The Sorrow of Venezuela: Sometimes the Enemy of My Enemy Is an Idiot


I have no love for the current US Regime. Our rulers in the oligarchic corporate system have many enemies, including at least half the American population. Among their foreign enemies is a moderately sized oil power on the north coast of South America. Since the Regime can’t afford to invade them all, it uses the dread weapon of economic sanctions against lesser threats like Venezuela.

I’m not entirely clear on why Venezuela deserves this punishment. Supposedly they’re “violating Democracy” since they rejected the USA’s hand-picked man for their next President. Then there are the usual allegations of drug trafficking, most likely false. Probably the real reason is because Venezuela has appropriated the property of American capitalists. To the US Regime, the right of American financiers to loot and plunder other nations, even to the point of driving their people to despair and early death, is sacrosanct. That’s what happened to Russia in the 1990s and Venezuela knows from its own experience the pitfalls of Yankee investment.

I support Venezuelan sovereignty as much as I oppose the “rules-based international order.” The country’s internal politics is none of America’s concern. And though our corporations don’t appreciate losing money and property, too bad! That’s the risk of operating in a foreign system. We taxpayers don’t owe the fat cats anything. To exact retribution would require sending troops, and protecting corporate profits doesn’t justify the loss of even one American soldier.

Just because I defend Venezuela, however, doesn’t mean I buy their leaders’ excuses. Ever since the Marxist Hugo Chavez came to power, the nation’s economy has been in decline. His successor Nicolas Maduro is doing even worse. Maduro’s rationale is “It’s America’s fault! They seized our assets and restricted our trade.” That second claim is true. But the USA also did this to Russia, another oil power. Though Russia suffered a year or two of hardship, its economy is now more self-reliant and stronger than ever. Its leaders forged closer ties with China and to international pariahs like Iran. By the way, Iran is also getting along fine, though America’s vindictiveness towards them has been much more severe. America’s punishments for Iran’s (imaginary) crimes have only increased the Iranian will to resist.

So what’s Venezuela’s problem? Have its oh-so-wise leaders diversified the nation’s economy to prevent a drop in oil prices from driving it to bankruptcy? No. According to Wikipedia, petroleum provides 80% of the nation’s exports and 50% of its government revenue. Have they reduced government waste and elite corruption? No. Instead, they’ve spent their way to hyperinflation. Has Venezuela benefited from the new Russian-Chinese financial system? No. The Russians don’t need Venezuela’s sole export and the Chinese have good reason to be wary of the integrity of their leadership.

Facing all of these problems, what’s Maduro’s answer? To invade his nation’s tiny neighbor to the east and add that country’s oil to their own enormous reserves, which apparently aren’t QUITE enough to lift them out of poverty. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? A certain Iraqi dictator tried the same thing 30 years ago and it went badly for him. Not that America should come to Guyana’s rescue–we had no obligation to help Kuwait, either–but if Maduro invades, he’ll give the US Regime the excuse it needs to put boots on the ground. And unlike the victims of our previous invasions in the Middle East, Venezuelans don’t have religious fanaticism to stiffen their resistance.

As much as our alleged leaders prattle on about Democracy with a capital D, I have no reason to believe that Venezuela’s elections are any less honest than ours. I would not be surprised if the people once again return him to power, even without vote-rigging. He keeps promising them all sorts of undeliverable benefits and they won’t give up those illusions without a fight. Democracy is no panacea. It produces spineless wimps like Greece’s Tsipras, Italy’s Melloni, and (I regret to say) America’s Trump who promote themselves as fire-eaters and upon getting into office, immediately surrender to the Powers That Be.

In my opinion, Venezuela would benefit from a strong and principled leader, one as ruthless as Chile’s Pinochet and as incorruptible as Singapore’s Lee Kwan Yew. He’d have to be intensely nationalistic, like Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi. Most importantly, he’d need the guts to tell American financial predators to go to hell. (See “Confessions of an Economic Hitman” by John Perkins, which is dismissed as “conspiracy theory” by all the usual subjects.) But for every authoritarian who succeeds, there are at least ten who make matters worse, like Zimbabwe’s Mugabe and Argentina’s Peron.

I support Venezuela as the enemy of my enemy, the corrupt corporations currently ruling the USA. Yet neither can I support Venezuela’s even more corrupt, incompetent, and stupid leadership. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is not my friend, just an idiot.

Side note: I’ve been experimenting with AI images on Bing AI. I wanted to create a cartoon image of Venezuela as a sharp-toothed monster trying to devour Guyana, to illustrate the stupidity of Maduro’s claims to most of his neighbor’s territory. Bing flagged the suggestion with a content warning, saying I’d violated their terms of service. In other words, criticizing a brown (Mestizo) country for wanting to invade another brown (East Indian) country is racist. Sometimes AI is also an idiot!

The Trouble With “Thank You For Your Service”

On Veteran’s Day, should we be thankful, contemplative, or angry?


A few years ago, in the wake of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, it was fashionable to say, as soon as a non-veteran learned of someone’s veteran status, “Thank you for your service.” This wasn’t just a conservative cause, though of course conservatives were more adamant about it. The corporate media was well on board. Though I’m not a veteran myself, something about this practice made me uncomfortable. For many people, these had the air of empty words spoken automatically, like blessing somebody after a sneeze. At present, the adulation has subsided, but we see it recurring at times like Memorial Day and Veteran’s Day, which is once again upon us.

If the words are spoken sincerely, and in many cases they are, I agree with the sentiment. Being in the military is a difficult but necessary job. Somebody’s got to do it. Even as powerful and relatively isolated as America is, we could still be invaded. In fact, we ARE being invaded from the south, because the current administration is encouraging the invaders. But that’s another story. Though I’m grateful that our military provides deterrence and some modicum of order, I don’t go out of my way to say “thank you.” As I see it, there are two big problems with this practice.

The first is that the greeting does nothing to help our wounded and psychologically damaged veterans. If we want to truly show our thanks, we should donate to veterans’ charities. We should also vote for candidates who will represent their interests and agitate for more funding. Of course there must be a continuing audit of the historically corrupt Veteran’s Administration.

The second problem is that it doesn’t address the proverbial elephant in the room. Why have all these troops been sent overseas anyway? Since 1945, these have all been wars of choice and we’ve been stalemated or lost almost all of them. Even when we seemed to win, as in the first Iraq War of the early 1990s, that’s because we stopped before the mission was completed. We didn’t unseat Saddam Hussein, nor did we make any deals with him to promote better behavior. Instead, we sanctioned and crippled his regime as an excuse for further intervention.

More recent military adventures have not just been failures, they’ve been complete disasters. Take for example the American-sponsored overthrow and murder of eccentric Libyan dictator Muammar Gadaffi. He may have been oppressive by Western standards (or not, given recent events) but he kept his nation in order and provided his people with one of the highest living standards in Africa. Removing him interrupted the flow of oil and provided a conduit for millions of “refugees”–actually economic migrants–into Europe. Many people, myself included, suspect this was the actual goal of the operation.

I’m quite certain that the whole “thank you” campaign as promoted by the government and corporate media was designed to bolster public support not for veterans, but for the misbegotten foreign wars which have killed and crippled so many of them. For a while, there was even talk that protesting these wars was somehow disrespectful to vets and their families. Never mind that in the Vietnam era, veterans’ groups were some of the war’s biggest opponents.

I want to make two things perfectly clear: I don’t condemn any American who joined the military and went to war overseas, even though I view all our recent wars as both unnecessary and counterproductive. They did what they felt was right and we civilians have no right to judge them. My second point is that I don’t advocate for anyone, not a single solitary person, to join up, not until our nation’s priorities change. If this brings on military conscription, so be it. I’d like to see how our pampered, mentally fragile Millennials and Zoomers react to that. The ensuing riots will dwarf the George Floyd fiasco.

On that cheery note, I want to wish all our veterans and current service people well. Be safe, get out as soon as you can, and question (at least mentally) what your superiors tell you. And thank you for your service.

Whatta You Mean, Sedition?


British Infantryman,1941

British Infantryman,1941

Way back when I created this blog, I chose the title with tongue in cheek. Besides having a love of science fiction, I’ve always been critical of the established order. This is an attribute I share with many of my kind. Science fiction has always provided an outlet for people who look to better their society.

As a proud American citizen, I support free speech and regard attempts to limit citizens’ discourse with contempt. One strategy of the political establishment is to shame dissidents into silence. For example, when we opposed the Iraq war, we were hurting the feelings of soldiers and their families and “emboldening” the enemy. It’s a weak argument when you consider that our service people face dangers to life and limb as part of their job. Criticism is the least of their problems And the Islamists on the other side care absolutely nothing for what we infidels think.

When Donald Trump was unexpectedly elected President in 2016, defenders of the status quo became more hysterical, painting critics on both the left and right as villains in league with foreign enemies. At that time, in a fit of pique, I modified the heading of my blog, adding flags that would trigger these schoolmarms of respectable thought. The Betsy Ross flag, for starters, evokes rage from those who hate our American heritage because our ancestors had different values. Yes, slavery was legal in the USA in 1776, but it was also practiced in many if not most of the world’s nations!

I chose the other five flags to offend those who can’t stand diversity in political thought. Our elites hate Russia because Putin’s government halted the looting of their country by predatory American capitalists. Furthermore, they refuse to bend the knee to LGBT ideology. Venezuela is a similar case; they had the gall to take control of their own oil reserves. Hungary and Japan are bad because they oppose immigration–how dare they decline the enrichment of hordes of incompatible refugees! Finally, Palestine stands in the way of Israeli expansion, therefore its people are routinely slandered as terrorists. I’ve heard otherwise respectable Americans call them “animals” who “only understand force.” Our media considers all five of these states to be “anti-democratic,” though their real crime is to honor the wishes of their respective populations.

Since February of 2022, Russia has been the target of unprecedented vitriol; all the more reason for me to leave their flag in place. I’m sick to death of everyone, Democrats and Republicans alike, virtue signaling with their little blue and yellow Ukrainian icons. They’re hysterical about a piece of ground in Eastern Europe changing hands, though Russia is actually less authoritarian than Ukraine. These same folks ignore the genocide in Yemen being committed by our good friends the Saudis. As Orwell would say, some victims are more equal than others!

In summary, I make no apologies for displaying the Russian flag, the Palestinian flag, and all these other “evil” symbols. I hereby declare that when I do update my heading, I’m doing it for a fresh look rather than for fear of being labeled an “enemy” sympathizer. If opposing the corrupt, irrational foreign policy of America’s ruling class makes me a seditionist, I embrace the label whole-heartedly.

Happy Birthday America


Peace Flag, image from SoCal Flags,

It doesn’t seem that long ago that we were celebrating the Bicentennial and everything was red, white, and blue. Now, 41 years later, we’re having a bit of difficulty getting along with each other, and with the world at large. If America can manage to stay together, I propose we adopt a new version of the Stars and Stripes, one that expresses our most important mission for the 21st century: Peace! Happy Fourth, everyone!



Daylight Scammings Time


Crazy time! I miss my backwards Bullwinkle clock.

Those of you unfortunates in the rest of the USA lost an hour today. We in Arizona (and Hawaii; our fellow holdout Indiana succumbed to the Borg a few years back) do not practice such nonsense. The idea was first proposed by Benjamin Franklin, though it was a moot point since official time zones had not been established. It came into common usage in Germany during World War I with the rationale of saving coal by promoting energy savings. Daylight Savings Time is the archetypal grand government scheme in that its proponents exaggerate benefits and ignore negative external costs. If it’s such a great idea, private businesses are free to adopt summer hours on their own initiative. There’s no need for coercive standardization.

The original benefits touted for DST were energy savings. By adjusting the hours most people were awake, it would supposedly require less use energy usage. Wikipedia’s article on DST reports several studies in which energy savings were predicted, but subsequent follow-ups showed little to no benefits. In fact, when Indiana adopted DST in 2006, energy consumption actually increased due to greater use of air conditioning in the summer evening hours.

The other alleged benefit of DST is that people can enjoy more time after-work outdoor activities in the summer. Here in Arizona, this is a drawback. Due to the high temperatures, we welcome the sunset. (A few years back, our august legislature proposed reverse DST. Ugh!) Again, private businesses are free to adopt summer hours. Government offices could do so as well. However, with increasing air pollution and traffic congestion, communities would benefit far more from staggered work schedules, which would render the whole issue moot.

Now for the widely ignored downside: DST has a significant detrimental effect on health. Days on which the clock shift see a 10% increase in heart attacks (also from Wikipedia.) Its effect on global business is a nightmare because the many nations who observe “summer time” tend to shift their clocks on different days, making time coordination more baffling than a backwards Bullwinkleclock. For example, Mexico adopted DST as a result of NAFTA (so-called “trade pacts” have little to do with reducing tariffs and everything to do with the centralization of authority) even though, as a sub-tropical nation, it sees little benefit. It’s interesting to note that Mexico changes its clocks on different days than the US, meaning this “standardization” simply increases confusion.

Daylight savings time is a scam that offers our citizens little or no benefit at a significant cost. If we’re going to eliminate grand government schemes this would be a good place to start, since its repeal wouldn’t bankrupt any companies or start any rebellions. President Trump, gadfly that he is, should consider this move as a less controversial way to benefit America.

The wise Victorians didn’t observe DST. Escape to a simpler time with my steampunk novels Fidelio’s Automata and Miss Ione D and the Mayan Marvel.


No Tea for the Tillerson


Former Exxon-Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of State, was on Capitol Hill yesterday for confirmation hearings before Congress. Given the general hysteria over Tillerson’s business ties with Russia, I thought at first he’d be a good pick. Nothing is more important than repairing America’s damaged relations with Russia. It’s a powerful country, rich in resources, with an educated population and a shared opposition to Islamic terrorism. Most importantly, it has nuclear weapons, so to attack it would be suicidal.

Unfortunately, the US government is lousy with “exceptionalists” who deny that Russia has the right to defend its own interests. They’re apoplectic that Moscow has opposed the illegal installation of hostile regimes in two of its former allies, Ukraine and Syria. The neo-conservative anti-Russian crusade is not about “human rights.” If we cared about that, we wouldn’t support countries like Saudi Arabia that murder gays and enslave women.

As for Tillerson, he’s more of a war-hawk than his detractors thought. He supports our pointless sanctions on Russia as if either Crimea or Aleppo was any of our business. Furthermore, the accusations of Putin “hacking” the Presidential election are just that, accusations, unsupported by credible evidence. Even if the Kremlin DID hack the Democratic Party’s server, the released information was true and relevant to the voters’ decision, so the leak was a public service.

Perhaps Rex is repeating this neo-conservative rubbish so the clowns in Congress will confirm him. I hope that’s the case, but I have my doubts after hearing his belligerent remarks about China. What gives us the right to tell a sovereign nation what it can and cannot do in its own coastal waters? Open navigation in the South China Sea is critical for Beijing’s survival. Despite that fact, Rex insists that China must stop building artificial island bases and threatens to send our Navy to kick them off.

Is this man insane? It’s acceptable to make war for our own national defense, but not to attack the vital interests of another country. China has every right to defend itself and having come late to the party, there are no leftover islands for it to occupy as bases. To Beijing’s credit, these built-up shoals were not inhabited. They’re not conquering and coercing native peoples as we did with Guam, Samoa, Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Even Diego Garcia, which the US rents from the UK, was stolen from its native population.

Why do so many powerful Americans continue to frame other nations’ defensive moves as aggression? It must be psychological projection because the US is second to none at portraying imperialism as defense. We needn’t accept this nonsense. Congress should reject Tillerson’s nomination, not because he’s (allegedly) soft on Russia, but because he’s unhinged, unfair, and unbalanced on China. We don’t need another conflict, especially one that could escalate into a nuclear war.

If you like political intrigue, you’ll enjoy my novel Centrifugal Force.

FREE SPEECH FRIDAY: My Predictions for 2017


Gaze into the future…

Why make predictions, one nobody can see the future? I say, why not? At the very least, it’s an interesting exercise to see how much we can guess correctly.

First I’ll review my arcane and esoteric predictions from a year ago, at the start of 2016:

1. My 2016 prediction about Trump not winning the Presidency was wrong, and I’m in good company because even most of the Donald’s most devoted advocates expected him to lose. It’s not that I believed the media’s slanted coverage of him; I just didn’t think the Powers That Be would allow him to prevail.

2. Economic stagnation continues – I was mostly correct. Despite the Obama administration’s propaganda about a recovery, there are still millions unemployed and thirty-year-olds living with their parents. The post-election stock market euphoria doesn’t count; to most Americans, it has yet to deliver any material benefit.

3. Unrest expands beyond the inner cities – also correct. With the Dakota Access Pipeline, Black Lives Matter, and anti-Trump protests, we’ve seen plenty of that. Thankfully, there hasn’t been as much violence as I expected. 2016 was indeed a year of surprises.

Now for my prognostications for 2017: having gone 2 for 3 in 2016 I’ll double the number.

1. Happy days aren’t here again. The economy will worsen and perhaps even return to 2008 levels. Trump will be the cause, but not directly. Because he’s an independent actor, the usual suspects at the Federal Reserve have no reason to support him and will finally raise interest rates. On the good side, it will be a long-overdue detox from the fiscal meth high of the “zero interest rate” policy.

2. Russia, Russia, Russia! Russia will continue to increase its influence, especially if Trump can put an end to those foolish economic sanctions. The Russian economy will grow through 2017 and the Kremlin will win battles and gain allies in the Middle East.

3. Oil prices are headed upward. This is a contrary view, but the world’s biggest oil producer, Saudi Arabia, has gotten itself in financial trouble with its overly generous welfare state. Furthermore the royal family’s covert support for ISIS and their meddling in Bahrain and Yemen will come back to bite them. The resulting political turmoil may cause a significant increase in prices by the second half of the year.

4. Havana will be the new boomtown. With Fidel gone, Cuba will go the way of China and attempt to meld communism and capitalism. It will be the “in” place for investors, though the Raul Castro regime will give a lot of them the shaft.

5. Humpty Dumpty sits on a wall in Brussels. If Le Pen wins in France or Wilders wins in the Netherlands (I’d say the odds are at least 50-50 for at least one of these,) the EU will effectively collapse by year’s end. If not, this autocratic alliance will continue its slow march into oblivion.

6. The corporate media grabs at straws. The “fake news” nonsense shows that media corporations are desperate. When their propaganda fails, they’ll attempt to absorb and co-opt the alt media. A few might have some limited success, but in the long run, the dinosaur networks and newspapers are doomed.

One year from now we’ll see how they stack up. Despite my pessimism, I’d like to wish you all a prosperous (or at least interesting) 2017.

If you wonder about the future (and who doesn’t?) check out the story collection Valiant, He Endured edited by George Donnelly and containing the short story “Ghost Writer” by yours truly.


Free Speech Friday: Is There a War on Christmas?


It’s that time again, to hear the conservative lament about the “war on Christmas.” Is this, as the New York Times suggest, merely in our imagination? I’d agree that the term “war” is a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe “cultural skirmish” would be a better term. No one has outlawed Christmas here in America, but expressions of “Merry Christmas” and related decorations aren’t welcome in all situations.

One of the drivers of this anti-Christmas mentality has been the American Civil Liberties Union. Years ago, I was a member of that organization, as I believed that it did a lot of important work to support our civil rights. I let my membership expire when they began to view political correctness as more important than freedom. Though I’ve been a religious skeptic all my adult life, I’ve never shared their hard-line view on church-state separation. What harm does it do to have a nativity scene at the county courthouse? Does this constitute establishing an official church? I see it rather as a recognition of the local culture. I’d prefer that the decorations be paid for by private donations rather than taxpayer funds, but in any case, there are a lot more egregious things we could spend our money on.

This is why it’s unfortunate that we feel obligated to say “Happy Holidays” instead of “Merry Christmas” lest we offend someone who is not Christian. Though I would not go out of my way to say it to someone I knew was Jewish, or who appeared Middle Eastern, I wish I didn’t have to worry about that. Christmas is part of our culture, which is shared even by those of us who aren’t religious. For example, if I were in Japan and someone wished me a happy Gozan no Okuribi, it wouldn’t matter at all to me that I’m not Buddhist. It’s part of their culture, and besides, it’s the sentiment behind the wish that counts.

Speaking of Christmas, check out the new flash fiction collection, Christmas in Love, edited by George Donnelly. I’m sure you’ll find my contribution to be amusing. Even better, the e-book is FREE for a limited time.

SCIENCE SATURDAY: Escape from Earth


Earthrise over the Moon, photographed by the Apollo 11 astronauts, from

One of the greatest disappointments of my life has been the stalling of space exploration. Considering the rate of the Apollo moon missions in the 1970’s, I expected we’d have a permanent base there by now. Unfortunately, so much of humanity’s resources have been wasted on war, both military and economic, that it’s crippled our efforts to get into space. I believe it will happen eventually, but probably not in my lifetime.

Why should humans go into space? As mountaineer George Mallory said about Everest, “because it’s there.” There are tangible benefits as well, which include scientific discoveries, zero-G manufacturing technology, mining resources in space, and the ability to avert (or survive) a planetary emergency. We’ve already benefited from sending machines into orbit. Satellites for weather, communications, and research have revolutionized our lives.

Because government priorities are driven by the whims of politicians and the fickle attention of the public, NASA and other government agencies are not the answer. The private sector needs to play a major role. Private business in space got off to a slow start, in part to government regulations and the concern that space travel could be weaponized. Since the end of the Shuttle program, and the collapse of America’s Soviet competitor, we’ve seen the birth of a free-enterprise space race. Companies such as Orbital, SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic and dozens of others have taken up the torch.

Even without the burden of government taxation and regulation, the economics of space exploration are still daunting. A 2011 estimate of the cost to get 1 kg of material into low earth orbit was approximately $1000. New technologies such as magnetic rail guns may be helpful (for inert material rather than living things), but escaping the earth’s gravity will remain expensive for a very long time.

The microgravity that makes space exploration so interesting to engineers is also a hazard to the long-term human habitation of space. Rotating space stations are a staple of science fiction because it’s the best way to simulate gravity in orbit. Yet we have not yet created anything of the sort. Once again it’s a matter of resources. To be useful as a human habitation, a rotating station would have to be quite a bit larger than anything we’ve built so far, including the International Space Station. It would also have to be strong enough to stand the stress of constant rotation.

I have hope that mankind will eventually break such barriers. Increased funding to NASA could be a carrot to the aerospace industry as America withdraws from its unproductive interventions abroad. As the US and Russia settle their differences, I look forward to more cooperative ventures between the two countries. But for the most part, the government needs to get out of the way. It’s time for space enthusiasts to put their money where their mouths are and invest in companies that will help us break the shackles of Earth.

If you like the mysteries of space, you’ll enjoy my story Found Pet, available from Amazon:

SCIENCE SATURDAY: Razib Khan and the Controversy of Human Genomics

Razib Khan, scientific outlaw

Razib Khan, scientific outlaw

The science of genetics has added a fascinating dimension to the history of mankind. For example, we once thought that Neanderthal people went extinct. Now scientists believe that modern humans have Neanderthal genes, meaning that our ancestors got close and personal with their caveman cousins. It’s also fascinating to consider when humans first occupied what parts of the earth, and in what direction they migrated. New theories have provoked fierce debate about migrations to places like Australia and the Americas earlier than experts previously believed. Genetic analysis of human remains is one piece of this puzzle. Why is this branch of science not more popular than it is? I suspect the reason may be political.

For the last few months, I’ve been reading the Gene Expression Blog by Razib Khan at the alt media site I’ll write more about that excellent site in an upcoming blog post. Khan is an avid reader and a prolific writer on evolution, history, religion, and philosophy. He also writes frequently about the field of personal genomics and controversial services such as 23andMe. Khan’s profile lists him as a graduate student in genomics at UC Davis. His column has renewed my dormant interest in human genetics and paleo-history.

The problem is, Khan doesn’t stick to the narrative. He engages with publications and groups that are politically incorrect. Last year the New York Times booted him off the editorial pages for that reason. The gossip site had outed him for his association with allegedly “racist” sites and That’s their loss and Unz’s gain. It gives me great satisfaction, however, that VDare and Taki’s Magazine are still going strong, but Gawker is no more.

It’s appalling to think that a smart, well-spoken fellow like Khan would be punished for his associations. I’m reminded of how the Catholic Church treated Galileo’s theories. Yes, many biologists speculate on the differences between human racial groups concerning average intelligence, health, stamina, etc. This may offend politically correct opinion. Yet I don’t think that scientists actually believe the propaganda that “race is an illusion” and that all groups are exactly equal in potential. If you think about it, the egalitarian view is counter-intuitive. As a progressive friend commented to me, concerning the differences between ethnicities, “Why would you think they’d all be the same?”

My point is that science shouldn’t make value judgments. Research gives us information, which we can use for good or evil, to help people or hurt them. You may ask, what good does it do for us to know how and where humans originated, and the differences between racial groups? We don’t know. Neither did the Pope Urban VIII at the time he censured Galileo. He couldn’t have foreseen space exploration and its benefits, yet his closed-mindedness could have prevented all of that.

Arlys’ and my book Miss Ione D and the Mayan Marvel takes a fanciful look at Mesoamerican paleontology. Check it out at