The chimpanzee and bonobo are humans’ closest living relatives.
These three species look alike in many ways, both in body and
behavior. But for a clear understanding of how closely they are related,
scientists compare their DNA, an essential molecule that’s the
instruction manual for building each species. Humans and chimps share a
surprising 98.8 percent of their DNA. How can we be so similar–and yet
so different?
So Much Alike…
Human and chimp DNA is so similar because the two species are so
closely related. Humans, chimps and bonobos descended from a single
ancestor species that lived six or seven million years ago. As humans
and chimps gradually evolved from a common ancestor, their DNA, passed
from generation to generation, changed too. In fact, many of these DNA
changes led to differences between human and chimp appearance and
behavior.
Examine the Evidence
Matching DNA? Human and chimp DNA is nearly identical when you
compare the bands on chromosomes, the bundles of DNA inside nearly every
cell. Which two chromosomes are more alike?
Banding Patterns
The light and dark bands on these chromosomes, created by a
laboratory dye, reveal similarities and differences among human, chimp
and mouse DNA.
Human and chimp X chromosomes both contain about
1,100 different genes, or sets of instructions. Each gene affects a
particular trait in the body.
Ivan Duque, chair of the Wilson Center’s newest Latin America initiative, at a Miami nightclub
These top Washington think tanks are lobbying
lawmakers for sadistic sanctions on some of the hemisphere’s poorest
countries while raking in millions from corporations and arms makers.
Sanctions are a form of hybrid
warfare that harms or even kills the target populations at little cost
to the country imposing them. In Latin America alone, US sanctions
(correctly known as “unilateral coercive measures”) have killed
at least 100,000 Venezuelans. The US blockade of Cuba has been so
destructive that one in ten Cubans have left the country. Sanctions have
similarly deprived Nicaraguans of development aid worth an estimated $3 billion since 2018, hitting projects such as new water supplies for rural areas.
Who formulates these devastating
sanctions, covers up their real effects, works with politicians to put
them into operation and promotes them in corporate media? In a perverse
contrast with the poor communities hit by these policies, those doing
the targeting are often well-paid employees of multi-million-dollar
think tanks, heavily funded by the US or other Western-aligned governments and in many cases by arms manufacturers.
A study in corruption: top think tank lobbyists and their funders
Chief among these groups is the Wilson Center,
which claims to simply provide policymakers with “nonpartisan counsel
and insights on global affairs.” Boasting a $40-million budget, a third
of which comes from the US government, the organization is headed by the
former Administrator of USAID, Amb. Mark Green.
In 2024, the Wilson Center boosted
its efforts to meddle in Latin America with the creation of the “Iván
Duque Center for Prosperity and Freedom,” naming its newest initiative
for the wildly unpopular former Colombian president largely remembered
for his violent crackdown on students protests, his obsessive focus on
regime change in Venezuela, and intentionally crippling the 2016 peace
deal meant to end decades of civil war in Colombia.
While Duque has not produced much in
the way of scholarship since joining the Wilson Center, he is living his
best life at Miami nightclubs, where he’s frequently seen in as a guest
DJ or regaling partiers with renditions of Spanish language rock hits.
From left to right in the top row: Magdalena Biejat, Grzegorz Braun, Katarzyna Cichos, Szymon Ho?ownia, Marek Jakubiak. In the bottom row from left: Wies?aw Lewicki, Maciej Maciak, S?awomir Mentzen, Karol Nawrocki and Wojciech Papis IMAGE/Public domain/Polskie Radio
In Poland a new state president will be elected on 18 May 2025 when voters are called to the first round. It is not expected that the first round will decide the outcome since the winner has to gather more than 50% of votes behind him, which now looks impossible. This will lead to a runoff 14 days later between the two candidates who place best in the first round. Polls show that three candidates have reasonable chances to enter the final round: Rafa? Trzaskowski, Karol Nawrocki and S?awomir Mentzen.
Trzaskowski: Support from the liberal centre – rapprochement with the conservatives
Polls show Rafa? Trzaskowski (born 1972), the mayor of Warsaw, with a
big lead. As the candidate of Donald Tusk’s politically and
substantively wide-ranging, though essentially liberal-conservative,
bloc, he can count on a good 35% of votes, according to the polls.
Trzaskowski already brings to the race plenty of experience from the
electoral campaign for the country’s highest office – in early summer of
2020 he gave Andrzej Duda (born 1972), the national-conservative
incumbent, an exciting run for his money. Now, after two terms Duda
cannot run again. Five years ago both candidates got more than 10
million voters in the runoff, an unusually high participation – moreover
under pandemic conditions. The race was closely decided only at the
finishing line in favour of Duda. The result emphatically demonstrated
how divided Poland’s political life has become ever since the rise to
power of the national conservatives. Up to now little has changed in
this regard. The entire liberal and more left parts of the spectrum have
stood behind Trzaskowski. The national conservatives around Jaros?aw
Kaczy?ski and their government had early set the stage for a type of
culture war, with the influential Catholic church eager to second them. A
rigid, aggressive stance was adopted in the area of women’s rights and
the rights of sexual minorities, which blossomed in the 2020
presidential electoral campaign. The liberal to left capital city was
demonised, depicting Trzaslowski as its representative – peaking in the
nonsensical accusation that if he won, he would try to reintroduce
“communism”. For Trzaskowski the choice was obvious – he positioned
himself as recognisably left liberal, in order to lend a unifying voice
to the broad spectrum of Kaczy?ski opponents – from moderate
conservatives to left. It is striking this year that in his campaign
appearances Trzaskowski has shifted to a liberal-conservative milieu in
the belief that this will attract decisive votes in the runoff.
Nithyananda made up ‘Kailasa,’ now his followers are caught grabbing land in Bolivia
Nithyananda’s followers from Kailasa have been arrested for allegedly trying to take over lands in Bolivia.
Self-styled godman
Nithyananda aka Arunachalam Rajasekaran, a fugitive who is facing sexual
abuse charges and kidnapping in India, may have established a fantasy
land for himself – a nonexistent so-called Hindu nation ‘United States
of Kailasa’ – but he is now facing real-world trouble! His followers
from Kailasa have been arrested for allegedly trying to take over land
parcels in Bolivia.
The Bolivian officials have told the New York Times that
as many as 20 people, linked to Kailasa, were arrested on the charges
of “land trafficking” after they signed deals with indigenous groups to
lease large parts of the Amazon for 1,000 years.
They said that the members of Kailasa were also deported to their home countries – India, the United States, Sweden and China.
In a statement,
Bolivia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, “Bolivia does not maintain
diplomatic relations with the alleged nation ‘United States of
Kailasa’.”
How Kailasa members managed to grab lands in Bolivia
According to the NYT report,
Kailasa members entered Bolivia on tourist visas and connected with
Indigenous groups promising assistance during forest fires.
Pedro
Guasico, a leader of ‘Baure’, one of the groups, said the contact with
the Kailasians turned into the signing of a 25-year lease worth $200,000
annually.
When the members of Kailasa returned, the deal mentioned 1,000-year lease with permission to ‘extract natural resources’.
But on paper, the $200,000 seemed more significant than the change in lease years. And Baure chief signed.
“We
made the mistake of listening to them. They offered us that money as an
annual bonus for conserving and protecting our territory, but it was
completely false,” he was quoted as saying.
Headquarters of the Council of Islamic Ideology in Islamabad IMAGE/Dawn
Last year, the Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed that a woman is entitled to dissolve her marriage on the grounds that her husband, without her permission, married another woman. Recently, the Council of Islamic Ideology released a statement rejecting this decision, asserting that it is against Islamic law to permit a woman to dissolve her marriage because she did not consent to her husband’s marriage to another woman. The CII is an advisory body and cannot overrule the Supreme Court, but is deemed to be an authority on the requirements of Islamic law.
The fact that in 2024, the Supreme Court had to author a detailed
judgement to clarify very straightforward statutory provisions in the
Muslim Family Law Ordinance (MFLO), 1961, and the Dissolution of Muslim
Marriages Act, 1939 — which was then repudiated by the CII — is an
indication of the manufactured confusion around family laws in Pakistan.
Why does this confusion persist? Muslim personal law covers matters
related to marriage, divorce and inheritance for the majority of
Pakistan’s population. Personal law is partially codified in the form of
statutes derived from religious jurisprudence. Courts and religious
bodies often misinterpret the plain meaning of statutes to conform to
their own views of Islamic jurisprudence. For example, courts have
repeatedly misread the 1961 ordinance’s provisions on talaq, often
refusing to enforce the notice and registration requirements in the law.
They also tend to fill in the gaps in codified laws with conservative
interpretations of Islamic law.
The origins of Muslim personal law lie in the British colonial era.
As the colonial government began to introduce legislation regulating
political and economic spheres, it carved out exceptions for matters
related to marriage, divorce and inheritance, declaring that these would
be dealt with in accordance with the custom and religious laws of each
community.
The gap between codified law and court interpretations continue to create uncertainty.
Muslim political groups were keen to secure the primacy of the Sharia
over custom in matters of family law and inheritance. In 1937, Muslims
secured legislation that declared that personal law derived from the
Sharia alone rather than custom would govern family matters and
inheritance for Muslims.
Prior to independence, Muslims secured another codified law — the
Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act passed in 1939. While this law
established the right of Muslim women to dissolve their marriage in
certain circumstances, the motivation behind the law was not the
promotion of women’s rights. In fact, it was passed to prevent Muslim
women from renouncing their faith and marrying non-Muslims. Prior to
this law, Muslim women seeking to end a marriage could only do so after
they converted to another religion, which would lead to the automatic
termination of their marriage to a Muslim man. This would also enable
Muslim women to marry outside their faith after their marriage to the
Muslim man stood terminated.
The US’ “secondary tariff” threats might lead to bigger discounts on oil shipments. IMAGE/AI-generated image
After an opening that suggested a more pragmatic approach, the Trump administration has since ramped up its attacks against Venezuela.
The Trump administration is barely two months into its term but every
day feels like a rollercoaster. Migrants get rounded up, threats fly
everywhere, and now a brutal bombing campaign is underway in Yemen.
Wholehearted support for genocide in Palestine is the one constant.
When it comes to Venezuela, analysts put forward different scenarios
for US policy approaches, ranging from a rehashing of Trump 1.0’s
“maximum pressure” to more pragmatic scenarios that would see Washington
leverage foreign policy weapons to favor US corporate interests.
An
early direct engagement between the White House and the Maduro
government created the illusion of a more heterodox and less hostile
approach. However, all the subsequent moves point in a different
direction. Trump is maximizing pressure against Venezuela.
What happens to Chevron?
Chevron’s
license to operate in Venezuela was seen by most as a bellwether of
where the US’ re-elected reality-show host wanted to go. Allowing
Chevron to continue would mean an admission that regime change was not
in the cards and that a US energy giant should keep making profits.
Driving Chevron out clearly meant trying to strangle Venezuela by all
means possible.
After a lot of speculation, pressure from Florida’s “crazy Cuban”
representatives led to the US Treasury Department withdrawing the
company’s sanctions waiver and giving it 30 days, until April 2, to wind
down operations.
However, Chevron later saw its deadline extended
to May 27. The question is now whether this is really the end of the
road or if Chevron could eventually remain on recurrent short-term
licenses. This middle-ground policy would ensure the conglomerate does
not suffer losses but also would discourage it from making any
significant investments to boost production.
The Battle of Lexington, 19 April 1775, 1910, oil on canvas by William Barns Wollen (1857-1936)
On April 19, 1775, 250 years ago today, the first battles of the American Revolution took place at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts. The day of fighting, itself the outcome of a gathering revolutionary crisis, presaged the outcome of the war: the victory of the revolution over what was then the world’s greatest power, Great Britain, and the establishment of the world’s first major modern democratic republic.
By the spring of 1775, the upheaval in the British North American colonies had reached an advanced stage, especially in Massachusetts, where “the flames of sedition had spread universally throughout the country beyond conception,” in the words of Thomas Gage, the Commander-in-Chief of British North America and the recently appointed Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay.
On April 14, 1775, General Gage received his orders to extinguish those “flames of sedition” directly from Lord Dartmouth, secretary of the state for the colonies in the government of Prime Minister Lord North. “Seize and destroy all military stores,” Dartmouth wrote, and “arrest the principal actors.” Gage was told to put down the colonials lest their rebellion mature to “a riper state.”
The case sheds light on the Abu Dhabi network providing
lethal and financial support to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a
violent non-state actor fighting Sudan’s government in a bloody civil
war.
The RSF is but one of the nodes in a network of non-state actors the
UAE has curated over the past decade. The small Gulf monarchy has tapped
into secessionist causes from Libya, to Yemen, Sudan and Somalia, using surrogates as Trojan horses to generate strategic depth and influence.
Like Iran’s
“axis of resistance” – a network of non-state actors loosely tied
together under an Islamic revolutionary banner – the UAE’s “axis of
secessionists” comprises a network of non-state actors tied together
under a counterrevolutionary banner. Like Tehran, Abu Dhabi has curated a
multilayered network of violent non-state actors, financiers, traders,
political figureheads and influencers to create bridgeheads in countries
of strategic value to Emirati national interests.
the reason being that he wanted to use El Salvador as a dumping ground
for removing immigrants from the US by alleging they’re gang members
US is paying $6 million to Bukele regime to house deportees
innocent people are charged with whatever the Dear Leader comes up with
“Undated photo provided by the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, a man identified by Jennifer Vasquez Sura as her husband, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is led by force by guards through the Terrorism Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador.” IMAGE/DESCRIPTION/U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland/AP/ABC News
one of the innocents is Kilmar Abrego Garcia, married to a US citizen
Thanks to US Senator Chris Van Hollen’s efforts, he was able to persuade El Salvador authorities to transfer Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a less harsh facility. IMAGE/Wikipedia
US Senator Chris Van Hollen took up the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case
he went to El Salvador and had Garcia moved to a less rough jail
“How can I smuggle — how can I return him to the United States? It’s like I smuggle him into the United States or what do I do? Of course, I’m going to do it. It’s like, I mean, the question is preposterous. How can I smuggle the terrorist into the United States? I don’t have the power to return him to the United States.”
one has to marvel at the confidence & sarcasm of Bukele’s bullshitting
“How can I smuggle the terrorist into the United States?”
the CNN reporter couldn’t say:
“what harm an innocent person wrongly charged will do to us
no one can match us, we’re the greatest terrorists on earth”
Bukele’s smart-assness was thanks to President/King Donald Trump
what happens if tomorrow for some reason Trump doesn’t like Bukele
well, Trump will bomb the shit out of Bukele and El Salvador
Bukele will be “the coolest,” literally
his lifeless body won’t be left with any hot blood
“By the mid 1980s, Noriega was guilty of these crimes. Among other things, he seems to have been dragging his feet about helping the US in the contra war. His independence also threatened our interests in the Panama Canal. On January 1, 1990, most of the administration of the Canal was due to go over to Panama-in the year 2000, it goes completely to them. We had to make sure that Panama was in the hands of people we could control before that date.”
George H. W. Bush invaded tiny Panama in 1989, destroyed many slums
a country of 2,300,000 was attacked by 27,000 soldiers & 300 planes
the US killed hundreds, maybe thousands, of Panamanians
Noriega was arrested and died in a US jail in 2017
US President Ronald Reagan’s special represntative Donald Rumsfeld (left) with Iraq President Saddam Hussein in 1983 IMAGE/Reddit
Iraq and and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein met the same fate
in January 1991, Bush bombed Iraq killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis
March 2003 — Bush’s son George W. Bush, then president, invaded Iraq
Saddam was captured, a sham trial was held, and Saddam was hanged
Iraq was destroyed again by a second war, a great number of people died
every Iraqi government since then, runs according to the US dictate
there are many more scenarios, like this …
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com
