Evolutionary Politics

Part One

(I haven't posted in quite a while, so I decided to go ahead and post the rough draft of this essay in the hopes it would draw some comment -- it is till underway ....)



George W. Bush does not believe in evolution.

At least, during the 2003 campaign he asserted that "the jury is still out": In October of 1999 a personal friend of Bush's told New York Times reporter Nicholas Kristof:

Characteristically, he does not believe in evolution--he says the jury is still out--but he does not actively disbelieve in it either; as a friend puts it, "he doesn't really care about that kind of thing."

In the face of all that has happened in the last few years -- a stolen election, the squandering of our budget surplus into record deficits, the gutting of environmental policies, secret energy policy meetings, 9-11, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, broken relationships with our oldest allies, Israeli/Palestenian relations spiraling out of control, beheadings, suicide bombers, the collapse of Enron, the hostile takeover of our foreign policy by Halliburton, the GOP's relentless subversion of the democratic process from California to the UN, lies and evasions too numerous to count, the furor over Gay marriage, and a deliberate attack on civil rights -- in the face of these things, a man's opinion on the question of evolution doesn't seem so important. And certainly, it is a personal matter, right? Not the kind of thing that should be a public issue? After all, none of the other candidates were willing to make a definitive statement either. Even Al Gore would only say that the decision on teaching evolution and/or creationism should be left up to the local schoolboards.

And if a local schoolboard decides to teach that the earth is flat, should that be their decision too?

The late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in a 1999 Time article:

Evolution is as well documented as any phenomenon in science, as strongly as the earth's revolution around the sun rather than vice versa. In this sense, we can call evolution a "fact." (Science does not deal in certainty, so "fact" can only mean a proposition affirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse to withhold one's provisional assent.)

Even Pope John Paul II, certainly not to be mistaken for a liberal or progressive thinker, decided some years ago that the Catholic Church would not oppose the idea of evolution.

Creationists and other critics of evolution are always quick to pick up on conflicts between scientists, difference in the details of evolutionary diagrams, or on the role played by catastrophes, random mutations, and other contributing factors -- but differing about exactly how something happens is not the same as disputing that it happens. Newton identified gravity and showed it's properties indisuputably a long time ago -- we are still trying to define exactly what gravity is and how it works. Does that make Newton (or Einstein after him) wrong? Of course not.

Gould is right. Evolution is as much a proven fact as anything can be short of divine revelation. The amount of accumulated evidence is overwhelming: drawing from molecular biology, the fossil record, geology, computer sciences, psychology -- if we had nothing else than the sheer explanatory power that an evolutionary model unleashes for sovling the problems of biology, psychology, medicine, cognitive science, and on and on, the verdict would be inescapable. And Creationist attempts to explain away this evidence, to find some story-line supposedly in keeping with a literal reading of Genesis that would account for the apparent age of the earth, the extinct creatures, the physiological similarities of related species -- etc. ad nauseum -- must bring in ludicrous stop-gap explanations that make hash of both the scientific data and the Biblical tale. I recently saw a pro-life bulletin board which had the nerve to site "the unique DNA" of the fetus in support of its position. I say "nerve" not in relation to their pro-life position but because I am certain that the sponsors of that billboard would categorically reject the idea of evolution. This is hypocrisy of a high -- or low -- order. Absent the process of evolution by natural selection the entire idea of DNA and heritable characteristics makes no sense at all. DNA is a mechanism for facilitating evolution -- in fact the DNA in our cells is most likely a direct descendent of the first quasi-organic self-replicating molecules.

For any reasonably educated person (provided he or she was educated in a state that still teaches science) in this day and age to reject the basic fact of evolution requires either a willful ignorance of the available evidence, or a dogma induced denial which can only be described as pathological. In this regard, and in many other similar cases, I believe that the fundamentalist mindset is a form of mental illness. To be fair, this applies equally to fundamentalist Christians, Muslims, Jews, Republicans, Democrats, Communists, Freudians, Clintonites or Darwinists.

Study Finds Climate Shift Threatens California

By DEAN E. MURPH

SAN FRANCISCO, Aug. 16 - A scientific study released on Monday presents an alarming view of climate changes in California, finding that by the end of the century rising temperatures could lead to a sevenfold increase in heat-related deaths in Los Angeles and imperil the state's wine and dairy industries.

The study, published in the online version of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offers the most detailed projection yet of changes in California as temperatures rise around the world because of building concentrations of heat-trapping gases.

Under one of two scenarios, in which fossil fuel use continues at its present pace, the study determined that summertime high temperatures could increase by 15 degrees in some inland cities, putting their climate on par with that of Death Valley now. That scenario also foresaw a reduction of 73 percent to 90 percent in the snow pack in the Sierra Nevada, resulting in disrupted water supplies from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Central Valley.

Even in the second scenario, which assumed significant increases in the use of renewable energy like wind and solar power, the study concluded that fossil fuel emissions could push average high temperatures up by four to six degrees - the difference, one author said, between the temperature in Yosemite National Park and downtown Sacramento....

for complete story see The New York Times
Published: August 17, 2004

Suppress the Vote?

By BOB HERBERT
Published by The New York Times: August 16, 2004

The big story out of Florida over the weekend was the tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But there's another story from Florida that deserves our attention.

State police officers have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in November.

The officers, from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.

Officials refused to discuss details of the investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots are involved. They said they had no idea when the investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may continue right through the presidential election.

"We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations and then we concluded that there was enough evidence to follow through with a full criminal investigation," said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of Law Enforcement.

The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes, have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some of those questioned have been volunteers in get-out-the-vote campaigns.
I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to tell me what criminal activity had taken place.

"I can't talk about that," he said.

I asked if all the people interrogated were black.

"Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were looking at - yes,'' he said.
He also said, "Most of them were elderly."

When I asked why, he said, "That's just the people we selected out of a random sample to interview."

Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when Southern whites used every imaginable form of chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often fought back by creating voters leagues, which were organizations that helped to register, educate and encourage black voters. It became a tradition that continues in many places, including Florida, today.

Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who found themselves face to face with state police officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League of Voters, which has been very successful in mobilizing the city's black vote.

The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr. Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well spell the difference between victory and defeat.

The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this so-called investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr. Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go into the community to do voter registration, drive people to the polls and help with absentee ballots. They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100 for four or five months' work, just to offset things like the cost of their gas. They see this political activity as an important contribution to their community. Some of the people in the community had never cast a ballot until the league came to their door and encouraged them to vote."

Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police officers going into people's homes as part of an ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is threatening to undo much of the good work of the league. He said, "One woman asked me, 'Am I going to go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?' "

According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow campaign workers to come to their homes. And volunteers who have participated for years in assisting people, particularly the elderly or handicapped, are scared and don't want to risk a criminal investigation."

Florida is a state that's very much in play in the presidential election, with some polls showing John Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police investigation that throws a blanket of fear over thousands of black voters can only help President Bush.
The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State

What Ever Happened to Fay Wray?

Fay Wray, Star Who Stole Kong's Heart, Dies at 96

Fay Wray, an actress who appeared in about 100 movies but whose fame is inextricably linked with the hours she spent struggling, helplessly screaming, in the eight-foot hand of King Kong, died on Sunday at her apartment in Manhattan. She was 96.

Rick McKay, a director and her friend, said she died peacefully in her sleep. He recalled that Miss Wray's family moved to the United States from Canada in a stagecoach and said that she was possibly the longest-living true star of silent films...

from THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: August 10, 2004

Remembering Pete and Redmond

I've been volunteering for about the past five months, once a week, at the PAWS animal shelter in Lynwood, WA. I go out on Saturday afternoon and spend several hours walking dogs. It is by far one of the sanest things I do all week. The dogs are always so glad to see me (or anyone else for that matter) and so eager to get out and walk. I fall in love easily on those Saturday afternoons.

Of all the animals in the world, it seems to me, we are most closely linked, as a species, to dogs. In a way, we stand to them as God supposedly does to us: they have been shaped over vast stretches of time to our needs and our desires. We created them and they, unless they have been severely mistreated or abused, adore us. A dog is all loyalty, love and service. In many ways, I think they are better than us.

PAWS is a 'low-kill' shelter. That means they never euthanize any healthy, adoptable dog, no matter how long it has been at the shelter. Only those with severe medical or behavior problems -- such as dangerous aggression toward people or other animals -- are euthanized. I don't like to think about that too much. The dogs I am most drawn to are the "problem" breeds -- the ones which have bad reputations and which always have to be tested: rotweilers, pit bulls, chow chows, sharpei.

I met Pete just about the time I was finishing up my initial three month commitment as a volunteer. He was a chow mix, nearly ten years old, and completely deaf. I spent quite a bit of time trying to get him to sit before I figured that last one out. Sometime during his wanderings, someone had shaved all of Pete's hair off, probably to get rid of tangles and burrs -- so when I first met him and saw all the patches in his fur, I thought he had mange. He also had the black tongue characteristic of chows. His face looked like a large teddy bear. It was love at first sight.

It made me really sad to think that Pete had spent his life with someone and now, probably by accident, they were separated. Ten years old is pretty old for a dog. He was someone's lifelong buddy. The first couple of weeks Pete was in the shelter he was listless and depressed. I worried about him. At his age, he wasn't going to be easy to match up with a new home. One person adopted him and then brought him back because Pete spent too much time sleeping! Well, what do you expect? You should be doing so well when you're 70+. Gradually, with love and care from the staff and volunteers Pete began to adapt to his new environment and regain some enthusiasm. Of course, you never want a dog to adapt too well to a shelter, to become "institutionalized". I was getting more and more worried about Pete. I just about had my roommate convinced to let me adopt him, but our landlord was firm in his "no pets" policy. I put together an e-mail complete with Pete's best photo and sent it out to everyone I know. The staff at PAWS assured me that he would not be euthanized, that they believed in Pete and were determined to find him a home. Within a week or so, they did.

Pete and I took quite a few walks together, though. He wasn't much into playing games, not even Frisbee, but he liked to go out to the yard and run around. He also like to just be held in his pen, and sit with you. Chows can be somewhat distant, and Pete was like that sometimes, but he could also be very loving.

I used to think about Pete's deafness. I knew he had once been able to hear, and I wondered if Pete, or any dog in that situation, knows the difference between "can't hear" and "don't hear". That is, did Pete realize in some way that the world had once contained lots of sounds, and that now he could no longer here them. Or did he just assume, moment by moment, that everything was quiet? It seemed, somehow, like a very important question to me when I was with him.

I was very happy to see Pete get adopted, and also sad not to see him anymore. A few weeks after Pete left for his new home, I met Redmond, a shar pei/chow mix who was brought in one Saturday while I was working by the people who found him. He was a beautiful dog, and that week and the next I sat with him in his cell after everyone was walked and brushed him and just helped him feel less scared of the shelter, which is tough on a lot of dogs. Redmond was a very sweet dog ... to people. But he showed serious signs of aggression toward other dogs, and after he was given a behavior evaluation, it was decided that he was not adoptable. A shelter like PAWS cannot afford to adopt out a dog that might hurt someone or even someone's pet. The liability could destroy them. I had a pretty good idea how the story would end for Redmond: not as happy as Pete. The next week when I got back he was gone, and the staff gently confirmed that he had been euthanized. I have a lot of respect for, and complete trust in, the PAWS staff. I know they never make a decision like that lightly, and do what they think is best for all concerned. There really was no other choice in this case. Still, Redmond was becoming my friend, and I was very sad. I talked to other volunteers, to my friends, to anyone who would listen. I grieved. I dreamed about Redmond and discussed the dream with my therapist. I wanted to get a picture of him to remember him, but there were none.

Goodbye buddies.

We are alone on this chance planet; and amid all the forms of life that surround us, not one, excepting the dog, has made an alliance with us.

---Maurice Maeterlinck

the sun, the crows, the
morning wind are bright today
with her simple yes
--7-29-03

Bill Clinton's Speech to the Democratic National Convention

Thank you. I am honored to share the podium with my Senator, though I think I should be introducing her. I’m proud of her and so grateful to the people of New York that the best public servant in our family is still on the job and grateful to all of you, especially my friends from Arkansas, for the chance you gave us to serve our country in the White House.



I am also honored to share this night with President Carter, who has inspired the world with his work for peace, democracy, and human rights. And with Al Gore, my friend and partner for eight years, who played such a large role in building the prosperity and progress that brought America into the 21st century, who showed incredible grace and patriotism under pressure, and who is the living embodiment that every vote counts—and must be counted in every state in America.



Tonight I speak as a citizen, returning to the role I have played for most of my life as a foot soldier in the fight for our future, as we nominate a true New England patriot for president. The state that gave us John Adams and John Kennedy has now given us John Kerry, a good man, a great senator, a visionary leader. We are constantly told America is deeply divided. But all Americans value freedom, faith, and family. We all honor the service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world.



We all want good jobs, good schools, health care, safe streets, a clean environment. We all want our children to grow up in a secure America leading the world toward a peaceful future. Our differences are in how we can best achieve these things, in a time of unprecedented change. Therefore, we Democrats will bring the American people a positive campaign, arguing not who’s good and who’s bad, but what is the best way to build the safe, prosperous world our children deserve.



The 21st century is marked by serious security threats, serious economic challenges, and serious problems like global warming and the AIDS epidemic. But it is also full of enormous opportunities—to create millions of high paying jobs in clean energy, and biotechnology; to restore the manufacturing base and reap the benefits of the global economy through our diversity and our commitment to decent labor and environmental standards everywhere; and to create a world where we can celebrate our religious and racial differences, because our common humanity matters more.



To build that kind of world we must make the right choices; and we must have a president who will lead the way. Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on that choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.



We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.



They think the role of government is to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of those who embrace their political, economic, and social views, leaving ordinary citizens to fend for themselves on matters like health care and retirement security. Since most Americans are not that far to the right, they have to portray us Democrats as unacceptable, lacking in strength and values. In other words, they need a divided America. But Americans long to be united. After 9/11, we all wanted to be one nation, strong in the fight against terror. The president had a great opportunity to bring us together under his slogan of compassionate conservatism and to unite the world in common cause against terror.



Instead, he and his congressional allies made a very different choice: to use the moment of unity to push America too far to the right and to walk away from our allies, not only in attacking Iraq before the weapons inspectors finished their jobs, but in withdrawing American support for the Climate Change Treaty, the International Court for war criminals, the ABM treaty, and even the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.



Now they are working to develop two new nuclear weapons which they say we might use first. At home, the President and the Republican Congress have made equally fateful choices indeed. For the first time ever when America was on a war footing, there were two huge tax cuts, nearly half of which went to the top one percent. I’m in that group now for the first time in my life.



When I was in office, the Republicans were pretty mean to me. When I left and made money, I became part of the most important group in the world to them. At first I thought I should send them a thank you note—until I realized they were sending you the bill.



They protected my tax cuts while:

· Withholding promised funding for the Leave No Child Behind Act, leaving over 2 million children behind

· Cutting 140,000 unemployed workers out of job training

· 100,000 working families out of child care assistance

· 300,000 poor children out of after school programs

· Raising out of pocket healthcare costs to veterans

· Weakening or reversing important environmental advances for clean air and the preservation of our forests.



Everyone had to sacrifice except the wealthiest Americans, who wanted to do their part but were asked only to expend the energy necessary to open the envelopes containing our tax cuts. If you agree with these choices, you should vote to return them to the White House and Congress. If not, take a look at John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats.



In this year’s budget, the White House wants to cut off federal funding for 88,000 uniformed police, including more than 700 on the New York City police force who put their lives on the line on 9/11. As gang violence is rising and we look for terrorists in our midst, Congress and the President are also about to allow the ten-year-old ban on assault weapons to expire. Our crime policy was to put more police on the streets and take assault weapons off the streets. It brought eight years of declining crime and violence. Their policy is the reverse, they’re taking police off the streets and putting assault weapons back on the streets. If you agree with their choices, vote to continue them. If not, join John Kerry, John Edwards and the Democrats in making America safer, smarter, and stronger.



On Homeland Security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The one billion dollar cost would have been paid for by reducing the tax cut of 200,000 millionaires by five thousand dollars each. Almost all 200,000 of us would have been glad to pay 5,000 dollars to make the nearly 300 million Americans safer—but the measure failed because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House decided my tax cut was more important- If you agree with that choice, re-elect them. If not, give John Kerry and John Edwards a chance.



These policies have turned the projected 5.8 trillion dollar surplus we left—enough to pay for the baby boomers retirement—into a projected debt of nearly 5 trillion dollars, with a 400 plus billion dollar deficit this year and for years to come. How do they pay for it? First by taking the monthly surplus in Social Security payments and endorsing the checks of working people over to me to cover my tax cut. But it’s not enough. They are borrowing the rest from foreign governments, mostly Japan and China. Sure, they’re competing with us for good jobs but how can we enforce our trade laws against our bankers? If you think it’s good policy to pay for my tax cut with the Social Security checks of working men and women, and borrowed money from China, vote for them. If not, John Kerry’s your man.



We Americans must choose for President one of two strong men who both love our country, but who have very different worldviews: Democrats favor shared responsibility, shared opportunity, and more global cooperation. Republicans favor concentrated wealth and power, leaving people to fend for themselves and more unilateral action. I think we’re right for two reasons: First, America works better when all people have a chance to live their dreams. Second, we live in an interdependent world in which we can’t kill, jail, or occupy all our potential adversaries, so we have to both fight terror and build a world with more partners and fewer terrorists. We tried it their way for twelve years, our way for eight, and then their way for four more.



By the only test that matters, whether people were better off when we finished than when we started, our way works better—it produced over 22 million good jobs, rising incomes, and 100 times as many people moving out of poverty into the middle class. It produced more health care, the largest increase in college aid in 50 years, record home ownership, a cleaner environment, three surpluses in a row, a modernized defense force, strong efforts against terror, and an America respected as a world leader for peace, security and prosperity.



More importantly, we have great new champions in John Kerry and John Edwards. Two good men with wonderful wives—Teresa a generous and wise woman who understands the world we are trying to shape. And Elizabeth, a lawyer and mother who understands the lives we are all trying to lift. Here is what I know about John Kerry. During the Vietnam War, many young men—including the current president, the vice president and me—could have gone to Vietnam but didn’t. John Kerry came from a privileged background and could have avoided it too. Instead he said, send me.





When they sent those swift-boats up the river in Vietnam, and told them their job was to draw hostile fire—to show the American flag and bait the enemy to come out and fight—John Kerry said, send me. When it was time to heal the wounds of war and normalize relations with Vietnam—and to demand an accounting of the POWs and MIAs we lost there—John Kerry said, send me.



When we needed someone to push the cause of inner-city kids struggling to avoid a life of crime, or to bring the benefits of high technology to ordinary Americans, or to clean the environment in a way that creates jobs, or to give small businesses a better chance to make it, John Kerry said send me.



Tonight my friends, I ask you to join me for the next 100 days in telling John Kerry’s story and promoting his plans. Let every person in this hall and all across America say to him what he has always said to America: Send Me. The bravery that the men who fought by his side saw in battle I’ve seen in the political arena. When I was President, John Kerry showed courage and conviction on crime, on welfare reform, on balancing the budget at a time when those priorities were not exactly a way to win a popularity contest in our party.



He took tough positions on tough problems. John Kerry knows who he is and where he’s going. He has the experience, the character, the ideas and the values to be a great President. In a time of change he has two other important qualities: his insatiable curiosity to understand the forces shaping our lives, and a willingness to hear the views even of those who disagree with him. Therefore his choices will be full of both conviction and common sense.



He proved that when he picked a tremendous partner in John Edwards. Everybody talks about John Edwards’ energy, intellect, and charisma. The important thing is how he has used his talents to improve the lives of people who—like John himself—had to work hard for all they’ve got. He has always championed the cause of people too often left out or left behind. And that’s what he’ll do as our Vice President.



Their opponents will tell you to be afraid of John Kerry and John Edwards, because they won’t stand up to the terrorists—don’t you believe it. Strength and wisdom are not conflicting values—they go hand in hand. John Kerry has both. His first priority will be keeping America safe. Remember the scripture: Be Not Afraid.



John Kerry and John Edwards, have good ideas:

· To make this economy work again for middle-class Americans;

· To restore fiscal responsibility;

· To save Social Security; to make healthcare more affordable and college more available;

· To free us from dependence on foreign oil and create new jobs in clean energy;

· To rally the world to win the war on terror and to make more friends and fewer terrorists.



At every turning point in our history we the people have chosen unity over division, heeding our founders’ call to America’s eternal mission: to form a more perfect union, to widen the circle of opportunity, deepen the reach of freedom, and strengthen the bonds of community.



It happened because we made the right choices. In the early days of the republic, America was at a crossroads much like it is today, deeply divided over whether or not to build a real nation with a national economy, and a national legal system. We chose a more perfect union.



In the Civil War, America was at a crossroads, divided over whether to save the union and end slavery—we chose a more perfect union. In the 1960s, America was at a crossroads, divided again over civil rights and women’s rights. Again, we chose a more perfect union. As I said in 1992, we’re all in this together; we have an obligation both to work hard and to help our fellow citizens, both to fight terror and to build a world with more cooperation and less terror. Now again, it is time to choose.



Since we’re all in the same boat, let us chose as the captain of our ship a brave good man who knows how to steer a vessel though troubled waters to the calm seas and clear skies of our more perfect union. We know our mission. Let us join as one and say in a loud, clear voice: Send John Kerry.