A couple of anthropologists are suggesting early man was far less the hunter, than the hunted.

At the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association in Washington, D.C., anthropologist Donna Hart of the University of Missouri in St. Louis presented the argument that fossil evidence and the experience today of monkeys and apes, the closest relatives to humans, “supports a ‘Man, the Hunted’ theory of evolution.”

Looking at fossils of early humans more than a million years old, Hart and her colleague, Robert Sussman of Washington University, argue that numerous examples of skulls bearing bite marks, some the kind made by saber-toothed cats and leopards, show up from sites in Asia and Africa. Further, the evidence for weapons — needed to hunt down that mastadon — and control of fire — needed to turn that mastodon into a meal — don’t turn up much later in the archaeological record.

Going back 2.5 to 5 million years ago, Hart and Sussman concentrated on the species Australopithecus afarensis. According to Sussman:

Australopithecus afarensis probably quite strong, like a small ape. Adults ranged from around 3 feet to 5 feet tall and weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

…

The predators living at the same time as A. afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.

A. afarensis didn’t have tools, didn’t have big teeth and wasn’t very tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators.

…

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon, according to evidence such as teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which saber-tooth cat fangs fit.

The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

They further assert: many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human’s ability to outsmart the predators.

Could it be if we returned to our pre-predator vegetarian ways we could actually unevolve into the peaceful, cooperative and social animals we may once have been?

I may well have to mull that over my steak tonight.

Hart and Sussman have compiled their research and theory in their book: Man the Hunted.

Footnote: As Jack should be back later this evening and, no doubt, up and posting tomorrow, I would like to thank him for the opportunity to come over here and exercise my brain a bit. Thus, my heartfelt thanks to Jack and his readers for the hospitality.

This may come as a surprise to some, but our United States Constitution does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution requires:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

As such, state legislatures are given the power and authority to set the time, place, and manner of elections; however, the Constitution does explicitly prohibit discrimination (Amendments XV, XIX, and XXVI) in granting the franchise based on a person’s race, sex, or age.

Amendment XV to the Constitution provides:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIX states:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XXVI:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Notwithstanding, States and other governments can and do disfranchise individuals and groups of citizens. It would appear, if there is no provable bias, it is Constitutional, despite the guarantee of “equal protection” provided by Amendment XIV :

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Case in point is the disfranchisement due to criminal conviction. According to Wikipedia, there are thirteen U.S. states which deny the right to vote to those serving time for felony conviction; however, the disfranchisement is for the length of incarceration. Texas has a similar law that extends the suspension of the right to vote for a period of two years after release from custody. Thirteen other U. S. states permanently deny the right to vote with Arizona and Maryland imposing perpetual disfranchisement after two convictions. Only two states, Maine and Vermont allow prison inmates to vote unless disfranchisement is meted out as a separate punishment.

Since 1868 Florida has had a lifetime voting ban for felons.

In the case of Johnson v. Bush, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 5945, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 406 (11th Cir. Fla. Apr 12, 2005) eight Florida citizens, representing a class of over 613,000 Florida citizens who have fully served sentences of incarceration, probation, or parole on felony convictions, challenged the Florida Constitutional provision barring convicted felons from voting in the State of Florida.

The case synopsis is as follows:

Plaintiffs contend that this provision violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as the 14th and 15th Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs contend that: the original provision, enacted in 1868, was motivated by a discriminatory purpose to disenfranchise African-Americans; this provision was reenacted in 1968 with no explanation provided, maintaining the original taint of discriminatory purpose in the 1868 enactment; the disproportionate effect on African Americans; and, the fact that African Americans are less likely to have their rights restored.

On November 14, 2005, the United States Supreme Court, without comment or published decision, rejected the appeal of Florida felons seeking to regain their right to vote, thereby affirming the April 12, 2005 en banc decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in the Johnson case.

That court’s findings have been summarized:

The Court conceded the fact that some provisions of the 1868 Constitution were discriminatorily motivated, but this did not mean all provisions were. The Court, however, went on to state that there was no direct evidence of discriminatory motivation behind the provision in question. Additionally, in 1968, amendments to the Florida Constitution were considered and debated in a deliberative process, and amendments to the provision in question were changed to only include felons, whereas in the past people convicted of misdemeanors were also disenfranchised. No evidence of racial animus was provided, a valid reason for the provision was found, and as such the provision was found to be constitutional. Finally, the Court held that the legislative history behind Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act indicates that, while the section was intended to prevent discrimination in elections, it was never intended to affect a State’s ability to disenfranchise persons convicted of felonies.

Per se, the issue of convicted felons losing their right to vote while incarcerated and during their period of probation is of little interest to me; however, I am not of the opinion the loss of franchisement should be permanent once one has served the requisite time and complied with all probationary matters. Further, I have no problem with some State-instituted process whereby a convicted felon is required to apply for re-institution of the right to vote.

What I find provocative about this topic is the assertion by the plaintiffs in the Johnson case that 10 percent of African-American adults in the state are prohibited from voting under the ban and this percentage does not include those presently incarcerated.

This is further apparent in the Petition for Writ of Certiorari filed by the Johnson plaintiffs with the United States Supreme Court:

Questions Presented

1. Is a permanent felony disenfranchisement provision - like all other voting qualifications subject to challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act on the ground it results in denial of the right to vote on account of race?

2. When a provision as enacted by a state for the purpose of disqualifying otherwise eligible black voters, and it has disenfranchised blacks at twice the rate of others for more that one hundred years, does the state bear the evidentiary burdens of production and persuasion in proving it reenacted the provision for an independent, nondiscriminatory reason sufficient to purge its unconstitutional taint?

As stated above, it would appear, if there is no provable bias, disfranchisement is Constitutional, despite the guarantee of “equal protection” provided by Amendment XIV.

The implications of this extend beyond race, sex, and age.

The abortion issue vis-a-vis Roe v. Wade has been something that I have struggled with for many years.

When I was in law school, some eighteen years ago, I believed the issue was not about trimesters or when life actually began. As far as I was concerned, life began at conception. The issue for me revolved around consent, as well as rights versus obligations, and privileges versus duties and responsibilities.

My thinking was very simple, if a woman willingly engaged in an activity that would or could result in the conception of a child, it was her responsibility to have the child, then either rear the baby or put him or her up for adoption.

I believed in personal autonomy. A woman had a right to choose and the choice was not whether or not a pregnancy should be terminated, but whether to have sex in the first place.

In those instances of incest and rape where the woman had not willingly consented, but was violated in the most heinous of ways, then she should have had the right to choose whether to terminate the pregnancy. I did not believe violence should beget violence, but I was not going to force a woman who had suffered at the hands of another to carry, and then bear the child of her attacker.

Further, I had no problem with abortion where the life of the mother was at risk.

I believed that with education of ourselves and our young people regarding sexual activity, as well as personal responsibility, the necessity for abortion would be the exception, rather than the rule.

After all, reasonable, thinking, and responsible individuals did not screw up and get pregnant, did they?

And, if they did, they did the “right� thing, got married, and prepared to bring a child into the world, didn’t they?

During the two-week period between the end of finals my last semester of law school and graduation, I prepared to move from Baton Rouge to start a job elsewhere in the state, take the bar exam, and get married.

When I was cleaning out my apartment, one of my friends from law school came by. She had a great new job lined up with an old and prestigious all-male law firm. She had a new boyfriend and, weeks before, had been very excited about the events in her life; however, on this day, she was upset and crying.

This friend was twenty-five years old and one of the smartest women I knew. She was unmarried and pregnant. She had broken up with the biological father a couple months before. This old boyfriend already had one child from a liaison with a girl in high school.

The friend explained she was scheduled to have an abortion on the following day, but needed someone to drive her to and from the procedure. She said she knew how I felt about abortion, but she did not know who else to ask. The current boyfriend did not know she was pregnant and she wanted to keep it that way.

I struggled with what to do, but eventually decided it was her choice and she certainly had a legal right to have an abortion. I told her I would take her.

The next day, I picked her up and drove her to the clinic. There were dozens of people picketing outside. She covered her head with a sweater. I did not feel as though I had anything to be ashamed of, so I merely walked through the protesters with her. Just before we entered the clinic, I made eye contact with a wizened old man holding a poster depicting pieces of a fetus. He screamed at me: “Abortion does not make you not a mother. It makes you the mother of a dead baby.�

For a long time after that, he visited me in my dreams.

The friend had her abortion and we parted ways. We kept in contact here and there, but the friendship was effectively over.

I have no doubt every time she saw me she thought of the abortion because every time I saw or spoke to her, I certainly did.

Her baby would have been born in September of that year.

He or she would have been fifteen this year.

In a perfect world there would be no rape and there would be no incest.

In a perfect world each of us would think about our actions and take responsibility for who and what we are.

In a perfect world there would be no need for abortions.

Dare I say it? Ours is not a perfect world.

These days I still believe in personal autonomy, the right to choose, and inherent in each right and privilege we have as American citizens are equally important duties and responsibilities; however, while still a conservative, I now firmly tow the pro-abortion line.

If we made abortion illegal, only those who could not afford to travel abroad or pay “private� physicians to secure the procedures would be forced to bear these unwanted children.

Yes, they could give them up to adoption; however, with our current welfare system and programs, these extraneous babies would be little more than meal tickets for their mothers.

Perhaps, years ago, I had even believed and adopted that arrogant elitist stance that some people needed to be saved from themselves, simply because they did not know any better or had not been taught any better. For that is where I believe the concept of legislating morality began.

For the record, I do not believe in legislating morality, despite an acknowledgement it is done repeatedly in this country.

Back in law school I actually thought making abortion illegal would deter women from carelessly getting pregnant because if they knew they would have to have the baby, they might actually consider their actions beforehand, rather than live for years after dealing with the guilt; however, I have learned there are people who are just not that way.

A sister of someone else I know has already had three abortions and she came from an influential upper-middle class family. For her, she simply could not be bothered with taking one little pill every day, if she got pregnant, abortion was the perfect form of birth control for her.

Thus, there are people who can have an abortion and not give it another thought.

It occurs to me that if that is, indeed, the case, do we really want those people forced to have their children? My answer is no, I don’t.

However, for my friend from law school, I have no doubt she has suffered the anguish of her actions and decision.

Notwithstanding, these days, I do not care whether anyone feels guilty about having an abortion or not. I really don’t. It is really none of my business.

We all have crosses to bear. We all have things to regret. It’s part of living, as well as being human. Not all mistakes are equal in their severity or consequences, but mistakes are mistakes. We should have the right to make them. I guess I am Libertarian in that sense.

I would much prefer to see the resources, passion, and energy we have poured into this fight over abortion (as well as other morality issues) channeled and focused into doing things that are positive and might actually make a difference.

There can be a cure for cancer and AIDS in our lifetime.

I would love to see Social Security (particularly the disability and welfare aspects of it) revamped and reformed.

The entire welfare system needs a good cleaning, as well.

The tax code could be made a great deal simpler which would pare down considerably the number of IRS employees out there.

Our education system is in crisis and our most valuable resource in this country is our children; however we treat them as either prizes or consumables.

And, that’s just a start here in this country.

There is so much we could be doing abroad, as well.

My point in all this: We each need to look in the mirror and rather than espousing our virtues and virtuous ways to ourselves and others, get off our collective arses, put our money, brainpower, and effort into looking around and seeing what each of us can do to make our small corners of the world better for all of us.

I guess that’s enough from me for now, I owe my Congressman a letter and I promised cookies for the local fire department’s bake sale…

This week the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument on its first abortion case in five years. The case is Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood, No. 04-1144 of the high court’s docket.

While initially touted in the press as a showdown on the abortion issue, Ayotte does not challenge the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that declared abortion a fundamental constitutional right; however, the scope of this right may well be limited.

At issue is New Hampshire’s 2003 parental-notification law which requires minors to tell a parent before they can get an abortion unless a judge grants a “bypass.” The only stated exception is for girls who would die without an abortion. A Boston-based federal appeals court ruled that the lack of an express health exception made the entire statute too restrictive and declared it unconstitutional. Thus, the entire law was thrown out.

As written, the New Hampshire law requires physicians performing an abortion on a minor notify her parents and wait 48 hours after doing so before carrying out the procedure. The law has an exception for situations when the doctor certifies that the minor’s life is at stake, but it has none for situations in which her health might be at risk — something the court’s case law generally requires. It does, however, have a provision allowing a judge to override the notification requirement and waiting period if that is in the minor’s best interest, including in the interest of her health.

Herein lies the problem, Roe v. Wade prohibits states from placing an “undue burden” on an individual seeking an abortion. In requiring court permission for an abortion during a medical emergency in which the minor’s health is threatened an “undue burden” is arguably placed on the “right to choose.”

During Wednesday’s oral arguments, Justice Steven Breyer posed this hypothetical:

It’s the middle of the night in New Hampshire, and a teenager, afraid to tell her parents she is pregnant, appears at an emergency room. A doctor diagnoses a spike in blood pressure that won’t kill the girl but could render her sterile unless she has an immediate abortion. The doctor calls a judge for permission to perform the procedure, as state law prescribes — and voice mail answers.

He then asked: “What’s supposed to happen?”

If the line of questioning from the justices is any indication of their views on deciding this matter, it appears they may be inclined to uphold the statute with only slight modification:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy suggested it wouldn’t be difficult to call a judge, but like Roberts he also seemed frustrated that the merits of the judicial bypass provision weren’t tested at the lower court level. ”It seems to me that the bypass procedure can go a long way toward saving this statute but that this was not litigated in the trial courts,” Kennedy said.

Dalven (the attorney for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England) responded that any delay ‘puts the minor’s health at risk.’

Justice Antonin Scalia responded swiftly: Assuming New Hampshire sets up a special office with an ‘abortion judge’ on call, he said, the issue would be moot because ”it takes 30 seconds to place a phone call.’

Chief Justice Roberts “focused his questions on how the case reached the high court before the law was enacted and why opponents want to strike down the entire regulation if the exception is the key issue.”

The Justices can remand this case for further hearing in the lower courts or elect to decide the matter on their own.

Personally, I would not be surprised to see it remanded to give the lower court an opportunity to carve out an exception on its own.

In 1953 President Truman announced the US had developed the hydrogen bomb shortly before turning the presidency over to Dwight D. Eisenhower; Georgia approved the first literature censorship board in the United States; James Watson and Francis Crick announced that they had determined the chemical structure of DNA; Joseph Stalin died; Ian Fleming published the first James Bond novel; Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mount Everest; Elizabeth was crowned Queen of England; the first Chevrolet Corvette was built; and Miklo Radulovich began a fight that arguably constitutes a major milestone in the history of this great country.

In 1953 McCarthyism was in full swing.

After ten years of service and one year as a reservist, Lieutenant Radulovich was stripped of his Air Force commission because his father, a Yugoslav immigrant, kept abreast of events in his native land by subscribing to Serbian newspapers.

Kendall Wingrove of the National Ledger summarizes the story quite well:

The lieutenant decided to fight the charges and demanded an Air Force hearing. He needed legal assistance, but any attorney helping Radulovich ran the risk of also being labeled a subversive. Eventually Charles Lockwood, a semi-retired lawyer and former Detroit College of Law professor, came to his aid.

Lockwood decided to fight the case in the media. He contacted Russell Harris of the Detroit News, who explained the situation to his readers. Among them was a young attorney named Ken Sanborn, who remembered Radulovich from their days in the Aviation Cadet Program at Michigan State College (now Michigan State University).

The politically conservative Sanborn, a first lieutenant in the Air Force Reserve, risked everything to defend his old classmate. Like Lockwood, he accepted no fee.

Despite such heroic legal services, the hearing’s outcome was predetermined, and the Air Force stripped Radulovich of his commission.

In addition to these two attorneys, the Detroit News was instrumental:

On Oct. 14, 1953, The News printed another front-page article on the case, and this time it attracted the attention of CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow in New York. Murrow hosted a television newsmagazine show called ‘See It Now,’ where he occasionally focused on what he called the ‘little picture’. Murrow was anxious to expose Sen. McCarthy’s anti-communist witch-hunts and had been waiting for the right story of an average citizen being persecuted. When he read of Milo Radulovich he was certain he had found it.

Murrow took The Detroit News story to his CBS producer Fred Friendly. Friendly immediately dispatched reporter Joe Wershba to Dexter to interview Radulovich, his father and sister. Wershba called Friendly that evening and told him this was definitely the story they needed…

The show was, according to Friendly, ‘the shortest half hour in the history of television.’ It consisted of filmed interviews with Milo, his wife, and father. CBS reporters had combed the town of Dexter looking for opposition to Milo but all supported his fight.

On Nov. 24, five weeks after the show aired, Harold E. Talbott, Secretary of the Air Force, reversed the findings of the administrative board of three Air Force colonels that had declared Radulovich a security risk. He was cleared of all charges.

It was the beginning of the end for Sen. McCarthy. Murrow aired an attack on McCarthy in March of 1954 and gave McCarthy a show of his own to respond. McCarthy’s only response was to call Murrow a communist.

In a 1969 interview by Richard Ryan of the Detroit News Radulovich stated:

There is absolutely no question that it affected my life. It stopped me from achieving some of the goals I wanted to attain. I never got my college degree and that bugs the hell out of me…There are probably a lot of guys floating around now washing garbage cans who were involved in the same period. And there might have been a lot more. I consider myself really lucky. It is only by the grace of public opinion that I was able to carry my fight. If it hadn’t been for The Detroit News I don’t know where I would be today. Where else but in this country can you find a free press that is willing to express itself to save a little man?

I ask the same question: “Where else but in this country can you find a free press that is willing to express itself to save a little man?�

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution is something to remember, as well as cherish and protect:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What would you have done if you had been Radulovich?

Additional notes: Radulovich’s story was reduced to book form in 1996 by Michael Ranville in To Strike at a King: The Turning Point in the McCarthy Witch-Hunt. George Clooney has now brought this story to theatres across the country in Good Night, Good Luck.