I'm with her!
I hear so often that our elections boil down to the choice between "the lesser of two evils", and I have voted with that thought in mind. The only politician for whom I ever  actively campaigned was George McGovern in 1972. Since that time, I've either voted for "the lesser of two evils" or a third-party candidate.
When I voted for third party candidates, I did so because I wanted to vote "for" something rather than against the candidate I disliked the most. It seems to me that's the way we should vote, and I see folks I respect opting to do that this election. However, this election I'm actually voting FOR Hillary Clinton and not against the Donald (well, Ok - I am voting against the Donald as well).
I'm writing this blog for a number of reasons:

• Hillary Clinton is being painted as a liar - and yet according to fact checking organizations she was the most honest of all the candidates, including Bernie Sanders.
• Hillary Clinton is almost universally acknowledged by people who should know as "the best qualified candidate to EVER run for president".
• Hillary Clinton is a work horse, not a show horse. She's not fancy or an eloquent speaker, but when she goes after something, she does it with all of her heart.
• Republicans who worked with her in the Senate acknowledge her excellent work there, and her willingness to work WITH them.

The reasons for voting against Donald Trump are, to me, obvious, but I'll list a few of the most troubling characteristics of this empty suit.

• Of all the candidates, Donald Trump was the LEAST honest - by far.
• Donald Trump is universally acknowledged by people who should know as the LEAST qualified candidate to EVER run for president.
• Donald Trump doesn't work at anything except self-promotion. His ignorance of foreign affairs is astounding, and he seems unwilling to learn anything about the actual running of government.
• Donald Trump can't seem to work with anyone. It's all about "the Donald".
• He clearly couldn't pass a basic civics test. As Khizr Khan pointed out it's unlikely that Trump has ever read (and certainly not understood) the U.S. Constitution. That's the document he'll be sworn to uphold if (God forbid) he wins the election.
• Also as Mr. Khan pointed out, Trump doesn't understand the meaning of "sacrifice". As a combat veteran, I could excoriate this clown for his multiple deferments during the Viet Nam war, but I understand the resistance many people felt towards the war at that time. However, in Trump's case, his resistance seems to have arisen because being in the Army would have been an inconvenience, and his "resistance" was not based on principle. In fact, I wonder what principles this man actually holds.

What about the third party candidates? Well, the Green Party candidate is basically anti-science (see her statements on vaccination), and the Libertarian candidate (as a Libertarian should) opposes government intervention in a number of places where I think the government should be involved.
This election is shaping up as the most important of my life. My fondest wish is that Hillary Clinton will win all 50 states, and Donald Trump will crawl back into the sewers he came from, never to be heard from again.

Civil Rights

Civil rights

I grew up in the midst of the civil rights era. In general, my parents got along very well – I only heard them argue a couple of times. One of those times involved civil rights.

To set the background, you should know that my dad grew up on an oil lease in northeastern Oklahoma in what I would presume was a fairly hand-to-mouth existence. I have pictures of him dressed pretty much like Huck Finn, and I got the idea that he caught the family dinner a few times from the local ponds. His mom cooked in a restaurant for the oil rig workers. His dad worked for Gulf Oil in a middle management position.

My mom, on the other hand, had a more middle class life in southwestern Oklahoma, complete with black servants. I suspect that different experience led to the different response they each had to the civil rights movement. I only caught a part of their argument, but it had a profound effect on me. I remember my mom saying “Why can’t they just wait?” But my dad’s response was what stuck with me through the years: “They’ve been waiting for 300 years. How much longer do you want them to wait?”

How much longer do you want them to wait? And wait for what – for the simple recognition that “they” have the same rights as “us”? In the wake of the SCOTUS decision on marriage, we’ve all read and heard comments on civil rights. In the wake of the church shootings in Charleston, we’ve all read and heard comments on civil rights. It is simply beyond my comprehension how anyone could argue that “they” do not have the same rights as “us”.

What about religious liberty and free speech? Surely, some argue, “Christians” shouldn’t be forced to condone a lifestyle they find sinful. Interestingly, Christianity is far from monolithic in our society and there are plenty of Christian denominations which have no trouble with gay marriage. But some literalist branches of Christianity point to the Bible and note that homosexuality is a “sin”, leading to their opposition to gay marriage. Of course, many things in the Bible are listed as “sins” which nobody in their right mind would regard as worthy of nationwide sanction. Do you wear cloth with different kinds of fibers? Well, you shouldn’t – and there should be a national prohibition against such activity. Do you work on the Sabbath? Again, you shouldn’t, and there should be a national prohibition against that kind of thing. You get the point; why pick on homosexuality as the behavior which should be opposed at all costs?

Some would counter that one should “love the sinner, hate the sin”. I wonder if such persons have really thought through the implications of such an argument. Folks who hold such a position are passing judgement; those “sinners’ just can’t seem to control themselves and so they need our “help” to point them in the “right” direction. They should deny who they are, because we feel they are sinning. And make no mistake, by casting LBGT’s as sinners, we are asking them to deny who they are based on our selective reading of one holy text. Oh but we’re all sinners, you say. Sure enough, which makes judgmental behavior all the more suspect.

What about free speech? This has cropped up most in regard to the confederate flag, but it also has been raised as an objection to the gay marriage ruling. In either case, the main flaw with that argument is that our right to free expression has not been changed. If you oppose gay marriage, don’t perform one. If you feel you should be able to fly the confederate “stars and bars” – have at it! On the other hand, if you run a bakery and a gay couple comes to you to buy a wedding cake, on what basis would you deny them your business? It’s against your religious principles! I’ll bet smoking dope is against your religious principles as well, but you still sell to dopers, whether you know it or not. What about lying – how does that fit with your religious principles? I’ll bet you’re opposed to that as well, which means you shouldn’t be selling anyone a wedding cake. If you run a business, you automatically run the risk of doing business with folks who do things you don’t like. Why pick on this particular thing as a basis for denying services? And make no mistake, the very same “principles” were involved in the denial of service to black Americans.

Ah, but black Americans can’t choose to be black, so it’s different! Nope, sorry – it’s not different. Skin color is very malleable but it does indeed have a genetic basis and people can’t really choose what color their skin is or their ethnicity. Likewise, people who are LBGT can’t “choose” their lifestyle. The scientific evidence is convincing – sexual preference has a strong genetic component. Most folks who are gay know it very early in their development, before puberty and sexual activity ever happens. That’s why when we pass judgement and “love the sinner, hate the sin” we’re asking them to deny who they are. And that’s just plain wrong.

Peg didn't want me to wear this shirt today because she didn't want me to dis my service. And the shirt might be interpreted that way - the Viet Nam war was not a game and the idea that we came in second place is undoubtedly troubling. But I'm an educator and it seems to me that the shirt provides an opportunity for education.

What lessons could this shirt teach? I think the primary lesson is - don't send us to fight a war that isn't justified (and Just). A corollary to that lesson is don't send us to fight a war that we don't intend to win. I might say don't send us to fight a war that can't be won, but sometimes a lost cause is worth fighting for. Truth be told, I'm not sure what "winning" looks like anyway.

I gave a talk about my time in Viet Nam at a local nursing home yesterday, during which I stated that one of the reasons I enlisted in the Marine Corps was to help the South Vietnamese, because I thought they wanted and needed our help. My first patrol showed me otherwise. Perhaps I should have realized that before, from all the news and opinion that was flying around in 1967. In fact, one of my friends said something along those lines, referencing Frances FitzGerald's excellent book Fire in the Lake. Only problem is - that book was published in 1971. I don't think the nature of that war was as clear to the average U.S. citizen as it should have been to the policy makers who sent us there.

I suppose that's another lesson from my shirt: keep a close eye on the people who are making the policies that result in wars like Viet Nam (are you listening, George W. Bush?).

I'm often asked how I feel about people who protested against the Viet Nam war, and I think most people who ask that question expect me to say that I despise those people. I don't. One of the freedoms we were supposed to be fighting for (perhaps the most important reason) is freedom of expression - freedom to criticize your government. That freedom means nothing unless people actually use it. I think that's another lesson from my shirt - and I think I'll spend some time in my classes today talking about those lessons.

"Boots on the ground"

There are certain phrases that rub me the wrong way, and this is one of them. Right now, we're in the midst of dealing with fundamentalist Muslims in the form of ISIS, and the concern expressed by almost everyone is "Are we going to have to have boots on the ground in Iraq again?" CEO's use the term as a way of showing that they "understand" what the average worker does in their companies, and I've heard it in lots of other contexts ever since the phrase cropped up. It pisses me off no end.

Here's why: there are people in those boots, and they are the ones getting blown up, or grievously wounded, or experiencing terror the likes of which no one should have to deal with. They'll live with that for the rest of their lives. "Boots on the ground" implies all this is just a bunch of footwear; it dehumanizes every person alluded to by that phrase.

We have a tendency to do that with any unpleasant reality. "Collateral damage" was a big one in my day - and it still is; implying that the use of military force *might* lead to some buildings being damaged somewhere that - oh shucks - we didn't mean to do that but it's the price of "doing business". Of course, what's hidden by that phrase are the people killed and injured because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. We're pretty good at disguising what we really mean with language.

While we're at it, the contention that the US isn't committing combat forces against ISIS at this stage denigrates the hazards the airmen doing the current bombing are facing. As a former "grunt" (now there's a euphemism that really does capture reality) I admit to some scorn for the flyboys because they don't necessarily see the reality of what they do; but they're in hazard's way like grunts and if that isn't combat, I don't know what is.

Sustainability and miracles

The latests Science arrived in my mailbox yesterday. Usually I'm too busy to read much of it, but this morning I decided to take a break and look it over. There's lots of good stuff in there, but the two things that caught my eye were sustainability and miracles.

Sustainability first. An editorial in this issue praised Pope Francis for his concern about the poor around the world and how environmental degradation affects those people, who have arguably had the least input in producing major problems such as climate change. A second article pointed out how religious institutions can have a dramatic favorable impact on these problems. In an earlier blog (a week ago, in fact - see Evolution Dreams) I argued that folks like Richard Dawkins, who contend that religion is a cancer and science is the only valid way of approaching the problems we face, were misguided at best. We need the moral authority of people like Pope Francis to help us make the best choices.

The second article might seem diametrically opposed to what I just wrote, as it's about an evolutionary biologist and linguist who has been investigating the origin and spread of human language and animal cognition. Russell Gray of the University of Auckland has a pet phrase - no miracles - which he uses when addressing what were previously regarded as questions beyond the reach of scientific investigation. He's using modern evolutionary analysis tools to address questions of the origin of human languages and the origin of "intelligence" in non-human animals.

The "no miracles" part is guaranteed to rub some religious folks the wrong way, but in context what he's saying makes sense. In fact, that's how science makes progress; previously unsolvable (by scientific means) problems become tractable when a clever scientist comes along and figures out a way to address them.

What about religious miracles? Well, science can't really help us there. Was Jesus divine? Sorry, no help. However, I'm in the racket I'm in because I regard life as "miraculous".

Evolution dreams

I woke up this morning after a dream about me teaching evolution and inciting a riot. Well, I do teach evolution and so far I haven't incited a riot - keep your fingers crossed! But my dream actually turned out ok; I managed to calm down the two gentlemen who were breaking windows and throwing things and I got the rest of the town to come in and settle down so we could talk about it. I really wish that could happen in real life, but I don't see any obvious signs that it will.

I think fear drives the opposition to evolution, as well as the reaction of hard-core evolutionists like Richard Dawkins. I think those who oppose evolution fear moral decline and consigning people to hell. Those who react so strongly against anti-evolutionists fear a world where science is reviled and society degenerates into a "dark age".

I'm not sure what to make of such fears. I don't believe in a sort of hell where bad people or non-believers "go" when they die (though I certainly believe in the kind of hell we humans inflict on one another - I've experienced it) and I don't believe that evolution leads inevitably to moral decline (it may even explain where our moral sense comes from - an even more frightening consequence for anti-evolutionists). But I don't know how to convince those who oppose evolution that neither hell nor moral decline are consequences of teaching evolution.

As for the Richard Dawkins of the world, I feel that if science loses its place in modern society, it will be the fault of those who believe that science is the only valid way to learn things. Einstein is often quoted in this regard: "... science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." and many folks have raised that quote to support their view (a view I share) that the two spheres of human thought are both necessary. Jerry Coyne (who might be a "Dawkinsian") wrote an article disputing this view here.

Having read Coyne's book (Why Evolution is True), where this article comes from, I have to say I think Coyne is wrong. Science cannot possibly address what is good or bad, and we definitely need help in doing that. It seems to me that religion and philosophy are the only two spheres of human thought making an effort to help us discern "good" from "evil", and that there's no more important work for us to do than that.

Will machines take over the Earth?

I was looking at Crisis News Network (motto: We print all the trivial news about celebrities and none about stuff that matters) and there was an article posing the idea that "Terminators" could be real. I read it and found it was by a researcher at Oxford regarding artificial intelligence and the possibility that machines would soon outstrip human intelligence, possibly with a bad outcome for us. What caught my eye, and the reason I'm writing about this, is the author's reference to evolutionary intelligence.

The article was in some ways simply a promo piece for a book the author wrote (the author is Nick Bostrom - you can look it up on Amazon), but the notion of evolutionary intelligence is worth considering. The book I'm using in my "Evolution for Everyone" class notes that computer scientists are using evolutionary algorithms to develop programs much faster than they could do so by "hand" - and the programs so developed are often better than those written by a human programmer. The fear expressed by Bostrom is that such programs could reach a tipping point where the machines writing the programs would begin to alter the environment in a way that suits them and not us. The idea that we need to impart wisdom to computers rather than simply "intelligence" struck me as worthy.

His book received positive reviews, so I may check it out. The theme that we often develop technologies that seem "good" and then turn out to have some major downsides is not new, but it becomes increasingly dangerous as those technologies become more powerful. Evolution is the most powerful organic force we know of, and we tinker with it without having the wisdom to handle it wisely.