In 1859 Charles Darwin published, ‘On the Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. But is Darwin’s theory relevant today?

While Darwinian evolution based on random mutations provides a compelling framework for understanding the gradual development of species over time (speciation), the fossil evidence for the ‘Cambrian explosion’ of lifeforms 560 million years ago presents challenges to this view.

The relatively sudden appearance and rapid emergence of complex body plans, the lack of transitional forms, and the presence of advanced traits suggest that additional mechanisms or biological processes may have played a role in shaping speciation and the diversity of life on earth.

An alternative view to classic Darwinian evolution has emerged since the discovery of the ‘epigenome’. The epigenome can influence phenotypic plasticity, which is the ability of an organism to change its physical characteristics (phenotype) in response to environmental cues (Rando and Vestrepen, 2006).

Epigenetic modifications can regulate the expression of genes involved in developmental processes, allowing organisms to adjust their traits to better suit their environment. This plasticity enables organisms to survive and reproduce in diverse conditions without requiring genetic mutations, facilitating more rapid adaptation of life forms to their environment.

Although most mainstream evolutionary biologists continue to adhere to ‘Darwinian’ evolution based on a mechanism of random mutations as the primary engine of evolution, the chemical interaction between environment and epigenome may play a more important role in the adaptation of life forms to their environment than the theory of random mutations, the vast majority of which are infrequent and usually not positive or ‘useful’ mutations.

Therefore, the novel concept of epigenetic evolution provides a more plausible alternative evolutionary mechanism to explain the rapid diversification of life forms during the Cambrian period over tens of millions of years as opposed to the protracted process of survival of the fittest via selection of species based on random mutations, which from a probabilitistic perspective could not have ocurred with a time frame consistent with the age of the habitable earth.

Our understanding of the interplay between genetic and epigenetic mechanisms is essential for comprehending the intricate processes that contribute to the remarkable diversity of life on Earth.

In summary, through phenotypic plasticity, gene regulation, transgenerational inheritance, environmental sensing, and epigenetic variation, the epigenome not only facilitates adaptation but these acquired genetic characteristics are inheritable, thus allowing species to thrive in diverse ecological niches.

However, further research and exploration are needed to fully understand the complexities of the Cambrian explosion and its implications for alternate evolutionary theory.

1-https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(07)00121-3

2- https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2019/february/the-cambrian-explosion-was-far-shorter-than-thought.html

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S0092-8674(07)00121-3

The war between Israel and Hamas has generated significant global attention, widespread condemnation, and unfortunately, an explosion in antisemitism worldwide, not only among individuals but also on the part of governments and private institutions worldwide. While it is important to recognize the complexities and multiple perspectives surrounding the conflict, it is crucial to approach the topic with caution. This essay aims to explore the potential outcomes of Israel’s massive retaliation in Gaza and its future impact on Israel and the Jewish people on many levels, drawing parallels to the concept of the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” mentioned in the Bible.

The concept of the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” is derived from a passage in the Bible, specifically from the book of Jeremiah in the Old Testament. In Jeremiah 30:7, it states,
“Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.”

Interpretations of this passage may vary among different religious and theological perspectives. However, generally, the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” is understood as a period of great hardship and turmoil that the Jewish people, symbolized by Jacob, will face in the future. It is believed to be a time of intense tribulation and distress.

Some interpretations connect the “Time of Jacob’s Trouble” with eschatological events or the end times. It is seen as a part of a larger prophetic framework, where various trials and challenges will befall the world. The Jewish people, in particular, are believed to experience a period of intense suffering and persecution during this time.

Israel’s retaliation in Gaza has undoubtedly heightened tensions in the region. The extensive destruction, loss of civilian lives, and displacement of Palestinians have garnered international criticism. The condemnation and the escalation of antisemitism worldwide can exacerbate the situation, leading to a cycle of hostility, further complicating the prospects for peace and stability.

The condemnation faced by Israel as a result of its actions may contribute to its increased isolation on the global stage. This isolation can have adverse effects on diplomatic relationships, trade partnerships, and potential collaborations in various sectors. Israel’s ability to navigate international affairs may be compromised, leading to further challenges for the country and its people.

The rise of antisemitism worldwide poses a significant security threat to Israel and its Jewish population. The explosion of antisemitic incidents, hate crimes, and discrimination can create an environment of fear and insecurity. The Jewish community may face increased risks, necessitating enhanced security measures and vigilance against potential threats.

Israel’s war in Gaza has also sparked divisions within the country. While there is a range of opinions among Israelis regarding the conflict, internal disagreements may intensify. For exsmple, I have little doubt that when hostilities subside the Netanyahu government will collapse. These divisions will further weaken national unity, hinder political stability, and undermine efforts to address pressing domestic issues. In such a fragile environment, Israel will face social and political turmoil, complicating its ability to address the aftermath of the conflict effectively.

In conclusion, the consequences of Israel’s retaliation in Gaza extend well beyond its national borders. The conflict has the potential to reshape regional dynamics and Israel’s alliances with Arab Nations in the region. It may fuel further radicalization, increase support for extremist groups, and create an environment conducive to further violence. The regional instability will have a direct impact on Israel’s security and further exacerbate the challenges it faces. Therefore, it is crucial for all parties involved to prioritize dialogue, understanding, and to redouble efforts for a peaceful resolution to avoid wider escalation.

In antiquity there were no rules governing violence in war. There was no moral compass or legal distinction between killing or murdering, in war. The Massacre of whole communities of innocents was commonplace. Murder is defined as the intentional and unlawful killing of another person without any justifiable reason or legitimate cause. Mass murder is the act of killing a number of people, typically simultaneously or over a relatively short period of time and in proximity. A mass murder typically occurs in a single location where one or more persons kill several others.

Barbarism is defined as savage murder that is inhumane, uncivilized and excessively brutal and that is implemented without mercy or remorse.

One could say albeit with tongue-in-cheek that ‘more humane times now prevail’, because we have categorically banned rape and murder in war. We have set rules to govern genocide and barbarism in modern warfare. We now conveniently call murder and barbarism, war crimes, or crimes against humanity. But murder, mass murder and rape in war is still occurring in the 20th and the 21st Centuries.

One would think that human civilization would have evolved by now to the point of realizing that violence only begets more violence. But sadly, such is not the case. In fact, it appears we are returning to the times of barbarism.

We continue to tolerate violence as a means to settle differences. In fact, we have legitimized violence in war by establishing that killing in war should be governed by laws (also known as the laws of war). The laws of war permit the use of lethal force against enemy combatants, as long as it is “proportionate to the military objective and follows the rules set forth by international treaties and conventions”.

But these laws are a false construct because there are no universally-accepted or even reliable mechanisms to enforce the laws that govern war, except, perhaps, in cases of genocide. But even when the evidence of genocide is irrefutable, the leaders of nation states who commit genocide and other war crimes more often than not go unpunished.

The concept of murder in war is less clear-cut due to the different ethical considerations surrounding armed conflict. While intentionally killing enemy combatants in war is still generally considered ‘acceptable’ under the so-called “rules of engagement”, intentionally targeting civilians or committing acts of extreme violence outside the scope of military necessity are considered morally reprehensible.

For example, Israeli forces have KILLED thousands of innocent non-combatants so far in their war in Gaza. Among those KILLED are thousands of children, including babies. Although Israel has the right to defend itself against unprovoked attacks, including dealing with thousands of rocket attacks aimed at civilians, it is legitimate to question whether the extent of the Israeli military retaliation against the actions of Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023 is proportionate to the military objective and follows the rules set forth by international treaties and conventions proportionate to the military objectives.

What I can say, though, without hesitation or doubt and based on the definition of what is murder and what is barbarism and what is not, is that a few dozen Hamas militant terrorists committed indiscriminate MASS MURDER AND RAPE in the most heinous and barbaric manner humanly possible on October 7, 2023. It is a day that will live in infamy, no doubt. Another nadir in the history of mankind. Not only because of the numbers of people murdered in cold blood but how they were savaged. The barbaric nature of the rapes and the murders, accompanied by invocations of the ‘greatness of their god’ and with a glee and satisfaction that boggles the human mind.

In conclusion, the moral and legal differences between KILLING AND MURDER are self evident. Murder is defined by the context, intent, and lack of justification for taking another person’s life – whether it is through legitimate combat, or not, it is an intentional act of violence and unlawful under any circumstance. But what Hamas operatives committed on October 7, 2023 went far beyond cold-blooded murder, cold blooded mass murder, it was pure BARBARISM, plain and simple.

Presidents typically have access to a wide range of advisers, including the National Security Council, intelligence agencies, military officials, his cabinet and other experts. These advisers provide information, recommendations, and differing perspectives on national security matters. It is common for presidents to engage in deliberations and seek consensus among their advisers before making a decision.

Ronald Reagan exhibited signs of early cognitive decline well before the end of his second term. Some experts believe Reagan’s entire second term was marred by a progression from mild to severe cognitive decline. Ron Reagan Jr. has stated that his father was already battling Alzheimer’s disease in the White House. However, Reagan’s condition was covered-up by his closest advisers.

But Reagan who was accustomed to being scripted and directed was able to successfully complete his second term because he voluntarily relied on decisions made by his closest advisers on matters of national import. So this experience raises a critical question when it comes to an individual elected President for a first or second term, and who is beginning that 4-year term in his 80s.

The extent to which the United States president’s decision-making is made without consensus of his advisers, particularly in matters of national security, can vary depending on the president’s leadership style, personal beliefs, and ego, as well as the specific circumstances at hand. While presidents generally rely on advice and input from their advisers, they ultimately have the authority to make decisions based on their own judgment.

However, some presidents may lean more towards a unilateral decision-making approach, asserting their prerogative as the elected leader to make decisions. In such cases, presidents may prioritize their own judgment (i.e. “I alone can fix it”), thus making arbitrary decisions without reaching a consensus among their entire advisory team. Therefore, the exact balance between decisions made with and without consensus varies from president to president and from situation to situation.

Finally, it behooves us to ensure that if we are to support an elderly candidate for president that we ensure the individual is of good character and temperament, and devoid of ego-driven narcissistic and autocratic tendencies. A candidate who is honest with himself, his advisors, and the American people.

Only 32% of Americans have a college degree. A college degree today is the educational equivalent of a high school diploma of 30 years ago”, with some exceptions (those few families who can afford a high quality private college preparatory high school education for their kids). High schools are producing a ‘poor graduate product’. This also applies to some parochial and private schools.

If the above statements are true and apply to the vast majority of people then it really means that only 32% of Americans today have achieved the educational attainment of those who earned a High School Diploma 30 years ago.

So what happened during those 30 or so years?

1) Information has increased. There has been an explosion of knowledge, especially in the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields. But also in the humanities to some extent. We have also realized that there is a lot we haven’t taught our children that we should be teaching. For example, students who do not meet the requirements or lag behind are promoted along with those who do. We need to do a better job of identifying those students early so as to provide more remedial instruction, in order to stop this pernicious practice. Its creating an underclass of what I call ‘functional illiterates.’

2) College tuitions have become unaffordable for most lower and middle income families. Unless, of course, students enter into debt. Debt that will hobble their future success.

3) Based on #2 there is a financial incentive to skip college. Those who skip college to learn a craft or a trade can earn just as much or more than a recent college graduate with virtually no debt. But they are not ‘educationally well rounded’ individuals.

What are the solutions? Here’s just a few:

A- DO NOT DEFUND PUBLIC SCHOOL EDUCATION: On the contrary, provide better incentives — more funding for elementary and secondary schools to expand curricula, attract better teachers, particularly in low and middle income areas.

B- PAY TEACHERS: what their worth in today’s dollars (in my opinion— at least $100,000.00 with potential to earn more based on fulfilling Masters degrees or continuing education requirements.

C – ELIMINATE TENURE: (Its an outdated practice and serves as a disincentive to continuing medical education.

D – Provide incentives for students to add 2 more years to their ‘high school’ education (i.e. free 2 year tuition at a community college?). Make a 4 year College education more affordable.

Finally, we must learn to think about education not as just any other expense but as a critical investment in the future success of our children and our Society.

Thomas Friedman in his opinion piece today (April 3, 2022) in the New York Times calls the war in Ukraine, “World War Wired”. Because the internet/social media has made it so that the entire ‘wired’ world is watching. As a result, global public opinion has turned vehemently against Putin’s war in Ukraine. This development is unprecedented, hence Friedman’s title, ‘The First Real World War’. But is this why Putin is losing the war? I don’t think so.

The attached AP article tells us why Ukraine will inevitably become the winner in this war. It is mostly likely due to shared classified intelligence moving from West to East and around the world. As such, I would call this war, ‘World War Intel’. Because for the first time in history classified battlefield intelligence is being collected and analyzed by the ‘5-eyes Alliance’ (U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, and New Zealand) and shared with the Ukrainian military. Other types of classified intelligence is being shared publicly to undermine Putin’s plans snd demoralize Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine.

The unlikely and resounding Ukrainian military success on the battlefield could not have happened without the sharing of highly classified real-time satellite surveillance and signals (communications) intelligence information on the exact locations, number and types of armored vehicles (tanks), troop numbers and activities of Russian forces — on a daily basis by NATO and its allies with Ukrainian military leadership who, to their credit, have deftly put that information to good use in their defense.

An excerpt:

“Mark Galeotti, a Russia expert at University College London, agreed that the very public intelligence campaign “reflects the fact that we now live in a different age, politically and internationally. And this is a different kind of war.”

Although the war on the ground is being won by Ukraine, Putin’s cowardly air campaign is increasingly targeting civilians and is also aimed at turning Ukrainian infrastructure into rubble. This is why Zelenskyy is desperately and constantly seeking further air defense assistance to counter the Russian air attack. We must add this last critical strategic element to this war.

https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0exveRVM?pd=04MeURy7&lang=en_US&s=i16

Some steps we should take to mend our underdeveloped health care system.

1- We must start by acknowledging that our system for paying for health care insurance is broken. Its an economic system that was born premature and under-developed. We’ve never had an American Health care System. Instead we have had a series of health care hack jobs. We came close with the passage of Medicaid and Medicare in the 1960s and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the aughts, but no cigar.

2- We must build on these pilot attempts, not try to kill them, especially without a better affordable health care alternative plan. Canceling the ACA is like cutting off our noses to spite our faces. Doesn’t make sense. Underfunding or cutting Medicaid and Medicare is not only wrong, its unethical.

3- We must understand that the health security of the nation hinges on health care coverage for all its citizens. The pandemic has given us a wake up call. And its not over yet. No two ways around that fact. In health care we are our brother’s keeper or else we will all suffer the consequences of our brothers’ illnesses.

4- We must reinstate mandatory health insurance. But this time, at the Federal and State level or a symbiosis of the two. We started by expanding medicaid (Obama). We must now expand medicare (Biden). If we can constitutionally mandate medical liability coverage for unforeseen car accidents why can’t we mandate health insurance for unforeseen health hazards? Think pandemic!! Think pregnancies! Think mass shootings! Think motor vehicle crashes! Think natural disasters! etc. etc.

5- We need legislation to prevent for-profit corporations, especially private investment companies, from entering the health care sector. Health care is an exercise in humanitarianism not raw capitalism. It is an inalienable right covered under “the right to life and the pursuit of happiness.” Try pursuing quality of life and happiness with a looming 6-figure hospital bill.

6- We need legislation to place limits on the earnings of non-profit hospitals and health insurance companies. See #4 above: ‘Health care is an exercise in humanitarianism not raw capitalism’. There are many not-for-profit health care institutions who have built veritable health care empires in many regions of this country who act more like monopolies and pay little to no taxes. (i.e. UPMC in Western PA is a good example).

7- Health care reimbursement must be reoriented towards preventative care. Specifically, in public health areas where we are experiencing major crises. These include: A- mental and behavioral health; B-Violence; C- Obesity; D- Diabetes; E- Malnutrition; F- Communicable dieases; G- Cardiovascular health; H- Cancer — among other preventable diseases (smoking/vaping).

8- Finally, we must place limits on how much health care executives can earn.

President Joe Biden has declared the displacement and mass murder of Armenians in 1915 at the hands of the Turkish Ottoman Empire and the Chinese government’s treatment of the Muslim Uyghurs, as genocides.

It appears the motivation is intended to score political points against both regimes. But in so doing, is the Biden Administration guilty of contributing to the trivialization of the term ‘genocide’ and simultaneously hypocritically ignoring our own history of annihilation of tens of millions of Native Americans, who once populated the entire North American continent. Not to mention ignoring the 400 year long enslavement of millions of African men, women and children, untold numbers of whom died in the middle passage, at the hands of slave traders who profited from human suffering; or the systemic racism instituted in American society thereafter, that served to disenfranchise and marginalize African-American citizens, the stigma of which persists to this day?

Because if we are to accuse the Turks and the Chinese governments of genocide, then, at the very least, we too must publicly acknowledge our guilt in the commission of genocide, not once but twice.

This issue begs the question, does genocide differ from its associated term, ‘crimes against humanity’ that have been used interchangeably for decades.

The term genocide was first introduced in 1945 at the Nuremberg Trials, following the mass murder of 6 million+ Jews and other marginalized groups such as Gypsies and homosexuals. This event occurred under a unique set of historical and political circumstances. As such, in my opinion, the term was intended to refer to group murder under a special set of requirements under international law, if such a thing even exists.

What may be those special set of requirements?

The Jewish Holocaust was the first time in history that a nation state targeted a specific group of people for extermination, then proceeded to create the nation-wide infrastructure to identify, carefully define the characteristics of the targeted individuals, incite the masses to hate so as to justify and legitimize the act, round up the victims in camps with help from average citizens and local organizations, commit the inhumane forced separation of families, and then the implementation of the evil act itself, mass murder on an industrial scale.

These acts were not committed in response to or in the midst of war or civil strife. The planning was carried out in peacetime and required years of in-depth planning and preparation and the widespread dissemination of propaganda by the State, as well as the complicity of thousands in its nation-wide implementation, which included a significant proportion of the population that understood what was transpiring but who remained silent nonetheless, in a nation that considered itself both civilized, enlightened, scientifically advanced and Christian. This act was covered up by instigating a war, rather than prompted by it.

Therefore, I think it is time to place both terms into their proper perspective.

There is no doubt that the Turkish Ottoman Empire was responsible for the murders of 800,000 to 1.2 Million Armenians in 1915. But was it a genocide or a crime against humanity? Both terms address the murder of groups of people. But, in my opinion, it was not a genocide. It was a crime against humanity. The same rationale would apply to the annihilation and canceling of Native Americans and their culture.

However, the pre-meditated enslavement, torture and murder of Africans, its universality among European Christian nations, its planning and preparation in peacetime, and the cruel intentional separation of families and sale of human beings for profit does meet, in my opinion, the requirements of genocide, as defined above, and should be included in retrospect under the category of genocide.

In conclusion, I believe a clear distinction must be made between genocide and crimes against humanity, on the basis of the characteristic of the group being targeted, the circumstances that led to it, the complicity of thousands of people, its peacetime evolution, the heinous act of forced separation of families, as well as the manner in which the mass murders were implemented. Otherwise, we are all guilty of trivializing what the Nazis invented during the period 1933-1945, as well as the genocidal European project to enslave African and Indigenous peoples in the 16-19th centuries. And by trivializing true genocide we will only make it more likely it could happen again.

genocide

JewishHolocaust

shoa

armeniangenocide

crimeagainsthumanity

Uyghurs

On January 6, 2021 we witnessed the desecration of the seat of our democracy by a hate filled mob. We witnessed the Confederate flag proudly paraded inside the Capitol rotunda. I ask, in the defense of evil what is there to be proud of?

Please! Someone convince me that Confederate symbols and monuments are not memorials to a failed ideology of hatred that considered Whiteness and its cultural characteristics as the highest standard of being human, the apex of civilization.

An ideology that placed Africans as sub-persons, a race not quite human and suited for exploitation— thus justifying race-based slavery, which was considered as a cause worthy of dying for and the ‘appropriate’ institution for African people by White supremacist masters, in a failed attempt to preserve it.

Please! Someone convince me that Aushwitz is not a memorial to the consequences of hate. A hatred so deep, so evil it morphed into unrestrained inhumane actions characterized by the classification and numerical labeling of Jews as mere cattle — an inferior class of humanity; a people deemed not worthy of sharing the same space or the same air as the White (Arian) race.

Please! Someone convince me that a hate-based ideology does not lead to intolerance and inhumane treatment of fellow human beings, in the form of enslavement, torture, forced separation of families, rape, extrajudicial executions, and eventually mass murder and genocide.

Auschwitz stands as a memorial that reminds us of what happens when we allow evil to proliferate. When we remain silent in the face of attempts to glorify, memorialize or defend evil. If we are to be true to the promise to ‘never again’ allow evil to take a foothold anywhere in the world, we must not permit memorials in the defense of evil.

Finally, the history of evil deeds are not worthy of glorification or memorialization, in any form, unless it is clearly intended to stand as a warning to what happens when evil is allowed to take its course.