simplistic view of the past: that the only inhabitants of the continent were the ancestors of modern American Indians. Time and time again, scientists have refuted this idea. Two words 'or was' denies factual understanding of the complexities that surely existed in the peopling of the Americas by giving American Indians exclusive control over our nation's prehistory. In the Kennewick Man case, the government and tribes argued unsuccessfully all the information obtained during government studies is proprietary to the tribes should not be accessible to the public. With NAGPRA's amended language, the public would be denied access to any information discovered about the earliest people to inhabit the continent. All information about our prehistory would belong exclusively to the tribes.

Contact your Senators and Representatives in Washington DC and voice your concern that this reportedly 'non-consequential' amendment to S.2843 has passed committee review without the benefit of public review or any consideration of the far-reaching consequences.

Senate Bill 2843 "Native American Technical Corrections Act of 2004"

Amendment Section 14: Amendment of Definition

Section 2(9) of Public Law 101-601 (25 U.S.C. 3001(9)) is amended by inserting 'or was' after 'is'.

UPDATE: The Seattle PI carries the story with comment from the scientists' attorney:

"It's a real sneaky way to amend" the Indian graves law, said Alan Schneider, an attorney for the scientists.[...]

Schneider and an advocacy group known as Friends of America's Past said they were concerned the bill would go to the full Senate as a routine "housekeeping" measure and be approved with little or no debate.

According to the PI reporter, the bill's enactment this term is "a long shot at best, given Congressional leaders' intent to adjourn in early October". (One can hope - but there are always future terms, and one would prefer a stake through the heart.)

UPDATE II: Further action on the bill:

9/29/2004: Committee on Indian Affairs. Ordered to be reported with amendments favorably.

9/30/2004: Committee on Indian Affairs. Reported by Senator Campbell with amendments. Without written report.

9/30/2004: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 751.

K-man minutia. From last paragraph in an article on the Smithsonian's new National Museum of the American Indian (which looks to be a fascinating place): "The Umatillas and three other tribes also plan on raising the issue of Kennewick Man with the museum." Presented dispassionately as an examination of the controversies over the shape of the distant past of the Americas, this would be an apt subject for the venue. Though I suspect an attempt to mount such a comprehensive exhibit would be sunk by certain "issue raisers" before it ever got out of the planning stage.

(More Kennewick links.)

Not with a bang but a whimper. Why Dan, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for an issue, finally, of no import or consequence?

So this is what it's come to - the last remnants of honor sold, a pathetic raddled diviner's shoveling and shuffling, pooh-bahs shilling Orwellian exculpations, a producer having spent five years of brief precious life assiduously seeking a flint for scandal and damnation, with nothing to show for it but a few photocopies, sad, sorry, and dubious, and ex post facto hustling of "experts" and reminiscing walk-ons.

Can we turn away with a decent sense of shame now? Turn away and let them sink toward whatever demographic niche they can profitably broadcast to? Let the dead bury the dead. Can we now turn our attention, while youth and strength remain, to things that are not petty and inconsequential?

"Pajamasphere". I like it.

I sense the possibility for a new fashion line here. I always wanted to invest in a pair of fine tailored silk pajamas made in that glamorous '40s movie style, but never before had any real use for them. This classic design can lend itself to sharp styling for both the male and the female blogger, adding a touch of chic, comfort, and professionalism to one's blogging hours. Fleck suggests the "executive blogging pajamas" line for starters...

Design ideas welcome.