As more and more real-life creatures face extinction, mankind is fascinated by the possibility of finding imaginary ones.
Two thick black hairs found on a mountainside in remote northwest India have prompted a new wave of speculation about one of the oldest, most famous and most elusive celebrities in natural history. Yeti, Sasquatch, the Abominable Snowman, Big Foot - he comes by many names, and whether he actually exists or not, he is a vital part of human society.
The hairs, discovered and sent to the British primatologist Ian Redmond this year, do not seem to match those of any other creature known to live in the West Garo mountains. The bristles may belong to an undiscovered species, a survivor of the giant ape called Gigantopithicus thought to be extinct, or to a lost pig. They may be the clippings of “Mande Burung”, the Man of the Jungle, a creature, half man and half ape, that has been spotted and recorded in local folklore for generations. They may be a hoax.
Scientists are at present conducting DNA tests on the hairs. More importantly, they are taking part in an ancient ritual common to almost every culture on Earth, and one that grows ever more important as the world grows smaller.
The search for the yeti can be dismissed as pseudo-science or wishful thinking, but it is a phenomenon with increasingly profound psychological significance in the modern world. As more species face extinction, natural habitat shrinks and climate-driven anxiety spreads, the innate human desire to find unknown creatures appears to be intensifying.
Cryptozoology - the study of species sighted by explorers or recorded in folklore but unverified by formal science - is booming. In recent years there has been a flood of books, encyclopaedias and guides to cryptids, creatures both fantastical and possible that survive somewhere on the wild, uncharted borders between science and fantasy.
In a thoroughly explored world, when Google Earth can whisk us to the most remote corner of the planet via a computer screen, cryptozoology still offers mystery, discovery and the unknown. If the internet promises the whole of knowledge, our fascination with unknown beasts provides a strange counterbalance: the human need to know that we do not know everything.
Ancient maps often depicted a dragon, unicorn or some other mythical beast on the edge of the known world- the remarkable rise of cryptozoology shows how desperate modern society has become to put the dragon back on our maps.
Communities have always defined the frontiers of their civilisation by dangerous, unknown beasts: the Loch Ness Monster; Mamlambo, the river monster of South Africa; the Aye-Aye in Paraguay, a sort of vicious tree-dwelling sheep and not to be confused with the real Aye-aye from Madagascar; the chupacabra or “goat-sucker” in Central America; and many more.
The latest Encyclopaedia of Cryptozoology lists some 1,600 different creatures that have evaded formal discovery. What is extraordinary about them is not their variety, but their remarkable similarity across time and geography.
The hairy almost-human is ubiquitous - Native Americans told of man-beasts living in the forests, Nepalese sherpas described “Metoh-Kangmi, “dirty men in the snow” which, after mistranslation, became abominable snowmen; China has its own version, the Yeren or wild men.
In medieval times, bestiaries of fantastic monsters represented the dangerous unknown, creatures both imaginary and real. They also offered oblique moral lessons, such as the phoenix rising from the ashes to promise life after death.
By the beginning of the last century, there were few large areas left to explore, and most species had been shot and stuffed, identified and catalogued. Yet, instead of disappearing, sightings of new animals have multiplied. While some turn out to be valid, most reflect a deeper psychological urge: to discover but also to preserve the unknown.
Most political observers will be watching the Rev. Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church tomorrow evening, where Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama are scheduled to take part in a presidential forum on faith and values.
The Saddleback event is not a debate, and McCain and Obama won’t appear on stage at the same time. But both men are expected to answer a number of questions about how their personal religious views might affect their time in office.
Warren’s forum has attracted a lot of media attention, but there is another event taking place this weekend that involves religion and politics – one that could, in the long run, have just as much impact on American political life.
Thousands of evangelicals are expected to gather on the National Mall in Washington for a day-long rally known as “TheCall.” The event has a decided emphasis on younger evangelicals, although its organizers come from the old guard of the Religious Right.
A controversial Pentecostal visionary named Lou Engle says he was inspired to organize national rallies for young people because he was told to do so by God in a dream. The first event took place in September of 2000. This weekend’s gathering is an election-year climax.
In a spectacular act of complicity with the religious right, the Department of Health and Human Services Monday released a proposal that allows any federal grant recipient to obstruct a woman's access to contraception. In order to do this, the Department is attempting to redefine many forms of contraception, the birth control 40% of Americans use, as abortion. Doing so protects extremists under the Weldon and Church amendments. Those laws prohibit federal grant recipients from requiring employees to help provide or refer for abortion services. The "Definitions" section of the HHS proposal states,
Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49% of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.
The proposal continues,
Both definitions of pregnancy inform medical practice. Some medical authorities, like the American Medical Association and the British Medical Association, have defined the term "established pregnancy" as occurring after implantation. Other medical authorities present different definitions. Stedman's Medical Dictionary, for example, defines pregnancy as "[t]he state of a female after conception and until the termination of the gestation." Dorland's Medical Dictionary defines pregnancy, in relevant part, as "the condition of having a developing embryo or fetus in the body, after union of an oocyte and spermatozoon.
Up until now, the federal government followed the definition of pregnancy accepted by the American Medical Association and our nation's pregnancy experts, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is: pregnancy begins at implantation. With this proposal, however, HHS is dismissing medical experts and opting instead to accept a definition of pregnancy based on polling data. It now claims that pregnancy begins at some biologically unknowable moment (there's no test to determine if a woman's egg has been fertilized). Under these new standards there would be no way for a woman to prove she's not pregnant. Thus, any woman could be denied contraception under HHS' new science.
For a second time, a military judge Thursday barred a U.S. general at the Pentagon from acting as a legal advisor in the trial of an accused terrorist at the Guantánamo war court.
Judge Stephen Henley also ordered a new top-level review of the charges against Mohammed Jawad, about 23, who is accused of attempted murder for allegedly throwing a grenade as a teen that wounded two U.S. soldiers and their translator in a bazaar in Kabul, Afghanistan.
Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann's aggressive advocacy of the trials by military commission -- in the media and other public statements -- ''compromised the objectivity necessary to dispassionately and fairly evaluate the evidence and prepare the post-trial evaluation,'' Henley ruled.
Defense attorneys had argued that Hartmann had become so preoccupied with the prosecution's side of the war crimes court -- and the Jawad case in particular -- that he pressured prosecutors to charge him.
Henley ruled that while the case's prosecutors swore out the charges properly, Hartmann could not serve as a ''neutral'' advisor on the case.
''The judge found that in the interests of justice General Hartmann is disqualified from further action in this case,'' said Air Force Maj. Gail Crawford, a military attorney serving as spokeswoman for the trials.
The ruling meant Pentagon officials would need to appoint a new legal advisor over the trial, one of 20 so far in the pipeline.
Hartmann, an Air Force reservist called to duty from a corporate attorney's job in Connecticut, still has oversight of the other 19 cases.
But it was unclear whether the second disqualification of the controversial figurehead of the beleaguered war court system would trigger more defense challenges.
Across the country, police are using GPS devices to snare thieves, drug dealers, sexual predators and killers, often without a warrant or court order. Privacy advocates said tracking suspects electronically constitutes illegal search and seizure, violating Fourth Amendment rights of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and is another step toward George Orwell's Big Brother society. Law enforcement officials, when they discuss the issue at all, said GPS is essentially the same as having an officer trail someone, just cheaper and more accurate. Most of the time, as was done in the Foltz case, judges have sided with police.
With the courts' blessing, and the ever-declining cost of the technology, many analysts believe that police will increasingly rely on GPS as an effective tool in investigations and that the public will hear little about it. Last year, FBI agents used a GPS device while investigating an embezzlement scheme to steal from District taxpayers, attaching one to a suspect's Jaguar.
"I've seen them in cases from New York City to small towns -- whoever can afford to get the equipment and plant it on a car," said John Wesley Hall, president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. "And of course, it's easy to do. You can sneak up on a car and plant it at any time."
Most police departments in the Washington region resist disclosing whether they use GPS to track suspects. D.C. police spokeswoman Traci Hughes said D.C. police do not use the technique. Police departments in Arlington, Fairfax and Montgomery counties and Alexandria declined to discuss the issue.
Cpl. Clinton Copeland, a Prince George's County police spokesman, said his department does use the technique. "But I don't think that's something [detectives] would be too happy to put out there like that," Copeland said. "They do have different techniques they like to use on suspects, but they don't really want people to know."
THE spectre of a new Cold War was raised yesterday, after the United States warned Russia that East-West relations could be damaged "for years to come" if it did not pull back from Georgia.
The comments by Robert Gates, the defence secretary, came as Russia announced it was considering annexing permanently the separatist provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Tensions between the two countries are likely to be heightened further after Poland last night signed a preliminary deal on plans to host part of a controversial US defence shield. The proposal is for the US to base ten missile interceptors in Poland in exchange for help strengthening Polish air defences.
Russia has condemned the project, claiming it would upset the military balance in Europe and has said it would have no choice but to point its own missiles at the installations.
One defence analyst told The Scotsman last night the timing of the deal was no co-incidence and was a clear example of the US "upping the ante".
Yesterday, the White House dismissed Moscow's threats about Georgia's breakaway regions as "bluster" and repeated its demands for Russia to pull its troops out of the area.
Mr Gates said he saw no need for US military force in Georgia, adding: "The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Russia. I see no reason to change that approach today."
His comments came before the new deal with Warsaw was disclosed, which is certain to anger the Kremlin.
Russians were told over breakfast yesterday what really happened in Georgia: the conflict in South Ossetia was part of a plot by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, to stop Barack Obama being elected president of the United States.
The line came on the main news of Vesti FM, a state radio station that — like the Government and much of Russia's media — has reverted to the old habits of Soviet years, in which a sinister American hand was held to lie behind every conflict, especially those embarrassing to Moscow. Modern Russia may be plugged into the internet and the global marketplace but in the battle for world opinion the Kremlin is replaying the old black-and-white movie.
The Obama angle is getting wide play. It was aired on Wednesday by Sergei Markov, a senior political scientist who is close to Vladimir Putin, the Prime Minister and power behind President Medvedev.
“George Bush's Administration is promoting interests of candidate John McCain,” said Dr Markov. “Defeated by Barak Obama on all fronts, McCain has one last card to play yet - the creation of a virtual Cold War with Russia . . . Bush himself did not want a war in South Ossetia but his Republican Party did not leave him any choice.” The Americans were now engineering an armed conflict between Ukraine and Russia, Dr Markov added.
The Establishment and its media supporters are dusting off favourites from the Cold War shelf. Sergei Lavrov, the Foreign Minister, accused Washington of playing dangerous games. The West was guilty of “adventurism”, supporting aggression against peace-loving Russian forces who are engaged on a humanitarian mission to protect human life. Yesterday's headline in Commersant, a generally admired newspaper, announced with old-style sarcasm the imminent American “Military Humanitarian Landing” in Georgia.
A classic of Soviet-speak also came from Vasili Lickhachev, a former Russian Ambassador to the EU. “The West has spent a lot of time, energy and money to teach Georgia the tricks of the trade . . . to make the country look like a democracy,” he said.
“We and many other nations see through this deceit. We understand that the seditious tactics of the so-called colour revolutions are a real threat to international law and the source of global legal nihilism.”
These grooves from the Cold War grave are shrugged off by many Russians but they strike a chord in a nation ready once again to see itself as the victim of outside conspiracy. Blogs everywhere attract conspiracy lovers but Russian blogs have been exceptionally rich this week in theories of Western skulduggery over Georgia.
The old thinking finds more fertile ground now because, in the view of disillusioned Russians, President Bush relaunched the ideological war through a compliant American media, especially at the time of the invasion of Iraq.
“In the old days under Soviet rule we didn't believe a word of our own propaganda but we thought that information was free in the West and we longed for it,” said Katya, a middle-aged Muscovite. “But we have learnt since that the West has its own propaganda and in some ways it is more powerful because people believe it.”
Moscow is using novel methods to spread a very unsubtle, Cold War version of the Caucasian conflict to the world. Chief among them is Russia Today, a state 24-hour news channel that is fronted much of the time by cheery British and other English-speaking television professionals.
The smiles and studio banter could come from BBC World or CNN but the story is unrelentingly the Kremlin version. Banners flash along at the bottom of the screen saying such things as “genocide” and “aggression” or “city turns into human hell, many people still trapped under rubble”. Recapping the conflict yesterday RT's presenter said that Georgia's “brutal assault” had killed 1,600 civilians in its breakaway province in a campaign that destroyed 70 per cent of the buildings in Tskhinvali, its capital. Russian forces had moved in only to bring peace as Georgian forces killed women and children who were trying to flee, it said. Throughout its rolling cover of alleged Georgian atrocities, there was no mention of the heavy Russian military offensive.
The coverage goes down well in developing countries that want an alternative to CNN and BBC World Service, a Russian official said. “We have learnt from Western TV how to simplify the narrative.”
