US Congress and our sexual virility double standard

In one of my rare episodes of mainstream TV watching, an advertisement appeared for an erectile dysfunction drug. And it occurred to me that this ad would not make a single GOP male flinch. Ditto condom ads. They're down with all that.

On the other hand, advertise female birth control and/or family planning resources, and it's condemned by the right.

Prolific sexual functionality is apparently a desirable thing for men, but not for women - except in situations of submissive duty to procreate.

The men are the ones rightly in charge of the women's reproductive health/fate, as they see it. We women are apparently not to be trusted with our own bodies.

Why else would they have held all-male congressional hearings on birth control?

I wonder how their wives, daughters, nieces, and granddaughters feel about this. (With some research, that might be a blog post for another day.)

Democracy must be saved

Yesterday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker survived a recall election which had been prompted by his war on workers and other extreme right-wing agenda items. And this unfortunate result can only encourage and embolden other right-wing governors and state legislatures to follow suit. Indeed, many already are.

According to the New York Times, the Walker campaign was backed by the billionaire Koch brothers and other big-ticket donors to a tune of $45.6 million, compared to $17.9 spent by his Democratic rival, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

Money talks. And money wins elections. Money buys the propaganda that leads ordinary citizens to vote against their own best interests.

When that happens, we no longer have a true democracy. Instead, it is a plutocracy. It is fascism in the purest sense of the word. And human rights - and basic decency and fairness - take a back seat to corporate profits and greed.

I think this is what Thomas Jefferson feared when he said: "I hope we shall crush ... in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Jefferson is surely spinning in his grave.

We the living must keep up the fight to defend the true democracy that he envisioned more than two centuries ago.

We must not let yesterday's disappointment discourage us. We should let it inspire us to work harder than ever to get this country back on track.

The alternative is unthinkable. So giving up is not an option.

On to November!

Can Edwards recover like Clinton?

On May 31, the jury in the John Edwards campaign corruption trial found him not guilty on one count and remained hung on the remaining counts. The judge then declared a mistrial on those other counts. As of this writing, it is unclear whether the prosecution will seek to retry him on those unsettled counts.

The case involves the use of donor funds during Edwards's 2008 presidential campaign that were directed towards hiding the then-candidate's affair with his mistress - an affair that resulted in a love child - while his wife was dying of cancer. The defense insists that the donations in question were personal gifts rather than political campaign donations.

I am not a lawyer. Like the jury, I am personally hung on most of it. I cannot read the minds of the donors nor the recipients of that money, so I will not guess at their actual thoughts or intents. And perhaps that was where the jury was coming from.

I want to state right now that I do not like John Edwards. I used to be a fan until this scandal unfolded. Then I just saw him as sleazy, narcissistic, and untrustworthy. But even the sleazy, narcissistic, and untrustworthy deserve the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And apparently guilt was not proven in this case to the satisfaction of the jury.

Now Edwards is talking about dedicating his life towards helping impoverished children in the U.S. and worldwide. That is commendable. It might make me even like him a little bit more than I do at this moment.

But to do good works like that, it helps to have a sympathetic support base. Can Edwards still attract that base given his current reputation as a sleazy, narcissistic, and untrustworthy cad?

The question brings to mind how former President Bill Clinton rebounded from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Bill Clinton now is a greatly beloved philanthropist whose Clinton Foundation does a lot of good work. His marriage survived, and his wife is now our very highly regarded Secretary of State. The Clintons' support base is now probably bigger than ever.

Somehow I cannot envision a similar rebound on Edwards's part. Perhaps he's just not as likeable as Clinton. Or maybe the case is just still too fresh. But I sincerely do hope that he can turn his life around now and do some good.

For that, I wish him well.

For Tyler Clementi's roommate, 30 days and a slap on the wrist

Today in a New Jersey court, former Rutgers student Dharun Ravi was sentenced to 30 days in jail for his role in the webcam spying that led to the 2010 suicide of his gay roommate, Tyler Clementi. Clementi jumped off the George Washington Bridge after learning that Ravi had used a webcam to spy on his intimate encounters with another man.

In addition, according to CNN, "Ravi will serve three years of probation and must complete community service aimed at assisting victims of bias crimes, according to Superior Judge Glenn Berman. He also must pay more than $11,000 in restitution."

I am neither a lawyer nor a judge, but 30 days in jail seems like an awfully light sentence for actions that led to someone's death. However, I suppose it's hard to balance whether Ravi was aggressively attacking Clementi or if he was just a jerk.

At the very minimum, he was a jerk.

I just hope that the amount of news coverage this case has received will do some good in getting other people to think before they act out their homophobic issues (either maliciously or stupidly).

Did Texas execute yet another innocent man?

A recent study by the Columbia Human Rights Law Review suggests that Carlos DeLuna, who was executed by the state of Texas in 1989 for the murder of Wanda Lopez, was actually innocent. The study concluded that a man named Carlos Hernandez actually committed the murder. In other words, the so-called justice system had convicted the wrong Carlos.

According to the report, Hernandez "was well-known to police and prosecutors at the time and had a long history of violent crimes." In fact, Hernandez was arrested for another murder while DeLuna was on death row, and died in prison in 1999, after having admitted that he killed Lopez.

Nevertheless, the report states, "After [police] arrested DeLuna, they were so sure they had the right man, they never bothered to ascertain his height, weight or age or to compare them to the information from eyewitness Baker. Their commanding officers never requested that information, either. In fact, DeLuna was ... younger than the man [a witness] described."

"On evidence we pulled together on this case, there is no way a jury could have convicted De-Luna beyond a reasonable doubt, but they could've convicted Hernandez beyond a reasonable doubt," said Columbia Professor James Liebman, who conducted the study along with his students.

Perhaps even more disturbing is the fact that this isn't the only case we know of in which Texas probably executed an innocent man.

The most famous such case is that of Cameron Todd Willingham, who made headlines in 2009 when The New Yorker published an investigative article on the case. Willingham was executed in 2004 for setting a fire that killed his three daughters. However, a forensic review of the case led to the conclusion that "a finding of arson could not be sustained." In other words, the fatal fire for which Willingham was executed was probably just an accident.

A decade before Willingham's execution, Ruben Montoya Cantu was put to death in Texas for a murder that occurred when Cantu was 17 years old. According to Wikipedia, "During the years following the conviction, the surviving victim, the co-defendant, the District Attorney, and the jury forewoman have all made public statements that cast doubt on Cantu's guilty verdict and death sentence."

In 2009, Texas executed Reginald Blanton despite numerous flaws in the prosecution's case and the trial itself. Blanton had been convicted of fatally shooting his friend, Carlos Garza, and then stealing $79 worth of jewelry from Garza's home, where the murder took place. According to Randi Jones of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, "Reginald's case exemplifies serious prosecutorial misconduct. They systematically excluded African Americans from the jury pool." Jones also noted that there was no physical evidence linking Blanton to the crime, and that Blanton was forced to rely on an incompetent public defender who failed to present evidence of innocence at the original trial.

This is not justice.

The legal system is run by human beings, and human beings make mistakes. And they can make mistakes in matters of life and death, as in the cases described above.

Is this not sufficient reason to abolish the irreversible punishment that is the death penalty?

The full Columbia report on the DeLuna case can be found online at: http://www3.law.columbia.edu/hrlr/ltc/

Thoughts on this International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia

Today, May 17, is the International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia (IDAHO). This date was chosen because on May 17, 1990, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.

As I reflect on the state of homophobia and transphobia today, I wonder if they will ever become obsolete. I wonder if there will ever come a day when all people are treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I wonder if there will ever come a day when the majority doesn't fear "the other" to the point of persecution.

But, given that even long-established rights of women in the U.S. are still being challenged, and that racism remains a problem, I am cautious in any optimism.

We must continue to fight tirelessly for equality for all. The right will not stop paying attention, so neither must we.

Chase exec's golden parachute

JP Morgan Chase announced yesterday that its chief investment officer, Ina Drew, will retire in the wake of the institution's $2 billion trading loss.

But don't worry - she'll be just fine. Drew was paid $15.5 million last year and almost $16 million in 2010. And she probably will receive some very attractive retirement perks.

She will never have to feel what the unemployed members of the 99% are feeling.

North Carolina voters choose discrimination

Bad news: At the polls yesterday, the people of North Carolina passed Amendment 1, which amends the state's constitution to say "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in the state."

In other words, discrimination will now be the law in that state.

And this isn't just a vote against same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage was already illegal in North Carolina. Amendment 1 appears to also invalidate civil unions and domestic partnership benefits even among opposite-sex couples.

It appears to imply that married couples will be first-class citizens, while everyone else is second-class at best.

It will be interesting to see if any court challenges arise (and how soon).

Stay tuned.

Will North Carolina voters outlaw civil unions and domestic partnerships?

Today, when the citizens of North Carolina go to the polls, they will be asked to vote on Amendment 1, which would amend the state's constitution to say "Marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in the state."

This is not just another Proposition 8. Same-sex marriage is already illegal in North Carolina. If passed, Amendment 1 would ban civil unions and domestic partnership benefits even among opposite-sex couples.

National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terry O'Neill explains the ramifications:

"In addition to placing a permanent ban on civil unions, Amendment One would also strip the domestic partnership benefits currently afforded to unmarried public employees all across North Carolina.

"Amendment One could interfere with protections for all unmarried couples, such as their ability to visit one another in the hospital or make emergency medical and financial decisions if one partner is incapacitated. It could also hamper the enforcement of wills, trusts, and medical powers of attorney, exclude partners from private employer healthcare benefits, as well as threaten domestic violence protections for all unmarried women."

In other words, if Amendment 1 passes, married couples will be first-class citizens, while everyone else will be second-class at best.

This is despite the fact that this nation was founded on the principle that all people are created equal.

Fingers crossed in hopes that the people of North Carolina will vote for equality, not discrimination.

KSM goes on trial; Amnesty report discredits military commission

On Saturday, May 5, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four of his cohorts were arraigned by a U.S. military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

In anticipation of the hearing, on May 3, Amnesty International released a report criticizing the military commission system as "deeply flawed" and not in accordance with international fair trial standards.

An excerpt:

"This case – one of the highest profile US prosecutions for decades – has presented the USA with a chance to show that it means what it says when it speaks about its commitment to human rights. For the time being, however, the USA seems set on a path that ends in justice neither being done nor being seen to be done."

I want to clarify that Amnesty is not soft on crime. The organization spends countless hours fighting back against impunity for lawbreakers and human rights violators. But accountability has to be done right in order to be valid. If KSM and his cohorts are, in fact, the "worst of the worst" - which seems easy enough to prove - then prove it in a proper court of law, not a kangaroo court. Otherwise, I - and the world at large - might have to wonder what the system is afraid of.

>> Download Amnesty's new report.

Republican friend wants to make Islamic martyrs

On May 5, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other defendants were arraigned in a U.S. military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. And, of course, a Republican friend had to discuss it with me.

As he was eagerly devouring the latest offerings from the Drudge Report, he told me that we shouldn't waste our time putting them on trial. We should "just kill 'em," he said.

I pointed out that killing them would make them martyrs in the eyes of their terrorist cohorts - and that's what they want. After all, some believe that martyrdom for the Islamic cause will get them straight into heaven, where 72 lovely virgins are eagerly awaiting their arrival. That's not exactly a crime deterrent.

I also pointed out that the perpetrators of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing had been given fair trials in federal court and were now safety locked away for life. They now get to spend each day lonely and defeated, in American custody. Isn't that a far worse punishment, I asked, then giving them heaven, virgins, and the glory of martyrdom?

In response, he simply stammered a weak "NO!", shook his head, and looked very confused.

I guess Drudge and Fox haven't yet given him a good retort for that argument.

In abolishing the death penalty, Connecticut joins the civilized world

On April 25, with a stroke of the governor's pen, Connecticut became the 17th U.S. state to abolish the death penalty - and the fifth state to do so in five years. This reflects a growing momentum to end capital punishment in the U.S., which is the only major industrialized Western nation that still claims for itself the "right" to kill its citizens. The death penalty has already been abolished in all European countries except for Belarus. In fact, today over two-thirds of the world's nations have ended capital punishment in law or practice. This global trend towards abolition of the death penalty reflects the growing awareness that there are alternative punishments that are effective and which do not involve state-sponsored killing.

By retaining the death penalty on a federal level and in many states, the U.S. finds itself aligned on this issue primarily with known hotbeds of human rights violations such as Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan. This is the company we keep.

But there are better reasons to abolish the death penalty nationwide - and worldwide - than just following the trend.

Studies in several states have shown that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory, arbitrary, and uneven manner, and is used disproportionately against racial minorities and the poor. For example, a 1998 study of death sentences in Philadelphia found that African-American defendants were almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than were people of other ethnic origins who committed similar crimes. That's not justice, it's discrimination.

In addition to its biased application, the death penalty is demonstrably not a deterrent. According to Amnesty International, "FBI data shows that all 14 states without capital punishment in 2008 had homicide rates at or below the national rate."

Also, execution is irreversible, which is a huge problem, given so many cases of death row inmates who have been exonerated after conviction, based on DNA or other evidence. How many other innocent persons were not lucky enough to be proven innocent prior to their executions? We know of at least a few.

Some people argue that the death penalty is the only way to bring closure to a murder victim's family. But not all such families agree. In fact, so many families oppose the death penalty that some have formed organizations such as Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, through which they actively work to abolish the death penalty. As noted on the latter organization's website, "MVFHR members have come in different ways and times to the understanding that the death penalty does not help us heal and is not the way to pursue justice for victims."

Amnesty International describes the death penalty as "the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."

And, for those of you who subscribe to a Judeo-Christian faith, consider the commandment that "thou shalt not kill." That commandment bears no caveat indicating that it's acceptable to kill a killer.

Clearly, the death penalty does not represent justice. It represents revenge - sometimes misdirected revenge.

Shouldn't we as a society be above that sort of thing?

Another problem with the voter ID law

Like several other states, Pennsylvania now has a voter ID law, which requires voters to show a photo ID before they will be permitted to vote. While the new Pennsylvania law doesn't take effect until the November elections, voters for the April 24 primary were asked for ID as a "dry run", although lack of an ID at the primary did not disqualify anyone from voting.

As I was showing the poll worker my driver's license to vote in the Pennsylvania primary, I asked her if many people had shown up without a valid ID. She said no. She said that there had only been a few people who had left their IDs in their cars and had to go back to get them.

But we agreed that this was no indication of how things will go in November. For the primary, the polling place was practically empty, compared to November of 2008, when I got there at 7:00 a.m. and the line was already an hour long.

Opponents of the voter ID law say that it will disenfranchise voters who don't drive and don't have an easy way to obtain a government-issued photo ID. And they point out that those people most likely to be disenfranchised also tend to vote Democratic. They also point out that cases of actual polling place fraud are extremely rare.

And this primary test run showed me another problem with the new law: It takes more time to check in at the polling place. Previously, I would just have to give my name, wait for the poll worker to find me alphabetically in the registration book, and then sign by the "X". This time, in addition to that, I had to dig my wallet out of my purse, dig my ID out of my wallet, wait for her to look it over and then write something down about it, put the license back into my wallet, and put the wallet back into my purse.

And I thought about how I waited in line for an hour to vote for Obama in '08, and how much longer that wait would have been if everyone had had to deal with the extra step to prove our identities.

I can only hope that the turnout this November is as good as it was back then, so everyone can see this extra problem caused by this unnecessary new law.

After all, you don't have to produce your ID until you've made it to the front of the line.

Things you can do on this Earth Day 2012 (and beyond)

Today, April 22, is Earth Day.

On this day, there are many things you can do to show your respect for the earth and its environment. Here are some ideas, repeated from last year's Earth Day blog post, since they're all still as relevant as ever (and so easy to do):

• Say no to plastic bags: There are enough plastic bags in the landfills and in the oceans. If you haven't done so already, please invest in some reusable canvas bags and take them with you whenever you go shopping. You'll look cool and you'll help the planet.

• Say no to bottled water: It's less regulated - and therefore possibly lower quality - than tap water, and the plastic bottles they come in are a whole other horror story. Instead, invest in a reusable stainless steel bottle, and refill it with plain or filtered tap water. It's better for the planet, better for your health, and better for your wallet.

• Go meatless for a day: A 2006 United Nations report called the meat industry "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." According to the website goveg.com, eating 1 pound of meat emits the same amount of greenhouse gasses as driving an SUV 40 miles. So try going meatless on Earth Day. Then expand it to a once-a-week "Meatless Monday" - or more.

Do you have more ideas for simple things we can do to show our respect for this wonderful planet? Share them in a comment, and they could be included in next year's Earth Day post!

April 17 is Equal Pay Day 2012 (and women are still not paid fairly)

Today, April 17, is Equal Pay Day 2012. This date symbolizes how far into the year a woman must work, on average, to catch up with what the average man earned in 2011 here in the U.S.

In anticipation of Equal Pay Day, the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) last week released a set of fact sheets that shine a light on the wage gap in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. These facts show that the typical woman working full-time is, on average, still paid only 77 cents for every dollar paid to the typical man. The data reveals that the wage gap exists in every state and persists across races, education, and occupations, with very few exceptions.

It's interesting to note that women outnumber men on college campuses, but are still paid less on average. Education aside, it's still a man's world, where women are just not worth as much.

"In almost 50 years, the wage gap has only budged 18 cents," said NWLC Co-President Marcia D. Greenberger. "When women are struggling to regain jobs in the recovery and families are relying increasingly on women's wages, it's especially critical to end the pay gap for women. Since lost wages cut deeply into a family's budget, equal pay is not an abstract principle for women and their families. It's key to their survival."

Indeed. But those who sign the paychecks just don't seem to care.

>> Read about the wage gap in your state.

Verdict postponed in Rachel Corrie lawsuit

The announcement of a verdict in the civil lawsuit against the State of Israel for the death of American peace activist Rachel Corrie has been postponed due to delays in the filing of closing arguments. It had originally been scheduled for late April.

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of the Corrie family. Rachel Corrie was crushed to death in 2003 by a US-made Caterpillar D9 military bulldozer in Rafah while acting as a human shield, trying to stop the unlawful demolition of a Palestinian home. She was 23 years old.

Stay tuned for updates.

New HRW report on extrajudicial executions in Syria

Today, Human Rights Watch (HRW) released a 23-page report documenting the extrajudicial execution by Syrian security forces of more than 100 people since late 2011.

According to HRW, government and pro-government forces not only executed opposition fighters they had captured, or who had otherwise stopped fighting and posed no threat, but also civilians who likewise posed no threat to the security forces.

As a result of these findings, HRW calls on the Syrian government to immediately stop and condemn these and other human rights violations by the security forces and pro-government militias, and to bring existing perpetrators to justice.

HRW also urges the UN Security Council to demand that Syria immediately end the human rights abuses committed by government forces, authorize the deployment of a UN mission to follow up, and refer the situation to the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, HRW calls on the other countries of the world to investigate and prosecute members of the Syrian military and civilian leadership suspected of committing international crimes.

Stay tuned, with fingers crossed for justice and an end to the brutality.

For more information:

>> Download the report or view a summary

Freedom of religion cannot be exclusive

In recent years, the religious right have moved even farther to the right - to the fringes. Some have even expanded their war on women's reproductive rights to where they are condemning contraception. They even held Congressional hearings on the subject. This is despite the fact that 99 percent of American women who have ever had sex have used contraception, including 98 percent of Catholic women.

When policies were passed that require insurance companies to cover contraception (which, by the way, saves the insurers money, as birth control is a lot cheaper than pregnancy and obstetric costs), they screamed that the government is interfering with their religious freedom.

That is nonsense.

What government is really interfering with is the right's ability to impose their own religious beliefs on those of us who believe differently. What the government is doing is what freedom is really all about.

Freedom of religion in this country means freedom for all religions - not just the religion of the most vocal contingent. And it is also meant to protect us from tyranny of the religious majority. After all, it is that kind of religious tyranny that this nation's Founding Fathers sought to escape when they cut ties with England and spelled out specifically in the First Amendment that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

In other words, while the Christian right are free to exercise their own religious beliefs, so are those of us who see things differently. Their right to practice their religion ends at my own right to reject their religion in favor a different set of views. Still, they try to shove their own so-called values down our throats in the name of Jesus, who would surely be rolling His eyes.

Freedom of religion means going to your church and observing your own religious customs while allowing others the same liberties - even (indeed, especially) - if their beliefs and customs are different from yours.

Freedom of religion means not using birth control - or having an abortion - if you think it is wrong, but respecting the fact that those who do are breaking no law (and deserve no shaming).

Freedom of religion means building your church on one corner and tolerating a temple, synagogue, or mosque that might spring up across the street (even in lower Manhattan).

And freedom of religion means facing the fact that no religion is perfect, and that every religion has its saints and its sinners. It is unfair to blame all Muslims for the 9/11 attack, just as it would be unfair to blame all Christians for the 1996 Olympic Park bombing. For every Osama bin Laden, there is an Eric Rudolph.

As a wise man once put it, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Earth Hour this Saturday (March 31)!

On Saturday, March 31, at 8:30 pm local time, individuals, businesses, and municipalities around the world will turn off their lights for one hour - Earth Hour - in a show of concern for climate change and commitment to finding solutions.

I have participated in Earth Hour the past four years, and it always felt good. I plan to participate again this year, and I hope you will join me.

Earth Hour was started in 2007, and has been growing larger year by year. According to the Earth Hour Website, "In 2011, Earth Hour saw hundreds of millions of people across 135 countries switch off for an hour. But it also marked the start of something new – going Beyond the Hour to commit to lasting action on climate change. And with the power of social networks behind the Earth Hour message, we hope to attract even more participation so we can build a truly global community committed to creating a more sustainable planet."

To find out more, go to www.earthhour.org.

On World Water Day (and every day), say no to bottled water

Today, March 22, is World Water Day. This date is observed each year to promote public awareness about issues related to clean water resources.

Unfortunately, access to clean water has become a big problem in some highly populated areas of the world. A big part of the blame goes to bottled water companies, who have taken a natural resource that had always been free and turned it into a corporate commodity that westerners - particularly Americans - willingly pay for.

Think back 20, 30, or 40 years. When you were thirsty, you turned on the kitchen faucet and poured yourself a glass of water. You thought nothing of it.

These days, I don't know many people who would drink the water from their kitchen faucet without at least filtering it first. I myself use a Brita water filter pitcher at home.

But that's not convenient enough, or glamorous enough, for some people. So they buy their drinking water in bottles. By the case. I see it flying off the shelves every time I go to the supermarket.

These same people who complain so loudly whenever gasoline prices go up past $3 per gallon think nothing of paying $10 per gallon for their drinking water. And they won't listen to the fact that bottled water is no cleaner and no safer than tap water, and often comes from the very same sources. To them, carrying around a bottle of commercially sold water is a status symbol, just like their big, bloated, gas-guzzling SUVs. If it's expensive, then it must be better.

And, by supporting the commercialization of water - by willfully paying corporations for something that they could otherwise get for free - they are compounding the problem. If water is something you have to pay for, then the poor will not be able to afford it. And, without clean water, it is impossible to survive.

If you buy and drink bottled water, you are part of the problem.

Please invest in a nice refillable water bottle and fill it from your tap - filtered or otherwise. It's a much more responsible example to set.

Rachel Corrie's legacy

Today, March 16, 2012, marks the ninth anniversary of the death in Gaza of American student and peace activist Rachel Corrie. This brave and compassionate young woman died at the age of 23 when she was crushed by a US-made Caterpillar D9 military bulldozer in Rafah while acting as a human shield, trying to stop the unlawful demolition of a Palestinian home.

Rachel's family has sued the Israel Defense Forces and the Israeli Defense Ministry, and it has been a game of "he-said, she-said" in court. The bulldozer operator claims that he did not see Rachel. Her companions at the scene of her death insist that he had to have seen her.

And, according to the Los Angeles Times, the Corrie family has "accused Israel's military of failing to turn over key surveillance video taken at the Gaza Strip field where Corrie was run over by an Israeli military bulldozer."

The LA Times also notes that the judge's ruling in this case is expected next month.

Regardless of whether Rachel's death was an accident or something more sinister, and regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, I hope that her death will not be in vain. I hope her story will continue to illustrate the urgent need for an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has cost all sides too many innocent lives. And I hope her story will somehow inspire those who can make a difference.

Congolese warlord convicted in first ICC verdict

On the heels of the launch of the new Kony 2012 campaign by the group Invisible Children, another African warlord is getting his just deserts.

Today, in its first-ever trial verdict, the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague found Thomas Lubanga Dyilo guilty of having committed the war crimes of "conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen years ... and using them to participate actively in hostilities" in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) between September 2002 and August 2003.

In other words, he forced children into a life as child soldiers. And those children will never get those years back.

Sentencing will occur at a later date. Meanwhile, the defense has the right to appeal the decision.

"Depending on whether an appeal is made and on its outcome, today's decision should be remembered as a critical turning point in the fight against impunity for the most serious crimes known to humankind," said William R. Pace, Convenor of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court - a global network of more than 2,500 civil society organizations in 150 countries advocating for a fair, effective and independent ICC and improved access to justice for victims of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

"The horrendous and repeated instances of violence of the past century, not least against those most vulnerable in society, have necessitated the establishment of an international criminal court, and the Coalition has been working for many years towards this moment when justice has finally been delivered to some of the victims of these grave crimes through the ICC," Pace added. "Moreover, the continued prosecution of the crime of using child soldiers - of which this case forms a vital part - is having a real impact on government policy worldwide."

Kudos to the ICC for making this happen. This case sets a powerful precedent.

The ICC is currently also pursuing cases against other Congolese individuals, as well as situations in Uganda (i.e., the case against Kony and his cohorts); the Central African Republic; Darfur, Sudan; Kenya; Libyan Arab Jamahiriya; and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.

Stay tuned for updates, with fingers crossed for some justice for all of the victims in these cases.

24 senators call for end to U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan

Last week, a bipartisan group of 24 U.S. senators signed a letter urging President Obama to bring our troops home from Afghanistan.

The letter states that we have done what we went there to do:

"The United States intervened in Afghanistan to destroy al Qaeda’s safe haven, remove the Taliban government that sheltered al Qaeda, and pursue those who planned the September 11th attacks on the United States. Thanks to the exceptional service and sacrifice made by the American Armed Forces and our allies, those objectives have largely been met. We should continue to confront America’s enemies wherever they are through targeted counterterrorism operations and end the large scale counterinsurgency effort in Afghanistan."

And it makes the point that we just cannot afford to stay there:

"We simply cannot afford more years of elevated troop levels in Afghanistan. We are spending roughly $10 billion in Afghanistan each month at a time when we’re making tough sacrifices at home. Your recent budget calls for $88 billion more for the war in Afghanistan in 2013. If this money is appropriated, we will have spent a total of $650 billion in Afghanistan. A majority of Americans worry that the costs of the war in Afghanistan will make it more difficult for the government to address the problems facing the United States at home. They’re right."

Indeed. So will President Obama take this seriously?

I suppose time will tell. (Hopefully not too much time.)

Here is a list of the 24 senators who signed the letter:

Sen. Max Baucus (MT)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (VT)
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Sen. Tom Harkin (IA)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Sen. Herb Kohl (WI)
Sen. Patty Murray (WA)
Sen. Ron Wyden (OR)
Sen. Dick Durbin (IL)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (WA)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (NJ)
Sen. Bob Menendez (NJ)
Sen. Ben Cardin (MD)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT)
Sen. Sherrod Brown (OH)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (RI)
Sen. Tom Udall (NM)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY)
Sen. Al Franken (MN)
Sen. Joe Manchin (WV)
Sen. Rand Paul (KY)
Sen. Mike Lee (UT)

>> View the full original letter and signatures (PDF)

Is Kony 2012 the right thing to do?

By now, most people who pay attention to the news are likely aware of the Kony 2012 film and campaign. Launched by the non-profit organization Invisible Children (IC), the campaign shines a light on Joseph Kony, a leader of the brutal Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) rebel group that has terrorized Uganda since 1986. The LRA kidnapped children from their homes, and turned the girls into sex slaves and the boys into child soldiers. According to Wikipedia, "[a]n estimated 66,000 children became soldiers and two million people have been internally displaced since 1986" under Kony's brutal reign in Uganda.

In 2005, the International Criminal Court in The Hague issued an arrest warrant for Kony for war crimes, but he has yet to be captured. Kony is believed to currently reside in the neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, or Southern Sudan.

Through the Kony 2012 campaign, IC hopes to raise Kony's profile worldwide in hopes of finding him and bringing him to justice. And opinions on this tactic are diverse.

Some are criticizing the campaign as being another case of the white man trying to save black people. (The filmmaker and narrator is a white man, with his prominently featured little blond-haired boy.) IC addresses this by pointing out that 95% of IC's leadership and staff on the ground are Ugandans, not white people from America.

Raising other issues is Victor Ochen, director for the African Youth Initiative Network (AYINET) - Uganda, and himself a survivor of the LRA's war in Uganda. In a recent article, Ochen suggests that the problem is not as straightforward as IC's film might imply. He says that "much more needs to be done."

"In particular," says Ochen, "there is a need for much greater protection of civilians in South Sudan and the DRC and Central African Republic where the LRA is now active. Furthermore, many of the devastating effects of the war between the LRA and the Government of Uganda have still not been addressed in northern Uganda, even though the LRA has not been active here since 2006. These include the most serious physical and mental health effects, the weakening of key social and protective services, the nearly complete absence of remedy for harms suffered, and an utter lack of accountability."

"Second," Ochen continues, "as someone whose brother and cousin were abducted and who are among the thousands of disappeared whose fate is unknown, I join with other Ugandans who hope our relatives are still in captivity and will come back home alive. Any advocacy aimed at military bombardment of the LRA rebels remains therefore very sensitive throughout northern Uganda, and I imagine the DRC and South Sudan and Central African Republic as well, because thousands of children and adults have been abducted and have still not come home yet. My own father is deeply traumatized due to my brother and cousin's abduction, and every time he hears about any report of killing LRA rebels he is not sure whom they have killed and wonders if people are celebrating his beloved son's death. These are the feelings many families have. I agree that Kony must be stopped as soon as possible. However, it must be done in a way that avoids further civilian casualties and the loss of the lives of innocent children. Raising potentially false expectation such as arresting Kony in 2012 will not rebuild the lives of the people in northern Uganda. Rebuilding communities and rehabilitating victims is what we need. The stronger survivors become, the less Kony remains an issue. Restoration of communities devastated by Kony is a greater priority than catching or even killing him."

On the other hand, Human Rights Watch makes the point that "[a]rresting Kony and other LRA leaders would reaffirm that those who commit mass atrocities will face justice, and it would end the scourge of one of Africa's most brutal groups."

Amnesty International has addressed one of Ochen's concerns by stating that any efforts to arrest Kony must respect human rights. "Anyone joining the Kony 2012 campaign should insist that efforts to arrest Joseph Kony must respect human rights," said Erwin van der Borght, Amnesty's Africa director. "It is also vital to make sure that any action ensures the protection of civilians in the surrounding areas."

So clearly there is more to the problem than just finding Kony by making him famous, as IC hopes to do. But, if finding him and bringing him to justice are done carefully and properly, supported by recovery efforts to aid his victims, it would be a huge step forward for the people of central Africa who have suffered long enough.

Thoughts on International Women's Day

Today, as every year on March 8, we mark International Women's Day. And so I've been thinking about where we women stand these days.

While we have seen many great advances in women's rights over the past century both here in America and in other parts of the world, we still have a lot of work to do to protect the rights we've won and to further chip away at all glass ceilings everywhere.

In fact, in recent weeks, it appears that we've got to work harder than we would have expected right here in the "land of freedom". While most American women take birth control for granted, the GOP has lately tried to take that away from us in an extension of their anti-choice agenda. They want to do away not only with abortion but with contraception as well. They do this despite the statistical fact that 99% of American women - including 98% of Catholic women - have used birth control.

They don't trust us women to control how our bodies are used. They want to be the ones in charge of that.

If they are allowed to win this battle, it will set an example for conservative factions in other parts of the world.

And if they are allowed to win this battle, where will they set their sights next?

As untenable as their agenda might seem at this point, we must take it seriously.

As long as we still have the right to vote, we can have a say in this along with our male supporters.

Vote blue in November.

Sad news from Ohio

Last night, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the most progressive member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lost his primary bid for reelection. He lost to Rep. Marcy Kaptur. The Democratic primary challenge was the result of redistricting after Ohio lost 2 House seats.

Kaptur will now face Republican challenger Samuel Wurzelbacher (aka "Joe the Plumber"), who won the GOP nomination in that district last night.

I am sad that we will no longer see Kucinich bravely and boldly standing up for progressive values on the House floor. But I have no doubt that he will find other ways to continue the fight.

Thank you, Congressman Kucinich, for all that you have done. And thanks in advance for all that you will continue to do.

Wall Street on testosterone: Just what we don't need

Somehow I missed the story when it was new last month, but a friend just alerted me to it. I thought it worth sharing for those of you who, like me, missed it when the news first hit the internets:

According to the British newspaper The Daily Mail, lots of Wall Street bankers are now seeking testosterone replacement therapy to "maintain a competitive edge."

I guess they don't think they've done enough damage to our economy as it is. Imagine how much more destructive they could be with more testosterone coursing through their veins!

Big business vs. human rights: SCOTUS wants to hear more

Last week I wrote about the case of Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which raises the question of whether U.S. corporations can be held liable for complicity in human rights abuses committed abroad. The U.S. Supreme Court was to hear arguments in the case on February 28.

In follow-up to the February 28 arguments, SCOTUS has decided to schedule the case for reargument.

According to Lyle Denniston, writing today at SCOTUSblog.com, "some of the Justices [on February 28] questioned whether the Alien Tort Statute allowed U.S. courts to hear lawsuits for violations of international law on foreign soil. That is the issue lawyers are to address in new legal briefs due on a schedule that runs through June 29."

So it may hinge on a technicality.

Stay tuned, with fingers crossed for some accountability and justice.

GOP misogynists are actually screwing the insurance companies

Today, fortunately, the U.S. Senate voted to kill the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to censor which medications would be covered in their employees' health insurance plans.

Most of the public dialog about the bill focused on insurance coverage for contraception. Interestingly, I didn't see any talk of restricting coverage for Viagra, just birth control. Go figure.

All GOP senators but one (Olympia Snow, no surprise) voted for the amendment - and therefore voted against women's health.

But here is the irony in their vote:

In voting against insurance coverage for contraceptives, they also voted against the financial interests of the insurance companies that they're supposedly in love with. After all, contraception is much less expensive to cover than pregnancy/childbirth/obstetrics.

The "Christian" right's contraceptive fear mongering

If you've been paying any attention to current events lately, you know that the right wing is engaged in a major crusade not only against abortion but also against contraception. Yes, they want to take away our birth control pills.

And the spin is astounding.

For example: In a recent email to supporters, Tom Minnery, Senior VP of the ultra-conservative group Focus on the Family, warned of the following:

"[O]ur federal government is mandating that all women receive free contraceptives, sterilizations and drugs that could cause the early abortion of preborn babies."

He is making it sound as though all women will be forced to receive (and, by extension, use) contraceptives or be sterilized or take abortion drugs.

Relax, people! As I pointed out on Facebook and Twitter recently, nobody would be forced to use birth control, just like nobody would be forced to marry someone of the same sex.

Birth control is a choice. And we want you to have that choice available to you if you want or need it, just as we want to be able to choose for ourselves how we use our bodies.

That's why we call ourselves "pro-choice".