The Warrior-Poets

Arab Spring Update: Part 1

2012-01-29T17:59:00.000-05:00

On December 17, 2010, a street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest. Four weeks later, Tunisia's Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali was gone. Protests spread to Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. Some successfully ousted their autocratic leaders, some were brutally repressed, and others are ongoing. In almost all cases, the final outcome is still up in the air. More than one year on, how have the countries of the Arab Spring fared?

Tunisia

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↑ 53

On October 23, 90% of registered Tunisian voters elected members of the Constituent Assembly, tasked with drafting a constitution and forming an interim government. The moderate, Islamic Ennahda ("Renaissance") Party won a plurality (89 out of 217) of seats and formed a coalition with the center-left Congress for the Republic (CPR) and Ettakatol Parties. On December 10, the Assembly adopted a provisional "mini-constitution" that establishes the framework for the interim government until a permanent constitution is adopted. Ennahda's Hamadi Jebali was chosen as the interim government's prime minister. Jebali appointed a new government and took office on December 24.

Though Ennahda is an Islamic party, there is little worry of it turning Tunisia into a fundamentalist state and rightly so. Ennahda's representatives have advocated a government based on the "Turkish model," i.e. a secular republic with a combination of Islamic and secular parties. Its platform called for gender pay equality. And it will be counterbalanced by liberal, secular parties both in its coalition and opposition.

The real issue is that the government is not moving fast enough to combat the economic issues that triggered the revolution in the first place. (Though Tunisians are highly educated, Tunisia's per-capita GDP is only $9,557.) According to activist Lina Ben Mhenni, the

people, now in power, have ignored the real problems of Tunisian citizens—the problems that drove people to the streets last year. Instead of addressing them, as they promised in their campaigns, they are trying to divert our attention to those issues of religion and identity. And, unable to keep their promises, they have started to use violence against the people who continue to demonstrate. In recent weeks, at least five people have set themselves on fire.

Protesters gathered in Tahrir Square four days ago with some commemorating the anniversary of the revolution and others calling for a renewal in revolutionary zeal.
Egypt

Change in rank in the Economist's Democracy Index: ↑ 23

The Arab Spring came to Egypt on January 25, as tens of thousands poured into Tahrir Square. Those numbers swelled, and Hosni Mubarak resigned on February 11, devolving power to the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) under Field Marshal Hussein Tantawi. Protests continued with demands ranging from speeding up reforms, postponing elections, and bringing Mubarak and others to trial. SCAF continued to use the emergency powers used by Mubarak, trying civilians in speedy military courts.

Elections for the People's Assembly--the Egyptian Parliament's lower house--were confusingly complex and held in waves from November through January. As in Tunisia, Islamists, in this case the Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party, won a plurality of seats due to their organization and their history of opposing the regime. The Assembly was sworn in on January 23, and the SCAF delegated legislative power to it. SCAF also announced a partial lifting of the state of emergency in place essentially since 1967. (In a statement, Tantawi said that emergency powers still applied in cases of "thuggery," which may render this statement hollow.) However, SCAF is still running the show in Cairo and has reserved 10 seats for itself in the Assembly.

Elections for the Shura Council (the upper house of Parliament) are ongoing and presidential elections are set to take place by June 30, after which SCAF will hand over power. Turnout for the Shura Council elections, unlike those for the Assembly, was low, as Egyptians are frustrated with the lack of progress. Both houses of Parliament will be responsible for creating an 100-member assembly tasked with drafting a constitution.

As it stands, there is a three-way contest for power between the armed forces, Islamists, and secular liberals. None of the sides are completely unified; indeed, there are over 100 political parties in Egypt today. There is a widespread opinion among the Egyptian people that the Muslim Brotherhood has made or will make a backroom deal with SCAF. More likely, in my opinion, is that the Brotherhood is trying not to alarm them in order to avoid an Algeria-style coup.

As in Tunisia, we should not worry that the Islamist FJP holds a plurality of seats. Though FJP's Saad al-Katatni is the Assembly's speaker, one of the deputy speakers comes from the Wafd Party (to Katatni's left) and the other comes from the Salafist Party (to his right). Like Tunisia's Ennahda, FJP has taken moderate stances in public and is rightly focusing on Egypt's economic problems. Egypt has been hit hard by inflation and a decline in tourism.

Tunisia and Egypt have arguably been the most successful in democratizing in the wake of the Arab Spring. Though the autocrats are gone, the revolution is not over, as the two nations wrestle with forming a new constitution, a new government, and new democratic institutions.

Stay tuned for Part Two.

Some Good News from South Asia

2012-01-21T09:32:00.002-05:00

First, a major milestone in polio eradication has been reached in India; the country has gone a full year without a reported case of the disease. The Indian government worked closely with local religious leaders to spread the message and increase cultural acceptance of vaccination. The World Health Organization and Sabin Vaccine Institute are hopeful this strategy can be copied in central Asia and in west and central Africa, where polio is still endemic.

But perhaps the even bigger story is the continuing democratic reforms in Burma. The reforms began after elections in 2010. Though there were widespread charges of fraud and the election was boycotted by Aung San Suu Kyi's National League for Democracy (NLD), Burma's military junta ceded some of its power to the new Parliament.

Suu Kyi was freed from house arrest in November 2010 and is running for Parliament in upcoming elections. Laws censoring the press have been relaxed and websites like Youtube have been unblocked. Construction of the controversial Myitsone Dam in northern Burma, which would endanger the Kachin people's cultural identity and (seeing as it's located near a major fault line) their lives, has been suspended. The government has signed a cease-fire with Karen insurgents in the east. Political prisoners, including student protesters from 1988 and Buddhist monks from 2007's "saffron revolution," have been released in two batches, first in September 2011 and then again this month.

The U.S. has been engaging with the Burmese government. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited the country after the first batch of political prisoners was released. After the second, the U.S. announced that it would exchange ambassadors with Burma for the first time since 1990. The Obama Administration should be lauded for how they have handled the situation, though reforms have resulted more from conditions on the ground than diplomatic engagement.

So why has the Burmese government started these reforms? Partly there is a desire to ease Western sanctions, which have restricted travel of prominent members of the regime, frozen their assets, and limited foreign investment in the country. More importantly, argues Marie Lall of the University of London, is the government's desire to chair the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in 2014 and for greater economic integration with the rest of the ASEAN community.

Whatever the reason, let's hope that Burma continues down the path of democratic reform.

A Separation can Bring Us Together

2012-01-17T18:10:00.003-05:00

"We can never say or tell others how to look at Iranian people, or vice versa. These movies are just positive tools that would simply help the understanding of one another, especially these days."

- Peyman Moadi, lead actor

"It makes me so happy to have people see their real selves through such positive representations."

- Asghar Farhadi, writer and director

A Separation (جدایی نادر از سیمسن), a film about a couple at a crossroads, has already won Golden and Silver Berlin Bear awards, a Critics Choice award, a Chicago Film Critics Association award, the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film, and now makes history as the first foreign film to win the Los Angeles Film Critics award for Best Screenplay. With so much hype, the film might even be an Academy Award nominee. Fingers crossed!

This all comes at a moment when tensions between Iran and the United States continue to escalate to a worrisome degree (especially in light of the tensions in the Straits of Hormuz, increasingly repressive sanctions, human rights concerns, and assassinations, both plotted and actuated). However, Iranians export good cinema. Iranian films are nothing new to international film festivals, Jafar Panahi is a world-renowned director, and Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis (the book and film) is a household title.

But, the vast majority of Americans with whom I have interacted know very little about modern Iran (or Ancient Iran for that matter - no, 300 doesn't count) and its diverse peoples, cultures, and politics. There is also a tendency in the United States to otherize minority groups and, relevant here, peoples from the Middle East in a way that distorts the actual reality of these places and people (personal hero Edward Said can break it down for you, if you don't already know).

Hopefully, the positive attention generated by Farhadi's A Separation will provide an opportunity for people around the world to see Iranians speaking by and for themselves through their own lenses and will create a much-needed opportunity to learn and understand one another as human beings.

While We're Talking About Gender...

2011-12-16T20:02:00.007-05:00

So since we just posted a really, really long post about the many issues surrounding transgenderism in our society and the world today, here are just a few more additions to the "gender train" on which we're chugging along.

The first relates to a story from Monday, December 12, 2011, about two identical twins where one of the twins is a transgender female and the other is male. And the twins are currently 14 years old. Stories like that of these two children raise really interesting implications for scientists and geneticists trying to understand how human sexuality and gender work and develop, but these stories also point to where our sociopolitical and cultural understanding of sexuality and gender norms is going as well. For example, the parents of these twins chose to make their family's story public "in the hopes that their story might shed light on the struggle of others." As is obvious from our previous post, there are still many obstacles that our society as a whole has placed in the path of our LGBT members, but the fact that this family and others like them are supportive, brave, and vocal enough to share their personal stories publicly is indicative hopefully of some level of growing tolerance or awareness of the critical need to address these issues and promote acceptance and understanding of one another. More power to this family and all the others with similar experiences.

"Our America with Lisa Ling," a show on the Oprah Winfrey Network, did an episode a while ago on being a transgender individual in the United States. Every episode that Ling has made were all so good that each really deserves several blogs dedicated specifically to it, but the story of a young transgender child and her family was particularly interesting (and relevant to the present discussion - look forward to more posts with Lisa Ling clips in the future and check out the show, for real).

----------

Moving right along on the rails, this story came out today on Yahoo News. Apparently, Lego (one of my all-time favorite things ever as a child) is launching a new product line geared toward girls. And I'm sure you can guess what the color scheme is. This is not to call out Lego specifically but again one of those shout outs to society about what's up with stuff like this. When I was a little girl, I remember going to Toys'R'Us with my parents one day to find out that the store had been completely re-arranged into "boys" and "girls" toys. I remember being really angry and frustrated because now instead of all the toys I liked to play with being in one area of the store, they were scattered all over these different boys and girls sections. What about playing with Legos makes them inherently masculine and "boys only" so much so that Legos has to design a brand new product to "appeal" to girls? Or dolls being called "Barbies" for girls and "action figures" for boys? I mean let's be real here, GI Joes are dolls - dolls that are just about as unrealistic as Barbies and, like Barbies, are one way of teaching boys and girls gender norms for men and women. And the same can be said of many, many other products for children. We even go so far as to attach gender to things as arbitrary and inanimate as colors.

fight that stereotype!

Continuing with the Legos example, I loved playing with Legos because they allowed me to be really creative - I could build houses and play with the people and horses, or my friends and I could pool our Lego collections together to design intergalactic super-space stations with control rooms and spaceship launchpads (trust me, they were awesome). When Lego came out with their version of Indiana Jones, I just about died because now I could take my childhood dream of being Egypt's Minister of Antiquities (my second grade self would have killed for Zahi Hawass' job) and integrate that with one of my favorite toys.

twenty-some years later, yeah, I still have this set. and I know you're jealous.

If my parents had prevented me from playing with Legos because it was a "boy's toy," I would have missed out on the unique and fun ways for a child to develop his or her creativity and imagination that Legos give a kid. Sure, there are tons of other toys that allow a child to develop similar skills, but my broader point is that we restrict our own development by categorizing things into strict "boys" or "girls" only categories that are superficial and arbitrary. We as a society should be better than that.

Transgender Awareness Week 2011

2011-12-05T20:21:00.007-05:00

November 14th through 18th was "Transgender Awareness Week," sponsored by the University of Michigan School of Public Health, in cooperation with several university and student organizations including: OUTbreak, OUTlaws, the School of Social Work TBLG Dean's Initiative, the School of Public Health's Sexuality and Health Lab (SexLab), and BGLAM.

All of the information below was originally published by OUTbreak and the University of Michigan School of Public Health and can be found at this link. The five daily posts are re-posted here for the purposes of sharing very interesting, important information.

November 14, 2011, Part One: The Basics

Q&A

How do I address someone who is transgender?

Transgender people should be identified with the pronoun that corresponds with the gender with which they identify. Echo the individual’s language. If you are unsure of someone’s gender, it is appropriate to respectfully ask their name and what pronoun they prefer, but do not ask them in front of other people. Some genderqueer people prefer gender neutral pronouns, such as “zie” and “hir.” Also, keep in mind that transgender people might use different pronouns with different groups of people for reasons of safety or comfort. Do not disclose someone’s transgender identity to anyone else without their explicit permission. This could compromise their safety or privacy.

Do all transgender individuals want to have sex reassignment surgery (SRS)?

Actual or desired surgical status is separate from one’s gender identity. Some transgender individuals feel “complete” once they have had surgery, while others opt to not have surgery because of limited funds, medical complications, or because they feel “complete” without surgery.

Transmen and Transwomen face different issues when deciding whether to transition through surgery. For example, many transmen choose not to undergo “bottom surgery”, or surgery that focuses on altering the genital system, because they are not pleased with the options available. Some specific operations may not accomplish much and can lead to decreased feelings of arousal. They may instead only choose to undergo “top surgery”, or surgery performed above the waist. It is important to remember that the risks and benefits involved with SRS are not the same for all transpeople. For more reading on the female-to-male transition experience, check out Becoming a Visible Man by Jamison Green.

Are transgender women only attracted to men, and transgender men only attracted to women?

Gender identity and sexual orientation are not the same thing. Transgender individuals, like non-transgender and cisgender individuals, display the broad range of human sexuality. Transgender people can be straight, gay, bisexual, lesbian, or queer-identified.

Is being transgender a mental illness?

Absolutely not. Mental health professionals diagnose transgender individuals with Gender Identity Disorder, however, transgender identity is not a mental illness. Transgender individuals can experience great emotional distress from having their assigned sex be in conflict with their understanding of their own gender. This can be relieved through freely expressing their personal gender identity in safe, trans-inclusive environments.

Why are people transgender?

A number of theories exist but there is no scientific consensus as of yet. Some medical theories speculate that fluctuations or imbalances in hormones during pregnancy may be a factor. Some biologists claim that gender variation may just be natural and that more varieties than simply male and female exist. Many cultures believe in a multitude of genders and have different definitions of masculine and feminine. For example, the term “two-spirit” has historically been used to describe the mixed gender role embodied by some individuals among Indigenous North American tribes.

What is the Difference Between Transgender and Intersex?

Both intersex and transgender people want to define their own gender identity but it is important to recognize their differences. Transgender refers to a difference between one’s internal sense of gender and the sex they were assigned at birth. Intersex refers to several conditions where one’s genetic, reproductive or sexual anatomy does not fit societal definitions of male or female. For instance, some intersex people may be born with a penis and have female internal reproductive organs. Other intersex people have external genitals that are not clearly male or female. There is some overlap between transgender and intersex people: some transgender people have identifiable intersex conditions, and some intersex people decide their gender is not the gender they were assigned. However many transgender people are not intersexed, and many intersex people do not seek to change the gender they were assigned. Variation in sex anatomy and characteristics are normal and natural. This makes the designation of intersex conditions inherently a human decision. Some intersex people have had nonconsensual surgeries performed on them so that their bodies fit with societal definitions of male and female. While some intersex conditions manifest in metabolic differences that need medical treatment, nonconsensual surgeries for non-medical reasons are being recognized as psychologically and medically harmful.

Phrases to Avoid

“Have you had “the surgery”?” or “Do you have a penis?” Never ask a transgender person about their genitals or medical procedures. You wouldn’t ask other people this kind of personal question. There is no single surgery or medical procedure that all transgender people undergo, and having surgery or taking hormones does not determine someone’s gender identity.
“Pre-op” or “post-op” – Identifying people by their genital status/surgery may feel invasive or disrespectful.
“Transvestite” – An outdated term for a cross-dresser, drag king, or drag queen.
“Transgendered” – “transgender” is the preferred term.
“A transgender” – This is an objectifying usage. You wouldn’t say “a gay.”
“Tranny” – This is considered pejorative that has historically been used by non-transgender people as an epithet.
“She-male” – This is a pornographic term for transgender women and is never acceptable.
“Hermaphrodite” – An outdated word for an intersex person that is now considered offensive and is widely regarded as scientifically incorrect terminology.

Definitions

Transgender: A broad umbrella term that applies to people who embody an innate sense of gender identity other than their birth sex. There are many kinds of people who fit this term and the rest of these terms describe some of them.
Transsexual: Persons who seek to live in a gender different from the one assigned at birth and who may seek or want medical intervention (through hormones and/or surgery) for them to live comfortably in that gender. Transsexuals generally live full time as a different gender than the one they were assigned at birth.
Trans man or “female-to-male” (FTM): A person who is assigned female at birth but identifies as male.
Trans woman or “male-to-female” (MTF): A person who is assigned male at birth but identifies as female.

Keep in mind, FTM and MTF are terms that are growing out of favor.
It’s easy to remember when to use transman versus transwoman when you consider that the terms are meant to show respect to an individual's chosen identity.

Genderqueer or gender-non-conforming: People who may think of themselves as being both man and woman, as being neither man nor woman, or as falling completely outside the gender binary.
Cross-dresser: Someone who dresses in attire of a different gender. Cross-dressers generally do not have a desire to change their sex or gender.
Drag queen or drag king: Someone who dresses in attire intended to strongly emphasize gender for the purposes of entertainment or personal fulfillment.
Transphobia: Discrimination or prejudice against transgender people.

Sex: Refers to the designation of the variety of biological differences between females and males. This is the scientific term for what makes males and females different. Not everyone fits into two categories.
Gender Identity: Self-conception of one’s gender, which may or may not be congruent with physiology. This describes how people perceive their own internal sense of maleness, femaleness, or other gender identity, not necessarily their physical sex.
Gender expression: Physical manifestation of one's gender identity, often expressed through clothing, accessories, mannerisms, and chosen names.

Sexual Orientation: Describes to whom people are romantically or sexually attracted. Transgender people may be straight, gay, bisexual, or a variety of other sexualities.
Intersex: Intersex people have physical characteristics that do not match the typical understandings of male and female. Some intersex people identify as trans gender while others do not.
Cisgender: A person who is comfortable with the gender assigned to them at birth. Sometimes used as a blanket term to refer to non-transgender people.
“Transition”: The process of living and being perceived as a gender other than that assigned at birth. The process of transitioning varies among transgender individuals. It may include counseling with a professional therapist, undergoing hormone therapy, having surgery of the face, chest, genitals or other areas, changing one’s name or preferred pronouns, or dressing as the preferred gender. Some transgender people do not transition at all, because they do not have the financial means, do not feel comfortable, fear for their safety, or do not feel that it is necessary.

Compiled with information from the National Center for Transgender Equality, the Intersex Society of North America, Transgender Michigan, and the Emma Goldman Society for Queer Liberation at Stanford University.

Brought to you by Outlaws and OUTbreak

November 15, 2001, Part Two: Legal Barriers

Legal Barriers

Transgender people face unique challenges in the eyes of the law. Currently there are no federal protections for gender identity in employment, housing, or hate crime legislation. In the wider LGBT movement, the invisibility of the “T” often comes up in debates and discussion around legislation that protects LGB individuals but not members of the transgender community. Controversy around the Employment Non-Discrimination Act or the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ without the inclusion of transpeople are examples.

There is specific protection against transgender discrimination in a few states and also smaller cities (including Ann Arbor). For a map of which states protect transgender people under the law, go or for specific jurisdictions click HERE. (In case you’re wondering, Michigan is not one of them) In 2009 in Michigan, House Bill 4192 was introduced to amend 1976 PA 453, “Elliot-Larsen civil rights act”. House Bill 4192 would include sexual orientation and gender identity or expression as protected status in prohibiting discrimination. The bill did not pass during the 2009-2010 legislative cycle and so must be re-introduced in a future congressional session.

Identity Documents

Many transgender people decide to change their names in order to reflect their current gender. While all states have legal procedures for name changes, several states do not offer legal recognition of changes of gender. Some states require a person to have undergone sex reassignment surgery in order to obtain a legal gender change. It is extremely challenging to undergo sex reassignment surgery; it is highly expensive, it takes years to obtain medical and psychological permission, and some people are not healthy enough to go through the procedures involved. (Furthermore, transitioning is a slow process with many procedures, including hormone therapy and numerous surgeries. Some choose to undergo some of these procedures while others may opt to undergo none.) These barriers make it extremely difficult for trans people to obtain new proper documents such as driver's licenses, social security numbers, birth certificates, immigration documents, passports, credit cards, etc. Without the consistent identification most people take for granted, it can be impossible to travel, open a bank account or apply for a job. Furthermore, life can be made more challenging when names, faces, and genders are inconsistent across identity documents, as is commonly the case when one is transitioning.

Consider the following situation: Tim, a transman living in California, wants to go through the process of updating official documents. He has not undergone sex reasssignment surgery for financial and personal reasons. Since in California, the name and gender on a driver's license may be changed without a court order, Tim's driver's license will reflect his current name and gender. However, since U.S. passports only recognize gender changes if the person has medical signoff of a completed transition, Tim will have a different gender listed on his passport than on his CA license, which can be difficult to explain and even unsafe in some countries. For this reason, many transgender people do not have passports - it is a common narrative for trans people to feel that they are trapped inside the country.

Marriage and Domestic Partnership laws

Because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the fact that the vast majority of US states do not allow same-sex marriage, gender absolutely matters. Right now six states and the District of Columbia recognize same-sex unions. The current administration supports the Respect for Marriage Act, currently under review by the Subcommittee on the Constitution. This act amends the Defense of Marriage Act. The amendment looks to remove the definition of spouse (currently a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife). It also provides that in purposes of any “federal law in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered married if that individual’s marriage is valid in the state where the marriage was entered into” (H.R. 1116 Respect for Marriage Act). Current marriage laws make it confusing for trans people to know who they can legally marry: should they enter a domestic partnership (in places where legal)? Should they marry according to their birth gender or current gender (which has confusing legal ramifications based on the status of that person's identity documents)? If they have not fully legally transitioned, what implications does that have? Who can they marry if their driver's license is accurate to their current gender but their birth certificate is not? Will their marriage be invalidated if they transition after marrying? These are all questions that trans people are forced to think about.

Employment Non-Discrimination

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia currently ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Only fifteen states ban employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity. As of now, it is legal to fire (or refuse to hire) a transgender person in 35 states just because they are trans or gender non-conforming. Because it is so difficult for trans people to have perfectly accurate and congruous legal documents, and because many jobs require background checks, gender will often come up when hiring. Employers are increasingly required to match employees’ personal data with social security accounts to verify work status. This can be a barrier to many transgender individuals whose various forms of identification do not match. This makes it challenging for trans people to acquire and retain jobs (especially where discrimination is legal), which makes it difficult for them to attain funds for surgery, thus making it even more impossible to obtain the correct legal documents.

Hate Crimes Legislation

On October 28, 2009, President Obama signed the FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill, which includes the Matthew Shepard/James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. This is the first federal law to recognize the existence of, and provide civil rights protections for, transgender people. It provides for the tracking of hate crimes based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This is a great step forward, but there is still need for state-based legislation. Currently, twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia include sexual orientation under their hate crime legislation, but only thirteen of these states and DC protect gender identity or expression under hate crime laws. This means that attacking someone for being gay, lesbian, or bisexual is considered a hate crime (in the twenty-nine states and DC), but attacking someone for being trans is simply considered an assault, which has a much lower punishment. Click HERE for more information on transgender hate crimes. In the state of Michigan the following cities have transgender-inclusive anti-discrimination laws dealing with public accommodation, housing, employment and edcuational opportunities: Ann Arbor, Detroit, East Lansing, Ferndale, Grand Rapids, Hamtramck, Huntington Woods, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Saugatuck city, Saugatuck Township, and Ypsilanti.

Profile of a Judicial Pioneer: Victoria Kolakowski

Victoria Kolakowski, a lawyer and administrative law judge with over 20 years of legal experience ran for Superior Court Judge in Alameda County, California and is now the nation’s first openly transgender trial judge. After initially being barred from the Louisiana State Bar Examination, in which the association cited gender transformation as the reason for prohibition, the Louisiana Supreme Court sided with Kolakowski and she continued on through her illustrious career. She underwent sex reassignment surgery in 1991, during her final year at Louisiana Sate University. In 1994, she was named “Woman of the Year” by the East Bay Lesbian/Gay Democratic Club, and in 1995, she was named Outstanding Woman of Berkeley by the Berkeley Commission on the Status of Women. In 2008, Kolakowski happily married her partner, Cynthia Laird, shortly before Proposition 8 halted same-sex marriages in California. She is also an ordained minister in the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches.

Compiled with information from the Transgender Law and Policy Institute, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and the Emma Goldman Society for Queer Liberation at Stanford University.

Brought to you by OUTbreak

November 16, 2011, Part Three: Transitioning

Transitioning

Coming Out as Transgender

Every transperson’s experience is different in terms of how, if, when and why they choose to come out as transgender. Some may choose to come out publicly, whereas others may only feel safe and comfortable sharing their identity with a few trusted people. Though many out transgender individuals live happy and healthy lives, for many coming out and transitioning can be a dangerous and intimidating endeavor.

Choosing to Transition

Transitioning is a process, not an event, that can take months to years. The overall goal of transitioning is to achieve comfort with one’s gendered self, allowing maximal psychological well-being and self-fulfillment. An individual’s transition may involve a number of interventions such as legal (and social) name/pronoun change, wardrobe adjustments, removal of certain body hair through electrolysis or waxing, breast-binding, wearing prosthesis, vocal training, hormone therapy, and surgical interventions. Each individual finds a unique path through transitioning-- not all individuals pursue any given intervention (ex: many trans identified individuals do not take hormones or have surgery). Some people who transition aim to “pass” in the general public as a member of their desired sex, whereas others do not (ex: gender-queer individuals may not identify as entirely male or female, and may not seek to pass as either a man or woman).

Guidelines for the health care provider assistance of transitioning are outlined by the Standards of Care (SOC) set by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Although the SOC are changing, these steps traditionally included counseling with a mental health professional, learning about available options and medical treatments, conducting a trial period of “real life experience” (during which one lives as their desired gender, often about one year), and medical recommendations regarding the administration hormone treatment.

Gender Identity Disorder (GID) Diagnosis

In the medical community transgender individuals are diagnosed as having Gender Identity Disorder (GID). The GID diagnosis and nomenclature is fraught with controversy and stigma. The American Psychiatric Association defines GID as long-standing “discomfort with one’s assigned sex or a sense of inappropriateness in the gender role of that sex.”

Given theories of the social construction of gender and the continuum of gender, many reject the GID diagnosis as incorrectly labeling transgender individuals as having a psychopathology or a “disorder.” Gender diversity is normal and not a psychiatric illness; it has been suggested that the distress or psychopathology associated with gender dysphoria may largely result from oppression and intolerance, rather than distress inherent to being transgender. Many queer activists are now working to remove transgender identity from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in much the same way that homosexuality was removed from the DSM decades ago. Conversely, some argue that the diagnosis is an important tool to obtain health insurance coverage for the procedures and medications used in transitioning.

Ultimately, beyond the controversy over the DSM diagnosis, the medical profession still regards transitioning differently than other medical treatments. The current standard of care requires that any person seeking to transition must be first cleared by a psychiatrist to prove that they are of sound mind and are able to comprehend the decision that they are making. No other operation or treatment in medicine (including plastic surgery, experimental drug trials, or forgoing CPR/life-saving treatment) requires this prior approval universally.

Health and Transitioning

Though research is sparse data suggests that the mental health of trans-people improves after transitioning; pre-transition suicide attempt rates are estimated to be has high as 41% compared to suicide rates below <1% following sex reassignment surgery. However, depression and anxiety rates are higher among transgender individuals than the general population both pre- and post-transitioning, likely relating to the societal stigma and barriers faced by transgender individuals. There are also important physical health considerations, that influence one's experience of transitioning. For example, hormones are not considered medically safe for all individuals (for example estrogen replacement is contraindicated for people that smoke or have high blood pressure). Individuals must weigh the risks and benefits of any given medical transitioning intervention. For example, estrogen may help a male-to-female transperson develop breasts and redistribute body fat, but may increase the risk of blood clotting, impact liver function and worsen high blood pressure. Similarly, testosterone may help female-to-male trans-individuals grow facial hair, deepen their voices, and build muscle, but it may also cause mood shifts and negatively affect one's liver.

Barriers to Transitioning

Transphobia exists in families, workplaces and communities. Many transphobic sentiments are not intentionally malicious, but are instead the result of ignorance; regardless of their origin it is important that we as allies acknowledge and work to address transphobia and the many barriers it creates for transitioning.

Ostracism and Violence: Some trans-people are ostracized from their families or support circle, some lose their jobs and even their houses for coming out as transgender. Transgender individuals also face alarmingly high rates of violence and may be the target of hate crimes; according to one national study 26% of transpeople have faced physical violence because of their transgender identity.
Discrimination: In most states, including Michigan, their are no state laws banning discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression, putting people transitioning in the workplace in a particularly vulnerable situation. Job discrimination due to gender expression contributes to the high poverty rate among transgender individuals; it is estimated that transgender individuals are four times more likely to be in poverty than non-transpeople. Some cities and institutions, including Ann Arbor and the University of Michigan, have adopted internal anti-discrimination policies.
Legal: There are a number of legal hurdles to consider when transitioning, including the process of changing one’s name and gender on important documents. (see Part 2: Legal Barriers).
Access: An estimated 50% of transgender people lack any form of insurance. As a result, many transgender people miss out on important routine screening for heart disease, cancers, STIs, and other illnesses. In the United States, transgender people with insurance often cannot access medically necessary care because most public and private insurance policies exclude coverage for transgender-related services (notably, Medicaid does cover hormone therapy). In contrast, in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Australia procedures such as sex reassignment are accepted as the standard of care and are paid for by national health insurance. If they can access medical services, transgender people may have a hard time finding a doctor they trust or a doctor knowledgeable about interventions such as hormone therapy. These barriers lead some transgendered individuals to take potentially dangerous action such as seeking black-market hormones to facilitate their transition.

Profile of a Public Transition: Chaz Bono

Chaz Bono is a spokesperson for transgender rights, having transitioned from female to male in the public eye between 2008 and 2010. He was born Chastity Bono to entertainers Sonny and Cher. Chaz is a writer for the Advocate, a national LGBT magazine. He has written three books about his life as a trans-man, including “Transition” and portrayed his experiences in a documentary called “Becoming Chaz.” Most recently, Chaz appeared as a competitor on Dancing with the Stars.

Compiled with information from the National Center for Transgender Equality, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, and World Professional Association for Transgender Health

Brought to you by OUTbreak and BGLAM

Additional Sources:

-American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders I-V. Washington, DC, 1994.

-Dean et al. 2000. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association. 4(3): 102-151. (DOI: 10.1023/A:1009573800168)

-chazbono.net

November 17, 2011, Part Four: Military Service

Military Service

Much of the public debate around LGBT military service has centered primarily on gay and lesbian service members, and not on the many service members whose gender identity continues to place them at risk for discharge.

Can transgender people serve in the military?

No. The Department of Defense has regulations preventing transgender people from serving in the military based on physical and mental factors. During a service member’s scheduled physical exam the military can learn of their sex reassignment surgery which is classified by the military as “major abnormalities and defects of the genitalia.” This can lead to the discharge of the service member.

Even if a service member has not had surgery they can still be discharged if they openly identify as transgender. This is considered a disqualifying psychiatric condition under the category of “psychosexual conditions.”

Additionally, wearing clothing that the military does not consider gender appropriate can be labeled as “cross-dressing” and will likely lead to discipline or criminal prosecution.

Wait, wasn't Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed?

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT) regulates military service by lesbian, gay, and bisexual people and does not address service by transgender individuals. Therefore, the repeal of DADT does not directly address transgender service. However while DADT was in force, it did have negative impact on the lives of transgender service members. Even though DADT did not directly apply to transgender identity, transgender and other gender-nonconforming individuals were often perceived as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. This increased the likelihood that they would be investigated under DADT. Thus DADT targeted service members regardless of actual sexual orientation. Further, DADT disproportionately affected service members who were female, female-bodied, or on the FTM continuum.

The repeal of DADT alleviates some of the scrutiny to which transgender service members are subject to, but it does not sufficiently address the major difficulties faced by transgender individuals within existing military policy and culture. Transgender service members continue to experience great emotional distress from being forced to conceal their true gender identity and kept from aligning their appearance with their internal sense of gender while in service. DADT’s repeal has been celebrated as a victory for the LGBT community, despite its explicit exclusion of transgender people. Given the existing issues of transgender invisibility within the wider LGBT movement, this has been a source of resentment for many in the queer and trans community.

Service Member Experiences

The Transgender American Veterans Association conducted a survey of transgender veteran and service member experiences across all branches of the military. Their results showed:

Of the participants who identified as transsexual, 97% reported they were unable to transition before leaving the military.
A full 38% of survey respondents reported that when they were in the military, people suspected or directly asked if they were gay. In addition, 14% had been questioned by an officer about their sexual orientation.
These violations of “don’t ask, don’t tell” varied by gender. Transmen were almost two times more likely to report they were suspected of being gay than transwomen.
Nearly one third of the survey participants reported having experienced some form of discrimination in the workplace; the same amount reported some other form of non-employment related discrimination, such as being unable to obtain identification documents that reflected their new name and gender.

The full report can be found HERE.

What about veterans?

For transgender veterans seeking medical care, data shows that those who access Veterans Administration(VA) hospitals often tend to be older, unemployed or underemployed, and low-income or living in poverty. Transgender veterans in the VA system are much more vulnerable than the larger transgender veteran population and acquire care through VA institutions likely due to lack of alternatives.

There are clear disparities in access to healthcare from within the VA for transgender individuals. Transgender patients in the VA system report discrimination/harassment, denial of services, and disrespect from across all levels of staff including VA doctors, non-medical staff, and nurses. Around one-third of those using VA services broach the subject of medical gender transitions with VA staff and most have their requests denied. The new Veteran’s Association (VA) directive seeks to address some of these issues. It states that all VA staff must provide transgender patients care “without discrimination in a manner consistent with care and management of all Veteran patients.” This directive also reiterates coverage for medically necessary healthcare for transgender veterans such as sex-specific care like mammograms and pap smears and transition-related care like hormonal therapy and mental health services. The VA still does not perform or pay for sex reassignment surgery in accordance with existing regulation.

Due to the inability of transgender service members to be open about their identity the number of transgender veterans is not known. However, according to the National Transgender Discrimination Survey20% of its 6,450 transgender survey respondents are veterans.

What are global views on transgender military service?

The current U.S. military orientation to transgender service members – which is both pathologizing and punitive – is not the only possible approach. At least 10 countries, including Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Israel, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, and the United Kingdom permit transgender military service in some form. Around the world, integrated militaries with provisions for transgender service are not only possible, but supported. For example, Canada’s Department of National Defence pays for sex reassignment surgeries in certain cases. Research suggests that allowing coverage for medical gender transitions would not create a financial burden on the military (or other organizations such as businesses and universities, for that matter) due to the small percentage of people actually seeking these interventions.

Profile of a Veteran: Autumn Sandeen

Autumn Sandeen is a Persian Gulf War veteran, serving in the U.S. Navy from 1980 to 2000 as a Fire Controlman. In the Navy she traveled the northern hemisphere, and was assigned during her career to bases in Great Lakes, Illinois; Long Beach, California; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Staten Island, New York; and San Diego. After retiring from the U.S. Navy and receiving her initial disability rating from the VA, she began transitioning as a male-to-female transsexual on February 6, 2003. She is a proud transgender activist and speaks to audiences around the country about her experience in the military. Autumn has been on the steering committee of the Transgender Advocacy And Services Center (TASC) of San Diego. She has previously served as a member of the Transgender Equality Alliance (TEA) of California and past secretary of the Transgender American Veteran’s Association (TAVA). Autumn is currently the Transgender Chair of DOD Fed Globe‘s Board of Directors, and a provisional board member of GetEqual.

Compiled with information from Transgender American Veterans Association, Service Members Legal Defense Network and National Center for Transgender Equality

Brought to you by OUTbreak and the School of Social Work TBLG Dean’s Initiative

November 18, 2011, Part Five: Global Diversity

Global Diversity

Globally, there is tremendous diversity in how people express their gender and sexuality. In the United States, social tendency is to assume a binary way of thinking about gender and sexuality: male vs female and heterosexual vs homosexual. The truth however, in the United States and in the rest of the world, is much more complicated. In this final component of the series, we profile diversity in gender and sexuality in Asia and Africa, and provide resources to more perspectives on the rich variety of experiences of gender and sexuality that exist around the world. We aim to show both the harsh reality that many people whose gender or sexuality does not conform to social expectations face, and also the joyful expressions of gender and sexuality that LGBT people show on a daily basis all over the world.

This part of the E-series does not seek to represent the full range of global gender diversity, but rather to serve as a starting point for future learning. We invite you to visit this Map of Gender-Diverse Cultures around the world to learn more about the ‘thriving cultures that have recognized, revered, and integrated more than two genders.’

Transgender in Africa

Transgender visibility in Africa is greatly hindered by the fact that a majority of the countries on the continent provide no legal protections for trans people. In fact, many transgender individuals are severely punished for who they are. Because stigmatizing attitudes toward transgender individuals pervade the continent, activists and allies become victims of a number of crimes ranging from discrimination to murder.

One of the most well-known activists for the transgender community is Juliet Victor Mukasa. As a defender of human rights, she has detailed a number of issues that transgender individuals face in their communities including being shunned by their families, evicted from their homes, raped to prove gender, job loss, and public humiliation. Mukasa has expressed that in Africa, as in the US, there is a strong emphasis on gender as a binary in which being transgender violates publicly accepted gender norms.

A British organization, Changing Attitude, presents an example of the daily life of a transgender female:

“A Ugandan transsexual woman, Ms Beyonce has made a desperate call to Uganda Police for protection from public molestation, including physical beatings for allegedly ‘looking abnormal.’ Ms Beyonce, who was born Benjamin Tushabe, in an interview with Behind the Mask on July 3, in Kampala said she has been molested five times in less than two months.”

Many transgender individuals and activists often flee their communities to escape the oppression and hostility they face on a daily basis.

Resources for the transgender community in Africa are very scarce, but activism for transgender rights has begun growing throughout the continent. The first specifically transgender organization in Africa, Gender DynamiX, was founded in Cape Town, South Africa. Gender DynamiX works to increase visibility, challenge people to re-examine their attitudes toward the transgender community, and work to self-empower transgender individuals. Their website gives the opportunity for transgender Africans to offer their stories:

“I have gone through trauma my whole life because the whole community hated the fact that I acted like a girl. What they didn’t know was that it was not a choice I had made but something I was born with. I am God’s creation just like everybody else. I was beaten many times and even lost part of my hearing that way. The hardest thing was that I could not confide in anyone since in Zimbabwe it is taboo and illegal to be the way I was (transgender). My life and the life of my parents’ were at risk because people were threatening to burn down our house. That is when I decided to run away, in order to protect both myself and my family. I decided to come to South Africa, where I have met wonderful and caring people through Gender DynamiX. My life is just starting to make sense and I have a little bit of peace in my heart, something that I haven’t felt before.”

-Find out more about transgender issues in Kenya from human rights activist Audrey Mbugua.

-This video sponsored by Gender DynamiX is of a gathering of African transgender activists from across southern Africa.

Transgender in Asia and the Pacific Islands

In Asian and Pacific Islander cultures, the idea of a “third gender” was fairly common before the introduction of Western influences. This third gender was respected and even revered in certain places. However, after European colonialism, the third gender became stigmatized. Despite this negativity, the third gender continues to persevere and is expressed in various identities throughout Asia and the Pacific Islands. Here are a few examples.

Thailand’s ladyboys, also known as the katoey, are biological males who live as women. Some katoeys only dress as women while others take female hormones during puberty to hinder masculine growth or decide to have full sex-reassignment surgery. Many of them work as performers and some are involved in the sex-work industry. Since Thailand is largely Buddhist, tolerance is a common and widespread theme, which may explain why katoeys find more acceptance in society, compared to their Western counterparts. However, prejudice still exists, with no legal recognition for them. Even after sex-reassignment surgery, they are still unable to change their legal sex status. There is also the prevalent idea that Thais hold that an individual is born as a katoey in this life to atone for offenses in past lives, so katoeys should be pitied and not condemned.

In Samoa, fa’afafine are biological males who live and dress as women. Their acceptance in society more than likely stems from the old tradition of raising some boys as girls due to an abundance of boys and a lack of girls in the family. This was done to ensure that the mother had help with the household chores because the role of the woman in this culture holds great significance. Since these boys were given tasks that only women performed, they were then raised as if they were females. As they grew older, they would continue to perform the women’s tasks. Nowadays, if a boy demonstrates effeminate behavior and an inclination toward the woman’s role, the parents may recognize the child as fa’afafine and allow the child to choose their own path. If the boy wants to become a fa’afafine, he is taught the woman’s role. Fa’afafine are known to be hard-working people because they carry out the women’s duties and are also able to fulfill the men’s responsibilities as well. They are also known for their charitable deeds. One example is their annual beauty pageant in which the proceeds are donated to organizations that help those who are elderly or disabled.

-Find out more about what it’s like to be fa’afafine in New Zealand, HERE.

-For a TED Talk by, Lakshmi Tripathi, a transgender activist from India, click HERE.

Profile of a Champion: Nong Toom

One of the most famous katoeys is the Muay Thai boxer Parinya Kiatbusaba, otherwise known as Nong Toom. She is a kickboxing champion with 22 professional wins and 18 knockouts under her belt. During her boxing career, she would fight in full make-up and wig and occasionally drop a kiss on her opponent’s cheek after besting them in the ring. In 1999, she underwent full sex-reassignment surgery. As a result, she is no longer allowed to box professionally, but teaches Muay Thai to children. Her life story has been portrayed in an award-winning movie called “Beautiful Boxer.”

Compiled with information from Changing Attitude, Gender DynamiX, Charting the Pacific, Tevolve, Bangkok Ladyboy Shows, Horizon Muay Thai, National Geographic, and Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center

More on global transgender rights at Human Rights Watch

Brought to you by OUTbreak and SexLab

---------

In response to Part Five of the week's series, I would also like to share information about a very interesting documentary that BBC made in 2008 about transsexuals in Iran, a nation that surprisingly carries out the second highest number of sex change operations in the world (second to Thailand). Please find the documentary below.

Bill Clinton Drops Some Knowledge

2011-11-09T17:17:00.003-05:00

It's always awesome when former US Prez Bill Clinton stops by "The Daily Show." Last night's interview was no exception. Check it out.

Part One:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part Two:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Part Three:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Could Athenian-Style Democracy Work Today?

2011-06-27T20:10:00.002-04:00

The government of the United States is technically not a democracy; it is a republic. We elect people to represent us, but we otherwise have no direct role in government.

The democracy of ancient Athens, however, was a true democracy. The assembly (ekklesia) basically consisted of all the adult male citizens who bothered to show up that day. The assembly was the Athenian legislature, responsible for enacting laws, declaring war, and bestowing citizenship. The council (boule) was like the executive branch; they carried out the laws passed by the assembly, but also decided what proposals the assembly would deliberate. The members of the council were chosen by lottery. Trials were all decided by juries of one's peers, again selected by lottery.

The setup worked fine for the ancient city-state, but wasn't practicable when the U.S. was founded. A Georgia farmer couldn't be expected to ride north for the capital every time the American Assembly met. Even today, flying or driving to Washington would be onerous for the average citizen. But now, we don't have to be there physically when we could be there virtually.

So how do we adapt Athenian democracy to fit modern times? The complex bureaucracy necessary for modern governing poses an obstacle. These positions require a technical expertise that we cannot expect every citizen to have. So let's retain the executive branch essentially as it is.

But let's completely explode the legislative branch. Every morning, a daily boule of 100 people will be selected randomly. (Or whatever number and frequency is most sensible.) Each person, if they wish, will be able to propose one law or proposition. They can come up with their own or use a suggestion from citizens who have not yet been chosen for the boule. The proposal can be as simple or as complex as the person wants.

Over the course of the day, every adult citizen can debate and vote on the boule's proposals. Comments can be shown with the proposal and top-rated ones can be shown first like on YouTube. By the evening, the votes will be counted and proposals with a simple majority pass.

It is then up to the executive branch to turn the laypersons' proposals into reality. If people disagree with the actions of those in the executive branch, then a member of the boule could call for a vote of no-confidence. If that official does not retain majority support, they will hold that office as a caretaker for a month while others campaign for it. All Cabinet-level positions will be decided this way.

An independent judiciary will be necessary to check the "tyranny of the majority," i.e. to prevent our assembly from depriving rights from a minority. For this reason, judges and justices cannot be removed by no-confidence votes. Whether they will be elected by the assembly or appointed by the president and confirmed by the assembly...well, I'm not sure which is better.

And what of that de Tocqueville quote? The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money. Our system cuts out the middleman. If given more direct power over our government, will we use it responsibly?

Well, how responsibly is it used now? Senate Democrats don't want to propose a budget because "The Ryan budget is being so good for Democrats. Why mess that up?" Republicans are playing with fire on the debt ceiling due to their unwillingness to even hear the words 'tax increase.' Regardless of whether this is temporary posturing or permanent intransigence, both Congressional Democrats and Republicans are more interested in playing politics than, you know, actually governing.

Plus, it will be harder for moneyed interests to buy off members of Congress when essentially every American is a member of Congress. Granted, they can still use the mass media to sway the public, but that strikes me as more difficult and maybe even fairer.

But maybe you still have your doubts. So let's get together 10,000 people or so, a good cross-section of America, and do a practice run. After a year, compare the course our fake assembly has taken the country with that of Congress. And then we will have our answer.

Death in the Amazon

2011-06-19T21:47:00.000-04:00

A few months ago Obede Loyla Souza, an activist and farmer living in the Brazilian state of Para, argued with loggers who were illegally felling trees in the Amazon. He began receiving death threats. Eight days ago, his body was found with a shotgun blast to the head.

Souza is the sixth person over the last month to be killed in feuds over Amazonian land. The murders apparently began with husband and wife Joao Claudio Ribeiro da Silva and Maria do Espirito Santo, conservationists who worked at a nature reserve. They also had received death threats from loggers and cattle ranchers.

The killings come as Brazil's Congress considers a bill that would reform the country's Forest Code. (The bill has already passed the Chamber of Deputies, the Congress's lower house.) A key element of the bill is a provision granting amnesty for farmers who own less than 400 hectares of land who had illegally cut down trees. Because of the sense of impunity fostered by this provision, the rate of deforestation in March and April was six times faster than last year.

"CO2 is plant food"

2011-06-12T13:37:00.000-04:00

"Plants, as far as I know, are still, still bending toward the light, and if we dance until the heart explodes, it'll make this place ignite."

~MGMT, "Flash Delirium"

"CO₂ is not a pollutant; it is green plant food."

~Pierre R. Latour

"The current focus on carbon dioxide has nearly run its course, as it has been clearly shown that it is not harmful. In fact, the slight increase in its tiny concentration will assist agriculture and help to feed the starving people of the world."

~Edward B. Boyle, Jr.

Alas, the world is far more complicated. While it's true that a higher concentration of CO₂ would, in a vacuum, improve plant growth, the overall effect on agricultural yields requires a bit of work to tease out.

The changes in climate wrought by more carbon dioxide will improve yields in some areas while hurting yields in others. A recent study published in Science examined the effects of changes in CO₂ concentration, temperature, and precipitation on the yields of the four stapliest of staple crops--corn, wheat, rice, and soy--from 1980 to 2008. They estimated that globally, climate change improved rice and soy yields by 2.9% and 1.3%, while corn and wheat yields declined by 3.8% and 2.5%, respectively. These changes caused global food prices to increase by 6.4%.

Another study concluded that by 2030, 370 million people, mostly those who are already poor and vulnerable, will experience reduced crop yields due to climate change.

Furthermore, higher levels of CO₂ will affect different plants differently. The yellow starthistle, "the worst weed of the West", would grow 600% larger in elevated concentrations of CO₂ compared to only 15% for native plants.

So yes, there is a seed of truth in the claim that carbon dioxide is yummy plant food. But the effect of more CO₂ on agricultural yields is overall a negative one.

It's a Gas, Gas, Gas

2011-05-04T21:22:00.004-04:00

Gas prices are averaging $3.96 a gallon nationally and a record-breaking $4.26 a gallon here in Michigan. Some families spend over 13% of their income on fuel. And yet oil companies receive $4 billion annually in subsidies from the federal government. Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Valero Energy, ConocoPhillips, and even BP have all received tax breaks from the IRS.

This is ridiculous. (Even more ridiculous is that we knew this was a problem during the 1970s oil embargo and yet we have spent the last 3 to 4 decades DOING NOTHING.) And gas is going to get even more expensive as demand increases, especially from the burgeoning economies of China, India, etc., and as remaining oil supplies dwindle and become harder both to access and to refine.

So here's what we do: End oil subsidies and put that money into R&D and subsidizing clean energy. The sooner our economy is based on renewable energy instead of being shackled to dirty, foreign oil, the better.

Two Thoughts on the Death of bin Laden

2011-05-02T20:10:00.003-04:00

1. I used to wonder how bin Laden could send young men off to their deaths and not be expected to make a similar commitment himself. What heroism was there in running to save his own skin after we invaded Afghanistan? But I realized that al-Qaeda leadership could always have argued that somebody needed to be in charge. Maybe they could've even portrayed hiding in the mountains and caves of Afghanistan/Pakistan as some heroic sacrifice.

Now we know that that would've been a lie. Osama wasn't hiding in caves, but in an expensive compound in Pakistan. He didn't die a martyr; he used his wife as a human shield, trying desperately to prolong his life that much further. Bin Laden wasn't a leader; he was a hypocrite and a coward.

2. Some are jumping on the fact that the tip originated from torturing a Gitmo detainee to argue for resuscitating enhanced interrogation and keeping Guantanamo open. But that assumes we couldn't have gleaned this information otherwise and ignores the other effects of torture. What's more, as I've said before, effectiveness is irrelevant; torture is immoral and illegal. Period.

King's Hearing Promotes Hate, Undermines Homeland Security

2011-03-10T23:38:00.005-05:00

“We need to conduct a thorough, fair analysis and do no harm. The approach of today’s hearing, unfortunately, does not meet these standards.

Today’s hearing is entitled, “The extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s response.”

It is true that specific individuals, including some who are Muslims, are violent extremists. However, these are individuals – but not entire communities. Individuals like Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Faisel Shazad, and Nidal Hasan do not represent the Muslim American community. When their violent actions are associated with an entire community, then blame is assigned to a whole group. This is the very heart of stereotyping and scapegoating, which is counter-productive.

This point is at the heart of my testimony today. Ascribing the evil acts of a few individuals to an entire community is wrong; it is ineffective; and it risks making our country less secure.”

Minnesota representative Keith Ellison articulated the problem with the approach the House of Representatives is taking in addressing perceived areas of homeland security in his testimony at the House’s Homeland Security Committee’s March 10th hearing, “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response.”

The committee is chaired by representative Peter King and the hearing focused exclusively on Islamic extremism and the threat Islam poses to the United States. Rather than look at new solutions to improving homeland security, King’s hearing paraded witness after witness and drummed up the same type of destructive, divisive rhetoric seen in Samuel Huntington’s “clash of civilizations.” Although King’s stated intentions of this first hearing in the series were to examine Al Qaeda’s targeted recruitment of American Muslims, none of the testimony actually addressed this.

Ellison is exactly correct in his assessment of these hearings. Placing blame on an entire community for the actions of very few individuals does not help solve any problems. And this blame is not applied to all communities uniformly when one individual characterized in a certain manner happens to act violently. Stereotyping serves to only further alienate an important part of the American population, and an approach such as King’s might in fact serve Al Qaeda and other extremist groups’ interests in the United States.

And this is a serious problem. Of all the testimony of the course of the several hours that the hearing lasted, only Ellison, Laura Richardson, and Sheila Jackson Lee actually spoke out about the counterproductive and discriminatory nature of this hearing. Why are they standing alone while 3 million Americans are reduced to nothing more than one aspect of their identity and held accountable for actions perpetrated by a miniscule minority?

As Richardson writes in a letter imploring King to cease such discriminatory hearings, “Our concern is that holding a hearing targeting this community, will have the unintended consequences of breeding alienation and fostering feelings of resentment. As a result, we risk hindering law enforcement’s efforts to detect, deter, or prevent potential threats that hide themselves within these communities.”

LOOK! A Zionist!

2011-03-01T00:09:00.005-05:00

Yesterday, big news happened in Iran. Yahoo.com’s homepage clearly chose the correct story from Iran: that Iran threatened to boycott the 2012 London Olympics because, as Head of Iran’s Olympic Committee Bahram Afsharzadeh so clearly explained, “Zionists have exercised influence in Britain, and according to our information, the summer games logo has been designed by a Zionist organization linked to freemasons.”

However, more important and relevant news was blatantly overlooked by most major news outlets. On February 28, 2011, the official websites of Green Movement and opposition leaders Mir Hussein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi stated that they and their wives were taken from house arrest to the maximum security Heshmatiyeh prison in Tehran. Semi-official Iranian news network Fars denied these claims. Green Movement supporters have called for protests every Tuesday until the leaders and their wives are released.

The placing of the Mousavis and Karoubis in prison is one of the most aggressive, targeted moves that the Iranian regime has made, especially considering that Mousavi was prime minister of Iran under Ayatollah Khomeini as Supreme Leader and Ali Khamenei as President. This comes in the wake of brutal crackdowns, the execution of one prisoner every eight hours since January 2011, secret executions of Iranians and foreign nationals, and the arbitrary arrest and detention of over 1,500 demonstrators from the February 14^th and 20^th demonstrations alone.

However, why is it that this story was completely overlooked, and instead Iran made headlines today because of outrageous statements of cooperation between Zionists and Freemasons over an ugly Olympic logo? As brutal and psychopathic as the Iranian regime is, it does understand how to use international media to deflect attention from their serious human rights abuses and systematic repression of the Iranian people. While the rest of the world was preoccupied with ludicrous statements from Afsharzadeh, the regime’s security forces placed the two strongest opposition leaders in prison only weeks after members of the Majles called for their trial and execution.

Hopefully, the rest of the world can focus on the important actions taken by the regime and respond appropriately by demanding that the United Nations establish an independent human rights monitor on Iran in its session this March. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed the House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs on February 28^th, stating:

Here at the Human Rights Council, we are proud to be working with Sweden and other partners to establish a special rapporteur on Iran. Its mandate would be to investigate and report on abuses in Iran, and to speak out when the government there does not meet its human rights obligations. Iranian human rights advocates have demanded this step to raise international pressure on their government.
This will be a seminal moment for this Council, and a test of our ability to work together to advance the goals that it represents. Indeed, every member of this Council should ask him or herself a simple question: Why do people have the right to live free from fear in Tripoli but not Tehran? The denial of human dignity in Iran is an outrage that deserves the condemnation of all who speak out for freedom and justice.

Libya Look-alikes

2011-02-26T22:30:00.005-05:00

In any revolution, it's important to know with whom you are dealing. For Libya right now, this is all the more necessary as the identified involved parties increase and become more convoluted.

For rebels and protesters in Libya, figuring out who shape-shifter-dictator-name-changer Muammar Gaddafi is a real challenge. The Huffington Post and the Daily Show, however, lend some expertise that might help to decipher this Colonel (although why a crazy, fugly, oil-rich dictator chose to be a colonel over a higher rank is beyond me).The Daily Show also sheds light on Muammar and the Libyan situation in their series "Mess-of-the-whole-Potamia."

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mess O' The Whole Potamia Region - Libya Uprising

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

On the other hand, figuring out who the protesters and rebels are isn't easy for Muammar. In the past week, he has made several different guesses and statements, each more interesting than the one prior.

Here, we have "stray dog reporters:"

Now, we have kids on hallucinogenic pills, which are put into their coffee and milk. Oh, and these criminal kids get their directions from Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda.

The United Nations Security Council passed sanctions unanimously on Gaddafi today. I wonder who he thinks really did that. Perhaps a bunch of cat-dog-pill-taking diplomats who are finally doing something about a brutal dictator. Keep watching Al-Jazeera for more updates on Libya and ridiculous statements by the Crazy Colonel.

GTA Goes Back in Time

2011-02-15T22:21:00.002-05:00

In light of the demonstrations that are taking place across Iran, understanding victims and oppressors is crucial in determining how to address and make sense of such complex issues. Navid Khonsari, creator of the Grand Theft Auto video games, is developing a new game for the market that he believes will help its players to understand all of the complexities of an issue. “I came to realize that there’s a number of different sides to a story,” Khonsari said, “and this aspect, if introduced in a game, could kind of revolutionize how we play games.” For Khonsari, situations are always more complex than the traditional good guy vs. bad guy dichotomy. “It’s not a matter of bad guys going after good guys or good guys going after bad guys…these are all different stories and to be able to actually convey that and let people interact as those players I thought would just open up this entire genre of gaming.”

Khonsari’s game does not just create any scenario in which players can interact. His game is “1979 – The Game.” Aside from the obvious fact that this is a controversial move to say the least, Khosari hopes that players can interact with and understand a multifaceted issue. While there are a wide range of characters and storylines to play, Khonsari is also taking huge risks in the creation of such a game.

Although his description of helping players learn to understand the greater complexities behind the “victim/oppressor” dichotomy are noble, he runs the risk that this message is lost. One can only theorize as to the effectiveness of his message, as no game-play videos or other visual and audio information exist for the game. If “1979 – The Game” is anything like Rockstar’s GTA franchise, then the game’s narrative will be grounded in violence and the storyline would advance based upon the player committing criminally violent acts. If Khonsari’s project really does follow this same model even with its multiple storylines and characters from which to select, he runs the risk of his message of exposing players to different perspectives to yet another caricature of angry, anti-American terrorists, etc. Such a stereotype is something with which Khonsari, as an Iranian-American himself, is surely intimately familiar.

I still question the wisdom of using such an event as the story and setting for a video game (intended for players over 18), but I hope that his intended message of exposing players to and helping them understand perspectives different from their own is well conveyed and received. However, until the game is actually released, I remain extremely skeptical of the effectiveness of Khonsari’s concept in doing anything other than reinforcing destructive stereotypes.

Egyptian Uprising

2011-02-07T21:00:00.010-05:00

January 2011 passed by this year with the protests in Tunisia, which resulted in the removal of former Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. Jordanian King Abdullah II dismissed Prime Minister Samir Rifai and his cabinet, replacing Rifai with ex-general and former premier Marouf al-Bakhit. There have also been protests in Yemen and several other Arab countries.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mess O'Slightly-to-the-Left O'Potamia - Pro-Mubarak Demonstrators

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

Egypt has been engulfed with popular, peaceful protests. After police initially cracked down, the army refused to fire on the crowds. As seen in this article by The Atlantic, the activists are organized and have very clear objectives. Today, after millions gathered in Tahrir (Independence) Square in Cairo, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak announced that he will not be seeking re-election in September and wants a transition government. The Obama administration has stated that Egypt should begin its process of transitioning peacefully to a new government. However, Mubarak’s vow to not flee from Egypt and his failure to resign immediately are not sitting well with the Egyptian protesters. While his “transition” government has tried to make compromises and half-hearted attempts at dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood, they have still failed to meet the protesters’ demand of Mubarak’s resignation. The events have turned violent, with pro-Mubarak agitators assaulting the protesters. However, with the sheer number of demonstrators (estimates place the crowds around 2 million people), this is not an issue that will go away quickly or quietly.

For decades, Egypt under Mubarak has been an ally of the United States and a critical component of its Middle East foreign policy. The United States is now forced to re-evaluate its standing in the region, and in light of these developments, there are several questions as to what the Egyptian movement means for the future of Egypt and the Middle East. In understanding popular uprisings that ousted a dictator, several news media outlets and government officials are looking towards Iran as an example. Former United States Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton was especially provocative in drawing connections between the Egyptian uprisings, Iran, and U.S. interests. Being the Yosemite Sam of International Relations, Bolton stated in an interview with Sean Hannity of FOX News that “ouster of embattled Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak would speed the timetable for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.” Bolton has always been an “Iran hawk,” but these comments reveal a particularly interesting discussion regarding the Egyptian protests and their connection to 1979 and 2009 Iran.

With the anniversary of the 1979 revolution coming on February 11^th, the Islamic Regime has not wasted any time in attempting to spin the protests as a new, “Islamic” revolutions inspired by the 1979 Iranian revolution. Mir Hossein Mousavi and members of the Green Movement have instead countered such claims with their own that their 2009 protests are the inspiration for the Egyptian movement today. However, the Iranian regime’s severe crackdown on the Green Movement clearly reveals its own hypocrisy, reflected in the regime’s loss of soft power among Arab populations in the region.

With everyone in the United States scrambling to figure out which of the Iranian case studies is the best indicator for Egypt’s future, people forget that the Iranian and Egyptian case studies are completely different. Iran in 1979 had a series of very strong, well-known revolutionary leaders that were able to mobilize people over several years into what exploded in 1979 and forced Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi out of power for good. Of these revolutionary figures, Ayatollah Rouhollah Khomeini emerged as the strongest and seized power, creating Iran’s theocratic republic of today. Unlike the Iranian example, there are no clear leaders in the Egyptian protests. While the Muslim Brotherhood is being incorporated at some level in talks with Mubarak’s regime, the Egyptian demonstrations were never about the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Arabian Fights

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor & Satire Blog

The Daily Show on Facebook

In 2009, while Mousavi, despite being prime minister throughout the 1980s under Khomeini and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, emerged as the leader of the Green Movement, the regime’s brutal crackdown and retention of military, Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, police, and Basiji militia support left the movement fractured and weakened. This is not to say that the regime does not feel threatened – the human rights situation in Iran has drastically declined since 2009 and in one month’s time (December 19, 2010, and January 19, 2011), Iran executed 97 prisoners alone. It also executes more people per capita than any other country in the world. Clearly, the regime does feel threatened, but until the Green Movement can garner support of the country’s different armed forces, it will not see results like Egypt’s. The Green Movement also had several different leaders, each with their own ideas. The result is a lack of unity and unclear goals. The Egyptian movement on the other hand is unified behind one strong resolution – Mubarak’s immediate resignation.

Egyptians have a new opportunity before them. With the continued pressure of protesters, the military, and the Obama administration that Mubarak faces calling for his immediate resignation, the Egyptians have the chance to peacefully and single-handedly remove a cruel dictator from power and replace his government with one that better reflects their own aspirations and visions for their country. While Iran and Egypt are very different, both the Iranian stories of 1979 and 2009 offer lessons for Egypt. In 1979, Iranians were successful in overthrowing a dictator. However, the complete destruction of the previous government’s institutions and allowing the movement to be dominated by clerical elements created a situation today where Iranians of all backgrounds lack significant social and political freedoms. In 2009, Iranians attempted to rise up to challenge the direction in which the hardliners were taking the country. However, the lack of unity in and failure to clearly articulate demands resulted in the movement succumbing to brutal crackdown after brutal crackdown and the protesters were unsuccessful. Egypt has the chance to avoid a takeover by radicals of any persuasion. They have the chance to be successful where the Iranians were to date unable. The Egyptians’ success to date is already an inspiration to the world. If the Egyptian movement is able to successfully gain the ouster of Mubarak and transition to a system of government that better reflects the wishes of the Egyptian people, it could be powerful enough to lead to a re-invigoration of pro-democracy movements throughout the Middle East.

Crafty Commies

2011-02-07T19:44:00.003-05:00

The Cold War had it right – those Communists sure are sneaky and not to be trusted, least of all with being original. While doing some completely unrelated research, I stumbled across some acts of true evil that must be revealed.

First published in the Wall Street Journal, Gordon Fairclough reveals that North Korea has been flooding the U.S. market with counterfeit cigarettes. While this is a relatively old story (the original article being published in 2006), Center for a New American Security (CNAS)’s newest report highlights the Korean counterfeit cigarettes case study as an instance in which sanctions were an effective means of coercive diplomacy. As CNAS’s January 2011 report described, “private industry estimates that North Korea’s gross revenue from counterfeit cigarettes alone amounts to between 550 – 700 million dollars per year, making the DPRK the number two counterfeit cigarette producer in the world (after China)” (Asher et. al. 34). North Korea produced several different brands of counterfeit cigarettes, including Marlboros, to such a high quality that products seized in Miami “even included forged pamphlets urging smokers to visit a Web site to find information about the health dangers of cigarettes and the admonition, ‘Don't Litter’ on the side of the box. Some also have copies of state tax stamps.”North Korea isn’t the only Red country to be ripping off original American products and trying to pass them off to the rest of the world. On January 23, 2011, China released a video of an air force drill that was remarkably similar to a scene in Top Gun. That film is awful enough, the world doesn’t need someone else trying to bring it back. The final scene of the film was spliced into the drill footage and aired on state television, CCTV. Although the film was taken down shortly afterwards, the Wall Street Journal ran the footage from Top Gun and the Chinese air force drill side by side. Note to China: If you’re going to try to make your military look all cool and powerful, don’t use a movie made 25 years ago to try to make your point and hope no one will notice. If you are going to steal film footage and splice it into military videos, at least choose a good movie.

Jon Stewart: Our Hero

2010-12-27T17:12:00.004-05:00

Tip of the Hat to Jon Stewart for devoting all of his last episode before The Daily Show's holiday break to the 9/11 responders bill--you can see the full episode here--saving the legislation almost single-handed. I'm not the only one singing his praises. First, the White House commended Stewart for his role in reviving the bill. Now, even the New York Times is making the comparison to Edward R. Murrow. (h/t)

And a related Wag of my Finger to the mainstream news who apparently forgot about the bill, along with their roles as journalists.

Values Voting

2010-12-22T18:02:00.002-05:00

The Senate finally ratified the new START Treaty, 71-26, more than eight months after it was signed by Obama and Medvedev. And they finally passed a nearly two-year-old bill providing compensation to 9/11 responders and clean-up crews, and even then, only after reducing both how much and how long funding would be available. But, you know national security and caring for the heroes of September 11 are not as important as tax cuts for the rich.

Welcome to the new Republican Party.

A Tangle in the Loom: WikiLeaks and Iran

2010-11-30T22:27:00.004-05:00

The recent thread of WikiLeaks sheds light on a foreign policy problem of nuclear proportions.

In the past week, thousands of important documents and information have been leaked from various U.S. government agencies on WikiLeaks. The leaks are controversial, not only for their sheer number, but for release of cables and conversations between U.S. and very high-ranking officials from other countries. The leaks even prompted Barack Obama to enact new sanctions on Iran today. These sanctions blacklist 10 Iranian businesses connected to the Islamic Republic’s national bank and shipping lines, as well as five executives of these businesses.

On Monday, November 29, 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad referred to the leaked documents as “American psychological warfare that would not affect his country’s relations with other nations.” While Ahmadinejad and his administration might be crediting the U.S. bureaucracy with a bit too undeserved organizational skills by calling the leaks “organized to be released on a regular basis,” the leaked documents definitely confirm prevalent theories about the relations between Iran and its Arab gulf state neighbors and its aspirations for regional hegemony.

It is well-known that Saudi Arabia and Iran are vying for regional hegemony, with Iran’s relative conventional military power and sphere of influence giving it a strong edge over the Saudi kingdom. Not only does this allow Iran to influence the trajectories of Iraq and Afghanistan, thus extending its regional influence, its status as a regional hegemon tips the regional balance of power away from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states that have alliances with the United States. Feeling threatened by such expanding Iranian influence even in the face of decades of sanctions, it is hardly surprising that the Saudi regime harbors strong animosity for the Khamenei’s. However, it was previously unknown that the Saudi-Iranian enmity went so far that Saudi Arabian King Abdullah repeatedly begged the United States to “‘cut off the head of the snake’ by launching military strikes to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” one of the final pieces of Iranian policy that would enable it to secure the role of an undisputed regional hegemonic power. In order to curb Iranian influence, the United States announced in October of 2010 that it will sell $60 billion worth of military aircraft to the Saudi regime.

Saudi Arabia is not the only gulf state feeling pressure to eliminate Iranian challenges to the current balance of power. King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain argued in favor of forceful action by any means necessary to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program. Bahrain, a tiny kingdom on the Persian Gulf that is home to the American Fifth Fleet’s naval base, has been feeling Iranian pressure and influence for years. In July of 2007, Iranian advisor to Khamenei Hossein Shariatmadari stated that “The public demand in Bahrain is the reunification of this province with its motherland, the Islamic Iran.” An unnamed senior Omani military official (Oman being the country that helped secure the release of American Sarah Shourd from Evin Prison), is cited in a correspondence as unable to decide which would be worse – “a strike against Iran’s nuclear capability and the resulting turmoil it would cause in the Gulf, or inaction and having to live with a nuclear-capable Iran.” In a December 2005 meeting with American military commanders, United Arab Emirates defense chief and crown prince Mohammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi lobbied for American military action against Iran either “this year or the next.” Bin Zayed also expressed fears of a nuclear Iranian state, declaring that “any culture that is patient and focused enough to spend years working on a single carpet is capable of waiting years and even decades to achieve even greater goals.”

While Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, on MSNBC Live is not the best interviewer, the answers provided by Doctors Juan Cole and Trita Parsi in this brief interview are very informative and discuss the fears of changing regional balances of power.

Meanwhile, tensions in the region build as Israeli public opinion and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu perceive a growing, intolerable Iranian nuclear threat. Ehud Barak and prominent members of the Israeli intelligence community argue that Iran is not an existential threat nor is Israel the primary target of Iranian ambitions. Even Syrian president Bashar al-Assad argues that Iran will not use a nuclear weapon against Israel, stating that “an Iranian nuclear strike against Israel would result in massive Palestinian casualties, which Iran would never risk.” However, Iranian weapons purchases from North Korea does little to convince the public and Israeli politicians writ large of this understanding. Netanyahu views the WikiLeaks as something positive for Israel, confirming his suspicions about Iranian nuclear ambitions and showing the extent to which Israel and Arab states share a strong mutual interest in preventing Iranian hegemonic aspirations.

Tensions continue to escalate between these states and power blocs in the Middle East. Yesterday, two prominent Iranian nuclear scientists, both professors at Tehran’s Shahid Beheshti University, were attacked in different parts of Tehran. Assailents on motorcycles managed to attach and detonate magnetized car bombs to the cars of scientists Majid Shahriari and Fereydoun Abbasi, the former killed and the latter injured with his wife. Shahriari was involved in a major project with Iran’s nuclear agency, and Abbasi is a member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and listed as one of several involved in secret nuclear activity in a 2007 U.N. resolution. Abbasi was formerly an expert for Iran’s Defense Ministry and a top specialist in nuclear isotope separation. The Iranian regime currently blames Israel and the United States for orchestrating these attacks. Intelligence analysts blame Mossad for the 2007 death of top Esfahan uranium plant scientist Ardeshire Hassanpour. In January of 2010, Massoud Ali-Mohammadi was also killed, but it is unclear whether his death was related to his support of Mir Hossien Mousavi or an Israeli/American operation; he also died in a car bombing similar to that of Shahriari.

The WikiLeaks available thus far clearly confirm the fears of Arab gulf states and seem to perpetuate Israeli public opinion and Netanyahu’s threat perceptions of Iran. In moving forward from the latest sanctions on Iran, the United States must decide how to manage these states’ interests to balance with its own in the Middle East and avoid yet another military conflict that would have, in Barak’s words, “unacceptable collateral damage,” on all sides.

America's Epidemic

2010-10-22T00:44:00.006-04:00

President Obama has canceled his trip to the Golden Temple in Amritsar, which was supposed to be one of the stops on his up-coming trip to India. Apparently, the administration canceled this portion of the visit out of domestic political concerns that Americans would see images of President Obama in the traditional Sikh head-covering necessary to enter the temple and interpret this to mean that he is a “secret” Muslim. Aside from the fact that Sikhism and Islam are two completely different religions with completely different histories, cultures, etc., the cancellation and concern of the ignorant reaction of the American people point directly to the ridiculous bigotry of the American public towards Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim.

First of all, this is the Golden Temple. It’s insanely beautiful, and it's an important piece of India. If you are lucky enough to have the opportunity to go there, how could you ever pass it up?!?

Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a president, on a state visit to another country, participating in and experiencing important elements of the cultures of that country. It is crucial for building stronger relations and developing understanding between the two countries. India is an extremely diverse country and having the opportunity to learn about the cultures and hopefully educating the American public through exposure, all while continuing to foster stronger positive relations, is amazing – definitely not an opportunity to be squandered. And again, the Golden Temple is beautiful.

That the White House has to be worried that 1) most Americans apparently don’t know what Sikhism is, and 2) the American public is so unreasonably fearful of Islam or things that “look Islamic” are absolutely ridiculous. Today, Juan Williams was fired from National Public Radio for his comments on The O’Reilly Factor, espousing his fear of Muslims (thank you, NPR!). What was even more concerning than his comments were the comments of readers, posted below the story, that felt that he was correct in his statements and that the statements made were not bigoted or hateful. It seems that the best way to combat such pervasive ignorance, fear, and hatred is through exposure to improve cross-cultural understanding. Who better to lead such an initiative than the President of the United States?

The fact that a substantial proportion of Americans believe that Obama is a “secret Muslim” is reminiscent of John F. Kennedy’s comments regarding the freedom of religion in the United States when he was campaigning in 1960. President Kennedy stated that there are far more critical issues facing the country and that “they are not religious issues, for war, hunger, ignorance, and despair know no religious barrier.” Obama has emphatically and publicly stated that he is a Christian, but honestly, it should not matter at all, nor is it any business of the American people. In the words of President Kennedy:

...It has become necessary for me to state once again, not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in. I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute…and where no man is denied political office because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…today I may be the victim, but tomorrow, it may be you, until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart...

The American public is infected with an epidemic of fear, arising from ignorance and the lack of interest in at least attempting to understand different cultures and religions. For those Americans who cannot appreciate the freedom of religion and are seemingly incapable of tolerance, what is it about this country that you just don’t get?

HH XIV Dalai Lama at Emory University

2010-10-21T23:40:00.009-04:00

His Holiness XIV Dalai Lama, the spiritual and secular leader of Tibet in exile, came to Emory University from October 17 through October 19, 2010. Emory University runs a science initiative with His Holiness in India in order to integrate western science into the traditional monastic education for monks and nuns living in the community-in-exile.

His Holiness has always been known for his cosmopolitanism, and feels that this long term project is crucial for improving understanding of the world from both religious and scientific worldviews. This project is extremely important and proves how scientific and religious worldviews are compatible and able to enhance each other’s understanding of the world around us. The integration of two different disciplines and approaches creates a much more holistic way to understand how human beings function and interact with their surrounding environment.

Below, please watch the press conference with His Holiness and the president of Emory University. In addition to answering questions on the interaction between religion and science, His Holiness addresses the relationship between spirituality and secularism, politics, and the importance of fostering open societies.

Furthermore, His Holiness, humanitarian/actor Richard Gere, and Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Alice Walker discuss the interaction between art and spirituality. Although it is a short clip, it raises some interesting points and offers a new approach to art.

Hate Where Everyone Can See It

2010-10-15T15:55:00.004-04:00

Recently, a billboard in Grand Junction, Colorado, became noticed by a larger audience. The billboard features offensive caricatures of Barack Obama and encourages its viewer to vote “DemocRAT.” David Williams of Real Aspen describes the billboard:

…The billboard depicts “President Barack Obama as a terrorist, a gangster, a Mexican bandit and a gay man. The four ‘Obamas’ [are] sitting around a table with playing cards showing only sixes bunched in groups of three.

“Also on the table is a copy of the Declaration of Independence, a liberty bell, a toy soldier and a statue of Justice holding a balance.

“Beneath the Obama caricatures are numerous rats, some of which are labeled as the IRS, trial lawyers, the EPA and the Fed. Sitting above all that is a line, ‘Vote DemocRAT. Join the game,’ which is positioned between two vultures, one of which is labeled the U.N. and the other with the name Soros, a reference to George Soros, a major national Democratic financial supporter.”

It is clear from the illustrated scene that the billboard is a racist and homophobic commentary on Barack Obama, personally, and his administration’s leadership. While I am not questioning the rights of the artist or the unnamed group that paid him to display these hateful images, but rather the dangerous attitude that allows for this type of representation and bigotry towards many different groups. While criticizing a leader is perfectly acceptable, the criticism should be directed towards things other than the leader’s race, religion, or sexual orientation. Criticism of policies is very different than a racist and hateful caricature and the latter should not be accepted as a legitimate piece of discussion about the first.

Why Building the Mosque is Important

2010-09-07T22:26:00.004-04:00

"Try to learn instead of burn, hear what I say." ~Jimi Hendrix

The "war on terror" has been compared to the Cold War, and while I think historical comparisons can obscure important nuances, the comparison makes sense in at least two ways. First, invading a country and imposing a government on it is going to be seen as imperialist, even if it's well-intentioned. And second, both wars are fundamentally wars of ideas.

Al-Qaeda's idea is obvious: Western liberal democracy is incompatible with Islam and must be fought. Looking at our history, our idea is also obvious: Islam and liberal democracy are compatible.

There are those who would cede the first point to al-Qaeda, who believe that our idea should be, 'Yes, democracy and Islam are incompatible, but it is Islam that must be fought.' But a war of ideas can not be won by force; it can only be won by persuasion. And the more we act like we are at war with Islam, the more Muslims will be at war with us.

A war on Islam is not a war that we can win, nor should it be a war that we want to fight. No, we win the war on terror by encouraging moderate Muslims to say and say it loudly, "Al-Qaeda, you are wrong. We do not need to fight democracy but to foster it. We reject your ideas, and you are not the true face of Islam." But if we continue to lump in our moderate friends with our extremist enemies, we undermine our allies and we lose the war.

The Troy Davis Saga

2010-09-02T16:26:00.003-04:00

Nineteen years ago, Troy Davis was convicted of murdering an off-duty cop and sentenced to death. Last week, after Davis' latest appeal, a federal judge ruled that "the evidence presented by Davis' attorneys at a June hearing wasn't nearly strong enough to prove he's innocent." As reported before, the case is especially egregious because:

There was no physical evidence; the weapon was never recovered. The case rested entirely on eyewitness accounts. All but two of the witnesses have since recanted their testimony, some of whom say they were coerced by police. And one of the two witnesses who have not changed their story is the best alternate suspect.

Whether or not Troy Davis is innocent, there are at least serious doubts of his guilt. And the fact that the state of Georgia could be executing an innocent man is more than enough of a reason to severely restrict the application of the death penalty, if not abolish it altogether.

Ground Zero Mosque

2010-08-17T19:46:00.007-04:00

Recently, there has been a lot of controversy surrounding the construction of the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque," actually an Islamic community center located not on Ground Zero itself, but two blocks away. Newsweek magazine summarizes the background of the project in its August 8th, 2010 feature article by Lisa Miller, with an excerpt below:

Locally, the fight over the mosque has been more than ugly. Its founders—a well-known interfaith activist and spiritual leader named Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf; his wife, Daisy Khan; and a downtown Manhattan real-estate developer named Sharif El-Gamal—originally called their project Cordoba House, after the medieval town in Spain where a Muslim caliphate fostered one of the most vibrant periods of interfaith flourishing in history. But critics seized on the name as a signal that Rauf and the others had Islamic hegemony in mind, and the founders changed the name to the generic Park51 (based on the site’s street address)...

Park51 was born several years ago, the vision of Rauf, Khan, and El-Gamal. In 1997 Rauf and Khan founded the American Society for Muslim Advancement, an organization devoted to interfaith work and promoting the cause of moderate Islam. In addition, Rauf had been the imam, or pastor, of a mosque in Tribeca, just 10 blocks north of the new, controversial site, for nearly 30 years. El-Gamal had his office nearby and prayed there frequently. The mosque, which still exists today, is a tiny storefront wedged between a bar and a French bistro. On Friday afternoons—which for Muslims is like Sunday morning—congregants overflow onto the sidewalk.

Frustrated by the cramped quarters, El-Gamal, an American born to a Polish mother and an Egyptian father, was inspired to improve facilities for Muslims downtown—and, after 9/11, to show his friends and neighbors “a new face of Islam, the voice that is not heard.” He bought the building at 45–51 Park Place two years ago for $5 million, and together with Khan and Feisal sketched out a plan. They would demolish the existing building and put in its place a deluxe, multipurpose center big enough to house a swimming pool, a gym, exhibition space, conference rooms, day care, a senior center, and a 500-seat auditorium. It would accommodate all the downtown workers—lawyers and laborers—who wanted to pray on Fridays; it would have an interfaith board and interfaith programming; and it would present to the world a moderate, peace-loving, diverse, ordinary Islam. As of last week, El-Gamal says, they had gotten all the necessary city approvals to begin construction on Park51, though lawsuits are still pending. The budget for the proposed construction is $100 million, which Khan says they hope to raise mostly through a bond offering.

The site is huge, nearly 100,000 square feet. Standing in front of the building, you cannot see Ground Zero; tall buildings entirely block the view. Khan says they chose it because it was big enough and it had the right zoning. Moreover, it was symbolically advantageous. “We want to provide a counter momentum against extremism,” says Khan, who spoke to me in her office. (Her husband was out of town.) “We want peace, and we want it where it matters most. This is where it matters most.”

However, responses to the project have been severe. Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert weigh in on some of these reactions below:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, 16 August 2010:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mosque-Erade

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show Full Episodes

Political Humor

Tea Party

The Colbert Report, 16 August 2010:

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Growing Intelligence Community - Richard Clarke

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

2010 Election

Fox News

Finally, President Barack Obama stepped up and directly addressed the issue, stating his emphatic support of religious freedom and tolerance for all beliefs.

To borrow a phrase from Stephen Colbert, Obama nailed it. If there is anything that the United States should have learned in the past decade, it is that straying from the fundamental principles outlined in the Bill of Rights and the subsequent abuse of these principles has caused more harm than good to American interests. If the United States really wants to improve relations in the Muslim world, demonstrating tolerance of Islam and all religious beliefs has to start at home. Furthermore, the problems in any faith lie at the extremes. It would behoove the American public to recognize this and work to support and encourage moderates who are interested in interfaith work in order to diminish the influence that these extremists can have on a population.

Tolerating this (and other) Islamic Center(s) is not something "extra" that Americans have to do - it is part of what comes with living in a country that draws strength from its diversity, even if the American people need occasional reminders of this. In the words of the late American author Kurt Vonnegut Jr., "The purpose of human life, no matter who is controlling it, is to love whoever is around to be loved," (Sirens of Titan).

France's Burka Ban

2010-07-18T16:17:00.002-04:00

A few days ago, in a Europe fearful of "Islamization," the lower house of the French Parliament voted to ban burkas and most other face-coverings. The ban is plainly about protecting French identity from the apparently un-French burka. A few might say it is to protect women from oppression -- and indeed, any man found to have forced a woman to cover her face will himself face up to a year in jail and a 30,000-euro fine -- but even women who freely choose the burka will be fined.

No, the ban is about French unease with the Islamic covering. I expect most Americans would agree with me; the libertarian argument that people should be allowed to wear what they want would hopefully carry the day. And yet the French debate on the burka reminds me of the American debate on gay marriage. Both are portrayed as threatening, but the bans have less to do with real threats to French society or heterosexual marriage than they do with French or heterosexual insecurity. And they should deal with their insecurity in a way that does not oppress a minority.

American Education... how do you spell wtf ?

2010-07-17T05:04:00.004-04:00

As a student going through the ridiculous process of pulling applications together for law school while spending the summer in Europe, American education is giving me a headache. Every time some European asks me to explain what the process is like or how much it costs, they all think that I am lying when I tell them that I am paying well over $20,000 per year at my public university. They then think that I am rich or how else could anyone afford such costs without scholarships (in a university with 47,000 students in a state constantly cutting funding for public education, it is nearly impossible to get a substantial scholarship; most financial "aid" comes in the form of loans). If by some chance they did believe me when I told them what undergrad costs, they absolutely lose it when I tell them the price of law schools (public and private) that I am hoping to apply to (at least twice as much). When I ask them how much they pay for school, they say that they are paying for one of the highest tuition prices - 1,000 to 2,000 euro per semester (at today's exchange rate of $1.2935/euro, that is about $1,300 to $2,590).

While the United States' university educational system does have merits in the freedom that students have to really study whatever they want (financial concerns aside, of course), it is absolutely ridiculous that a country that constantly stresses the need for educated professionals still supports a system that throws students and their families into thousands of dollars in debt before the students even have a chance to earn any money. My European friends cannot even fathom the idea that many Americans save for college since birth and that this is still not sufficient.

Although taxes in many European countries are higher than in the United States, providing and supporting quality education in public universities for all students is considered a fundamental right. Thus, it is made a priority and families are not indebted because they have children that need a university education.

I do not have any thorough policy prescriptions here, just an observation on how insane the undergraduate and post-graduate educational system is (open to ideas, here). While Americans generally do not like paying such high taxes, reforms definitely have to be made to ensure that the taxes we are paying are being used efficiently. And if someone had to raise my taxes in order to support universities, I would not mind paying it, as the cost of attending would probably decrease. Until some reforms are made, I will be looking forward to dropping more money on law school apps and then hiding in law school deferring student loans for a few more years.

Fo-Po Breakdown: Iran, USA, and a tad bit of Turkey

2010-07-05T20:41:00.018-04:00

I am aware that this is sort of old news. However, since I have been busy lately and this is still an important on-going problem, I will write my blog post about it anyway. This began as a reaction to an op-ed in the New York Times, by Princeton doctoral candidate Elliot Hen-Tov and Princeton professor of Near Eastern Studies, Bernard Haykel. With the recent tightening of the newest sanctions on Iran this past Thursday, July 1, 2010, it is important to revisit this issue.

First, back to the op-ed from last month. In order to make any real headway on US-Iran relations, it is absolutely essential that each side really understand the other. For prominent scholars of prestigious universities, this also holds true. Which is why this article must be revisited – the Princeton people have it wrong. Their main assertion is that “Iran… stands to lose much influence as Turkey assumes a surprising new role as the modern, democratic and internationally respected nation willing to take on Israel and oppose America.” While parts of this statement are correct, the article represents a flawed understanding of Iranian politics and its relationship to the United States. Principally, it does not really matter for the United States (or Israel for that matter) what type of fiery rhetoric Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad uses – it is generally not directed at American or Israeli audiences anyway. The poll quoted by the authors, although irrelevant to their article, proves this point. The two major regional powers in the Middle East are Saudi Arabia, whose regime is a strong US ally, and Iran, whose regime clearly is not. When Ahmadinejad makes his statements in “support” of the Palestinian cause, he also does so bearing in mind that this can also play on Saudi Arabia’s weaknesses. Iran can claim to be the true supporter of Muslims in peril (despite a substantial number of Palestinians being of Christian or other backgrounds) while simultaneously making the Saudi regime appear weak to its people by alluding to its close relationship to the USA. In this manner, the Iranian regime hopes to remain dominant in the region over Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states.

Ahmadi-casual-Friday-nejad is not some “irrational, rouge leader” as realist IR theory would have us believe. The Iranian government’s support of Israel is mostly a domestic campaign to give the regime the appearance of standing up to the hegemonic rule of the United States and then Israel. Given the vastly superior military forces of both the USA and Israel, Iran would not risk attacking Israel. So, while these authors note that Turkey is seen by Palestinians as a much closer ally than Iran, it is crucial to understand that Iran’s political exploitation of this crisis is mostly for the purpose of bolstering domestic support for the regime and is targeted to domestic and Saudi, not international, audiences.

Secondly, I take issue with the Islam in Turkey being called “more liberal and enlightened.” Again, this is a fundamental mis-characterization of reality. While Saudi Arabia and Iran might be self-proclaimed Islamic states and Turkey a self-proclaimed secular state, the notion that any one regime is any more or less liberal/enlightened than the other is absurd when further examining their actual policies. In Iran, women are obligated to wear hijab at all times; in Turkey, there are laws making it illegal to wear the veil in some public places. Forcing people to appear secular is no better than forcing people to appear pious – these are merely two extreme ends of the spectrum. In a liberal Islam, it would seem that one would have the ability to choose without being compelled towards either end of such a spectrum. Furthermore, the fiercely secular and authoritarian policies enacted by the Turkish government can be just as bad as the authoritarian policies of Iran.

Returning to the sanctions and Turkey’s vote (along with Brasil), it is not really that much “against the United States” for Turkey to vote against the sanctions. The United States, while allies with Turkey, is far stronger allies with Saudi Arabia in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, with the United States’ help, has stronger military and economic ties to the USA, and it is closer to the other Arab states in the Middle East than Turkey is. With Turkey looking to gain membership to the European Union, it is smart to keep its options open for markets in the Middle East for the EU, but if push came to shove for the United States, I would bet that it would retain Saudi Arabia as its ally over Turkey. Anyway, Iran and Saudi Arabia are focused on each other and Turkey is focused on the EU, so it really does not matter for Iran what Turkey says – although its vote was nice anyway.

As stated in the BBC article, the sanctions imposed in June were not very substantial. This would suggest that the Obama administration is just reacting initially to [uneducated] domestic pressures in Congress to appear to be doing something about the Iranian nuclear program. While it is good that these sanctions were not substantial, it is also extremely damaging to any potential for improving diplomatic relations between the United States and Iran, only serving to prove Ahmadinejad correct when he claims that the United States is really not interested in changing the status quo. Bolstering domestic support for the current Iranian regime is the last thing that the United States should be doing.

In a more recent development, Nom Chomsky acknowledges that Iran poses a serious threat of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, despite citing sources earlier on in the article that discuss Iran’s relatively weak military capabilities; he just proposes different solutions instead of the United States “reinforcing [its] control of the vital Middle East oil-producing regions.” However, with Iran, this is not a valid argument either. Georgetown scholar Mehran Kamrava and University of Colorado professor Nader Hashemi are both of the opinion that Iran does not want to actually acquire a nuclear weapon. If Iran were to obtain the technology and actually produce a nuclear weapon, this would push Iran into a whole new realm of military prowess in which it would find itself on the bottom, easily bested several times over by the United States, Israel, etc. In other words, Iran can be a relatively strong conventional military power in the region, especially when compared to Saudi Arabia’s military on its own (aka minus USA support), but it would lose this advantage if it entered the nuclear arena and would find itself in a situation it cannot win. Thus, even the idea that Iran’s nuclear program to gain such knowledge is the most serious threat is absurd. The best solution would be to focus on finding common ground and interests within the Middle East between Iran and the United States (two really good examples here are Afghanistan and Iraq… hint, hint State Department) and go from here to rebuild diplomatic ties.

Speaking of best solutions, July 1^st was not one of these. The New York Times reports that President Obama signed a law in one of the few moments of consensus in Congress during his administration that “imposes penalties on foreign entities that sell refined petroleum to Iran or assist Iran with its domestic refining capacity. It also requires that American and foreign businesses that seek contracts with the United States government certify that they do not engage in prohibited business with Iran.” As stated several times before, the solution is to OPEN not close relations with Iran. This means diplomatically and economically. As Ahmadi-I-say-crazy-things-that-people-should-not-listen-to-nejad stated on June 28 that he would like to resume nuclear negotiations with the United States in August, giving the United States yet another opportunity to resume meaningful dialogue, the Obama administration missed it again and chose to respond to domestic pressures. This is where the State Department people need to step in and fix it.

Caving into absurd, ill-informed domestic pressures from a Congress that cannot even agree if sick people should get help to be less sick is certain to make the problem worse, not better. The Obama administration needs to focus on its priorities, improve its image in the Muslim world and the Middle East by closing Guantanamo and playing a meaningful role in improving the situation between Israel and Palestinian territories, and respecting the sovereignty of Iran and its government despite the outcome of the 2009 presidential elections. It is certainly not an easy task and will take time to produce the change promised by the Obama campaign, but it will be easier to accomplish with greater understanding of the nuances of regional politics in the Middle East and when the United States takes an active stance by following through on some good faith measures and working with Iran as a regional power in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both the United States and Iran have a lot to gain from improving relations with one another and since the United States remains the global hegemonic power in this system of uni-multipolarity, it must responsibly take the first steps to initiate this process.

Dear Congressman Hoekstra

2010-06-19T16:26:00.002-04:00

Your recent "Perspective" is an interesting example of empty political posturing. You express your opposition to a cap-and-trade program that would regulate CO₂ emissions, which you call a "job-killing National Energy Tax." Yet you also want to promote renewable energy to reduce both our dependence on foreign oil and pollution to the environment.

I agree that we should encourage clean energy, but how exactly do you propose to do this? We could discourage carbon-emitting energy sources by taxing them or instituting a cap-and-trade program, but you clearly believe that would kill jobs. Alternatively, we could subsidize clean energy, but we would have to institute a "job-killing" tax to pay for it to avoid being irresponsible and increasing our national debt. Or we could mandate that utilities must produce a certain proportion of their electricity from renewable energy in a one-size-fits-all regulation. But that would ignore regional and other differences and would not allow companies to behave as rational, economic actors.

As your constituent, please tell me how you plan to promote clean, renewable energy. You don't get to have your cake and eat it too just because it's an election year.

Sincerely,

Wolverine

Note: This is not the first example of Hoekstra's disingenuousness.

Oh, the Hypocrisy!

2010-05-25T18:16:00.005-04:00

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

~Daniel Patrick Moynihan

In an article bemoaning conservatives' apparent disconnect from reality, Paul Waldman writes these two paragraphs and puts them next to each other, apparently unironically:

Ascribing the most nefarious of motives to our political opponents is standard fare, of course. But basing your political arguments not on what those opponents have done or have proposed to do but on what they "would" do, frees you from the need to keep a hold on even the slightest tether to reality. Who needs evidence of the other side's evil, when you can just imagine what lies in their hearts?
Imagination also has its psychic rewards. Take the Tea Partiers. The vast majority would probably say that Barack Obama, that vile socialist, has raised their taxes. The truth, however, is that Obama cut taxes for 98 percent of working families with the stimulus bill. You could argue that those tax cuts weren't a good idea, but you ought not to be able to argue that they didn't happen.

So to sum up: Paragraph 1: Basing your arguments on what your opponents would do frees you from reality. Paragraph 2: Tea Partiers would say that Obama raised their taxes, but it's not true.

Waldman's only justification of this is Tea Party Nation leader Judson Phillips refusing to admit that most Americans' taxes decreased under Barack Obama. Does Waldman bother to mention a New York Times poll where a majority (52% to 42%) of Tea Partiers say that the amount they pay in income taxes is fair? No, there's no sign that Waldman even looked at it.

I am sympathetic to the argument that conservatives' reliance on straw men comes at the expense of facts. But that doesn't mean that liberals should emulate it.

The American Power Act

2010-05-24T11:30:00.001-04:00

Much has been said about the American Power Act, introduced to the Senate on May 12. It would incentivize more offshore drilling and nuclear power. It would limit the EPA's capacity to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. And it does not nearly reduce greenhouse gas emissions enough.

Some of these complaints are misleading: For instance, the American Power Act only limits the EPA's ability to regulate under the Clean Air Act because it establishes a cap-and-trade system for large carbon emitters. EPA would deal with these emitters under the American Power Act, while still reserving the ability to regulate other emissions, like automotive emissions, under the Clean Air Act.

And in spite of these complaints, the American Power Act deserves our support. It finally sends a signal that the United States will regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Such a signal is needed for entrepreneurs to invest in researching and implementing green energy. Indeed, it is precisely what they are waiting for.

And yes, it does not reduce greenhouse-gas emissions enough. But it is much easier to establish the cap-and-trade framework and adjust later on. And as Joe Romm reminds us, this is exactly what happened with the Montreal Protocol and the Clean Air Act(s).

Yes, the bill is flawed and we should lobby the Senate to improve it. But those flaws should not prevent us from taking the first real step to fight global warming and passing this bill.

This Should Be a No-Brainer

2010-05-08T20:59:00.001-04:00

The Obama administration is considering joining the Ottawa Treaty, which bans the use of land mines. Which are of no use in the counterinsurgencies we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. The only place they would be useful is in the ironically-named demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. But control over those mines has been transferred to South Korea. Not to mention that "technological advances have enabled the Pentagon to create explosives that function like mines but are detonated remotely, making them permissible under the treaty."

There is even enough support in the Senate for ratification. Sixty-eight senators have signed on to a letter calling on Obama to join the ban. (67 are needed for ratification.) There is no reason not to do this.

More Bad News and Bad Press for BP

2010-05-08T19:29:00.004-04:00

The dome that BP had placed over one of the oil leaks from the downed Deepwater Horizon rig has apparently failed. The reverse funnel was moved after being clogged by methane hydrates, compounds that consist of methane and other hydrocarbons trapped in the crystalline structure of ice. BP hopes either to melt the hydrates by pumping warm water down to the dome or to thin them out using methanol. Both practices are risky as both methanol and the hydrates are flammable. A sudden thaw would precipitously release methane, causing an increase in pressure and potentially an explosion much like the one that took down the rig originally.

And as if the revelations that BP was exempted from conducting an environmental impact assessment and lobbied against stricter safety measures weren't enough, Democracy Now examines the role of BP--then the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company--in the overthrow of Mohammad Mossadegh and the Iranian republic:

Also, BP was on the grassy knoll.

Will All Great Neptune's Ocean Wash This Clean?

2010-05-08T14:57:00.003-04:00

BP is lowering a dome into the Gulf of Mexico in an attempt to capture oil leaking from the Deepwater Horizon rig that sank over two weeks ago. The dome would work like a funnel in reverse; oil would rise to the top of the dome and be pumped to a ship on the gulf surface.

BP was apparently exempted from conducting an environmental impact assessment on the rig after it was concluded that a massive oil spill was "unlikely." Now this is probably true; according to American Petroleum Institute director Erik Milito, "There have been in excess of 30,000 Gulf of Mexico wells drilled in the last 40 years and there hasn’t been a major spill [ed: I'm gonna let him finish, but Ixtoc I was one of the greatest spills of all time.] so I’d say the safety rates were good." Still, the fact that there is at least some probability of a significant oil spill should require an impact assessment.

Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has responded by calling for a "pause" in pursuing legislation on climate change. According to The New York Times, Graham "said that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had heightened concern about expanded offshore drilling, which he considers a central component of any energy legislation. Mr. Graham also said that Democratic insistence on taking up immigration policy before energy had chilled his enthusiasm for any global warming measure."

Sorry, Senator Graham, but limiting offshore drilling or at least regulating it more tightly after an unexpected explosion kills 11 and spews thousands of barrels of oil into an ecologically sensitive area of the Gulf of Mexico seems like a rational response to me.

They Said You Was Hung

2010-05-07T17:51:00.003-04:00

Returns are in from Britain's parliamentary election, and the net result? No party has a clear majority, but the Conservatives have a 306-seat plurality. Labour has 258 and the Liberal Democrats have 57. So how will the horse-trading play out?

There are three main mathematical possibilities:

The Tories and Lib Dems could form a government.
The Lib Dems could ally with Labour instead, but at least two other parties would also have to join in.
The Conservatives could theoretically form a government without the Lib Dems, but would need at least four other parties to do so.

Would these miscellaneous other parties side with the Tories or with Labour? I'm not sure. The largest other parties are regional parties like the Scottish National Party (6 seats), Plaid Cymru (3) of Wales, and Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (8; traditionally Tory) and Sinn Fein (5).

But by far the biggest playmaker is Nick Clegg and his Liberal Democrats. Clegg, a proponent of proportional representation, had indicated that the party with the most votes (i.e. the Tories) should get to occupy 10 Downing Street. But the Lib Dems seem the more natural ally of Labour.

What will happen? My prediction (and chance to look silly) is that the Tories will form a coalition with the Lib Dems after promising electoral reform. We shall see.

Conservatives Left Their Heads on the Dance Floor

2010-05-06T17:40:00.002-04:00

Just because this is what the Right sees whenever anyone talks about repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, doesn't mean that we shouldn't repeal it.

The nice thing about this is that military officers appear to be amused by it: According to spokeswoman Maj. Michelle Baldanza, "The brigade command team is happy to see that they...still have a good sense of humor and that morale is high."

Friends, Romans, Countrymen, Lend Me Your Rights

2010-05-06T16:28:00.005-04:00

"He's a citizen of the United States, so I say we uphold the laws and the Constitution on citizens...If you are a citizen, you obey the law and follow the Constitution. He has all the rights under the Constitution...We don't shred the Constitution when it is popular. We do the right thing."

~Glenn Beck

I can't believe I'm saying this, but Glenn Beck is right. (Although Glenn does make other statements during that segment like favoring torturing non-citizens, when torture is ineffective and more importantly immoral and illegal under U.S. and international law.) Every citizen is entitled to Miranda rights save some legal exceptions like the public safety exception, which allows authorities to question terrorist suspects about whether they acted alone or if they know of other threats. In the case of Faisal Shahzad, the public safety exception was employed, then they Mirandized him and he continued to talk.

But John McCain thinks Mirandizing him was a mistake. And now Joe Lieberman is introducing a bill that would allow the State Department to revoke an American's citizenship if they are "a member of a terrorist group, even before trial or capture." They could then appeal the decision--and the burden of proof would at least be on the State Dept.--but if their citizenship is revoked before they have a chance to appeal, I don't see this working well in practice.

This should be self-evidently a bad idea. If the government can revoke someone's citizenship without sufficient judicial constraint, there is bound to be abuse. And if even if their citizenship could be revoked, the Supreme Court has ruled that they are still entitled to rights under U.S. law.

Last word:

The appalling behavior of John McCain and Joe Lieberman this past week underlines what a bullet this country missed by electing Barack Obama president...

Now recall that McCain and Lieberman were celebrated in Washington for their alleged maturity, wisdom, and elder statesmen experience. They are in fact adolescent hysterics, whose terrorized Manichean view of the world sees nothing but an existential struggle and the imperative to win it. We would have been electing Cheney to a third term. And we barely knew it.

~Andrew Sullivan

White House Correspondents Dinner

2010-05-06T14:46:00.002-04:00

If this whole Leader of the Free World thing doesn't work out, Obama could always host a talk show. Although, since he's funnier than Leno, it might have to be on TBS.

How Convenient!

2010-05-05T14:09:00.003-04:00

Who else? Quoth Rush Limbaugh:

I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. … Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they’re sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they’re sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I’m just noting the timing here.

Of course! It is a little too convenient that an oil rig explodes, dumping barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico right when environmentalists are starting to protest expansions to offshore drilling. Just like 9/11 was a little too convenient for an administration searching for a pretext to go to war with Iraq. They must have been inside jobs! What's that, Rush?

Well said, Rush. You are "a glittering jewel of colossal ignorance." Why don't you learn something about environmentalism or at least probability before you go off making claims without evidence? Last word from Justin Gardner:

For some reason…I don’t think folks who have spent their lives defending the environment would deliberately cause one of the worst environmental disasters in our lifetime just to get legislation passed that they felt was inherently compromised.
Call it a hunch.

Why I Hate Portmanteaux

2010-05-05T13:23:00.003-04:00

portmanteau: n. a word formed by merging the sounds and meanings of two different words, as chortle, from chuckle and snort

The best ones like "liberaltarian" are succinct, clever bons mots. Then you have ones like "listicle," which has less to do with wit than it does with smashing two words together. Hell, it's not even clear which two words have been smashed together; it sounds more like "list" + "testicle" than "list" + "article."

But they all get used so much that they immediately become cliché. Like a joke told too many times, they lose any cleverness they may have once possessed. So unless you've just come up with a good one, just save it for the Colbert Report, everybody.

Reactions to the Times Square Plot

2010-05-05T11:10:00.002-04:00

Four days ago, an amateur car bomb failed to go off in New York City's Times Square. A T-shirt vendor noticed smoke coming out of an awkwardly parked Nissan Pathfinder and alerted a nearby police officer. The authorities responded swiftly, evacuating the area and defusing the bomb.

Reactions have been oddly muted, nowhere near the frenzy after the underwear bomber Omar Abdulmutallab failed to blow up a plane above Detroit. My rationale is that the difference in reaction is due to the difference in terrorist methods. There is so much security around airplanes that the fact that Abdulmutallab got as far as he did represents a failure somewhere in the system. But there seems to be no good way to stop someone from parking a car bomb in Times Square. In this case, the system worked as well as it could.

Meanwhile, Adam Serwer at Tapped had been pushing the line that conservatives have been quiet because the suspect at the time was "a middle-aged white guy" instead of a radical Muslim. But now that a Pakistani-American has been arrested and has reportedly confessed, Republicans are still fairly silent.

Still, even though I'm not quite as cynical as Serwer--"If the attack was carried out by Muslim extremists, the conservative response will be that this would never have happened if Obama were still torturing people. If it turns out to be a domestic right-wing extremist, well, it'll be a tragic but understandable response to government tyranny."--I have to admit he has a point. Would Scott Brown have said, "No one likes paying taxes obviously," if a Muslim had flown a plane into a building with IRS offices instead of Andrew Joseph Stack III?

Also, Andrew Sullivan rounds up more reactions, and Megan McArdle opines on why terrorist attacks are so infrequent.

“We Have Met the Enemy and He Is PowerPoint”

2010-05-03T17:02:00.003-04:00

"When we understand that slide, we'll have won the war." -General Stanley McChrystal

A recent New York Times article outlines the problems with the armed forces' reliance on PowerPoint: The complexity and interconnectedness of the war cannot be adequately presented with slides. Either you overwhelm your audience with visual complexity or reduce the problem to bullets. Either way, the details – the meaning – are lost on the audience.

The solution to this dilemma seems relatively straightforward. PowerPoint is best understood and best used as a visual aid. The slides should be reserved for pictures, maps, graphs, charts, and diagrams. That way, the complexity can be addressed in the oral part of the presentation. If a hard copy of the material is needed, it should be written up as a memo or report in Word.

Sorry, Defense Secretary Gates, it's the only way.

If It's Broke, Don't Fix it

2010-05-03T10:47:00.003-04:00

In a very confusing editorial in Saturday's New York Times, A.A. Gill argues that change is needed in Britain, but "the worst possible way to start changing it would be precipitously, after an inconclusive election, on the heels of a global financial calamity when the markets are looking for stability and firm direction." Gill echoes the paranoid, Tory line: "OH NOES! A hung Parliament will make Britain look weak and indecisive!"

Indeed, Gill's Tory bias is hardly concealed throughout the piece: Gordon Brown is friendless and ill-tempered. Nick Clegg is traitorously European. (He speaks five languages! His kids have Spanish names!) But Tory David Cameron is "personable" and "fresh-faced" "with emotionally winning oratory." "Your mother would like him." Indeed, Gill's biggest fear seems to be that a hung Parliament will lead to electoral reform, which will lead to "1000 years" of center-left government.

This last claim is laughable. Gill acknowledges that parliamentary districts are so hopelessly gerrymandered in favor of Labour that they could finish third in the popular vote but win a plurality of seats. The status quo already sounds like 1000 years of center-left government. Furthermore, the reforms advocated by the Lib Dems would base seats in Parliament on the popular vote. If post-reform Britain has a center-left government, it will be because a majority of Britons want a center-left government.

The point is this, Mr. Gill: If the broken system is not fixed now, when will it?

The View from Section 6

2010-05-02T16:49:00.004-04:00

As J-Mad wrote yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered the keynote address at the University of Michigan's spring commencement. The speech was characteristically level-headed and reasonable. Obama acknowledged that he and his opponents have legitimate disagreements, while simultaneously asserting and rationalizing that some went too far. Obama also deftly gave a political speech that was still relevant to the graduates.

(Sorry, Bryan Flory, but the overarching theme of the speech was how to maintain our republic, which is relevant to every American and seems appropriate for a commencement. I will agree, however, that Governor Granholm's speech, which was basically "Thank you, Mr. President, for (fill in the blank)" x 10, was almost completely irrelevant to the graduates. The only part that was relevant was when she said, "Thank you for coming here instead of that school to the south.")

There were two points of Obama's speech that I especially liked. First, he rejected the false dichotomy between complete liberty and total tyranny. He pointed out the aspects of government that everyone, especially the limited-government zealots, takes for granted: public high schools and universities, roads and highways, police and firefighters, safety standards, etc. And he articulated his view of the role government should play: "Government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who’s willing to work hard."

Secondly, Obama advised the graduates on what they--and all of us--should do to maintain our republic: Don't vilify others simply because you disagree with them. Expose yourself to a diverse group of people and a diverse group of opinions. (Both of which I will attempt to do on this blog and in my personal life.)

Marine One leaves Ann Arbor.

With Barack Obama, the University of Michigan has set a high bar for commencement speakers that frankly cannot be surpassed. But on behalf of the Class of 2011, may I say, "Jon Stewart, please!"

Barack in the Big House

2010-05-01T20:15:00.007-04:00

Today, President Barack Obama entered the Big House, packed to the brim, to send the 2010 graduating class of the University of Michigan off into the world. After being presented with an honorary doctorate of laws degree, he delivered a commencement address focusing on the need for each graduate to be a good citizen, treating others with respect and civility, while continuing to constantly broaden his or her horizons in order to guarantee the health of the United States for future generations. The pragmatic address had many words of wisdom for the graduating class, as well as their peers, friends, and families in the stands, for the future. The speech was decidedly non-partisan and employed a common Obama theme of unity while embracing diversity. Below, please find the video of the commencement address and some highlighted passages. For the full text, please click here.

Highlights:

"On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got -– a republic or a monarchy?” And Franklin gave an answer that’s been quoted for ages: He said, “A republic, if you can keep it.” If you can keep it. Well, for more than 200 years, we have kept it... Through periods of great social and economic unrest... it has allowed us slowly, sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union. And so now, class of 2010, the question for your generation is this: How will you keep our democracy going? At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and vibrant; how will you keep it well in this century?"

"There are some things we can only do together, as one nation -– and that our government must keep pace with the times... this notion...hasn’t always been partisan."

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad. One of my favorite signs during the health care debate was somebody who said, 'Keep Your Government Hands Out Of My Medicare' -- which is essentially saying 'Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care Plan.'"

"When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

"So, class of 2010, what we should be asking is not whether we need 'big government' or a 'small government,' but how we can create a smarter and better government."

"The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate...we can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down...The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise. It undermines democratic deliberation. It prevents learning..."

"For the truth is, our nation’s destiny has never been certain. What is certain -– what has always been certain -– is the ability to shape that destiny."

The Peculiarity of American Conservatives

2010-04-29T15:33:00.005-04:00

Gordon Brown's recent "interaction" with Gillian Duffy got me thinking about how different American democracy is from others around the world. (Not that Americans wouldn't let their inflammatory comments get accidentally caught by a live mic: See Jesse Jackson's desire to neuter Barack Obama and Joe Biden calling health care reform a "big fucking deal.") A sitting head of state is talking one-on-one with a regular Jill for a few minutes straight. Now maybe this sort of thing only gets press when the candidate shoots themselves in the foot right afterward, but when I think of a presidential campaign in the U.S., I picture giant rallies, not candidates taking time for individual voters.

A further difference, as Joseph Romm points out, is that all three major British parties--Labour, Conservative, and Lib Dem--favor taking action on climate change, while Republicans in the U.S. remain defiantly anti-science. Even the military cannot sway right-wing minds on global warming. The opposition (on this and other issues) is so extreme that commentators are wondering if Republicans have insulated themselves from constructive criticism.

Julian Sanchez argues that this right-wing insularity comes from some combination of:

reactions to progressive viewpoints invading traditionally conservative areas via the Internet, and
conservative institutions (like Fox News) striving to counter a perceived liberal bias in institutions (like the New York Times) that are really striving for objectivity.

While this may be true, it begs the question, "Why isn't conservative opposition in Great Britain so insulated and belligerent?" Part of it may be that there are established conservative institutions in Britain that also strive for objectivity. Part of it may also be that British conservatives are insulated and belligerent by British standards.

But I contend that there is another reason for American peculiarity, and it stems from our differences in democracy. The United States is almost unique among OECD countries in having a presidential republic. (Mexico and South Korea are the only others, excluding the so-called "semi-presidential" republics like France and Russia, where both a president and prime minister wield executive power.) The GOP can accomplish their political goals by gumming up the Senate and ensuring that Democrats achieve as little as possible before the Republicans retake Congress. Almost every European nation has a parliamentary system, where consensus- and coalition-building is integral. There it doesn't make sense, for instance, for the Tories to make the Lib Dems their bitter enemies when the Lib Dems will likely decide who Britain's next prime minister will be.

The Sinkable Gordon Brown

2010-04-28T17:14:00.008-04:00

As if public discontent with Britain's burgeoning national debt did not spell enough problems for Gordon Brown and his Labour Party, Brown was caught calling a voter "bigoted" after a short exchange earlier today. His comments were caught as Brown talked to an aide in his motorcade, not realizing that his mic attached to his lapel was still on. The woman did not even say anything that bigoted besides a short aside on Eastern European immigrants. Judge for yourself:

Brown apologized, but, well, look at what's dominating BBC News's election coverage:

The crazy thing is that, according to most polls, Labour will win a plurality of seats in the House of Commons, even though polls are placing Labour third in the popular vote. (British MPs, unlike in other parliamentary systems, are elected by district, like the U.S. Congress.) It is likely that neither Labour nor the Conservatives will win an outright majority of seats, leaving a hung Parliament.

One of the parties must then form a governing coalition with the third-party Liberal Democrats. Although the Lib Dems' ideology would fit better with Labour than the Tories, the Lib Dems' platform includes instituting a proportional voting system. Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg has even said, "It is just preposterous the idea that if a party comes third in the number of votes, it still has somehow the right to carry on squatting in No 10." Either way, it should be an interesting election come May 6.

A Dangerous Precedent

2010-04-26T23:06:00.003-04:00

There's a Facebook group called "DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN." It has over a million members.

Now, there is a slight difference between wishing Obama would die and wishing somebody would kill him. But with over a million members, I'm willing to bet at least one of them has made that leap.

This should be self-evidently dangerous. Democracy cannot flourish when people demand the deaths of everyone with whom they disagree. One of the reasons that the Weimar Republic failed is that communist and liberal leaders like Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht, and Walter Rathenau were assassinated with at least the tacit support of respected conservatives.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with Barack Obama. You can contest him through legitimate means like protests, petitions, lawsuits, elections, and so on. You have the right to free speech, but wishing someone dead is something that should be reserved for the bin Ladens of the world.

iSeeYou! Big Brother Issues iMacs

2010-04-18T00:24:00.004-04:00

While the Harrington High School teen's story seems disturbing, it seems to be equally extreme to remove these types of tracking technologies off of computers in the event that they are stolen. In this particular instance, based on the one-sided comments of the plaintiffs, the school's actions crossed the line when, after reaching an agreement about the computer insurance fee and realizing that the computer was not in fact stolen, chose to repeatedly activate the photo-tracking technology and delete the pictures.

However, the family is also responsible for reading and understanding the terms of the agreement regarding the insurance fee and what programs will be activated. These tracking technologies, while out of place in this particular instance, are a valuable security measure for recovering a missing or stolen computer (as long as the thief is not smart enough to cover the microphone and camera) and it makes sense for the school to have such measures in place. CNN reports that "the school district installed the LANrev webcam security system for use if the laptop is reported lost, missing or stolen."

Unfortunately, this story does not make clear the response of the Lower Merion School District school district nor its current actions after the Robbins family filed their lawsuit. According to this article, "both state and federal officials are investigating the district for possible wiretap violations."

The New York Times reports that "using this surveillance capability, school officials found images that led them to believe that Blake Robbins, a 15-year-old student, was using illegal drugs. Mr. Robbins said the 'pills' he was seen consuming were Mike and Ike candies." However, if the purpose of the camera activation technology is to prevent theft or damage to the laptops, as the school states, then it is irrelevant whether or not the school thought that the student was consuming illegal drugs, as the computer was not damaged nor was it stolen. As the editorial in the New York Times pointedly argues, "If the district was really worried about losing the laptops, it could have used GPS devices to track their whereabouts or other less-intrusive methods. Whatever it did, the school had a responsibility to inform students that if they accepted the laptops, they would also accept monitoring."

Yes, the school district does bear the responsibility of informing the students about the technology with which the laptops are equipped, but in the digital age, it is also important for individuals to know and understand these technologies and their proper usage. The laptops did not belong to the students and if the students take them home under the terms of the agreement made with the school, it seems unreasonable to expect complete privacy using property belonging to a public school district. Despite all of these factors, based on the available information, the school district grossly overstepped its rights when realizing that, as the laptop was not missing, damaged, or stolen, and still chose to activate and reactivate the software.

Nothing for Something

2010-04-12T18:57:00.003-04:00

Earlier this month, President Obama announced a plan to open much of the Atlantic and Arctic seaboards for offshore drilling. Most view it as a means to get Republicans and conservative Democrats in the Senate on board for a climate-change bill. But given that the Republican-bloc strategy is to oppose everything that Obama and the Democrats propose, this move raises fears that--in the words of Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ)--that Obama is "giving up something for nothing."

But perhaps Obama is being craftier that Menendez lets on. The move may convince a few moderate senators to vote for a climate bill. Or it may make it easier to paint Republicans as unthinking, obstinate reactionaries who care more about scoring political points than making good-faith attempts to improve the country. This should give Democrats a useful political argument for the 2010 mid-terms, also theoretically making it easier to pass a climate bill.

Now here's the kicker: Most of the land offshore won't be open for drilling until 2012. Who knows what the economics of energy will be like then, especially if a bill passes in 2010/2011? It may not be worth the cost to energy companies to explore and drill offshore, in which case Obama would be getting something for nothing.

But these are high stakes, and the fact remains that we can't drill our way out of global warming. We can't even drill our way to energy independence. The only solution is to replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, and even nuclear energy. So let's make sure that in the course of his political gamesmanship, Obama does not lose sight of that.

Don't Let's START

2010-04-11T21:30:00.003-04:00

On April 8, President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart, Dmitry Medvedev, signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) in Prague. The treaty would limit each country to 1,550 nuclear warheads, a 30% reduction from the Moscow Treaty (aka SORT).

Of course, because Barack Obama supports it, the Republicans oppose it in true knee-jerk fashion. Never mind that any substance-based opposition is not based on fact. Never mind that arms control has a long history of bipartisan support, with the Senate ratifying the Moscow Treaty 95-0. Never mind that 1,550 warheads is more than a sufficient nuclear deterrent. Never mind that reducing the number of nuclear weapons will make the U.S. safer by reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism.

No, Republicans would rather oppose ratifying the treaty, which needs 67 votes in the Senate, just so they can make Obama look bad. But haven't we come to expect this kind of petty recklessness from the GOP?

Argentina's Got 'Em by the Balls

2010-03-30T23:38:00.006-04:00

Before beginning this commentary, it is important to note that the “chemical castration” is a drug given to reduce sexual desire; this is not the equivalent of a castration in the literal sense. However, this still brings up a controversial issue when addressing what the purpose of a criminal justice system is – solely doling out punishments for crimes committed, or is there an additional component of rehabilitation? Furthermore, is there and should there be an element of choice (proposition, as opposed to imposition/coercion) for convicted rapists regarding a treatment which is ineffective once the regimen is stopped? The reporter in the video states that those who do not volunteer to undergo this type of treatment will not have the same access to appealing for sentence reductions; there are currently 11 convicted offenders who have opted for this treatment in return for reduced sentences.

In the video clip, Mendoza Governor Celso Jaque states that the chemical and psychological treatment enables those convicted to be able to be reintroduced to society. However, with the risks that Enrique da Rosa highlights, the treatment’s effectiveness is relative and fails to be comprehensive enough to address significant factors contributing to why a rapist commits a rape or sexual assault.

While this report addresses a province in Argentina, “the practice in Mendoza follows measures adopted in several European countries and eight U.S. states: California, Florida, Georgia, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Iowa.” In any of these cases, if there is a lack of access to the same legal channels for those who opt out of the treatment as those who select the treatment have, then this sentencing option is more of a coercive measure and should not be described as an elective procedure. Additionally, the information presented by CNN in this segment totally overlooks the problematic situation of the effects on an innocent person who was convicted and then chooses this procedure in order to reduce his or her sentence. How reversible is the process?

All in all, the imposition of this treatment upon prisoners seems to go beyond both concepts of what the purpose of the criminal justice system is. If prisons are seen solely as places of punishment for crimes committed, then time spent in prison would be sufficient. If the criminal justice system is seen as integrating punishment and rehabilitation, then a treatment that is highly relative with an unknown degree of its effects on an individual’s health is not the best course of action. While a holistic approach to addressing root causes of crimes is appreciated, these courses of action must be sensitive to all individuals’ rights as well as be much more certain than this procedure.

Love That Dirty Water

2010-03-28T18:11:00.003-04:00

Two recent Supreme Court decisions have called into question the EPA's jurisdiction to regulate certain waterways under the Clean Water Act. The act gives the EPA jurisdiction over "navigable waters," which has been interpreted fairly broadly in the past. Now, the Court has suggested that the term does not refer to "waterways that are entirely within one state, creeks that sometimes go dry, and lakes unconnected to larger water systems."

The EPA is now hesitant to prosecute, shelving or discontinuing 1500 major cases over the past four years.

Furthermore, these waterways that are now questionably outside the EPA's jurisdiction provide drinking water for over a third of all Americans. Granted, drinking water is treated before it is distributed, but it should be the responsibility of the polluter to clean up the water, not the public utility.

You can read more here.

The Politics of Language (of Global Warming)

2010-03-22T22:59:00.002-04:00

So I'm not going to talk about health-care reform. Everybody else is talking about it, and I'm not very knowledgeable about what's in the bill to begin with.

Instead, I'm going to take you back to a little over a month ago when the East Coast was covered with the white, fluffy stuff - no, not purebred, Persian cats - in the great "Snowpocalypse."

Conservatives were thrilled. Quoth Sean Hannity, "It’s the most severe winter storm in years, which would seem to contradict Al Gore’s hysterical global warming theories." And then there's this:

Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is a funny, funny man.

This flies in the face of both logic AND science. First, it doesn't make sense to draw conclusions about a broad (in space and in time) pattern based on a single event. Second, even if you could reach a larger conclusion based on this event, it is not clear that "global warming is a hoax" would be that conclusion. Because of increased moisture in the air, more severe snowstorms are exactly what you would expect from global warming. (h/t)

But part of the problem lies in the term "global warming" itself. A relatively cool summer may be partly behind the public's decreased belief in global warming. Of course, the average temperature will not monotonically increase year after year; there will be some natural variation. However, someone might infer from the phrase "global warming" that it would, and they'll change their opinion with the weather forecast.

But what is the alternative? "Climate change," the heir apparent, is simultaneously clearer (This is a trend in climate, not weather.) and vaguer. (How is it changing?) This vagueness may be an advantage: an increase in severe snowstorms would be more compatible with "climate change." However, neither imply a sense of danger or urgency. But "climate chaos" or "global weirding" both sound silly, and I doubt either will catch on. "Global warming" or "climate change" is the phrase that we are stuck with.

Interesting Discussion on HH XIV Dalai Lama's Visit

2010-02-22T15:25:00.003-05:00

Democracy Now! hosted a very interesting discussion with Robert Barnett, director of the Modern Tibetan Studies Program at Columbia University. The discussion focuses around several issues involving Tibet and His Holiness, including democratization, international security, economics, and water politics. The interview is approximately 11 minutes long but worth watching in its entirety.

Jon Stewart on the O'Reilly Factor

2010-02-04T22:25:00.004-05:00

Jon Stewart ventures into enemy territory to take Bill O'Reilly to school in a surprisingly civil interview. Take a look.