46.This page will be history

While I was reading a book on mid-nineteenth century American history, specifically on abolition and the feminist movement, I wondered what it would have been like to live at that time. It was a moving time in our nation's history, one that focused around a number of events, most significantly, the recent signing of the Declaration of Independence, the separation of church and state, slavery, women's rights and the French Revolution. The country was in a deep period of conflict as it wrestled through civil rights, religion and government.

I then read the following passage as an editorial/letter to the editor, written in response to Lucretia Mott, a leader in the anti-slavery and women's rights movements who had just delivered an antislavery speech in Marysville, Kentucky. It was signed by "Slave-Holder," and reads,

"This bad women, whose infamous calling is a war against the Constitution of the United States, a sacrilegious condemnation of the Holy Bible, preaching disobedience and rebellion to our slaves, was allowed the use of the Court House for the propagation of her infernal doctrine...What will be the result of a visit from this female fanatic is not yet known; we should not be surprised however, if it were the prelude to a heavy loss on the part of the slaveholders of the country, as a score or two blacks were present to behold and hear this brazen infidel in her treason against God and her country."

My first thought was that, if they were both alive today (Lucretia Mott and the editorial writer, "Slave-Holder"), she might like to give him the, "How do ya like me now?" or "How do like them apples?" quip. But further reflection saw the analogous rhetoric that dampens our society today, and thought, with a few simple reference changes, that the editorial could very well have been written today. I then wondered, are things different, or are only the specific issues different?

"Slave-Holder" argues not directly for the institution of slavery, which he obviously supports, and has a financial stake in, rather he engages in malicious language, religious references, patriotic appeal and is furious that she was permitted to use her first amendment rights- ironically, precisely as they were intended to be used according to the Bill of Rights. He labels her "bad," a "female fanatic," a "brazen infidel" and her calling as "infamous." He then notes that she is "sacrilegious" as she speaks against (apparently his interpretation of) the Holy Bible, that she "preaches" disobedience and that her crusade is one against "God." His attack on patriotism includes a non-specific reference to the Constitution and the "treason" against her country.

In the times of today, several issues might generate a similar editorial/letter to the editor. The war in Iraq, abortion, gay marriage, the Ten Commandments, activist judges, Intelligent Design, the Patriot Act, even the movie Fahrenheit 911, all prompted passionate editorials/letters to the editor from, at times both sides, that challenged the Constitution, religion, education, government and civil rights. The problem, with these types of opinions, is that they are not intended to facilitate discussion or compromise, but rather to inspire fury- on both sides. This is all too common today in all segments of the media as everyone seeks attention- alas, whether or not the opinion contains the slightest segment of truth, morality or fairness.

As we write passionately on the issues of today, which one of us will be the "Slave-Holder," of the next century- whose opinion today reads of narrow-mindedness, racism, a disregard for civil rights and the selective use of religion? Editorials/letters to the editor make it into history books because they are written by "the people," and thus they are the best expression of society's values and attitudes. Moreover, they often detail the debate between opposing viewpoints and ideologies. Looking back in time, historians can appraise the fervor of an issue from the published opinions that describe it.

Editorials/letters to the editor are the chance to exercise our first amendment rights; however, recorded as history, they preserve our thoughts for future generations. Since most newspapers now require, and print, the name of the person submitting the opinion, the words we write do not hide behind the guise of anonymity and, consequently, we cannot assume that they are destined to slip into obscurity. Sometimes greater than the moment, they represent a time in history, the community in which we live and, ultimately, ourselves.

45. Can't see why they don't see

Nature's caverns often survive void of light, alive only in the shadow of obscurity. The absence of light in these caves postulate many inquiries into the life that it encapsulates. For the contemplation of those that live in total darkness augments the discussions of biological adaptations while quenching the appreciation for nature's diversity. Adapting to life in the dark solicits answers to the question- does one need to see? And if one does not need to see- for it is dark and nobody sees- does, one needs eyes?

The answer to this question, for many species is no- and in fact, in living in darkness for millenniums, not only do they not see, they no longer have eyes. Many species, including insects, crustaceans, salamanders, spiders and fish, have lost their eyes through adaptations to their environment. Thus, the real question for scientists and other interested parties, is how does this happen? The answer is not completely certain and, furthermore, not quite as easy as one might think (noting the temptation to enter into Lamarckian evolution). This fascinating discussion takes place in the June 2005 issue of Natural History (Why Do Cave Fish Lose Their Eyes), and provides much of the material that I base my discussion.

Lamarck proposed a theory of evolution based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics. That is, if an individual, over the course of his or her lifetime, acquired a trait (or talent), that trait would subsequently be passed onto his or her offspring. The most famous example cited is the long necks in giraffes, which Lamarck would explain as generations upon generations of giraffes reaching and extending their necks to reach leaves in the tallest trees, and then passing along that characteristic to subsequent generations. The temptation in our question is to apply the reverse, to propose that species that do not use a specific characteristic are susceptible to losing it. As Luis and Monika Espinasa describe in the article, "Lamarck believed that unused organs shrivel until they disappear. In short, use it or lose it."

As we know now, our genes care not if we use a characteristic- only that the genes survive to be reproduced at rates that are statistically successful. Hence, natural selection is the principle of nature selecting the most successful genes based on reproductive and survival rates. Adaptations are the successful reproduction of mutations- genetic alterations that are tested in nature's arena of "survival of the fittest."

Understanding this theory, in light of regressive evolution (the loss of a trait such as the eyes in cave fish), one can easily argue as to what advantage there is in not seeing- when fish with eyes cannot see either. In other words, how can nature "select" eyeless fish over fish with eyes when it is rather obvious that neither has a reproductive advantage over the other? Humans also have these "rudimentary organs," such as the appendix and the coccyx, which in the course of our evolution proved to be of use to our ancestors, but matter not to us now as a matter of survival. Darwin himself struggled with the issue, writing, "It is scarcely possible that disuse can go on producing any further effect after the organ has once been rendered functionless. Some additional explanation is here requisite which I cannot give."

There are two types of rudimentary organs- embryonic and those that develop into adulthood. Gill slits are an embryonic example of ancient relationships that never develops as the embryo does. Deciphering evolutionary lineages through embryonic development is just one of the things that makes embryology so interesting.

The appendix represents a rudimentary organ that does develop and that through comparative anatomy can be studied to reveal evolutionary lineages, homology and purpose. Another interesting biological field, comparative anatomy provides diverse insight into vestigial organs. Many other mammals have functioning appendixes, that, to be fair and to make matters more confusing, must be sorted out between evolutionary relationships and convergent evolution.

Biologists today, according to the article, offer two hypotheses for rudimentary organs: pleiotropy and neutral mutation theory. Pleiotrophic effects are the alterations to multiple characteristics, inherently unrelated, by a single gene. The best example, also described in the article, is sickle cell anemia. As a mutation, deformed red blood cells survived in certain, primarily African, populations because the parasite that causes malaria could not survive in the "sickle" cells. However, the consequence is that this adaptation can lead to other problems such as anemia and organ damage.

Neutral mutation theory is the negligible effect of a mutation on an individual or species. Thus, since the mutation does not hinder survival, it continues to be reproduced generation after generation- increasing its likelihood in the population.

In a series of experiments, only possible in the last few decades, the differing theories were tested by switching the (eye) gene of an eyeless fish with the (eye) gene of a fish with sight during embryonic development. What they found is that the gene for the fish with sight produced an eye in the eyeless fish and vise versa. In other words, the gene for sight in the eyeless fish is functional and must be "turned off" by some other mechanism. This discovery essentially rules out neutral mutation theory.

Further to the pleiotrophic hypotheses, scientists have isolated a "master control" gene that "whose modified expression leads to blindness in cave fish." More interesting is the fact that the smaller the eyes were, the more taste buds are produced. Moreover, when a fish develops without eyesight, the bones in the skull shift, allowing for a bigger olfactory pit and larger olfactory epithelium. Hence it is likely that the non-existence of eyes, which in the natural environment of cave fish are useless anyways, offers the opportunity for an improved sense of smell- which can certainly be a competitive advantage.

In conclusion, the authors note the "classic example" pleiotrophic effect and summarize that, "Natural selection is not acting on cave-fish eyes; it is acting instead to increase the fish's sense of smell." In essence, evolution has said, on the issue of eyeless cave fish, that if in the process of amplifying some senses (which can be a competitive advantage), the fish loses its ability to see (which in this case is not a competitive advantage)- then the fish species is better suited to compete in its environment.

Nature, it seems, is always up to something- always looking for the slightest advantage and the most remote opportunity. And to appreciate nature's intricacies, scientific exploration celebrates in allowing us to not only ask the questions, but to also "see" what others cannot.

44.This hobby is for the birds

Nature offers many splendors and amazing adaptations, one of which is the return of the migratory birds each spring. It is amazing that each fall and subsequent spring, birds of all sizes and shapes fly across the continent(s), often returning to the same nest from which they parted.

As novice birdwatchers, each year my wife and I learn more, and enjoy more, about these amazing animals. After learning to identify different bird species, bird watching includes noting feeding habits, mating rituals and individual personalities. Inevitably, each species has some interesting trait or fact that both aids in identification and affords fascination.

Like many hobbies, bird watching can spur addiction. Our back yard has become a sort of bird sanctuary with several types of food, a few houses and a small running pond available for our feathered friends. We have upwards of ten feeders, while offering a diversity of shelter including brush, small trees and large trees. Of course, they are left to themselves to compete with the deer, rabbits, raccoons, and squirrels that frequently visit our small nature "reserve."

Over the last two years, we have recorded around thirty-five species of birds. Our favorites include the Northern Cardinal (especially the female), Red-headed Woodpecker, Tufted Titmouse, Baltimore Oriole, Ruby-throated Hummingbird, American Goldfinch, White-crowned Sparrow, Northern Flicker, White-breasted Nuthatch, Brown Thrasher and Red-breasted Grosbeak. To catch a glimpse of some of the migratory birds that do not visit, we usually make the trip to Magee Marsh each May to see them off before their long trip across the lake. Each year, the second Saturday in May is International Migratory Bird Day.

Magee Marsh is often labeled as the best place in Ohio for bird watching. This year's trip included Lincoln's Sparrow, Blue Heron, Eastern Screech Owl, Yellow-rumped Warbler, Nashville Warbler, Blackburnian Warbler and a Ruby-crowned Kinglet- among an array of species. Magee Marsh offers an easy to navigate boardwalk, just over a half-mile long, through the marshy forest. The park is also positioned on the lake, complete with a small beach and areas for picnicking. Another benefit of the tour of Magee Marsh is the knowledgeable birdwatchers from around the region. For amateurs like us, they help in the identification of the migratory birds- most of which we rarely see (especially the innumerable, and closely related, warblers). Over 300 species of birds have been seen at the Magee Marsh Wildlife Area.

At home, we have started keeping track of our spring arrivals and other habits. For example, last year we first saw the Oriole on May 6; this year they appeared on May 7 (at least two pairs). The Hummingbird first visited on May 4 of last year; this year it was May 6. The Orioles have been especially active this year, enjoying our newest buffet item- grape jelly. We get American goldfinches in numbers, sometimes as many as twenty at a time, either eating or waiting to eat. New this year includes a pair of Mallard ducks, the female that hops into the pond that is barely bigger than she is. A House Wren found the front yard bird house and is entertaining to watch in the preparation of his nest. He will maneuver the twigs to find the proper angle to enter the house (he will build several in hopes of luring a female). The other day we witnessed a Crow and three babies flying from tree to tree. Many other species perform dances, feed one another or sing an array of tunes as part of their aesthetics.

One uninvited guest, besides the occasional neighborhood cat, is the hawk. We have at least one, but probably a couple that regularly pays our backyard a visit- often sitting in our small trees that overlook the feeders and pond. They are smart, flying between the houses or hiding up in the tree waiting for an unsuspecting victim. Our small, but dedicated, German-Shepard mix, Shea, is responsible for keeping the yard free of felines and predatory birds.

Noticing birds, as a matter habit, has been extended to driving. Heading back and forth down Route 2 usually includes a couple of hawk sightings as they sit in the trees and on the fence posts lining the highway. Glimpses that are a bit more exciting included three buzzards (Turkey Vultures) sitting on a small fence just off the highway (they are beautiful in flight, but quite homely up close) and a Bald Eagle sitting in a tree in its classic intimidating pose (whose sighting nearly spurned a dangerous double-take).

Bird watching is a popular activity, with approximately 29 million individuals. For me, it is a way to relax and enjoy nature. In a world in which it is easy to get caught up with phones, web-surfing, email and blogging, it is refreshing to spend some time narrowly piercing the environment that employs most other species of our world.

43. Free trade hurts everyone

William McKinley wrote, "Open competition between high-paid labor and poorly paid European labor will either drive out of existence American Industry or lower American wages." Of course, to account to the present century we must insert "third world country," where "European" once resided, however the impact of such insight is obviously clear. The source of such open competition is free-trade agreements, which have acted on American society to increase the wealth of shareholders at the expense of American jobs. Further to the impact on American society is the effect on the countries in which the cheap labor is extracted, human rights are trampled and environmental laws are rendered essentially nonexistent.

In my brief, MBA-inspired, Republican days, I thought differently about free trade, albeit my thinking was most inspired by the fact that I believed free trade acted to enhance the lives individuals in foreign countries rather than for the wealth of large corporations. Moreover, it is not that I did not buy into the fact that many MBAs inspired to be CEOs and that their primarily obligation was to the shareholder, rather that I did not immediately recognize the loss of American jobs, the impact on the environment and the state of the trade deficit.

Our local congressional representative, Sherrod Brown, has written a book regarding the misrepresentation of free trade along with the many concerns about the impact of free trade here and abroad. In the book, he details the abuses made on developing companies for corporate profits. In addition to the violations of worker rights as well as environmental and safety laws, he notes that low third workers cannot even afford to purchase the products they producing. Detailed in corporate abuse and passionate of workers' rights, Congressman Sherrod Brown's book, "Myths of Free Trade," in many ways, is to American free trade policy what Howard Zinn's book, "A People's History of the United States," is to American history.

Several examples in Brown's book illustrate his notions. In one example, Brown briefly chronicles the Levi Strauss Company, which from 1998 to 2003 closed every one of its American factories. Although Levi Strauss was one of the last holdouts, and did offer a decent severance package to its employees, it was forced to compete with other companies that were already making full use of inexpensive labor. As Brown notes, "In fact, the company make no jeans anywhere in the world; all of their production is subcontracted."

The wealth created by companies in foreign countries is shortsighted, and is not creating consumers, let alone a middle class- as proponents of free trade might argue. Brown notes in his book, "With only 4 percent of the population living in the United States, and another 10 percent living in Canada, Western Europe, Australia and Japan, who will purchase the goods made by the hundreds of millions men and women earning only a few dollars a day?" Furthermore he notes, "Nike paid more money in 1998 to Michael Jordan than it paid its entire 30,000 Vietnamese workforce of mostly young village girls. Who will buy the shoes? General Motors, Mexico's largest private employer, pays its employees forty dollars a week. Who will buy the cars?"

It is the use of cheap labor in developing countries that allows companies to excessively lobby its interests in Washington. It also allows companies to spend more money on high-price company spokespersons. Would the money not be better spent on American workers, or even to pay a fair wage to foreign workers? One might have believed that each Nike purchase was paying for Michael Jordon's endorsement, and that is true in some respect- but more significantly, it is what Nike is not paying in wage labor that allows it to market itself through high-priced spokespersons.

Globalization should be of competitive advantage, that is, of natural (geographical/climate) advantages, technical advantages or economies of scale. Competitive advantageous should not be created due to low wages or favorable environmental or safety laws. For example, if China enjoys natural advantages in terms of soil and climate in the growing of rice, then significant importations of rice are justified (and, perhaps, in turn used to purchase American products). If, however, the advantage were a workforce earning $4.00 a day, poor operational conditions and the non-existence of environmental standards, then I would favor tariffs to hold the country accountable and protect American industry-, which cannot possibly compete. Finally, the idea that American companies would send their employees, by the thousands, to the unemployment lines to outsource production, specifically to take advantage of low wages and lax environmental or safety laws is nothing less than deplorable.

Although a few courses and a couple of books in no way qualifies me as an authority on the complicated subject of free trade, I agree with Abraham Lincoln who wrote, "I don't know much about the tariff. But I know this much. When we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money." In addition to, the jobs, I might add.