Some would say that this conclusion is a bit premature.  Even President Obama’s highly contested Affordable Care Act of 2010 went through hundreds of amendment iterations, narrowly missed a filibuster in the Senate, and was finally brought before the United States Supreme Court only to later become the law of the land. Universal background checks could very well see the same fate.

About the Vote

A deeper understanding of the vote provides some clarity on universal background checks and gun control legislation in general. The vote that failed actually wasn’t one to make universal background checks law. Instead, it was a “cloture” vote. Put simply, a cloture vote is required to break a filibuster.

So, now you are probably wondering what a filibuster is. Well, basic Senate rules allow for a simple majority to pass a bill in most cases. But, when one party, in this case Republicans – the minority in the Senate – filibusters or denies the debate on the bill all together, a cloture vote must be taken to move past the impasse.  Filibuster rules in the Senate require a three fifths cloture vote or 60/40 majority in order to move past the road block and instate a vote on the bill being filibustered. In this case, both parties have been bickering back and forth on gun control for months. Each has taken advantage of the filibuster for a multitude of reasons.

Now, what is most significant about these proceedings is that, while four Republicans voted in favor of the bill, five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV). For Senator Reid, voting “no” affords him the ability to resurrect the background check debate in the future. This implies that there is an intention to introduce the bill or some derivation of it on the Senate floor again.

So, What Does It Mean? Really?

So, while this vote was originally reported as a “defeat” in direct discord with preferences of over 90% of American voters, a more fitting description would be a delay. With the vast number of citizens, those in favor of gun control and those against it alike, supporting a major change in the way we handle background checks, these recent events point to a continued debate on the topic.

What will be critical over the next few weeks and months will be a continued movement toward legitimate dialogue between the political players in the DC Beltway. They have little to lose by compromising on gun control because this is a non-election year.  Nonetheless, recent events inspire hope that the conversation on gun control will happen in the very near future.

Meanwhile, we will continue to see gun advocates spewing hatred as we did at last week’s NRA conventions in Texas. And, we will continue to see the families of Newtown victims imploring action from their congressional officers seemingly to no avail. But, with the contention this thick, there just needs to be a few courageous voices willing to rebuke party lines in favor of the American people. Senator John McCain (R – AZ) has attempted to be that voice. Just a few more and we might very well be on our way to justice, equity, and fairness in the in gun control conversation.

Monáe’s sexy style and funky beats hearken back to the smooth hip hop hymns we all subscribed to in the 90s and early 2000s. But, aside from the get-up-and-dance centripetal force that no doubt sucks you in, it is her message and overall image that inspires so many.

Though Monáe has been on the scene for a few years, many in the black community were introduced to her when she was awarded last year at the annual Black Girls Rock! awards show. Her moving speech urged young girls to be true to themselves no matter the cost or adversity. And, she hit home for many with the message that she didn’t have to change herself to become a Cover Girl. So, not only is she a great artist; she has made it clear that she is here to change some things in the music industry and art industry in general.

So, the most logical question is simple: why hasn’t this young lady caught on more? She is beautiful, confident, consistent, and talented. One might place her slow burn toward stardom in her deliberate anti-mainstream positioning. Another might blame the fact that she is unwilling to compromise on her signature on-stage props like her pompadour and black & white uniform.

But, I have a different observation. I think that Monáe’s uncompromising and unique nature will be the exact things she needs to stick around for a very long time. No, she hasn’t flashed an asset or worn an overly revealing dress. Are those mistakes? Certainly not. She has illustrated that she is not making music for the money. The final verse of this song proves that she intends to “sell hope” to her fellow “electric ladies.” She is positioned in a niche where no one in the black community has really dared to stand since Lauryn Hill and Erykah Badu. The hope is that this generation will appreciate that intentional positioning a bit more than mine did. Because I, for one, miss the hell out of those Q.U.E.E.N.s.

Finally, I have to underscore her final point in the song. She summed up the entire message by spitting 20 bars of fire. Most importantly, she said this:

“Will you be electric sheep? Electric ladies will you sleep? Or will you preach?”

And, I would say this is a pretty fitting question. I guess I am more of the preaching kind…but, the key here, is practicing it too. And Ms. Monáe has certainly done a stellar job of that.

Are you an “electric lady?” What do you think of the song? And, what do you think Janelle Monáe’s presence in the industry will do for the image of brown girls across this country?

This past Sunday, actor Jamie Foxx attended the MTV Music Awards. And, after lending his voice alongside other celebrities in a PSA for gun violence called “Demand a Plan,” it was no surprise that he showed up donning an anti-gun violence t-shirt. But, it wasn’t the message that garnered the most attention. Instead, Twitter crazies lashed out at Jamie Foxx for having a “nigger criminal” pictured alongside the innocents who were murdered in December at Newtown, CT. Implying that Trayvon Martin wasn’t innocent, these responses point to a much larger issue with race and politics in this country.

Responses to Jamie Foxx’s T-Shirt

What was most jarring about the Twitter responses to Jamie Foxx’s t-shirt was the incessant use of the word “nigger.” An old-timey term specifically designed to ostracize, other-ize, and demonize black people, this term only springs up when the intentional desire of the speaker is to malign a Black person. There really is no other purpose for the word. Here is a bit of the hate posted this week on Public Shaming. By the way, these are some of the more tame responses.

How to Racialize Murder

This country has done an absolutely stellar job of racializing just about everything. Certain foods are seen as “Black” while others are seen as “White.” Music, academic interests, books, and movies are deemed one race or another (further reiterating the point that race in and of itself is a purely social construct just waiting for some new person to add to it what he/she deems “racial”). But, it is truly amazing that we have successfully racialized murder.

When masses of Black children or young adults are killed by gun wielding murderers, the murder typically is seen as justified. If you just think about cases like Oscar Grant, who was killed by a BART Police Office while lying face down on the BART platform with no weapon in hand, or like Jordan Russell Davis, who was shot and killed randomly when an older White male became angry at the loud music he was listening to, these cases have been defended by some Whites because the assumption is that these young men were probably guilty of something. Now, whether that means that they no longer have a right to due process is none of those people’s concern. Instead, there is a certain justification in knowing that another black thug is off of the streets one way or another.

The Trayvon Martin case is no different. After folks heard the young man screaming for help, after his murderer, George Zimmerman, admitted to chasing him down and after Zimmerman admitted to shooting him in cold blood, he was still put on trial post mortem. I repeat, the deceased young man who had no criminal record (not that that matters anyway), had no weapon other than a bottle of iced tea and a package of Skittles, and was walking alone while talking to his girlfriend on the phone, was tried in the public eye after he was murdered.

Juxtapose this with the plight of those murdered at Newtown, Connecticut. Those poor children and adults were guilty of nothing other than attending school or work that day when a single assailant murdered them in cold blood. The entire country mourned and still mourns their loss. No one asked if the children were wearing hoodies. No one asked if any of the kids were black. No one checked anyone’s school records to see if they had ever been suspended. But, all these things happened in the case of Trayvon Martin.

This is how we have racialized murder in this country. We don’t care about crime unless the assailant is brown or black. We don’t care about gun violence until a school house full of White children is the target. And why is this so? Because this country is predicated, built upon, thriving on a continuous cycle of racial disparity that keeps haves having and have-nots not having. This is the world we live in. This is what we have come to be. I am not proud of it. But, it is true nonetheless.

How important can you be to a group, a country, or a community if you cannot even be sure that your death will matter? How civic can you truly be when your efforts are undermined by a relative minority whose words are venomous and scathing? How much can you truly believe the words “…one nation, with justice and liberty for all…” when a few idiots with a lot of power keep you from your liberty and your justice?

If this depresses you, I don’t apologize. Truth be told, it depresses me too. But, until we have REAL dialogue about race and race politics in this country, none of this will ever change.

This year, a group of black and white students decided that it was long past time for the school dances to be integrated. They set out to raise money from local groups and parents for their “new” idea. They even created a Facebook page. And, this wasn’t the first time this has been in issue. In 2007, another Georgia high school had their first integrated prom. And, in 2009, Charleston High School had their first integrated prom too.

In each case, the “separate but equal” proms were coordinated and planned privately by students and parents. None of the high schools actually sponsored these separate proms. Many of the supporters of separate proms cited “tradition” as the primary catalyst for the separate accommodations. In the case of Charleston, actor Morgan Freeman offered to sponsor the prom back in 1997. The school didn’t take him up on his offer until 11 years later. And, even after the school accepted the integrated high school prom proposal, some white parents STILL organized a separate prom for their kids. Tradition?

But, herein lies the insidious nature of “tradition.” Tradition will cause some folks to do some truly asinine things. Tradition drove these black and white parents to organize separate proms for groups of friends who hung out together, played sports on the same teams, and grew up in the same churches. All this in the name of tradition. Their argument was simply that the proms and homecomings had always been that way. So, why change them?

Well, quite simply, because it is wrong. It is wrong for any high school student in this country to feel like they can’t spend the crowning moment of their high school career with their friends regardless of their race. And, the parents who thought these separate proms were cute and quaint should be ashamed of themselves. This country has been racially desegregated for over half a century, yet these folks were just holding on to it because of “tradition?” That is purely ludicrous.

Sadly, there are still many other high schools, mostly in the South, that suffer from a need to hang onto poor traditions like this one. And, while these students received mostly positive reinforcement for their cause, they also received bigoted, racialized responses as well. Some white parents kept their children away from the integrated proms. Some students tore down their signs or spouted slurs at them. And, for what reason? Because they wanted to spend prom in one room. One room just like the classrooms they share, the restrooms they use, the gym they practice in, the restaurants they dine at, the department stores they patronize, and every other federally desegregated institution in this country.

In my humble opinion, this seems like black students had to accept the separate proms just because white parents didn’t want their kids to go to prom with them.

Can you say racist? I don’t like to throw that word around all willy nilly. I really don’t. But, what other reason is there for this type of shenanigans?

According to the LA Times, he said the following of Harris.

“You have to be careful to, first of all, say she is brilliant and she is dedicated and she is tough, and she is exactly what you’d want in anybody who is administering the law, and making sure that everybody is getting a fair shake…She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country — Kamala Harris is here…It’s true.  Come on…And she is a great friend and has just been a great supporter for many, many years.”

The President’s supporters have noted that the Pres has been known to call both men and women “good-looking.” And, he has a habit of informality in his oratory. Many admire him for his ability to bring levity in such a contentious field of combatants. But, others claimed that the comments were insensitive and sexist.

Nonetheless, on Friday, the President reportedly called Harris directly to apologize for the “distraction” his words may have caused. And, while those efforts seem to have quelled the concerns of blatant sexism and brutishness toward women, the apology likely will do little to lessen the sensitivity powerful women have in the political spotlight. Being a dual minority, Harris has likely faced repetitive obstacles on her path to attorney general. And, dealing with negative tropes about “strong” black women has probably influenced her political career thus far. But, does that mean the President owed her apology?

In many ways, it seems that folks are often looking for something negative to say about virtually everyone. From Michelle Obama’s minced words this week about being a “busy single mother” to the President’s obvious compliment of a long time friend, it seems the media is willing to jump at literally anything that paints the First Family in a negative light. And, for what reason? I get that they are the First Family. And, in many ways, they seem pretty perfect. But, at what point do they get to be normal human beings? Maybe I am idealistic and completely disconnected from reality, but I would hope that President Obama could call a beautiful woman beautiful without being sent to a proverbial firing squad.

What do you all think? Was an apology necessary? Or was it just a bunch of media hype that the President had to acquiesce to once again?

Some people just don’t know when they are out of their league.

We first learned that Janet Hubert, a.k.a. Aunt Viv 1.0 from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air, was nutty when she thought that she was in anywhere near the place to attack Will Smith. Then she decided to attack Wendy Williams for bawling over Whitney Houston’s death after she had attacked her for much of her life. And now she is attacking Wendy AGAIN, just for pretty much saying her name (albeit incorrectly). Check Wendy’s interview with Tatyana Ali to see what incited her “wrath” (the good stuff starts at the 3:11 mark).

And here is the full audio of what Janet Hubert had to say in response to the interview above.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not here to defend Wendy Williams and her methods for success. She does a very good job of spinning gossip into gold, and it’s hard to find that admirable. Because of that, I can understand some A-list (or even D-list) celebrities having words for Wendy. But Aunt Viv??? She needs to learn her place.

So Janet Hubert, as I could see where you might have trouble with understanding my assertion, I’ve put together a list of 5 reasons why you need to keep your mouth closed:

1. Your relevance evaporated in ’93 when your tenure ended on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. We still don’t know exactly why you stopped being on the show (fired, creative differences, or whatever), but it’s clear that your career took a steep decline after that. It only takes a quick IMDB search to see that. And that was TWENTY YEARS AGO. As a result, your words have no weight and no one cares about what you have to say.
2. Wendy isn’t coming for you, and she definitely isn’t concerned with you. I don’t understand why you think that you have a soapbox to stand on that could even get you to Wendy’s ankles. Wendy isn’t making any comments about you directly. She is not taking any shots at your “good name.” Watch her show any day of the week and it is clear that she is pretty free with stating her opinion. And the fact that she has not even referenced any of your attacks shows how little your comments mean to her.
3. You are critiquing Wendy’s TV presence and how she conducts her show while at the same time not being able to master the intricacies of blogtalkradio. Listening to you recite your letter was difficult. It’s low budget, and for a trained actress, I actually am shocked at how poor your delivery was. You somehow believe that you are in the place to comment on anybody else’s screen presence when you can’t even “figure out this blogtalkradio thing”? I mean, you were interrupted numerous times by your phone clicking. Stop it.
4. You claim that you are a lady, but you read this ridiculous open letter attacking her character. The hypocrisies in your statement are astounding. How outlandish do you look claiming your lady-hood while also trying to degrade her for her wigs, “giant teeth”, lady parts, tremendous breasts, and big feet. You seem so self-righteous about progress for women, and you felt like that was appropriate? I must say, for a woman in her 50′s you truly exude class. Take notes everyone.
5. Once again, your relevance evaporated in ’93 when your tenure ended on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Anything you do or say has little to no significance in the media or in the world. And these ridiculous antics to get any type of attention are both pitiful and outrageous. Go home with whatever dregs of your dignity you have left.

Wendy Williams is not a shining example for standards, morals, or decency, and I’m sure she doesn’t need anyone to defend her. But we all need to stay in our own lane. And for the sheer, unabashed embarrassment that she has become, I’m gonna need Janet Hubert to have several seats. I’ve got them all warmed and ready for her. I hope she takes them while they are still warm because it’s all the more uncomfortable when you have to sit your behind on cold steel.

So, I have been on hiatus for a bit. And, I am sure you have all missed me. But, I have rebuked my hermit-ness to come out and say it. Frankly, I am sick of this rape chit-chat. Rape talk has turned into tradition in this country. You know how women are told about marriage and all the traditional things they have got to do for good luck? “Have something old, something new, something borrowed, and something blue…” Well, when did rape become a ceremonial rite of passage? When did we start conforming to a culture where women are a sub-gender ever vulnerable to the pitfalls of potential rape-dom?

I must say, I am not overly surprised, but I am surprised a bit. In the past few months, women have risen in punching bag status from slipping off to super elite. And I am thoroughly done with it.

Old Rape

Back in 1985, a woman named Jacqueline Goodchilds commented in an article about the recent increase in discussion surrounding rape and rape culture. In discussing her recent study of adolescents ages 14 to 18 regarding forced sex, she commented simply:

“For one, we found that a large percentage of both boys and girls indicated that it was OK to use force at times with sex.”

How many young people thought this? Well, the results of Goodchilds’ 1978 study can be seen in the graphic below. Of those participating, there were never fewer than 36% of male respondents who found certain conditions okay for forced sex with a girl. Thirty-six percent!

Courtesy: Fearus.org

What does that mean? Well, that means that back in the seventies and eighties when this stuff was first being studied and we were undoubtedly a less liberal nation, at least a third of adolescent boys (assuming this was a representative sample) found it ay-okay to force a girl to have sex if the conditions were right…

In two instances, when the girl changes her mind or has “led him on,” force was seen as justified 54% of the time. Because, you know, once you consider having sex with someone, they’ve got a free pass forever.

Several things about this are extremely disturbing. First, all these young male respondents are now in their early to mid-fifties. They have likely raised other young men doing us all the gracious favor of handing down their rape ideology to their naive and impressionable progeny. So, yay. That’s great to think about.

Second, this was over 35 years ago. Back then, before rape became a central theme in pretty much every single horror movie and action flick and before the world-wide web granted us access to every rape on every corner of the Earth, this was rape ideology in this country. So, just imagine where we are now…

Whether you question the methods of the analysis or if the kids were being truthful, the fact still remains that they had the courage to give affirmative responses to scenarios condoning forced sexual intercourse. That should be the main focus of this study.

New Rape

What’s new is Rapeland? The Steubenville rape case. In the small town of Steubenville, Ohio, two high school football players (Mays and Richmond – pictured right) were found guilty of the rape of a 16-year-old girl who was reportedly unconscious and non-consenting.

Trent Mays, 17 and Ma’lik Richmond, 16 (Courtesy: NY Daily News)

Fellow classmates watched as the girl was literally carried out of a house party – not walking willingly – by the young boys who would later rape her and record it. Some of the students even deemed it appropriate to post video of the ordeal on YouTube. Later, when the students were questioned about that night, many of them replied that the girl was obviously drunk and unaware of what was happening, yet none of them thought to help prevent her rape.

Now, as the mother of an 18-month-old girl, I find this story EXTREMELY disturbing. I would have found it disturbing anyway, but to know that a house full of people thought it okay to let this drunk girl get carried out of a party by two  – not one – but two boys who had the intent to have un-consenting sex with her limp body is truly disgusting. It is vile. It is horrible. And, it is debased.

Some people want to blame the other young girls in the room for not standing up for the victim. They have commented that girls often do not stand together, which I do not disagree with. But, what is more disconcerting is the role social media played in this girl’s victimization. Not only did these young people not stand up for her, call the police, or urge the rapists to stop what they were doing, they became voyeurs, cameramen, and commentators of rape.

I say charge all of them. All of them were complicit. None of them thought to report the crime. This is not a girl power conversation. This is not a parenting conversation. This is a culture conversation.

This culture not only condones rape, it supports rape and rapists. We tell men that women are asking for it. We over-sexualize young girls for sport. We say that Playboy magazine is actually a good read when you look at the articles (right). We make movies where rape is the side dish for violence and misogyny. And then we are shocked when two young boys rape an unconscious classmate and all her “friends” look on in wonderment? Puhleaze. Get real America.

Read more…

Put simply, VAWA protects rape victims from their accused rapists during trial or at any other time. Under the law, women will not be forced to pay for their own medical expenses or to face trial alongside their alleged aggressors. In addition, it mandates that accused rapists be held responsible for their actions in the eyes of the law regardless of whether that law is native or non-native. So, logically, it just makes sense to extend these protections to every woman on American soil.

Why Are These New Provisions So Important?

In the case of Native women, rape and sexual abuse is a major issue which goes unrecognized by many in the general population.

“Although Native American and Alaska Native women experience sexual violence at a much higher rate than other women in the United States—two and a half times higher—and although Department of Justice studies show that 86 percent of perpetrators are non-Native men, tribal authorities had had no jurisdiction to prosecute and mete out justice.”

Given these facts, House Republicans’ actions to strip protections for these women out of the Senate bill sent a very disheartening message to those impacted directly and women in general. Why make the blatant effort to remove rights as opposed to reinforce them? Well, it’s likely because Republicans in the House are vehemently opposed to supporting anything even remotely coordinated with President Obama or Senate Democrats. So much so, they are willing to compromise the invaluable protections women in this country depend on to protect them in the case of physical or sexual abuse or rape.

Here is the bigger issue with this poor showing from our Congress: these people are elected to represent ALL of us – every single person on American soil. In my opinion, Native women are not impervious to rape from American-born men so why would they be impervious to protections? If an American commits a crime in another country, they are held responsible by said country’s government. Why should Native American and Alaska Native governments be treated any differently?

Women who identify as lesbian, bisexual, or queer are no less American so why exactly would they need to be stripped from the bill? House Republicans seem to be saying that they have very specific, isolated groups of citizens they are willing to represent. Everyone else, it appears, should be left to their own guises.

What happened to the days when we all agreed that rape was bad? And, not only was it bad but it was something worth punishing no matter the cost? It is almost bewildering that a bill like VAWA would come up against any push back in Congress given its extremely sensitive and universally accepted purpose. Yet, our Congress struggled to work together on a rape bill?

And, in an embarrassing turn of events, these same Republicans who voted against the bill have been coming out in droves to pretend as though they actually supported the bill in its passed form. So, not only are they shameless in their lack of support for women, they are shamelessly taking credit for the final product which they had no actual role in fulfilling.

There isn’t much else to say here. But, I just do not see this as a celebratory moment. When violence against women is seen as a point of negotiation, we should all – especially those of the female persuasion – be extremely concerned. This is not a fluke. It will likely continue. Let’s just hope that the next batch of negotiations doesn’t turn out like the sequester did.

Feature Credit: Loop21.com

How Did They Do It?

The patient, a newborn when the medications were first administered, was born in Mississippi and is now a toddler. According to the patient’s doctor, they treated the child with a faster, stronger dose of three separate anti-viral medications within 30 hours of birth. Having a mother who tested positive with HIV left the baby with extremely high chances of contracting the virus as well.

Since the virus infects and reinfects healthy T-cells and tissue, the extremely high doses of anti-virals given to the patient were said to have knocked out the HIV cells before they could deposit remotely in the newborn’s body (called “reservoir seeding”).

What This Could Mean For the Community At-Large

This is definitely a major accomplishment for modern medical science. And, the current statistics on HIV and AIDs prove that efforts like these will have a major impact on countries plagued by the disease.

“About 300,000 children were born with HIV in 2011, mostly in poor countries where only about 60 percent of infected pregnant women get treatment that can keep them from passing the virus to their babies. In the U.S., such births are very rare because HIV testing and treatment long have been part of prenatal care.”

So, while the US still struggles with HIV and AIDs transmission, the greatest impacts of the disease are found abroad. Poorer countries have been unable to come out of poverty, in part, because of their ongoing battles with aggregate health and the fight against diseases like AIDs and malaria. But, just imagine what these findings could mean for them now.

This case would actually be the second documented “cure” for HIV. A San Francisco man has been off of anti-virals since he received a bone marrow transplant five years ago. But, this new case proves that there may a host of methods to solving the AIDs epidemic, a disease which was once considered unbeatable.

In all, these findings are promising but will need a great deal of assistance through the process of implementation. Getting strong, expensive anti-viral meds to babies in remote countries will be an arduous task in and of itself. But, to also combat cultural blockages to drug administration could potentially thwart any immediate action against the disease. There has beena very well-documented fear of Western medicine in Africa especially after nurses and doctors were proven to have intentionally infected Libyan children with HIV. So, it is uncertain how these cures will be received there.

However, one thing is certain, medical science is changing things and quickly. And, though they have had some missteps before, their current direction appears to be squarely toward saving lives.

Could this beautiful baby be predisposed to poverty?

Poverty is the world’s most common issue. And, though many of us have not experienced it personally, we are all aware that poverty exists around the globe. On some continents, like Africa, poverty is much more commonplace than in other regions. For example, the Americas, Asia, and Europe have all made vast economic improvements over recent centuries and decades situating them well ahead of other developing nations. But, according to a recent study by two economists, this demarcation could have less to do with issues like agricultural development or terrain and more to do with simple genetics. So, is poverty in our DNA?

What is this topic even about? Something called “genoeconomics.” And, put simply, it is the linkage of chromosomes and money. In essence, scholars have ventured to find a direct relationship between DNA and aggregate economic success or impairment. And, a very important work will be published in the American Economic Review which makes some key assertions about nationality and money making potential.

The forthcoming article, titled “The “Out of Africa ”Hypothesis, Human Genetic Diversity, and Comparative Economic Development,” by Quamrul Ashraf and Oded Galor, maintains the following claim.

“While the low degree of diversity among Native American populations and the high degree of diversity among African populations have been a detrimental force in the development of these regions, the intermediate levels of genetic diversity prevalent among European and Asian populations have been conducive for development.”

Many people assign socioeconomic indicators like region, capital, class, and nationality to poverty. And, while all of these things have a correlative relationship with the phenomena, it has been quite difficult to assign a causal relationship to any one issue.

What is the difference between correlative and causal? Well, correlation says that where you find one thing (x) you are likely to find another (y). But, causality says that one thing (x) actually causes the other(y) to exist. And, this recent article on poverty has misleadingly claimed that racial or genetic diversity causes poverty.

So, in this case, the paper’s central thesis is simply that, historically,  African populations fought too much and Native American populations were too complacent. But, European and Asian populations had just the right amount of diversity to assist them in their cooperative efforts towards economic development. They use broad-based survey data to support these claims. And, to qualify the paper’s findings on “genetic diversity,” the authors have a lengthy set of peers from a host of reputable institutions, with economics being their primary expertise, to back-up their findings.

The claim seems flawed. Even from a bird’s eye view, it seems nearly impossible to find a singular causal link for something as monolithic as poverty. And, several other authors agree with that perception.

Contending authors, Jade d’Alpoim Guedes et al., have published a scathing critique of Ashraf and Galor titled “Is Poverty in Our Genes?” In the piece they note three main issues with the economists’ findings. First, they claim that Ashraf and Galor misuse scientific terminology and therefore do not understand key issues of genetic diversity. Second, they believe that the underlying data utilized in the analysis is flawed. And, lastly, the authors note a vast body of work out there which is in direct discord with Ashraf and Galor’s assertions.

Now, while these three criticisms are important in understanding why this article is receiving so much negative publicity, it is most important to measure the impact of the study’s findings on real human beings. These findings could suggest to countries struggling with economic development that they simply need to increase or decrease their levels of genetic diversity to meet Ashraf and Galor’s optimum levels.

In an email, when asked about the purported “bad science” in Ashraf and Galor’s piece, d’Alpoim Guedes wrote the following.

“People are upset, they are jobless and they are looking for an explanation. They are offered one by a government who decides to point the finger at their immigrants and which states ‘Scientists have proven that in order to help our economy we need to get rid of our genetic diversity, hence immigrants.’ (They are not going to read or understand any of the subtler points of the argument). Because of the dangers of statements like this, scientists need to be held to the highest ethical standards when it comes to informing the public of the limitations of one’s research.”

And how exactly do you change your genetic diversity? Well, there’s genocide. And, you could simply try your best to exile immigrants from your country. Or, you could limit the birth rate in naturalized citizens in an effort to dilute the natural population with immigrants from other lands. In any case, the idea sounds completely unrealistic or ethically unsound as a governmental means to economic improvement.

When asked about the “false positive” identified in the study, d’Alpoim Guedes answered simply, “There is no underlying truth to be found here.”

I am inclined to agree. So, what is the cause of poverty? Or is there one single cause at all? I once heard someone coin the term “moral luck.” I wonder if that applies here. If so, then there is nothing we can do to improve at all. But who wants to believe that?