Review: The World Is Flat, Part I

I'm currently auditing a very interesting course on science policy and turned in this reaction paper on the first seven chapters of The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman:

In the first half of his bestselling book The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman describes the technological innovations and historical events that have “flattened” the world, putting individuals from all nations on a more equal footing as more and more jobs can be done by anyone, anywhere. I agree with his main thesis, and was glad to have a handy historical outline of the development of the World Wide Web, open source software, and so forth. Friedman has an engaging style and a knack for interweaving personal interviews and simple analogies to explain technological concepts to the average reader. However, he seems to repeat himself a great deal – all right already, globalization is good, it’s here, and we need to adapt! – while simultaneously glossing over a lot of associated issues that I consider to be of great importance.

For example, fresh from our class discussions of the IPCC assessment reports, I find Friedman to be too much the uncritical cheerleader for the rapid rise of the developing world, without enough concern for the environmental impacts of dramatically increasing demands for natural resources as well as waste produced. In general, Friedman writes as though our modern energy needs were unproblematic rather than heavily dependent on finite and polluting fossil fuels, e.g., “transportation seems to grow easier and cheaper over time” (p. 281). He praises Ratan Tata for the innovative and affordable Indian car created by trimming cutting-edge safety and emissions technologies (p. 274) – just what we need, a billion more people burning gasoline in private vehicles! He does mention briefly that “if we don’t learn how to do more things with less energy and lower emissions, we are going to create an environmental disaster and make our planet unlivable for our children” (p. 297), thus providing the incentive to develop renewable energies and environmentally sustainable systems. But the shortness of this section and paucity of specifics or real-life examples speak to a lack of real interest in these issues.

I also think that Friedman gives capitalism too much credit for improving people’s quality of life. He proclaims that while “Communism was a great system for making people equally poor… Capitalism made people unequally rich” (p. 52), a slick set of phrases that gloss over the fact that capitalism made plenty of people unequally poor as well. Even worse, Friedman criticizes the Soviet Empire for propping up “autocratic regimes” around the world, claiming that capitalism in contrast allows economies to be governed “by the interests, demands, and aspirations of the people, rather than from the top down, by the interests of some narrow ruling clique” (p. 52). I think that this would come as a big surprise to the citizens of countries like Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua, and Indonesia (to name only a few) whose democratically elected leaders have been overthrown by dictators with the help of the United States in order to serve our military and corporate interests. Friedman also makes a big deal of India’s transition to capitalism in the 1990s without recognizing that Nehru’s initial socialistic model served to protect the country in its economic infancy, preventing its exploitation by the West (p. 53).

In my opinion, the biggest weakness of the first half of The World Is Flat is that Friedman does not express sufficient concern over the darker side of globalization. He uses the example of the state of Indiana attempting to hire an Indian consulting firm in order to deride those who worry that outsourcing and offshoring can result in exploitation (p. 242). But it’s a straw man, only created to be easily dismissed. Educated, skilled workers may be getting the opportunities of their dreams as a result of globalization, but that doesn’t allow us to ignore the environmental degradation and worker exploitation that do take place as corporations seek to evade US regulations by moving their operations to the desperate developing world.

And so far, Friedman has failed to inspire my trust that we can protect ourselves from the excesses of capitalism gone global. Wal-Mart is the obvious example of “too much of a good thing” – the quest for economic efficiency taken to egregious extremes. His solution to the ruthlessness of “the China of companies” that somehow has been isolated from “the currents of global debate on labor and human rights” even as it has become the biggest and most profitable retailer on the planet? “One can only hope that all the bad publicity Wal-Mart has received in the last few years will force it to understand that there is a fine line…” (p. 163). Call me a cynic, but I don’t think that we should bet the farm on hope: only regulation or consumer pressure will change the unfair practices of corporations with this much leverage.

Finally, while Friedman claims that flattening is frightening but will ultimately create more satisfying kinds of jobs that reward innovative thinking, passion, collaboration, and so forth, he also baldly states that advances in communications technology will make it possible (and eventually expected) for us to work those jobs at all times: “You are always in. Therefore, you are always on” (p. 249). For those of us who don’t think that one’s entire waking life should be defined by one’s paid labor, this sounds like a kind of hell. What about having the “leisure” time to develop and nurture personal (as opposed to commercial) relationships with family and friends, to serve one’s community, to stay informed about the world - not to mention to keep learning the new skills that will be essential to staying afloat in the brave new world that Friedman describes?

Electoral Compass

My apologies that I've been MIA for just about one year now. I was busy breaking up with my boyfriend, finding a wonderful new one, exploring my career options, and getting an actual job in academia. But now I'm back, just in time for the presidential primaries (and SO glad that they are here at last).

My new boyfriend sent me this link to a website that offers you a short questionnaire and then maps your position in the US political landscape relative to the current presidential candidates, with regard to both social and economic issues. The results may surprise you! I ended up far to the left of my favorite (former) candidate, Edwards, on both axes.

The best feature allows you to see how the candidates might have answered the questionnaire and offers selected quotes from their campaign websites and public remarks as evidence. I was very disturbed to see that McCain, whom I'd naively considered to be a sort of maverick moderate Republican, strongly opposes abortion rights and gay marriage AND advocates teaching creationism in science classes. (I already knew that he takes a hard line on immigration, thinks it would be reasonable to stay in Iraq for a century, and believes that we should bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran.)

The Lone Star State

I just read in the NY Times that Texas has become the first state in the union to require vaccination against HPV for preteen girls enrolled in the 6th grade. This will protect them from the sexually transmitted virus, long known to cause cervical cancer. It's critical that the vaccine be given to girls before they have a chance to be exposed to the virus through sexual abuse or experimentation, although the deadly consequences of infection will not be evident for decades.

Frankly, I'm amazed that conservative Texas has gotten past the religious right's outrage over a vaccine that could (gasp) make sex safer for women and thus (in their nonsensical view) promote promiscuity in their teenage daughters. The state will even provide free vaccinations for all girls and young women eligible for public assistance. Hooray for Governor Perry and a huge step in preventative healthcare for women!

Almost Famous

Thanks to one of our long-active and soon-to-be-missed members, the UW Postdoctoral Association has been written up in the UW Weekly. We used our recent self-organized 2nd Annual Postdoctoral Research Symposium as an excuse to try to make the campus more aware of our hidden, underserved, yet vital population. Given that only a few dozen people attended, perhaps next time we should aim for a press release PRIOR to the event...

Secret agents, causing cancer

You've probably heard that former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko died last month of acute radiation poisoning from polonium 210, possibly courtesy of the Kremlin. But while most people are aware that getting yourself on the hitlist of Russian intelligence services has to be hazardous to your health, not everyone may know about a much more ubiquitous and insidious source of polonium 210: cigarettes.

As Robert Proctor explains in today's NY Times, the tobacco industry has known since the 1960s that cigarettes contain significant amounts of polonium, perhaps increased by the use of phosphate fertilizers in tobacco cultivation. Along with tar, nicotine, and cyanide, pack-and-a-half smokers receive the radioactive equivalent of about 300 chest X-rays every year. So, like the unfortunate recent associates of the late Mr. Litvinenko, smokers are at significant risk of radiation-induced cancer over their lifetimes.

According to Dr. Proctor, cigarettes claimed about 10 million lives in the 20th century. But with the aggressive infiltration of huge global markets like China, this number could reach a billion in the 21st.

You've come a long way, baby.

Mixed Thoughts on Muslims

This started on Sunday, when I was snowed in at my boyfriend's across the water and we watched "Mangal Pandey," got to talking about the first War for Indian Independence and later Gandhi's successful nonviolent revolt, and then stayed up half the night discussing religion. He (born and raised in South India) took the position (grossly paraphrased) that Hinduism is superior to Islam because it has successfully absorbed many gods and practices, is tolerant of other faiths, and has shown itself to be capable of changing with the times (at least under duress). In contrast, Islam is rigid, intolerant, and resistant to progress, remaining stuck in feudal society while the rest of the world modernized. He blames the Koran for allowing too much flexibility in interpretation and thus too much power and influence to individual Imams.

I maintained that he was comparing apples and oranges. In my view, Hinduism belongs in the same league as Judaism, with its large number of dietary and other ritualized everyday practices, its wide range of degrees of belief/observance compatible with membership, and especially its acquisition by chance at birth, with a comcomitant complete lack of interest in converting outsiders. Islam is much more appropriately compared to Christianity, and perhaps particularly Catholicism (my own religious background), although any paternalistic and sexually repressive fundamentalist evangelical Protestant sect will serve.

Yesterday my boyfriend followed up our discussion with a link to this column, which basically complains that, unlike the previous waves of Europeans who have become part of the great American melting pot despite historical anti-immigrant hysteria, "the Muslim immigrants of today are showing absolutely no signs of even wanting to integrate." Is this a fair characterization? Surely many Muslims are attempting to do so, although without sacrificing their own religious and cultural practices. And ethnic enclaves are a long-standing tradition in America, tending to last at least as long as the initial wave of first generation elders. Heck, there are still places in Pennsylvania where English is a foreign language, ja?

The writer continues, "Worst of all, some of them are now trying to insist that the host nations adjust to their desires rather than the other way round, the taxi drivers of Minneapolis [who declined to transport passengers carrying alcohol] being a perfect example." But is this any different from Christian pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B? It seems to me that fundamentalists of any faith will have rigid beliefs and practices that are likely to come into conflict with a wider secular or pluralistic society.

Perhaps Muslims on average currently tend more towards paternalistic, fundamentalist beliefs and practices than the world's Christians (or Hindus). But I bet that if you controlled for income and education, these populations would not be significantly different. It's a chicken-and-egg kind of problem, though, I admit. How do you separate religion from cultural practices dictated by other factors including historical political structures?

A letter published in this week's issue of Nature had this to say about the current lack of capacity for science in Islamic countries: "...Paternalistic cultures in the Islamic countries can more reasonably be blamed. Under these cultures, inquiry and freedom of expression are actively discouraged in the home, at school, at work and in response to government policies. The capacity for critical analysis is a fundamental requirement for science, but where it has no chance of developing under lifelong suppression, how can science and research be expected to flourish?"

Islamic societies certainly were not always incompatible with science - during Europe's Dark Age, Muslims preserved a great deal of ancient wisdom and developed important innovations, particularly in mathematics. But the replacement of a more rational school of theology by Sunni orthodoxy in the tenth through thirteenth centuries may have created a cultural climate in which science failed to flourish as before.

Finally (and I think coincidentally), I've been enjoying this book on world myths/religions and their origins, and pondering the debt that Western Civilization owes the great Greek innovations of secular humanism: ethics and law. Was it chance or fate that allowed a bunch of barbarian tribes to build on the achievements of the Greeks and Romans, leading to an avalanche of technological innovations? And if some other civilization had beaten Christian Europe to the punch, would we be sulking in a corner, constructing ideological walls against the foreign powers that threatened our ways of life and thought?

Drug Pushers

On Thursday, the NY Times ran this scary article on the increasing use of multiple psychotropic drugs by children. Over 3.5 million kids in the US are being medicated with stimulants (mainly for A.D.H.D.), which can cause stunted growth and sleeping problems. Nearly 2 million are given antidepressants, which have been shown to trigger suicidal thoughts and behaviors in some children. Others receive anticonvulsants, which can cause liver and pancreas damage and fatal skin rashes, or antipsychotics, which can cause rapid weight gain, diabetes, and irreversible tics. And fully 1.6 million are given at least two drugs in combination, either because a single drug is not effective enough or in order to treat its side effects, even though there is virtually no scientific evidence showing that such combinations are helpful in young patients.

Coincidentally, on Friday night the Wallingford Neighbors for Peace and Justice hosted a film/discussion on "Big Bucks, Big Pharma," an expose of the pharmaceutical industry. If you've ever wondered why health care in America costs so much and yet ranks only 37th in effectiveness worldwide, alongside impoverished Cuba, consider the fact that 100,000 Americans die each year of adverse effects from prescription drugs administered at recommended doses. How much more morbidity is being created by the ubiquitous use of costly and often unneeded drugs instead of more effective - but far less profitable - healthy lifestyle changes and preventative care?

How has legal drug pushing become so prevalent in our society? Relaxation of laws in recent years have allowed the pharmaceutical industry to market their products directly to consumers in magazine and television ads, creating consumer curiosity and even brand loyalty for products that may not even be appropriate, much less necessary. Add to this the $8 billion spent each year on medical journal ads and promotional gifts and trips for physicians under the rubric of "education," the effectiveness of which has prompted the American Medical Student Association to promote a Pharm Free Pledge to its members stating they will "accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry" and "seek unbiased sources of information."

I am not trying to downplay the existence of serious illness and suffering that could be helped by medication. But it seems clear to me that pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with creating demand for their products, charging all that the market will bear, and keeping sick people alive but dependent on their drugs, than they are with providing safe, effective, affordable healthcare. And it doesn't surprise or upset me - it's just as any big business would behave in a capitalistic society. It is our responsibility to reign them in, to raise our voices against their huge lobbying forces in Washington and our state capitals and demand more rigorous regulation, to ask for fewer and less expensive drugs from our doctors, and to refuse the medicalization of natural human variation in our society - particularly in our schools, where our most vulnerable citizens are paying the price.

Bush's Bipartisanship

In a gracious extension of the olive branch to the incoming Democratic majority, President Bush is renominating a bunch of previously rejected candidates for appellate court judgeships, including William "mining lobbyist" Myers, Michael "ABA unqualified" Wallace, Terrence "civil rights, snivel rights" Boyle, and William "legalize torture" Haynes. He is also pushing the Senate again to confirm John "Bully" Bolton as permanent ambassador to the United Nations.

In an even more conciliatory gesture, Bush is also appointing OB-GYN Eric Keroack to head family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services, which is a bit like putting the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. in charge of the Armed Forces, except with less inspiring speeches. Keroack is the medical director for A Woman's Concern, a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that supports sexual abstinence until marriage, opposes contraception, and does not distribute information promoting birth control. This experience should serve him exceedingly well in advising Secretary Mike Leavitt on reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy and in controlling $283 million in annual family-planning grants designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to low income persons.

And to think I voted for her once

The Democrats took Congress earlier this month in large part due to voters' frustration over Republican corruption and incompetence. But it already looks as though the fervent promises of housecleaning and election reform will turn out to be no more than lip service on the campaign trail.

For example, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the incoming chairwoman of the Rules Committee, has said she is opposed to an independent Congressional ethics watchdog. “If the law is clear and precise, members will follow it. As to whether we need to create a new federal bureaucracy to enforce the rules, I would hope not.” Could it be that Democrats have a skeleton or two hiding in their closets, or is this part of a backroom deal with frightened Republicans that will leave the American people with the short end of the stick?

Meanwhile, Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois is preparing a proposal to provide public financing or free broadcast time for Congressional candidates in order to reduce dependence on campaign donors. Common Cause says that 90 Democrats have signed a pledge endorsing the idea.

But how far will it get when incumbents by definition have no incentive to change the system that has served them so well in the past? As Ms. Feinstein puts it, “You use taxpayer dollars to finance people who may not only be fringe candidates but — I was going to use the term ‘nut’— may be mentally incompetent." That would be "worthy opponent" to you, witch.

Reluctant reinvigoration

I have to admit that I'd been pretty down on the idea of pursuing a career in academic science of late. I'm almost two years into my postdoc without so much as a manuscript in sight. One of my key experiments, which takes at least a month to conduct, had failed four out of five times due to equipment breakdown. I'd developed an ulcer. I'd been spending less time at the bench, putting more time into volunteering for my local Postdoc Association and other more immediately gratifying activities.

Fortunately, I was forced to do two things this week that initially didn't strike me as fun. Yesterday I had to write and submit an abstract on one of my projects and a statement about my research interests for an upcoming meeting. And once that was done, I had to reread the background material for one of the aims of my other project in order to present a journal article for my PI's class. I was so depressed about my science and my chances of ever getting results/a paper/a job that I naturally put both tasks off until the last minute.

But you know what? Both experiences helped enormously. First, of course, I LIKE writing (hence this blog), and it felt good just to put words together in a satisfying way and for a useful purpose (plus, unlike this blog, the abstract will almost certainly get read and result in feedback). And more importantly, articulating my long term scientific interests and reminding myself of just how nicely my current projects serve those interests really rekindled my enthusiasm for them.

This still doesn't mean that I'll master my system, work out the bugs in our equipment, and get data worth publishing in a timely manner. But I've regained my faith that if I do, the results will be interesting and important and will lead to even more interesting and important things - more than enough on which to build a career. I think I really did pick the right lab for my postdoctoral work. Now if I can just manage to take greater advantage of it...

Two Triumphs

The South African Parliament just voted overwhelmingly to join the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada in legalizing same-sex marriages. If President Thabo Mbeki signs the bill into law, South Africa will stand alone among African nations, many of which still treat homosexuality as a crime as serious as rape or murder. The African National Congress has been criticized for pressuring its legislators to support the bill, regardless of their personal beliefs. But as the party's caucus chairman put it, “How do you allow for someone to vote against the Constitution and the policies of the A.N.C., which is antidiscrimination?” Word.

And in a smaller but still significant step, the Pakistan National Assembly passed the Protection of Women Bill, which includes amendments to the 1979 law known as the Hudood Ordinance. If the bill passes the Senate and is signed into law, judges will gain the option of trying rape cases in a civil court, whereas previously women would have had to use an Islamic court, produce four male witnesses, and risk conviction for adultery. In addition, the current penalty for consensual sex outside of marriage, flogging or even death, would be reduced to five years in jail or a substantial fine. It's not the full repeal of the Hudood Ordinance that human rights activists hoped for, but at least rape victims should have more of an incentive to bring their attackers to justice.

How am I happy? Let me count the ways...

1. Don Rumsfeld finally got the boot, and I'm glad they were dumb enough to wait until AFTER the elections because

2. We gained 6 seats, winning a majority in the Senate AND

3. We gained 28 seats, winning a majority in the House, meaning

4. Nancy Pelosi will be the first female Speaker of the House

5. Rick Santorum and George Allen are outta here

6. South Dakota voters overturned their state's abortion ban

7. Oregon and California voters defeated parental notification laws

8. Missouri voters endorsed stem cell research

9. Arizona voters rejected a ban on gay marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships

10. Property rights measures failed to pass in California, Idaho, and Washington

11. Missouri, Colorado, Arizona, Montana, Nevada and Ohio voters raised the minimum wage

12. The new chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has promised to reestablish the subcommittee on oversight and investigations

If you can think of any more big progressive victories, add them to the Comments!

Too Close NOT to Call

You've already voted, of course. If you're like me, you requested an absentee ballot months ago but are mailing it at the very last minute (as usual). What's left to do but wait and watch the exit polls?

Simple: Volunteer to call other registered voters and remind them to get to the polls. Even if you can only give half an hour of your time, it could make a difference in one of the incredibly close races taking place today.

The Republicans are throwing money at sophisticated automated telephone services like this one. Progressives rely on dedicated volunteers like you. Can you help call for change today? Just click on the image below.





And now a few choice words from Lazarus Long:

"If you are part of a society that votes, then do so. There may be no candidates and no measures that you want to vote for... but there are certain to be ones you want to vote against. In case of doubt, vote against." - Time Enough for Love, copyright 1973 by Robert A. Heinlein.

NIH family fellowship

Have you heard about the new NIH family fellowship that will allow postdoctoral researchers either to take extended paid parental leave for up to 12 months or work parttime for up to 5 years?

No? Well, that might be because it doesn't exist - yet. But check out the proposal and discussion board here, add your name in support, and publicize it to your department/university. This could make a huge difference to the retention of talented female scientists currently forced to choose between career and family, given the extremely limited opportunities for postdoctoral maternity leave at most universities.

The (Science) World Is Flat

I just saw a lecture hosted by one of my favorite Pacific NW organizations, the Forum on Science Ethics and Policy. Dr. Neal Lane, former NSF Director and science advisor to President Clinton, outlined the post-WWII history of U.S. government investment in science and explained how our cutting edge is being lost to rising stars in Asia.

Borrowing from The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman, Dr. Lane listed the major reasons for America's ongoing scientific decline:

(1) Too little government investment in science
$63 billion may sound like a lot, but it's less than 2.5% of our federal budget, the vast majority of which goes to interest on the national debt, defense, social security, medicare, and medicaid. Private industry spends twice as much on research and development.

(2) Too few people in science
Although practically everyone I know at the postdoc level is deeply skeptical about future job prospects, Dr. Lane insisted that we will not be able to recruit enough talent as time goes on, mostly because

(3) Too few U.S. citizens understand science
That's right, our science and math education sucks here relative to the rest of the developed world - our kids may feel good, but they know almost nothing. For example, only 50% of Americans know that it takes the Earth one year to go around the sun. And Asia is really building up its own academic infrastructure these days, so we're not going to be such a coveted destination for foreign talent pretty soon.

(4) Too much ideology
Dr. Lane didn't need to go into too much detail here - from teaching creationism in science classes to prohibiting stem cell research on embryos that would otherwise be tossed out by fertility clinics, I think we all know what he meant.

(5) Too much politics
Even when the vast majority of scientists agree, special interests can drum up "controversy" to cast doubt on our findings or impede citizens and government from taking action. Prime example: manmade climate change.

(6) Public confidence in science is fragile
The good news is, Americans generally approve of government spending on scientific research. The bad news is, they don't understand it, they don't necessarily appreciate the return on their investment, and it's not a high priority on the federal budget when push comes to shove. And that's OUR FAULT for failing to educate and connect with the public.

George Brown (CA) urged us to become "civic scientists" and get involved in the political process. This is all the more important at a time when the basic liberties of inquiry are threatened. As Einstein said in 1950, "Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom." That freedom, born of relative wealth and the Constitution, is the one advantage we have over Asia Rising... for now.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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!