Really? Archaeologists Find 'Gay Caveman' Near Prague

Jeez Luise! Sometimes I think there are so-called science reporters out there who just like to write stupid shit to piss off archaeologists.  Hat tip to my blogging friend Dale at Faith in Honest Doubt for linking to this article at Time who employ these dumb-shit know-nothings about archaeology/anthropology reporters.

Archaeologists Find 'Gay Caveman' Near Prague: Remains Outed by Typical 'Female' Burial - TIME NewsFeed

So what is my problem?  "Caveman" that is my frickin problem!    Yes, in popular ignorant discourse "caveman" came into common usage many years ago because SOME Paleolithic aged remains were found in caves. Yet not all, nor even most Paleolithic aged archeological sites have been found in caves. So why "caveman"?  

That aside, the Upper Paleolithic ended about 12 thousand years ago. So this find is placed chronologically firmly in the European Neolithic, when people had long domesticated crops and animals, and lived a settled life in villages.  So, these people were not even close to what was ignorantly stereotyped as "cavemen".  Is it really so hard for a Time magazine writer to get some of this basic stuff right?  After all, its all on Wikipedia as I have linked to here, and a quick glance at those pages reveals that those articles are fairly accurate.

And then there is the assumption that this alleged "caveman" was "gay".  I would bet a thousand dollars that the researchers responsible for this find didn't use that term.   But the dumb-ass Time reporter thought he would go ahead and run with his assumptions.  A more accurate interpretation is that the individual in question would better described as "transgender" rather than gay or homosexual. 

Europe's allegedly "Largest Gay New Service" at least gets it right in describing the deceased individual as transgendered, which is probably how the researchers described the significance of the find.


Its probably good to keep in mind that it is our modern day conception that homosexual behavior leads to the pigeonholing people into a "gay" identity. Yet we know that historically (Greek) and ethnologically (New Guinea tribe, read about them as an undergrad and forgot their name) that homosexual behavior doesn't necessarily translate into an exclusive "gay" identity. 

Quote of Note and a Talk Back on NPR

From an article by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, What the right means when it calls NPR "liberal" - War Room - Salon.com: 

"So what do conservatives really mean when they accuse NPR of being 'liberal'? They mean it's not accountable to their worldview as conservatives and partisans. They mean it reflects too great a regard for evidence and is too open to reporting different points of views of the same event or idea or issue. Reporting that by its very fact-driven nature often fails to confirm their ideological underpinnings, their way of seeing things (which is why some liberals and Democrats also become irate with NPR)."

There is much to agree with here and I think Moyers and Winship point concisely to what the Right means when it calls NPR liberal.  Now I am not so sure what they mean by the last clause in parenthesis, not being a Democrat, and not being "some liberals".  However, as a "Leftist" to the left of the mainstream of the Democratic party, and critical listener to NPR, I find many examples of what I call an "establishment bias".  I find NPR reporters and programs often don't question deeply what can be considered the mainstream establishment consensus of American society.  Furthermore, NPR often does its best to appease and accommodate the Right.

Viva Assange! (And Bradley Manning To)

Aside from CBS's Steve Kroft's occasional bullshit...."He has conspiratorial views....." which is a just a subtle smear trying to link him with silly 9-11 truth. A decent interview, at least on Assange's end.




Part II on You Tube of course (embed disabled).

Julian Assange is Not a Journalist Because.......

Apparently Julian Assange is not considered to be considered a journalist by the U.S. State Department because.......he has a political objective!  Gasp!


By this standard the writers for the liberal-left The Nation, and Mother Jones and the right-wing conservative rags National Review and The Weekly Standard cannot be considered "journalists."  


But seriously, there is a better reason why Assange is not a journalist.  Because he shares all of his scoops and sources with many other journalists and media organizations.  Is that anyway to build a career in journalism?