Gays

It is high time I explained why gays should have rights. Many of you feel that you are above the animals. That only humans can converse with God. That only we have souls. That only we make laws and know right from wrong.

Well, I really hate to let you down, buster, but we are no different from the animals or the plants for that matter. What is this, you ask. Has another nut job lost control of his senses? No, I'm just a guy who knows what evolution is all about. Catholics, remember, the Vatican is NOT on the side of creationists. All others, if you do not believe in evolution, go your merry way--this post holds nothing for you.

Let me explain evolution to those of you who believe in it and think you know what it is. I say, "think you know what it is," because, if you did know evolution the way that I understand it, you would not ever make laws against gays.

Why did evolution create gays? Let's start at some random point in an organism's evolution. The organism's DNA is wondering if it's got "the right stuff." Does it? Well, more than likely, yes. But the most crucial notion is this: it does not know that it has the right stuff. Let me repeat this very important idea: no organism on the face of the earth ever knows that its genetic endowment is adequate for the task. What task? Well that's the other issue; no organism knows what the next task will be and, as such, it cannot know if its genetic endowment is adequate.

That should be the guiding light for all of humanities' social dilemmas--it does not know. So, what is the organism to do? The only option open to it is to maintain a repertoire of tools and characteristics that MAY help in the future. What future? Well, the future that may come our way some day when we least expect it.

What does this have to do with Gays? Gays, who have always existed, are different from us. They are different from us because God's process of evolution doesn't have the slightest inkling of what may be needed in the future.

To make you see the problem more clearly, let's take a hypothetical situation. We have an organism that, through a mutation, begins making an oddball enzyme that degrades, oh, let us say, the coat of a certain virus. Other varieties of this organism do not produce the enzyme--they are, the normal variety. In the future, the virus with a special coat attacks the organisms, both the normal ones and ones producing the oddball enzyme. Guess what? The organism that produced the enzyme is now the fittest and it will survive. Do you see what happened? Out of the blue, evolution creates these different organisms because it knows not what will come down the pike. It is all a matter of luck, of course, it could have been that the organisms did not have the right enzyme. In that case, the organisms do not survive and extinction comes.

Gays are same as the organism with the special enzyme. Now, many will ask, "what the hell do gays have that would enable the survival of the species?" I do not know the answer to that--not even God. I do know, however, that gays are as necessary as any other organism that alters its DNA in order to have the "right stuff" to survive whatever the environment throws at it.

I do not need to apologize to Gays about there status as deviant organisms because there are millions of "diviants" among us. For instance, I put on weight at the drop of hat. My wife has an uncanny ability to rearrange letters to come up with another word. One of my sons has to have a meticulous room. A daughter believes in the concept of a soulmate. Another daughter loves cats. Another son is kind but he has no respect for the property of others. You have your own relatives whom you consider strange or "black sheep" or oddballs.

There is no group which is homogeneous. Everyone has members that exhibit some aberration, some difference, some deformity, some quirky behavior. This is all evolution's doing. To believe in this, you only have to envision a situation where you have been placed in a new radical environment. Will you survive? Perhaps, but if you don't, your species will probably have at least one other organism/person with the "right stuff."

Do you still find Gays a stretch of the imagination? What if you imagined a primate that began to walk upright--for no reason? What if you imagined a primate that developed an opposable thumb--for no reason? Can you not see your ancestors?
All gays are are evolution's attempt at producing many varieties in order to survive what the future may have in store. Instead of gay persons, evolution could have come up with people who where heterosexual but who wanted their wives to massage their prostates. I know, the discussion is getting weird but evolution is weird and must be weird becase it knows not what may come its way.

The Cronies in Politics

OK, so you like the candidate. You campaign for him. You make the calls. You contribute to his/her election and you expect nothing in return because you did it for the good of the country--at least that's what you were telling everyone, right? Well, if the truth be told, the campaigner who devotes himself to the election of someone is not doing it for totally selfless motives. No campaigner in his right mind would say that he'll work his tail off for the candidate and forgo all remuneration, benefits, perks, etc. associated with a win.

I have no clear solution but just now I brainstormed and how about this: after the election, all cronies have to wear a lapel pin that symbolizes that a, they campaigned for the incumbent and b, they were hired by the incumbent or by a higher-up crony.

What would be the purpose of this scarlet letter? Well, they would have to be willing to wear something that says they got hired--at least in part--by virtue of who they knew. This, I think, would keep them honest. We, the people would know that so and so was a crony hire. If they did something wrong, we would know who not to vote for in the next election. Anyone hiring someone and not admitting that it was a crony hire would be subject to impeachment/dismissal and heavy fines.

Cronyism is a bad thing and is encouraged by elected officials because the top man needs some people to be his eyes and ears but why can't they be hired like anyone else. Just have them take an oath of alligiance to the official. This would ensure that we minimize the possibility of ending up with the likes of Mr. Brown of Katrina infamy. If you campaign for someone, you should do it because you believe that person is best for the country not because it's going to land you a cushy job. Your reward should be that you helped get the right person elected. Have the official publish a document listing all whose help was instrumental.

Now, what to do with a re-election. There are no cronies to work on the re-election. Would those who worked their butts off do it again for the the gipper? Perhaps the public should pay them for their compaign effort. Why not? It sure beats years of salary to someone whose only real and documented skill is public relations and advertising. (If cronies are hired, keep them in those fields).

homosexuality and Representative Kerns

I didn't listen to the Kern speech but it was probably not PC. Except when you consider that many of the biggest civilizations on Earth have met their demise at a time when homosexuality was accepted 100%. Gibbons in "The Rise of Fall of the Roman Empire" gave homosexuality as one of the reasons for the fall. Greece at it's height fully accepted gays.

It is hard to prove that one thing or another causes something but stop for a moment and consider the consequences of individuals NOT procreating. If I lived somewhere where homosexuality was acceptable, might I not be more inclined to shack up with a sexual partner who had no danger of bringing the added responsibilities of child rearing? I am a libertarian of sorts but I also believe in the uniqueness of the human being and would like to see the species survive. With or without homosexuality, Homo sapiens would continue but for optimum evolutionary success, the pool must be refreshed and not allowed to go stagnant. 

Those who seek to further their gain in society must be prepared to draw the line at absolutes. They must acknowledge differences (the Kerns of this world) and understand that the world is better off with Kerns and, yes, with homosexuals. I fully understand the dilemma of someone different from the majority, standing up for his/her rights, and being met with ridicule, prejudice, and even condemnation. But gays are making good progress. I empathize with them but when you are a minority you should proceed quietly to make your position known while at the same time going out of your way not to scare the majority into thinking you are taking over. Take a lesson from the rich. They do not flaunt their wealth like the aristocracy in pre-revolutionary France. They've learned to quietly exist within their own communities.

spitzer spritzer

So the man fought crime. Is he a cleric? Why not cut him some slack? If he ran a ring, that's a little more serious (for a public official) but if he just needed some cuddling in D.C., leave him alone all ye who are with sin.

And besides, sex and our proclivities for same are so deeply ingrained in our DNA that no thinking man could possibly condemn this man. It would be akin to a biologist condemning the Bonobo monkeys for their sexual escapades.

My only regret is that he was so apologetic. If he's going to resign as all the pundits and holier-than-thou people seem to say, he should take a stand for all men who need to avail themselves of the women working the world's oldest profession. It's the world's oldest for a reason, people; wake up, you moralistic ignoramuses!

One last question to answer: did Spitzer go after any perpetrators of victim-less crimes? If so, that would be the only other reason I can think of for demanding his resignation.

How much segregation?

I do not favor segregation across the board. In no way, shape, or form do I want to separate the races from each other. I think it's a shame that Asians have found it necessary to segregate from the rest of us. But it may be that Chinatowns are the way to go.

What I want to see is the non-hypocritical allowance of segregation if a given community wants it. It's happening anyway: Spanish Harlem, Black Harlem, Chinatown, even Little Italy, the Russian enclave (Brighton Beach?). In Jersey City, NJ, we see a full and thriving Indian community.

Why not allow the whites their own neighborhood; one which they don't have to surreptitiously maintain at the risk of lawsuits. I wouldn't live there but I must respect their right to live in a manner that they find most agreeable with their sentiments. Under no circumstances do we insist that workplace segregation take place. Education and the workplace must remain integrated but, the neighborhood? The home environment should extend to the neighborhood if the the people of the community in question want it that way. We shouldn't fear these segregated neighborhoods any more than we fear Chinatown or any other segregation. Personally, I doubt very much that because Whites are a majority that they will all opt to live segregated. I am white and I don't want that kind of life.

The Reverend Jackson

I recently submitted a letter to the editor about how I disagreed with Reverend Jackson' stand against the recent Supreme Court decision which was pro-segregation.

I was glad that the newspaper did not publish it. Not because I changed my mind about being pro-segregation but because I had not stated a crucial point.

In the letter I stated that segregation was how evolution created new species. That is true. It also needs to create a characteristic (skin color) that could be perceived as radically different from that of another population. Whites have remained white because they do not procreate often with other races. That principle applies to all races.

The problem with segregation is that it is not economically possible to give each race it's own country/city/region. But, in any event, I do not favor segregation in the workplace or government. I do, however, think that segregation in the elementary schools or in the neighborhood is mandated by evolution.

We can not help that we consider a certain race unsuitable for procreation. That is, after all, the reason that the races themselves got their start. At some time in the past a black population migrated north and changed skin color in order to make more
vitamin D. We've remained separate ever since.

But, here in the U.S., we noted that Blacks and Whites were no different in terms of their economic abilities. Both had superior minds and bodies that could adapt to any Homo Sapient niche. Also noted was that marriage between the races did not produce inferior Human Beings.

That's the truth but Humans are under a Yin/Yang principle. At one end, they do not consider another race to be different enough to avoid; at the other end, they join the Ku Klux Klan and seek the elimination of those who are different.

By allowing segregation we are catering to those who view irrelevant characteristics such as skin color as reason enough to remain separate. But only with regard to procreation. It should not (and, does not to intelligent being) pertain to the workforce. For, what does it matter to one race if another race is superior in a certain respect--is it not for the benefit of all?

Education had a good motive for integration--the good teachers were "spread around."
It's still a good idea were it not for the cost. Why not just ensure that all communities get equal funds for a given teacher talent. Higher education, however, must remain integrated until such time that they provide equal opportunity. But it may be that they should remain integrated to prepare the different races for the workplace.

I know, it's scary to be politically incorrect but I am speaking from my scientific heart and I welcome the opposition of any one who strongly disagrees. The issue of race, evolution, and so-called bigotry must be addressed in public. All must be made to understand the truth. As a scientist, I am, of course, open to change.