Posts

Yes, going to prison necessarily entails the loss of liberty. But the right to vote is in many ways more important than the right to walk freely down the street: Voting is the most basic check against the coercive power of the state. The places where that coercive power is most starkly exercised, such as prisons, are also the places where that most basic of checks becomes more important. The fact that prisoners have a big stake in governmental choices isn't an argument in favor of disenfranchisement; it's an argument against.

And because the vote is so essential to democratic citizenship, it is also an important part of reintegrating inmates with society. Prisons separate and divide, but at their best they also prepare inmates for life after imprisonment. Rebuilding civic engagement is perhaps the most important part of that process.

Q: Does religiously motivated rejection of evolution (e.g. creationism) ever get in your way when working?

A: I don’t experience this kind of resistance in science, in which evolutionary theory is obviously the dominant paradigm. Creationists sometimes try to create the impression that lots of scientists have their doubts about the theory, but I have yet to meet such scientists. I’d be surprised if more than 0.1 percent of active research biologists have such doubts.

When I came to this country, over twenty-five years ago, I was amazed that creationism was still taken seriously, and assumed that it would blow over. It never did, of course. I can’t help but look at it as a left-over of a medieval mind-set unresponsive to overwhelming counter-evidence.

At the same time, I must say that I don’t think the recent wave of God-questioning rants have helped much. They have polarized the issue, whereas in my mind it is eminently possible to look at religion as a collective value system and at science as telling us how the physical world operates. Even though I am not religious myself, I think the conflict between science and religion is unnecessary and overblown.

First off, it's illogical to suggest that these voters who may prefer her over Obama will not vote for Obama if he's the Democratic nominee.  Why is it that Hillary can win 60% of the white working class vote, and we assume none of them will vote for Obama in the general election, but I don't hear the same argument when Obama wins 90% of the black vote.  No one makes the assumption that the black voters won't back Hillary if she's the Democratic nominee.  On the news this morning, they said that Hillary won big in the "much sought after white working class vote."  No mention of Obama winning 90% of the black vote or of the huge black turnout in North Carolina.  No mention that the black vote was "much sought after."  No mention of the fact that a Democrat who cannot win the black vote has no chance in a general election in the post-Civil Rights bill era.  The coverage seems to be implying that the black vote is not as important as the white working class vote and that Hillary can take their votes for granted if she is the Democratic nominee.  Meanwhile, she continues to alienate them through divisive campaigning focusing on Rev. Wright in states that have long histories of racial division. 

Another thing is the fact that Obama is labeled as out of touch, liberal, and elitist.  Hillary was on the damn corporate board at Wal-Mart until Bill ran for Pres. in 1992.  And she's branded as the populist who is in touch with the working class.  There isn't a more anti-union, anti-working class operation on earth than Wal-Mart.  Obama spent years working as a community organizer in Chicago, probably with people who were poor and lacked important services due in part to companies and policies like those of Wal-Mart.