Another GOP rape gaffe

He hardly waited for us to get over our disgust with anti-choice Republican Congressman and Senate candidate Todd Akin of Missouri, who recently claimed that "legitimate rape" (an oxymoron, by the way) rarely causes pregnancy because "the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

On August 27, Senate candidate Tom Smith of Pennsylvania jumped on the anti-woman bandwagon and seemed to equate rape with pregnancy out of wedlock.

Specifically, when asked about the Akin gaffe, he talked about a family member who chose to give birth birth out of wedlock, and said, "it is similar."

He quickly tried to backtrack, but he nevertheless made it clear that he believes a zygote should have more rights than a grown woman (not to mention the fact that he seemed to dismiss the violent - or at least forced - nature of rape).

Every woman - Republican or otherwise - should see this as a huge insult.

But, sadly, I'm sure many will not.

Israeli court throws out Rachel Corrie wrongful death lawsuit

Disappointing news: This morning, a district court in Haifa ruled that the Israeli army was not at fault for the death of American peace activist Rachel Corrie. The court decided that her death was instead an accident.

The lawsuit was filed in 2005 on behalf of the Corrie family. Rachel 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 civilian Palestinian home. She was 23 years old.

And to further add insult to injury, Judge Oded Gershon blamed Rachel for "[putting] herself in a dangerous situation." In his mind, apparently, bravery and resolve = recklessness.

My heart goes out to Rachel's family.

For more information about the case, and about Rachel's life and legacy, go to RachelCorrieFoundation.org

Isaac's irony

The GOP is rescheduling some Republican National Convention events, because Tropical Storm Isaac is currently headed towards Tampa.

While I am hoping that everyone will be safe and damage will be minimal, I'm finding it very ironic that the GOP convention is being interrupted by an "act of God".

After all, if a similar situation disrupted a Democratic event, Pat Robertson and his cohorts would likely tell us it's "God's retribution" - just as he said that abortion was responsible for Hurricane Katrina and that the ACLU and feminists were to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

Rachel Corrie trial verdict due next week

On August 28, at 9:00 am local time in Haifa District Court, the verdict will be announced in the civil lawsuit against the State of Israel for the killing of American peace activist Rachel Corrie.

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.

The Corrie family will be in Haifa for the occasion, and will hold a press conference along with their attorneys after the verdict is read.

Stay tuned for the outcome.

Meanwhile, for more news and information about the case, and about Rachel's life and legacy, go to RachelCorrieFoundation.org

Accredited rape??? (i.e., Fun with Todd Akin)

If you've been paying attention to the news over the last couple of days, you've probably heard of the latest GOP scandal involving Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who claimed that "legitimate rape" rarely causes pregnancy.

Here are his specific words: "First of all, from what I understand from doctors, [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down."

My first question to the Congressman is this: How can my uterus tell whether a rape is "legitimate" or not, so that it can activate the pregnancy prevention mechanism accordingly or not? (I dare him to ask his doctor friends that question!)

My second question is this: When is a rape ever legitimate?

Perhaps he was alluding to the fact that many rape accusations are false. But actual rape, per se, can never be legitimate, and this careless choice of words speaks volumes.

And the implications are astounding.

To demonstrate this, as a writer and word person, I went to my good friend Thesaurus.com to get a clear understanding of what is meant by a "legitimate" rape.

It turned into a rather amusing exercise, despite the grim subject matter. (Hey, sometimes we need to laugh to keep from crying and/or losing our minds.)

So, with tongue in cheek, here is what Thesaurus.com taught me:

legitimate rape =

accepted rape
accredited rape (!)
acknowledged rape
admissible rape
appropriate rape (!)
authorized rape
canonical rape (see also: Catholic Church, altar boys)
certain rape
cogent rape
consistent rape
correct rape (!)
customary rape
fair rape (!)
genuine rape (OK, I'll give him this one.)
innocent rape (!)
just rape (!)
justifiable rape (!!)
lawful rape (!!!)
licit rape
logical rape
natural rape
normal rape
official rape
proper rape (!)
reasonable rape
rightful rape (!)
sanctioned rape
sensible rape
warranted rape (!)

(Antonyms = illegal, invalid, unlawful, unwarranted!)

So would someone please give Mr. Akin a dictionary? (And a new career?)

Financial settlement in swim club racism case

Three years ago, I wrote about an incident at a Philadelphia area swim club: A group of young day care students, who had a pre-arranged and pre-paid agreement to use the pool, were subjected to hateful and racially charged comments and then were ordered to leave the club. Most of the children, if not all, were black or brown. The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission investigated the case and issued a finding that racism was indeed a factor.

Now, finally, the Valley Swim Club is paying a price for its bigotry. Last week, the U.S. Justice Department announced that it has reached a settlement agreement with the club for as much as $1.1 million.

All the money in the world cannot heal the emotional wounds that the incident inflicted on its young victims three years ago. But at least this demonstrates that racist behavior could come with a hefty price tag. Hopefully this will be somewhat of a deterrent where the human conscience fails.

Vladimir Putin and the crime of dissent

Russia may have made some steps forward towards social progress since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but it seems that President Vladimir Putin is doing everything he can to crack down on political dissent. And the new poster girls for this oppression are members of the feminist punk rock group Pussy Riot.

On August 17, three members of Pussy Riot were sentenced to two years in prison after being found guilty of "hooliganism motivated by religious hatred". The charges arose from a protest they staged in a Moscow cathedral in which they criticized Putin's policies. And the verdict came down despite international outcry.

Amnesty International has described the case as "emblematic of increased efforts by President Putin and his cronies to stifle free speech in Russia," and declared Pussy Riot to be prisoners of conscience.

"Say what you will about Pussy Riot: this may not be your kind of music. Some people find their shows offensive," said Michelle A. Ringuette, Chief of Campaigns & Programs for Amnesty International USA. "But it doesn't change the facts: Since March, these young women have been in jail and kept from their families, including small children, and they are being threatened with seven years imprisonment - all because of a peaceful protest song that lasted less than a minute."

Human Rights First called the verdict "the latest example of how Russia uses laws that are meant to combat hate crimes - extremism, incitement, and hostility or hatred statutes - to prosecute artists, independent media, and LGBT and other civil society groups."

The U.S. State Department issued the following statement: "The United States is concerned about both the verdict and the disproportionate sentences handed down by a Moscow court in the case against the members of the band Pussy Riot and the negative impact on freedom of expression in Russia. We urge Russian authorities to review this case and ensure that the right to freedom of expression is upheld."

Celebrities including Paul McCartney, Madonna, and Sting have voiced their support for Pussy Riot.

And tens of thousands of ordinary citizens of the world have signed petitions on their behalf.

But the Russian authorities apparently don't want to hear it, and are cracking down on Pussy Riot's supporters within that country. Chess champion and Russian opposition leader Garry Kasparov was beaten and arrested after he showed up at the sentencing. The police accused Kasparov of biting one of them - a charge he strongly denies. Other protesters at the sentencing were also arrested.

"We've been saying Putin is a dictator for years who doesn't care about the law. Today, he proved it," said Kasparov.

Romney-Ryan: Good news, bad news

This morning the news broke that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has chosen Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate.

Some progressives are celebrating this choice, figuring that Ryan's ultra-conservative fiscal policy will alienate a lot of voters. That's the good news.

The bad news: This choice will, at the same time, fire up the conservative base, including the Tea Party. And they vote. And they could win.

A Romney-Ryan win could devastate this nation, especially if the GOP retains control of the House.

So is this enough to motivate the disillusioned left?

Apology to the Sikh community

Yesterday, a white man with a gun opened fire in a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. He killed six people and wounded three others before police arrived and killed the shooter.

As of this writing, investigators have not yet determined a motive for the crime. However, witnesses have indicated that the shooter had a 9/11 tattoo on his arm.

So, of course, there is speculation that this may have been a "revenge" shooting, even though Sikhs are not Muslims - they are two distinctly separate religions. (Of course, even if they were Muslims, this crime would be no more justified.)

Distinctions, however, are often lost on bigots who just see the world in terms of "us" vs. "the other". Sikhs wear turbans, and some al-Qaeda members have been seen on TV wearing turbans, so that's close enough. Brown skin is brown skin, and that is enough to earn the label of "other". An exotic style of dress further fuels the fire of hatred.

This kind of ignorance and blind prejudice disgust and embarrass me. My heart goes out to the Sikh community in the wake of yesterday's tragedy. I apologize for the ignorance and intolerance that some in this country force you to endure.

-----

Update (08 Aug): It now appears that the shooter, Wade Michael Page, was not killed by police but rather died of a self-inflicted gunshot to the head after being shot in the stomach. What a coward!

NRA wants to arm violent warlords

Late last week, the United Nations failed to agree on a global arms trade treaty that would regulate the transfer of arms to conflict nations where they would violate arms embargoes or could be used in acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

The United States and Russia used their power to stall the talks, which are now on hold. A vote may occur later this year.

Meanwhile, the NRA is taking credit for blocking passage of the treaty this time around, in the name of the Second Amendment - even though the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs has clearly indicated that the treaty would not "interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession."

So apparently the NRA thinks warlords and other bad guys should have unfettered access to all the weapons they need to commit their atrocities lest a slippery slope threaten the rights of law-abiding U.S. gun nuts.

Not exactly logical. Yet they seem so proud of it.

Philly monsignor gets 3-6 years for protecting pedophile priests

Earlier today, Roman Catholic Monsignor William Lynn was sentenced to 3 to 6 years in prison for covering up clergy sex abuse of children in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Lynn's lawyers had argued instead for house arrest, claiming that a prison sentence would constitute "cruel and unusual" punishment. But what of the cruel and unusual treatment of the children whose abuse was enabled by Lynn's own actions?

According to the Associated Press, "Lynn was the first U.S. church official convicted for his handling of abuse claims in the sex scandal that's rocked the Catholic church for more than a decade."

I hope he won't be the last.

But it's not easy, especially since these kinds of cover-ups go all the way to the top - even to the pope himself.

Within the Catholic Church (like Penn State), protecting our children takes a back seat to protecting the reputation of the institution.

What would Jesus think?!

Chick-fil-A's biblical hypocrisy

Chicken sandwich chain Chick-fil-A has never tried to hide its "Christian" roots. It's usually the only store in a shopping mall food court that is closed every Sunday. And the official Chick-fil-A Corporate Purpose is "To glorify God."

But recently they've come under fire publicly for being anti-gay, to which company president and CEO Dan Cathy responded: "Well, guilty as charged."

Cathy went on to promote the "biblical definition of the family unit."

"[T]hank the Lord," he said, "we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."

But it's interesting to note that Chick-fil-A is cherry picking the biblical principles it wants to observe.

After all, bacon is on Chick-fil-A's breakfast menu, even though its consumption is explicitly prohibited:

"And the pig, because it parts the hoof and is cloven-footed but does not chew the cud, is unclean to you. You shall not eat any of their flesh, and you shall not touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
-- Leviticus 11:7-8

I do not expect a response from Chick-fil-A on that.

Barney Frank ties the knot

Yesterday, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) married his longtime partner, Jim Ready, in a ceremony officiated by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

As the New York Times points, out, Frank, who was the first sitting member of Congress to come out as gay, now becomes the first to be married to a partner of the same sex.

Frank, who has been representing Massachusetts' 4th Congressional district since 1981, will be retiring from Congress at the end of his current term.

I wish him and his new husband much happiness in this next phase of their life together.

Evangelical radio host wants church attendance mandate

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's upholding of the Affordable Care Act, evangelical radio talk show host Bryan Fisher called "brilliant" a listener's suggestion of a mandate that everyone attend church or else pay a tax.

Perhaps someone should point him to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." And that's exactly what it would be.

Of course, the religious right won't let pesky things like the Constitution get in the way of their theocratic wet dreams.

Jefferson is spinning

As I write this on the July 4th holiday, 2012, it occurs to me that Thomas Jefferson is surely spinning in his grave.

When he and the other Founding Fathers created this nation 236 years ago today, their vision was of a society in which "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

At the same time, they recognized that a true democracy requires an informed electorate. In a letter to William Charles Jarvis in 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

Instead, today our politicians are working to undermine public education and other institutions of opportunity for the poor and the middle class, and instead indoctrinate the masses via corporate funded political propaganda. That is plutocracy, not democracy.

Jefferson foresaw this possibility, and railed against it, saying:

"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."

In identifying this possibility, however, I doubt that Jefferson ever imagined that a Supreme Court decision would give free rein to "the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations" to "challenge our government to a trial of strength..." The Citizens United case enshrined as constitutional the corrupt ideal that money is power. Again, what we have here now is plutocracy, not democracy.

Jefferson is also famous for his concept of a "wall of separation between Church and State." I wonder what he would think of the fact that politicians all across the nation are trying to legislate religious "morality" in everything from contraception to marriage rights. That is theocracy, not democracy.

Two years ago, to add insult to injury, the Texas Board of Education decided to stop teaching that state's children about Jefferson's views. Apparently the ideas that led to the holiday they are celebrating today are just too radical for our children to consider.

And I don't think they even see the irony in it.

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.