Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Happy Halloween!

I type this post from the basement room housing our confocal microscope, dressed as a monarch butterfly.

I don't have anything scintillating to report, other than that I heard on NPR recently that the most popular original paper source of counterfeit US dollars is the now practically worthless Iraqi dinar (talk about adding insult to injury).

But I direct you to a terrific post and discussion about the essential unpaid work OUTSIDE of the home expected of Stay at Home Moms (well, Parents, but the vast majority are Moms) over at Bitch Ph.D.

And if you have small children, bring 'em by my house - I always buy too much candy.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Unlawful combatants

The International Herald Tribune recently featured this article quoting Martin Scheinin, the United Nations' expert on protecting human rights in the fight against terrorism, on the Military Commissions Act President Bush signed into law earlier this month: "One of the most serious aspects of this legislation is the power of the president to declare anyone, including U.S. citizens, without charge as an 'unlawful enemy combatant' - a term unknown in international humanitarian law."

Think about what this means if you haven't already. You could be arrested and detained indefinitely WITHOUT CHARGE for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Assuming that you were lucky enough to be tried rather than imprisoned for years and tortured for information, you would be subject to a military trial, not a civilian court of law, and would not have the right to see classified evidence that could exonerate you. And that's if you're a US citizen. If you're merely a legal permanent resident, you don't even have the right to challenge the legality of your detention.

Although we are fighting a "war on terror" with no foreseeable end, we have decided that the soldiers on the other side do not deserve to be treated like prisoners of war, subject to those pesky Geneva Conventions that preclude coercive interrogation. A case certainly could be (and has been) made that individuals failing to respect "the laws and customs of war," whatever those may be, are not subject to said Conventions. But without a fair trial, how can we even justly determine whether or not a particular person has failed to respect those laws and customs?

How does denying Constitutional rights to US citizens and legal residents protect our freedom? Clearly the terrorists are winning. What is terrorism, after all, but using illegal acts to intimidate other people into acting against their own best interests?

Thursday, October 26, 2006

A more perfect union?

As this NY Times article reports, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled yesterday that gay couples are entitled to the same legal rights and financial benefits as heterosexual couples. The Court has ordered the Legislature to create and modify laws that will provide gay couples with benefits previously restricted to heterosexual couples, including tuition assistance, survivors’ benefits under workers’ compensation laws, and spousal privilege in criminal trials. However, the Court was split on the issue of whether to refer to homosexual unions as marriages or whether another term could be used and has left that determination up to the Legislature.

Naturally reactions differ. Some conservative groups are outraged that gay couples are being dignified with the same rights as heterosexual ones, which apparently poses some kind of threat to procreation. Some gay rights activists are unwilling to settle for civil union rather than marriage, either because they fear that separate will never truly be equal in practice, or because they believe that committed homosexual relationships deserve the same social cache as heterosexual ones.

Where do you stand on this issue? I consider myself a pragmatic progressive. I think that civil unions for homosexuals with the same benefits as heterosexual marriage are a huge step in the right direction. Moreover, surveys consistently show that the majority of Americans support homosexual civil unions - but not "marriage" - on the grounds of fairness and equal rights. I think that clamoring for the right to use the term "marriage," which has weighty connotations in our abnormally religious Western nation, only serves to erode that sympathy and spur conservative hotheads to attempt amendment of state Constitutions.

I think we should take civil unions and run with them. The average citizen will eventually become accustomed to the reality of legally recognized homosexual couples who show themselves to be good neighbors, coworkers, friends, and family. Except for the serious fundies, most US religions are gradually growing more tolerant of homosexuality (and women's rights) as they are populated by more modern minds. Ultimately it will also seem natural to extend the secular institution of marriage to those who have enjoyed its benefits for years in all but name. By losing this battle now, I believe that we can eventually win the war.

Finally, as an aside for anyone who wants hard evidence that homosexuality is "natural" in the sense of not being a uniquely human phenomenon, check out this current exhibition at the University of Oslo or read this book by Bruce Bagemihl.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

Fantasy Congress

Four students at Claremont McKenna have created a new online gaming site for those of us who glaze over at the mention of sports scores but check the progress of beloved bills at Congressional records sites for fun. It's Fantasy Congress!

Points are scored every time a real life member of Congress introduces a bill or gets it past one of the many hurdles on the way to becoming a law. Choose a line-up of ranking and rookie Representatives, starter and senior Senators - and watch them orate, negotiate, bluff, and filibuster their way to glorious victory or ignominious defeat!

Will you enlist the real-life representatives of the state(s) dearest to your heart to monitor their progress? Or select the individual members of Congress who most closely align with your own political views?

Or, realizing that die-hard progressives score very few points when the Republicans control both houses, will you either 1) betray your ideals completely by choosing an intimidating lineup from the majority party (justified to outraged loved ones as keeping your enemies closer) or 2) draft a line-up of moderate go-getters who may not represent your interests faithfully but sure know how to get post offices renamed for popular celebrities?

Happily, you don't have to choose - you can draft several teams and compete in multiple leagues. The real life Congress may be in recess, but the Fantasy Congress is now in session. Let the games begin!

Monday, October 23, 2006

Vote by mail - leave a paper trail!

In a recent NY Times article on a growing trend towards absentee voting, John Broder focused on the woes of campaign managers who could no longer time a blitz of last-minute advertisements to reach voters just before Election Day. However, he omitted mention of two major reasons that Democrats and progressives are increasingly choosing to vote by mail.

The first is paranoia, justified or not, regarding the accuracy and security of electronic voting machines being manufactured by companies with ties to the Republican party. Votes by mail could still be stolen, but it would take more work, and a paper trail would exist at least transiently. Poor and minority voters who experienced or heard reports of long lines and harrassment at the polls in the 2004 election also have a compelling reason to cast their ballots by mail.

For these reasons, King County officials in Washington State have been campaigning aggressively for citizens to register to vote by mail in this year's election and plan to switch eventually to a mail-only system: http://www.metrokc.gov/elections/votebymail/
The deadline for King County is today, October 23. What about in your county? Register now!