Natural Intelligence Versus Natural Dumbass

Crows (or corvids, to give them their technical title) are one of the most intelligent species of bird. I will cite two examples:
1. On a bird table was placed two plastic transparent boxes. In one box was placed a piece of food, in the other box was placed a long stick, and on the bird table itself was placed a short stick. Through trial and error crows were able to figure out (using powers of deduction that most birds simply don’t have) that the short stick could be used to remove the long stick, and then the long stick could be used to remove the piece of food for consumption.
2. On a bird table was placed a cylinder half full with water, with a piece of unreachable food floating on the water; to the side of the cylinder were some stones. Crows deduced that by placing the stones into the cylinder, the water level would gradually rise until the piece of food was reachable.
Needless to say, I love crows.
But at the other end of the ornithological evolutionary scale are wood pigeons. I can only presume that these birds succeed through some kind of mass breeding programme; it certainly isn’t through intelligence. Wood pigeons can, at any given moment, commit suicide by flying full force into a window (perhaps believing it to be a tree!) or by standing still in front of a speeding vehicle. They will fight aimlessly with each other, in an ineffective and annoyingly flappy kind of way, even though there is plenty of food to go around. Needless to say, I hate wood pigeons.
If ornithology were anthropomorphised, I like to think that crows would be the kind of civilised human beings who have deduced that co-operation is more important than competition; wood pigeons would be the underclass!

South Carolina Nutcases

The Republican Party in the USA is, in my opinion, basically a party for rich people. When the Presidential elections take place in November, I will be staunchly hoping for a re-election of Barack Obama; even though I’m English and will not have a say in American politics, I know that the Democrats are better for the world, i.e. more peaceful. But it is still important to monitor the process of deciding who will represent the Republicans. On Saturday, South Carolina voted for Newt Gingrich (that’s right, he’s named after an amphibian!). Although this is the first state to declare him their favourite, it is still a disconcerting phenomenon. He is the most socially conservative of the remaining contenders. In the United States, socially conservative is often viewed in high esteem, but what it actually means is that abortion will not be funded even in the most extreme of cases, and the teaching of creationism will probably be given priority in schools rather than evolution. If Newt actually became President at the end of this year, the world may very well be in just as much trouble as when George W. Bush decided that invading Iraq was generally risk-free. Mitt Romney is still the most likely contender to win the race, but there are still some genuine concerns about his past tax returns (he’s only releasing details of the previous two years; what’s hiding before that?). Personally, I would love to see Ron Paul represent the Republican Party; eccentric as he is, he’s the most honest and trustworthy politician that I’ve seen in a long time. But he was sadly in fourth place in South Carolina. They must be mad.