CNN: Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship
This is not good. This is seriously not good. A new bill introduced in Congress this week, the Terrorist Expatriation Act, moves to strip Americans of their citizenship if they have been "found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization -- as designated by the secretary of state -- or participated in actions against the United States." This comes off the heels of the suspected attempted Times Square bomber, who received American citizenship last year. While Sen. Joe Lieberman states that this is simply updating the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect current circumstances, it really goes farther than that.
Having studied refugee issues for a couple of years now, it allows for an interesting precedent for this issue. In current U.S. refugee law, any person applying for refugee status that has provided material support to a terrorist organization will be denied refugee status and deported. However, this law does not take into account whether that material support was willing or not. There have been numerous cases where people applying for refugee status in the US were forced to provide things to terrorist organizations (usually through extortion, death threats, etc.), yet still fell under the 'material support' clause.
Another issue is the list of organizations that the United States deems terrorist. This includes the CPN (M) [Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist], who actually seated a prime minister and are a part of the constitution-writing process. Having studied Nepal for the past semester in depth [read- ad nauseam], a few things are apparent in this (in my opinion) wrongful designation. First, the Maoists have not done much worse than the government did during the People's War. Second, Maoists have not done much worse (arguably, they have done better) than all of the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America during the 1980s, which the United States supported. Yet, because they have 'communist' in their name and have engaged in armed conflict, automatically they are deemed to be terrorists.
Connecting this to the issue of the proposed bill, the issue is that this has the potential to seriously impact Americans working abroad, among other issues. One of the largest issues is that it prevents aid, development, and other workers from assisting in many legitimate areas (particularly in government), because one of the prominent and legitimate political parties is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States government. One of my largest concerns about going to Nepal is working on some project that seeks reconciliation among Nepalis, and then getting into trouble back in the US because some of the participants were Maoists. Apart from my own potential legal troubles, this completely undermines any work that could be done to facilitate transition to a stable, functioning government. And isn't that what the US always wants abroad?
Long story short, the bill as described spells out bad news. I can agree with the sentiment of the bill, to protect the nation from treasonous citizens. However, there needs to be some serious oversight as to what this bill contains, to ensure the protection of those citizens who may be victims of extortion or terror themselves, as well as those working around the world to help create a safer global environment.
Friday, May 7, 2010
Birth control for men?
CNN: Where's the male birth control pill?
CNN posted a great article today not only about the evolution of women's birth control, but also about recent debates about male birth control. While women have many options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy, the article states, men don't. Lately, researchers have been looking into developing a male pill that would theoretically reduce or shut off sperm production. It has also noted that researchers also have injections and contraceptive gels in clinical trials as well.
This is actually some fantastic news in terms of sex and gender parity. First, it will hopefully (as long as clinical trials are successful) give people another additional layer of protection against pregnancy, which is something that I am seeing ridiculously too often (especially among others of my generation). Second, it takes a lot of pressure off of the woman to be the solely responsible one for birth control. Currently, the status quo seems to be men encouraging women to go on birth control so a) they won't get pregnant; and b) men don't have to wear condoms. [1] That whole standard is really unfair to women, who are then forced to bear sole responsibility for reproduction, something that actually requires two people to make happen.
I think it would be interesting to see a whole role-reversal with birth control, showing women encouraging their men to go on the pill. It should cause some more understanding, especially understanding all of the effects that birth control has on the body. Reading the info sheet that comes with my prescription, I got a little nervous first taking the pill. One of the worst side effects I noted was ovarian cysts, which trust me, are excruciatingly painful. The fact that women are forced to put up with that is beyond ridiculous, and maybe if men were forced to take pills full of hormones, they may be a little more understanding if a woman doesn't want to use it and would rather use a condom.
Personally, I see this advancement as not only an advancement for reproductive health, I see it as an advancement for women as well. It is creating more equal responsibility in reproduction, and will hopefully shift the burden from almost entirely off of women to a shared burden for equal partners in a relationship. Although it seems small, it really will make a large step towards equality, especially in such a powerful arena.
____________________________________
[1] Which is a stupid thing anyway. Men, would you rather be slightly 'uncomfortable' during sex or would you rather have a baby? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
CNN posted a great article today not only about the evolution of women's birth control, but also about recent debates about male birth control. While women have many options to choose from when it comes to preventing pregnancy, the article states, men don't. Lately, researchers have been looking into developing a male pill that would theoretically reduce or shut off sperm production. It has also noted that researchers also have injections and contraceptive gels in clinical trials as well.
This is actually some fantastic news in terms of sex and gender parity. First, it will hopefully (as long as clinical trials are successful) give people another additional layer of protection against pregnancy, which is something that I am seeing ridiculously too often (especially among others of my generation). Second, it takes a lot of pressure off of the woman to be the solely responsible one for birth control. Currently, the status quo seems to be men encouraging women to go on birth control so a) they won't get pregnant; and b) men don't have to wear condoms. [1] That whole standard is really unfair to women, who are then forced to bear sole responsibility for reproduction, something that actually requires two people to make happen.
I think it would be interesting to see a whole role-reversal with birth control, showing women encouraging their men to go on the pill. It should cause some more understanding, especially understanding all of the effects that birth control has on the body. Reading the info sheet that comes with my prescription, I got a little nervous first taking the pill. One of the worst side effects I noted was ovarian cysts, which trust me, are excruciatingly painful. The fact that women are forced to put up with that is beyond ridiculous, and maybe if men were forced to take pills full of hormones, they may be a little more understanding if a woman doesn't want to use it and would rather use a condom.
Personally, I see this advancement as not only an advancement for reproductive health, I see it as an advancement for women as well. It is creating more equal responsibility in reproduction, and will hopefully shift the burden from almost entirely off of women to a shared burden for equal partners in a relationship. Although it seems small, it really will make a large step towards equality, especially in such a powerful arena.
____________________________________
[1] Which is a stupid thing anyway. Men, would you rather be slightly 'uncomfortable' during sex or would you rather have a baby? I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Drill baby drill? How about don't baby don't!
As there are so many news stories about this, I will be linking throughout instead of one giant link at the beginning.
This oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is getting bad. Really bad. So far (as of Monday), an estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil have leaked from BP's pipeline in the Gulf, equalling approximately 60,000 barrels. According to the CNN article, the oil slick created is about the size of Delaware (for reference, that's 2,044 square miles- land and water). When size estimates are coming in relation to states, there's a serious problem.
BP (according to the previously mentioned CNN article) has constructed a containment chamber to capture oil still leaking out of the largest of the pipeline's three leaks. Apart from the fact that there are three leaks in the line, another issue is that these leaks are at the deep-sea level: 5,000 feet below sea level. Even if the containment chamber works, it's going to be pretty hard to even get the oil out of the chamber.
The latest news as of Thursday is that some oil has now reached one of Louisiana's barrier islands. This is even worse news, because the oil spread is getting worse. The last thing that anyone wants to happen is for oil to reach the coast, but it seems as though that's what's going to happen. The containment chamber has finally reached the leak, but still, the damage has already been done. Hopefully it will be successful and capture any more oil leaking out from that spot.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we need to convince people of the real dangers of offshore drilling. Although supporters do acknowledge the possibility of oil spills, I don't think any of them have ever taken the time to actually consider the impact that an oil spill or leak, such as what is occurring right now, would actually have. Some people are so concerned over whether or not we're going to have enough oil that they forget other issues that are going on, such as the future of energy as a whole. Instead of wasting so much time worrying about oil, possibly (likely) decimiating the nation's coastal areas, we should be focused on clean energy (and no, there is no such thing as 'clean coal').
One of the greatest things in terms of energy to happen recently is the approval of a windfarm off the Massachusettes Bay which has long been opposed by the Kennedys due to the fact that it would 'ruin their view'. Now, I like the Kennedys and all, but what total bs. You're going to deny an easy source of clean, renewable energy because of your own selfish interests? How pathetic. But anyway, back to the energy. Wind energy is easily the best form of renewable energy out there. Ethanol, while cleaner than coal, actually takes more energy to produce than oil. Until that process is refined, ethanol's really not the most viable option. But wind- wind! Wind is everywhere! If you slapped some windmills up along the Hudson River, you could probably power the entire city! (Ok, in reality you could power a small section of Manhattan due to sheer population size and energy consumption- I got excited.)
One of the best things to happen to New York State in recent years was the passage of net metering laws, which allow people to put up windmills and/or solar panels on their property. Any additional energy they make can actually be sold back to energy companies. [1] In places like Oswego, people would save on energy and become more environmentally responsible at the same time. What on earth could possibly be wrong with that? [2] And yet people keep fighting it, for reasons that I don't even know, and if I did, I would be able to cut them down for being straight-up wrong.
Hopefully a few things will come out of this. First, Obama will reconsider his plans for offshore drilling (which he is doing), and hopefully nix the plan. Second, Sarah Palin will shut the hell up about 'drill baby drill'. Third, everyone else in the country will wake the hell up and realize that there could be worse things in the world than purchasing oil from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, I might note, is one of the US's biggest allies in the region- so basically we're buying from friends anyway). We could decimate an entire ecosystem, put an entire industry (fishing) out of business, and kill the livelihood of all families involved. The choice is ours.
________________________________________
[1] For some great info, check out NYPIRG's website. And no, I'm not plugging them simply because I used to work for them. They really do great stuff.
[2] Rhetorical question. Because of course nothing is wrong with that.
This oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is getting bad. Really bad. So far (as of Monday), an estimated 2.6 million gallons of oil have leaked from BP's pipeline in the Gulf, equalling approximately 60,000 barrels. According to the CNN article, the oil slick created is about the size of Delaware (for reference, that's 2,044 square miles- land and water). When size estimates are coming in relation to states, there's a serious problem.
BP (according to the previously mentioned CNN article) has constructed a containment chamber to capture oil still leaking out of the largest of the pipeline's three leaks. Apart from the fact that there are three leaks in the line, another issue is that these leaks are at the deep-sea level: 5,000 feet below sea level. Even if the containment chamber works, it's going to be pretty hard to even get the oil out of the chamber.
The latest news as of Thursday is that some oil has now reached one of Louisiana's barrier islands. This is even worse news, because the oil spread is getting worse. The last thing that anyone wants to happen is for oil to reach the coast, but it seems as though that's what's going to happen. The containment chamber has finally reached the leak, but still, the damage has already been done. Hopefully it will be successful and capture any more oil leaking out from that spot.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what we need to convince people of the real dangers of offshore drilling. Although supporters do acknowledge the possibility of oil spills, I don't think any of them have ever taken the time to actually consider the impact that an oil spill or leak, such as what is occurring right now, would actually have. Some people are so concerned over whether or not we're going to have enough oil that they forget other issues that are going on, such as the future of energy as a whole. Instead of wasting so much time worrying about oil, possibly (likely) decimiating the nation's coastal areas, we should be focused on clean energy (and no, there is no such thing as 'clean coal').
One of the greatest things in terms of energy to happen recently is the approval of a windfarm off the Massachusettes Bay which has long been opposed by the Kennedys due to the fact that it would 'ruin their view'. Now, I like the Kennedys and all, but what total bs. You're going to deny an easy source of clean, renewable energy because of your own selfish interests? How pathetic. But anyway, back to the energy. Wind energy is easily the best form of renewable energy out there. Ethanol, while cleaner than coal, actually takes more energy to produce than oil. Until that process is refined, ethanol's really not the most viable option. But wind- wind! Wind is everywhere! If you slapped some windmills up along the Hudson River, you could probably power the entire city! (Ok, in reality you could power a small section of Manhattan due to sheer population size and energy consumption- I got excited.)
One of the best things to happen to New York State in recent years was the passage of net metering laws, which allow people to put up windmills and/or solar panels on their property. Any additional energy they make can actually be sold back to energy companies. [1] In places like Oswego, people would save on energy and become more environmentally responsible at the same time. What on earth could possibly be wrong with that? [2] And yet people keep fighting it, for reasons that I don't even know, and if I did, I would be able to cut them down for being straight-up wrong.
Hopefully a few things will come out of this. First, Obama will reconsider his plans for offshore drilling (which he is doing), and hopefully nix the plan. Second, Sarah Palin will shut the hell up about 'drill baby drill'. Third, everyone else in the country will wake the hell up and realize that there could be worse things in the world than purchasing oil from the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, I might note, is one of the US's biggest allies in the region- so basically we're buying from friends anyway). We could decimate an entire ecosystem, put an entire industry (fishing) out of business, and kill the livelihood of all families involved. The choice is ours.
________________________________________
[1] For some great info, check out NYPIRG's website. And no, I'm not plugging them simply because I used to work for them. They really do great stuff.
[2] Rhetorical question. Because of course nothing is wrong with that.
Teens and drinking
CNN: Let teens drink? Parents wrestle with the question
One of the biggest debates of this age is that of the drinking age. It has been fiercely debated from both sides of the aisle, with no changes made during the entire discourse. The article focuses on the views of a few parents, some of whom have had very personal experiences regarding underage drinking.
The issue of alcohol abuse is prevalent in all age groups, not just teens/young adults. A few years ago a neighbor of mine (whose children were my age) died due to alcohol poisoning. It was a very tragic thing for the whole community, as she was very well-known and liked, but I think it does reflect the widespread issues involved in the whole debate. Yes, teens are statistically the group most likely to have alcohol-related deaths, but they certainly aren't the only ones dying. In any age group, young or old, control is the issue. If people can't control what or how much or how often they're drinking, eventually there's going to be a serious issue.
I found some of the cases in the story interesting, particularly that of Debbie Taylor, whose son Casey died of alcohol poisoning. Ms. Taylor stated that she told her son not to drink underage, but if he did, not to drive. Quite honestly, she didn't do anything wrong there (although she feels she did). To think that forbidding her younger son to drink underage was what made him not do it, I think she needs to rethink that. The fact that his older brother died of alcohol poisoning was probably the largest factor in him holding off drinking- not simply the fact that she said no.
Sadly, I feel as though that's the place where parents are putting all of their emphasis and think that just that alone will work, in particular MADD. More important than being strict with your children is being open with your children. My family, although very open about drinking at home or with relatives, were (like most parents) concerned about my brothers in particular going out and drinking while underaged. Instead of 'banning' them from drinking alcohol, they instead very strictly laid out that if they were to go out and get drunk, they should call home for a ride at any time.
While my parents certainly didn't want my brothers to go drinking in high school, they understood the realities of the situation and laid down rules from there. A child whose parents strictly say 'no alcohol' is a lot more likely to get in the car with a drunk driver (or drive themself) than a child whose parents ask them to call. Sheri Reed, another parent from the article, got it right. A recovering alcoholic herself, she knows the realities that she won't be able to prevent her children from drinking before 21. Instead, her plan seems to consist of being open with her children, which can allow for a healthy dialogue between parent and child.
One of the employees where I went to college who was close to a lot of students always made it clear to anyone that they could call her whenever if they ever needed a ride while drunk. And students actually have called her, and she shows up. A cousin of one of my college roommates always calls her whenever she's been out drinking and needs a ride. Knowing that there is someone who will come and take care of you is much better than getting drunk and making stupid decisions.
Honestly, I feel like many of these organizations against teen drinking are just ridiculous and are trying to take us back towards Prohibition (which, duh, didn't work). For every study that says having the drinking age at 21 has saved lives, another one says that hasn't. The research-based debate (and much of that is by people who don't actually understand the research) is so convoluted that it seems as though there is no one real answer. Hopefully someday soon the country will grow up and realize that drinking alcohol and teaching people how to enjoy it responsibly is not the end of the world.
And of course, all through this nothing has been mentioned of the fact that the U.S. government's actions regarding the drinking age is pretty unconstitutional, although they did manage to weasel through a loophole to do it.
One of the biggest debates of this age is that of the drinking age. It has been fiercely debated from both sides of the aisle, with no changes made during the entire discourse. The article focuses on the views of a few parents, some of whom have had very personal experiences regarding underage drinking.
The issue of alcohol abuse is prevalent in all age groups, not just teens/young adults. A few years ago a neighbor of mine (whose children were my age) died due to alcohol poisoning. It was a very tragic thing for the whole community, as she was very well-known and liked, but I think it does reflect the widespread issues involved in the whole debate. Yes, teens are statistically the group most likely to have alcohol-related deaths, but they certainly aren't the only ones dying. In any age group, young or old, control is the issue. If people can't control what or how much or how often they're drinking, eventually there's going to be a serious issue.
I found some of the cases in the story interesting, particularly that of Debbie Taylor, whose son Casey died of alcohol poisoning. Ms. Taylor stated that she told her son not to drink underage, but if he did, not to drive. Quite honestly, she didn't do anything wrong there (although she feels she did). To think that forbidding her younger son to drink underage was what made him not do it, I think she needs to rethink that. The fact that his older brother died of alcohol poisoning was probably the largest factor in him holding off drinking- not simply the fact that she said no.
Sadly, I feel as though that's the place where parents are putting all of their emphasis and think that just that alone will work, in particular MADD. More important than being strict with your children is being open with your children. My family, although very open about drinking at home or with relatives, were (like most parents) concerned about my brothers in particular going out and drinking while underaged. Instead of 'banning' them from drinking alcohol, they instead very strictly laid out that if they were to go out and get drunk, they should call home for a ride at any time.
While my parents certainly didn't want my brothers to go drinking in high school, they understood the realities of the situation and laid down rules from there. A child whose parents strictly say 'no alcohol' is a lot more likely to get in the car with a drunk driver (or drive themself) than a child whose parents ask them to call. Sheri Reed, another parent from the article, got it right. A recovering alcoholic herself, she knows the realities that she won't be able to prevent her children from drinking before 21. Instead, her plan seems to consist of being open with her children, which can allow for a healthy dialogue between parent and child.
One of the employees where I went to college who was close to a lot of students always made it clear to anyone that they could call her whenever if they ever needed a ride while drunk. And students actually have called her, and she shows up. A cousin of one of my college roommates always calls her whenever she's been out drinking and needs a ride. Knowing that there is someone who will come and take care of you is much better than getting drunk and making stupid decisions.
Honestly, I feel like many of these organizations against teen drinking are just ridiculous and are trying to take us back towards Prohibition (which, duh, didn't work). For every study that says having the drinking age at 21 has saved lives, another one says that hasn't. The research-based debate (and much of that is by people who don't actually understand the research) is so convoluted that it seems as though there is no one real answer. Hopefully someday soon the country will grow up and realize that drinking alcohol and teaching people how to enjoy it responsibly is not the end of the world.
And of course, all through this nothing has been mentioned of the fact that the U.S. government's actions regarding the drinking age is pretty unconstitutional, although they did manage to weasel through a loophole to do it.
Monday, May 3, 2010
In brief
A selection of articles, quotes, links, etc. with brief comments.
CNN: Nadya Suleman: I feel guilty every day of my life
Well, duh. Did you ever think how you were going to handle 14 children before you had in vitro fertilization to get them? I also love the fact that she doesn't have time for a full-time job (which is understandable when raising 14 kids), yet has three nannies and says she doesn't want to consider adoption or public assistance (which she's received in the past). Apparently this woman's some sort of master of quantum mechanics to figure out how to pay for all of this.
CNN: Guilt-free eating: 10 nutrition myths debunked
Basically, this just goes along the line of everything that's widely understood about food, nutrition, and eating: everything in moderation. Instead of all these stupid myths and then going about debunking them, let's just remember that whatever we eat, do it in moderation and we'll all be ok.
Are you kidding me?!? The Dalai Lama has a freakin' twitter account!
CNN: Nadya Suleman: I feel guilty every day of my life
Well, duh. Did you ever think how you were going to handle 14 children before you had in vitro fertilization to get them? I also love the fact that she doesn't have time for a full-time job (which is understandable when raising 14 kids), yet has three nannies and says she doesn't want to consider adoption or public assistance (which she's received in the past). Apparently this woman's some sort of master of quantum mechanics to figure out how to pay for all of this.
CNN: Guilt-free eating: 10 nutrition myths debunked
Basically, this just goes along the line of everything that's widely understood about food, nutrition, and eating: everything in moderation. Instead of all these stupid myths and then going about debunking them, let's just remember that whatever we eat, do it in moderation and we'll all be ok.
Are you kidding me?!? The Dalai Lama has a freakin' twitter account!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)