Not Your Average Product

I go back and forth about this issue: is the health care law currently in the Supreme Court constitutional or not?

The answer, as I see it, boils down to an argument not being made to the justices. If access to health care is an inalienable human right, like that of free speech or property, then the law is within Congress's authority to pass. Otherwise, it's difficult to say if it's within legality, but I'm leaning towards not.

First let me be clear that I do believe health care is a human right and therefore national health care is a good idea. However, I also believe in the final say of the United States Constitution, so I'm at odds with myself.

Second, I strongly feel the court should not be even hearing this case. This is the only aspect of the proceedings I am sure about. A grievance cannot be taken to court without something to grieve, specially so far tax laws. The legislative mandate on trial would force a tax penalty on anyone who does not purchase or have health insurance. Until someone is hit with that tax there is nothing to petition against, and therefore the court should not hear the case until 2014 when the tax penalty first goes into effect. The justices claim this tax penalty is not a tax law and therefore gives them jurisdiction over it now, and I don't understand the argument.

However, that point is almost irrelevant since the law's constitutionality won't change between now and when the first tax penalty is levied. So the real question is, where does Congress get the right to force people to buy health insurance? The tax penalty is easy: Congress has the right to "lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay for the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1). However, since this tax's purpose is to penalize those without health insurance, the right to tax is not on trial here. Congress is using its taxation power to regulate health care. Is that within its rights?

Health regulation is not explicitly mentioned in article 1 of the Constitution, so Congress invoked the vague "commerce clause" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3) which allows it to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." Originally seeming to refer to money exchanges, very quickly commerce received a wide interpretation from early courts, starting with Gibbons v. Ogden where Chief Justice Marshall argued that commerce is not just trade and traffic but "intercourse" between two states. The only aspect of commerce that is untouchable, then, is something that goes on solely within the borders of one state without affecting the others in any way. This clause with Chief Justice Marshall's influential decision allowed Congress much regulatory power, including that over highways, the Internet, and even the air - the Clean Air Act was argued to be interstate commerce because car pollution travels from state to state, therefore making it a federal issue.

Health care is certainly something that takes place in more than one state, and, as the law's defenders argue, if everyone in the United States uses it, then they would have the power to regulate it under the commerce clause. However, does Congress have the right to force a person to buy it? Is this kind of regulation within its power? As Scalia wryly said on the second day of oral arguments, could Congress then force people to eat broccoli, since food is also an essential item everyone uses in every state?

(Before I go on, I would like to point out on a brief aside that taxpayers essentially are forced to buy specific food thanks to sweeping subsidies for corn, and because of these subsidies nearly everyone is force to eat corn because corn products have worked their way into almost everything we eat - although it is indeed possible, while difficult thanks to these subsidies, to live a corn-free existence. However, besides this being an imperfect analogy, I don't like comparing law making I dislike - corn subsidies - to legislation I do like - health reform. Just because something is legally possible doesn't make it desirable. The opposite is true, too.)

So it all boils down to this: is health care a product or not? If health care is a product then a mandate to purchase it would be like forcing someone to buy a brand name for the sake of public good, whatever the excuse for that might be - broccoli because it "promotes general welfare" by forcing people to eat healthier, I suppose.

But if we can acknowledge that health care is more than a product then the law may just be constitutional. I've argued before that essential services such as health care, education, food, and basic services (such as sewage) do not and should not function in the free market the same way as other products and when they are treated like products people suffer. I won't get into this research now - that's a whole other discussion.

Perhaps we can think of health care as belonging to the rights of "life" part of "life, liberty, and property" that are guaranteed in the 5th and 14th amendments. If so, then the individual mandate to purchase it can be construed to be in violation of the "liberty" and "property" parts by threatening financial penalties.

In conclusion, this law's constitutionality is a tough call. There are a lot of legal issues at play here having to do with a lot of case law history I can't wait to read more of. For now, all I can hope for is what's best for both people's health and for the balance of power as outlined in the Constitution.

Hypothetical Trayvon Martin

Recently information has come out about George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed Trayvon Martin about a month ago. It’s been said that when he arrived at the police station he was bloodied and he claims this is because Martin assaulted him in the street. Other details have also been circulating, like Martin’s suspension from school because his backpack hadtraces of marijuana, that are so irrelevant to the issue at hand that the only explanation I can think for their release is an asinine attempt to discredit Martin’s character. Likewise is Geraldo Rivera’s opinion that wearing a hoodedsweatshirt is asking for it, sounding strikingly familiar to the laughable argument that rape is the woman’s fault, not the perpetrator – logic that, taken to its extreme, excuses mad gunmen from killing anyone in a hooded sweatshirt or raping any woman wearing a skirt.

 

As far as the allegations that Martin assaulted Zimmerman and prompted him to fire in self-defense, I just can’t see how they could be true. Why would the information come out after the federal investigation, after hundreds of thousands of marches all across the country, after the Miami Heat took a team photo in their hooded sweatshirts in solidarity, and especially after President Obama told the world that if he had a son, he would look likeTrayvon Martin? Obama’s personal speech about Martin is particularly surprising. As I’ve mentioned before, Obama has steered clear of racial rhetoric, but in this case he used a racial connection to make a strong point. Only to be made a fool later because of Zimmerman’s police report coming in a month late? Obama is too calculating for this to be true. He would never have made that personal speech for the Trayvon Martin some want us to believe he was.

However, let’s play the “what if” game for a moment.

1.     What if Martin really had assaulted Zimmerman in the streets? According to the Stand Your Ground law that allowed Zimmerman to fire his gun at someone acting “suspicious,” Martin would have been entirely within his rights. Records of the cell phone conversation he had while Zimmerman was stalking him (recordings that discredit Zimmerman’s previous accounts of the incident) show that he was being followed and made to feel unsafe by the man’s suspicious activity. Therefore, if Martin had decided to attack this stalker – which I highly doubt he did – he would have been acting in self-defense under this law. It doesn’t make the hypothetical assault excusable, but it does make it legal, and it provides a valuable example of how Stand Your Ground laws are not beneficial.

2.     What if Martin really was a delinquent drug seller and user with a violent history? Does that excuse Zimmerman’s shadowing him and killing him? Of course not. Zimmerman was not a detective or a police investigator. He was not trailing Martin because he saw someone with a criminal past; it was because he saw a black teenager wearing a hoodie. Even if he had known of this hypothetical delinquency, why does he have the right to shoot him and kill him without due process of law, without a trial of his peers? Basically, under Stand Your Ground laws gun owners can execute anyone for the crime of being “suspicious,” which is a grievous violation of the Constitution. Even terrible hypothetical Trayvon Martin deserves due process of law before being sentenced to death, especially if his only crime is appearing like a potential criminal.

3.     What if everything were true, that Martin wastaking a break from all the drug dealing and bus driver assaulting and puppy torturing in order to beat up some guy who happened to be following him down the street? Does that make Stand Your Ground laws okay? No way José. If Zimmerman really killed this horrible not-Trayvon-Martin-hypothetical-person in self-defense as he now has decided to claim, that would not be an example of the Stand Your Ground Law in action. It seems to me that the main goal of whoever has been portraying Martin so maliciously is to take focus away from the injustice of Stand Your Ground laws. 2^nd Amendment activists must be terrified that people have realized that George Zimmerman are allowed to assassinate the other Trayvon Martin, the non-hypothetical Trayvon Martin, with Stand Your Ground’s legal protection. Right now Trayvon Martin the symbol represents everything wrong with Stand Your Ground, a disaster for the NRA. But now we know about these abusive laws, and even if Travon Martin really was hypothetical Trayvon Martin we know what these laws have the capacity to do to real Trayvon Martins.

In other news, Berkeley trumpeter Khalil Shaheed passed away on Friday, March 23. He was one of my first teachers at summer jazz camp, a beautiful player and a more beautiful person. He will be sorely missed.

Also, a bit of housekeeping for you email subscribers out there: sometimes it seems that my emails end up in the spam folder. Ugh, it’s a real drag. Mark one of them not-spam and the problem should be solved, so you’ll get to read every bit of pompous opinionating I’ve got.

And finally, the paperback for A Torn Page, the literary anthology where my short story “Cliché Central” appears, is now available on Amazon.com. It’s cheap – grab a copy!

Expressive

Today I have three art-related pieces of news to share with you all, dear readers:

1) The paperback for A Torn Page, the literary anthology that includes my short story "Cliché Central," is now available in paperback in addition to its digital form released a couple days ago. It's inexpensive and educational, so go out and make our economy proud!

2) I have done something long overdue: rerecorded the vocals and remixed my song "JB's Unfulfilling Life," which you can listen to below in its new, glorious form. It was about time I let my friend Greg Englar, who rocks out on the guitar at the end of the piece, get the day in the sun he deserves. You can listen to it below by clicking on the little triangle. I also revamped "Fenomen" for the umpteenth time, which you can find by clicking here.

JB's Unfulfilling Life (ft. Greg Englar)

3) A couple days ago I finally exercised the lens I just had repaired. No waterfalls this time, but I took advantage of the nice weather we've been having here in Portland and found a view of the city to experiment with (emphasis on the word "experiment"). I hope you enjoy the results below.

And there we have it, three modes of expression, all in one blog post.  It's all too much to handle. I'm going to take a nap.

A little light painting makes this tree look swallowed up by radiation.

Without my glasses on, everything becomes a blur.

The trees zoom by. Whoosh!

The Portland city skyline. Can't you see it?

Light painting in the park. See the tree trunk on the right?

Portland through my eyes. After a few minutes of taking pictures like this my transition lenses became too dark and I had to go home.

"Cliché Central" Officially Published

Hey folks, I'm here with some good news instead of my usual political ramblings and collections of waterfall photos:

My short story "Cliché Central," one of my prides and joys, is now available in published form! It is story #10 in a literature anthology called The Torn Page and is currently available as an e-book.

In addition, one of the anthology's editors interviewed me about writing and such things. The transcript of said interview can be found by clicking here. I'm proud of it, even if I contradicted myself about writing in third person. Check it out!

The Great Race

The recent and horrible killing of Trayvon Martin has brought an undercurrent of racial tensions, previously blatantly referenced only by the left lamenting racism from the right and from the extreme racist factions on the far right (such as the preacher introducing Rick Santorum at a recent rally), into broad daylight. The Obama administration, in fact, despite being the subject of coded racial language in the political sphere, has made an effort to downplay the racial difference as much as possible, as Robert De Niro just found out.

Yet the racial consciousness inside the country was aching to break free. Recently the Justice Department blocked a Texas law that would have required voters to present valid photo ID because the state could not satisfactorily argue that minority voters would not be disenfranchised by the law, while there is no "evidence of significant in-person voter impersonation not already addressed by the state’s existing laws." It seems the only reason for Texas to push for the law would be racist, but not in plainly spoken terms. In Georgia the creator of the famous anti-Obama bumper sticker that reads "Don't Re-Nig 2012," Paula Smith, has come out and defended it, somehow claiming the N-word is not racist. Why? "Because I don’t use it. I have kids here around me that are black kids. I call them my own kids. I’ve helped black families…to guide them in the right direction. Paintball is one of these things. We like to laugh and have a good time. That’s our way of life." I've read this over and over and still can't understand it. The only conclusion I can draw is that we have an example of one more instance of de facto racism that is being covered up as best as possible.

Now we have the death of a young man that cannot be explained without acknowledging racism, even with Paula Smith's bizarre dictionary. And talk about racism may enter the political sphere:

Recently a study was released analyzing the effect the president's race has on public approval of his policies. It's a fascinating study and worth the four and a half minutes of listening; you can listen to it below. The study told the provisions of a policy to two groups, telling one it was Barack Obama's policy and the other that it was Bill Clinton's. The study found that test subjects who had a more liberal view towards race tended to favor the Obama policy and those who were more conservative favored Clinton's, even though they were the same. The study concludes that the race of a president does indeed play some role in his public approval.

I'm going to take the same road as the NPR piece and not jump to the wide-reaching conclusion that Obama's lack of popularity is due to racism - although I kind of imply it by juxtaposing this study with Trayvon Martin's murder. I'm a little skeptical that the study's methods provide conclusive evidence as to the role race plays in approval rating because Bill Clinton is not just a white version of Barack Obama, or visa versa, so it's hard to isolate race as the only difference that mattered to the test subjects. Still, I think it opens up a valuable and interesting question that should be looked into. It would be beneficial to know what role race has in our subconscious political attitudes. And I think it's dangerous to avoid serious thought and discussion as a country about race any longer.

Not What I Meant

I think some Republican lawmakers have been reading my blog, namely my most recent post. In it I looked at an Ohio counter to the rampant and sexist anti-abortion and women's health laws being passed in various states. The counter was to provide equally sexist and damaging regulations, but this time on men's health in order to, it seems, get men to understand what discrimination feels like. I concluded that this approach to fighting back is misguided and destructive.

In the current debate about the Violence Against Women Act's upcoming possibility for renewal some social conservatives have taken to the same kind of argument to justify voting against the legislation's newest form. As Janice Shaw Crouse says, speaking for the Concerned Women for America organization, the legislation "creates an ideology that all men are guilty and all women are victims." It would be against our country's best interests, she is essentially arguing, for us to pass anti-woman or anti-man legislation. Another high-profile conservative woman, Phyllis Schlafly, said the legislation advocates for "divorce, breakup of marriage and hatred of men."

Sounds good enough. That's a lot like what I wrote the other day, arguing against Democrat-supported legislation aimed at men to retaliate, an eye for an eye, for the existing sexist legislation oppressing women. Of course the flip side of that argument is that I believe conservatives shouldn't pass oppressive legislation to begin with, but the main concern of my post was about the direction of the left-wing response.

So, what is the legislation that victimizes women and makes men out to be evil-doers? And here's the rub, the reason I am so upset with how Republicans have twisted the logic they've ripped from my blog:

The legislation would continue existing grant programs to local law enforcement and battered women shelters, but would expand efforts to reach Indian tribes and rural areas. It would increase the availability of free legal assistance to victims of domestic violence, extend the definition of violence against women to include stalking, and provide training for civil and criminal court personnel to deal with families with a history of violence. It would also allow more battered illegal immigrants to claim temporary visas, and would include same-sex couples in programs for domestic violence.

Most upsetting to Republican lawmakers, like Senator Jeff Sessions who said the above "are matters put on that bill that almost seem to invite opposition," are probably the last two, expanding coverage of the law to include homosexuals and non-citizens. It's amazing that such a blatant acceptance and support of gays would not come up as the most divisive issue. No, instead it is sexism: the conservative women's groups feel that expanding the definition of domestic violence persecutes men and victimizes women.

It seems like a common Republican tactic to demonize Democrats and liberals. When conservatives are unwilling to compromise on anything, ranging from taxes to reproductive rights, it's actually because liberals are intolerant of other ideologies, despite social conservatives exhibiting far more dangerous, uncompromising, and outspoken intolerance - is there a liberal equivalent to Rush Limbaugh, who said "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus—living fossils—so we will never forget what these people stood for," or his dozens of other hateful prominent cohorts? When Democrats and liberals champion themselves on being supportive of the LGBTQ community, social conservatives claim this support is actually evidence of their intolerance for religious freedom of expression, and their discrimination against non-straight sexual orientations is excused by the perceived discrimination of their religion and ideology from the left. And now, with Santorum's unfortunate recent successes and the Democrats increasingly being seen as the party that supports women's rights, conservatives fire back with trumped up charges of sexism towards men.

They're creating two sides to issues with more than just two sides. Just because Republicans favor anti-woman legislation doesn't mean their Democratic opposition is anti-man. Just because conservatives vilify the poor doesn't mean that liberals do the same for the rich. Just because Republicans advocate religious rights doesn't mean that Democrats are godless, as Santorum seems to think about Obama and most Christians in America. And just because Republicans are intolerant of so many demographics - gays, poor people, non-Christians, foreigners and immigrants, liberals, and so on - does not mean that Democrats and liberals have to, by default, oppose the "opposites" of those demographics. But the right continues to frame these issues as two dimensional only so as to place the left firmly on the opposing side, effectively creating the image of two parties of "no" when there is really only one.

Granted, liberals and Democrats are not free of their individual prejudices, being humans, and, like everyone else, address individual and unique bigotry. But a general mass of slightly like-minded people, the left is not as opposed to things as the right would like us all to believe. In fact, just by calling them "left" and "right" I partake in the same misconceiving - I have been separating conservatives from Republicans and liberals from Democrats as often as convenient in order to weakly alleviate the limited understanding of politics right-wing strategists want us to have.

So that is my objection to the application of my previous logic: conservatives are using it to create a false impression of liberal sexism towards men. The changes to the Violence Against Women Act - namely to expand coverage to meet the needs of more demographics of women and to include stalking as a definition of violence against women - are not measures that will change any of the "ideology" that Crouse is worried about, nor will it lead to the "divorce" Schlafly fears. But because the legislation is obviously designed to protect women, it can be portrayed as discriminating against men, precisely what I argued against in my previous post.

My argument is being applied in a situation it doesn't belong for the purpose of spreading misconceptions. When I urged Democrats not to be reverse-sexist in their response to sexist legislation as in the Ohio example I gave, I did not mean that all Democratic legislation pertaining to women's health is dangerous and equally oppressive. Do not confuse something that occasionally happens for something that is inevitable. The Violence Against Women Act will (and has already) protect many people and benefit America, and it would be a terrible shame to lose it to falsified accusations of sexism.

So, social conservatives who are using my logic: that was an insulting reading of my last post. Despicable.

An Eye For An Eye?

It's a common response from mischievous children when asked why they hit a classmate: "Because he hit me first!" An Eye For An Eye is not only one of the oldest written laws in human history, it makes a lot of intuitive sense. It's fair, it's punishment for wrongdoing, and it follows a natural reaction to being wronged.

And humans never seem to grow out of it.

Example:

A bill has been introduced in the Ohio state senate as a counterbalance to the strict and sexist anti-abortion laws by Senator Nina Turner. The bill would regulate men's reproductive health by requiring men looking to obtain erectile dysfunction, drugs such as Viagra, to first "see a sex therapist, receive a cardiac stress test and get a notarized affidavit signed by a sexual partner affirming impotency."

While there is a very thin front of concern for male reproductive health, the biggest purpose of the legislation seems to be a strike back at legislators pushing for the same kinds of regulations on women's reproductive health, especially the supporters of the controversial "Heartbeat Bill" that would make abortion illegal as soon as the fetus has a detectable heartbeat (about 6 weeks after conception at the earliest). If men are going to impose egregious regulations on women's health, Senator Turner's supporters reason, they might change their minds if men's health faces similarly bizarre regulations. The Occupy Wall Street movement has already voiced support for Senator Turner for this very reason.

And these regulations really are bizarre, and probably harmful. Impotence might be caused by medical or psychological reasons, and a sex therapist trying to resolve a medical problem may only augment the existing problem. Not to mention that many sex therapists are sex-negative, as Dan Savage points out repeatedly on his show and column, and could add new problems to a sexual relationship. And the requirement for an affidavit signed by a partner seems to have no purpose beyond humiliating men much the way women are under some abortion laws, and therefore forcing men to confront their own unfairness in passing those abortion laws.

This bill makes intuitive sense - and only intuitive sense. Give men a taste of their sexist medicine. If they could only see just how draconian and humiliating their "pro life" legislation is to women, then perhaps they might change their minds. But that's the funny thing about the mischievous children who are asked why they hit a classmate: without the teacher, most often neither he nor the kid initiated the fight would realize that hitting is wrong. The bullied's lesson on why violence is bad - "now you know how it feels" mentality - only increases tension and anger. Both children suffer, and both children get in trouble.

If Senator Turner and her supporters understand how wrong the laws oppressing women are, they should know better than to try and mimic them. The answer to oppressive women's health laws is not oppressive men's health laws. Then Ohio would become a land of oppressed men and women, where instead legislators should be fighting against oppression. Senator Turner's legislation is just as dangerous as the legislation she is retaliating against.

If this is the strategy we use to fight for women's rights, then neither side, like the two children, will win.

The Trouble With Compromise

Could it be that compromise sometimes isn't a cornerstone of how Democracy functions and instead a bane to society?

I was dismayed when I read an article recapping one of the Republican debates a few weeks back when the audience, a vocal force this election season, booed candidates whose record showed a willingness to compromise with the opposition (sadly I can't find the article now). But this anti-compromise sentiment does seem to be the mood of the day. Liberals are upset at Obama for compromising on issues such as, well, just about anything, and Republicans are upset with a compromise on, well, just about anything, it seems. Thankfully we saw an exception recently with the jobs bill, but everyone knows that bipartisanship is a special case nowadays.

Why is it that we value unwavering conviction so highly, especially in today's difficult economic times when unified action could solve major problems? Well, sometimes it seems that compromise actually hurts.

Take the pro-bullying law in Michigan originally intended to be an anti-bullying law. When it was just a bill the law had the intention of preventing children from being intimidated by their peers, a practice that has been known to lead to depression and sometimes violence and suicide. Then the compromise was made: the right added an amendment to the bill that would allow for bullying to continue if in the name of "a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction." So instead of preventing bullying as originally intended, the bill actually gives legal immunity to any Christians who bully gays in the name of the bible. Previous supporters of the legislation spoke out against its mutated form but to no avail, and now the law is in the books in Michigan.

On the other side of the social political spectrum, we see what happened with the infamous ultra-sound law that just passed in Virginia. Now, before I go on I have to clear something up I wrote about this legislation in an earlier post: the form of this bill that was signed into law allows women seeking an abortion to opt for a traditional ultrasound instead of the vaginal probe technique. On the surface it seems like a good compromise and commendable job by the left in the Virginia legislature to prevent a harmful right-wing law from being too powerful. However, on second glance it becomes apparent that the law now does nothing but burn cash. The reason for the invasive vaginal probe in the first place was to obtain accurate ultrasound images where a normal ultrasound can't in the early stages of pregnancy, when most abortions take place. So in practice the law will mandate a number of costly ultrasounds that will provide no new information. The law's sexist purpose has been defeated, creating a new mandate for doctors to waste money in its place. As Eric Zorn writes in the Chicago Tribune:

The objection here is that when a doctor and a patient agree to such a test, it's a decision made for medical reasons in a clinical context.  When  lawmakers and executive officers compel a doctor to perform such a test for the acknowledged purpose of hoping to dissuade the woman from going through the with abortion, it's not a decision and not a medical procedure, but a political act.  And when that test will reveal absolutely nothing of value, it becomes a charade.

So now all that's left is the "symbolic" expense of the pro-some-life movement, leaving no one happy and everyone worse off. No wonder people are fed up with compromise.

A Little Solace

If you've been reading my blog lately you probably know that I'm upset with Christians these days. I'm upset at the crazy right-wing Rick Santorum followers for being violently hateful and the moderates and liberals for being apparently unwilling to speak out against it.

Well, perhaps the far right fringe groups of American Christianity has finally gone too far and gotten some of the non-far-right-fringe Christians in an organization called Faithful America to organize a message condemning Tony Perkins' hate speech towards homosexuals and asking why MSNBC continues to provide him with a platform to spread his hate to viewers nationwide. You can see the 30-second ad, which MSNBC refused to air for obvious reasons, below:



It's nice to know there are Christians out there fighting against homophobia. I'm sure there are faith-based reasons to believe in equal rights for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, and if those arguments could only gain publicity then we could avoid the very dangerous prospect of the hateful far right from deciding what "true" Christianity is for Americans, as Rick Santorum is trying to do.

Meanwhile, at Faithful America's site you can read about efforts of not-crazy Christians to combat the right's overwhelming hate furor. You can even sign a petition, their favorite mode of action, if you want.

For me, on the other hand, it's time for bed.

Legislatable Sexism and Control

Happy day-after-International Women's Day. It seems that many men spent this day celebrating impressive gains in taking away women's control over their own bodies.

Recently Virginia governor Bob McDonnell signed a bill into law that will mandate the violation of women who might want an abortion, as I mentioned in an earlier post. I suppose the pro life movement believes it's beneficial to enforce the violation and pseudo-rape of women, since they apparently can't make good decisions for themselves; as Governor McDonnell says, the law "can help the mother make a fully informed decision." Violation for information - is this really the best plan pro-lifers have to educate the population about abortion? No, this effort is meant to cure a symptom, not a cause. The law will not prevent conditions that make the abortion choice occur, only making the choice more difficult to make.

There has to be an agenda other than preventing abortions. Perhaps pro life legislators are frustrated that they can't outlaw abortions outright, or perhaps they really do think these outrageous mandates will save a life or two.

In Arizona the pro life movement went farther and the goal should be clear as day. The state senate has passed a bill allowing doctors to withhold prenatal issues from patients, also sparing them from potential lawsuits when such issues arise. Senator Nancy Barto, the sponsor of the bill, claims that the "wrongful birth" bill is meant to prevent doctors from being held liable for birth defects that they have no control over. But the main issue, we see again, is abortion prevention. The lawsuits the bill aims to prevent are those that "can arise if physicians don’t inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion." This time, it seems a lack of information is the pro life movement's answer.

Even more disturbing, this bill allows doctors to withhold information regarding potential "life threatening issues such as an ectopic pregnancy which often requires an abortion to save the life of the mother." Therefore women may be left in the dark about "a life threatening condition until they die on the emergency room table" completely legally, denied care that could have saved her life. In other words, women (and fetuses too) will die if this bill passes, all in the name of saving the unborn.

How has the pro life movement come to the point where it ranks one life (that of the fetus) above another (that of the mother)? Who are they to decide that a woman's life isn't as important as her baby-to-be's?

Again, I don't think the main aim here is to prevent abortions. The main aim is to prevent women from having any control over her own sexuality, reproductive process, and body. This Arizona bill is blatantly sexist, marginalizing the life of women and mothers to the point of declaring them expendable. It argues that our society would be better if women died from a lack of information than if they were able to make informed choices. On the Virginia side, society would improve if we violate, bully, and humiliate women towards making the choice legislators want them to make - Governor McDonnell didn't sign any legislation increasing funding for women's health education in his desire to help women "make a fully informed decision." It's as if he believes information is useful for women if it's used to intimidate them, but not if it's empowering. All in all, it seems that the pro life movement is partly after saving the lives of fetuses and partly after helping men to take ownership of every aspect of womanhood until women have nothing left for themselves.

Right now I am deeply ashamed to be a man.

Now I must mention the possibility that the Arizona bill is the product of ignorance - perhaps the far right doesn't know how dangerous it really is. I say this because I doubt Senator Nancy Barto, the female sponsor of the bill, is trying to pass legislation that is sexist towards women. However, the Arizona Senate is comprised of 12 women compared to 20 men (this link has all their email addresses if you want to write and complain!), so it's certainly possible (I think probable) that at least a few of its supporters voted for it because of its sexist agenda. Perhaps it's not so overt, but it's there.

Normally the Republican party has been much better about keeping its sexist (classist and racist, too) in code. That's part of the reason that Rush Limbaugh's latest rant has received so much attention compared with the many other inflammatory remarks he's made - the debate about birth control coverage in health care plans has revolved around its relationship to religious freedom rather than government-subsidized sex life. It's too easy to draw sexist implications from the latter argument because of how male size enhancers are also covered but not controversial. Either way, the decision to take birth control is seen as too important for a woman to make by herself, or, conversely, if birth control is made available then of course women might take it and possibly explore their sexuality. Ever since birth control first hit the market it was seen as a way for women to gain an excess of sexual freedom, while men felt uncomfortable that they no longer controlled women's sexuality. Obviously this sentiment is still playing out today. Did Limbaugh's epithets show the right's true colors? Maybe. Regardless, the right seems to effectively be using code language, such as pro life (better: pro some life) and religious freedom (better: freedom to discriminate), in order to marginalize women.

So I hope you all enjoyed International Women's Day yesterday. Hopefully next year it won't be at such a bleak moment for women's rights.

P.S. In lighthearted news: my camera lens is fixed! I'll be able to take zoomed out pictures again! Oh, the joy!

Facebook Photo Page

For those of you with Facebook accounts, I have an announcement: I just opened an artist page where I will post new photos and make announcements about my projects and events. It should be a fun experiment. Enjoy!

http://www.facebook.com/photographys.p.arrow

Above Multnomah Falls

A few days ago I took advantage of the recent snow and climbed up into the mountains of the Columbia River Gorge in search of snow-covered winter wonderland. There I came face to face with the fact that I am really not used to the existence of snow, being a California boy, and I'm confused by its properties. For example, it is white. Therefore photographing rivers in a snowy forest requires completely different camera settings than I expected. Plus it didn't help that my favorite lens is in the shop and I only have my zoom lens to rely on. But I still came away with some gems. Let's see how they turned out!

Multnomah Falls comes from the sky. Courtney and I came with an out of town friend a couple foggy days before my hike to the top. I tried using her Canon camera. It was a very unpleasant experience.

A small cascade tumbles along Multnomah Creek

A tree watches over the creek.

The river tumbles over some fallen trees as it makes its way down the mountain

Weisendanger Falls, about 50ft tall, is watched by both the living and the dead foliage. The flow of water over the edge resembles that of furrowed brows, a strange and elegant rock formation.

Ferns stand guard at a side creek along Historic Highway 30

Looking out at the Washington side of the Columbia River Gorge, you can see the effects of a recent snowfall and the heavy cloud cover of winter.

A panther lurks in the river just above Multnomah Falls.

Take the plunge!

Courtney points something out to her friends on Benson Bridge overlooking Mulnomah Falls.

A shapely seasonal cascade along Historic Highway 30

Multnomah Creek

Upper Multnomah Falls, plus winter.

The panther returns! This time with 3-seconds exposure.

The forest above the falls

Drawing snowy lines in the water

Weisendanger Falls, with a graceful 1/8 second exposure, my favorite shutter speed yet for this beauty.

Belated List

Seeing that it's March, I feel like it's time I put out my list of top 10 CDs for 2011. Because I was in Turkey for almost half of 2011 I believe that I have earned the right to be 2 months late with this. Seeing as today is March 4th, it's time to move ahead with whatever is making me feel stuck. happy March Forth, everyone!

Speaking of which, I have a new publication to announce: my short story Cliché Central has been accepted for publication in The Torn Page, a fiction anthology affiliated with the literature magazine Empirical. It should come out later this month, and when it is I'll drop off a link on the blog with more information about it. Keep your ears peeled!

And now, for top music:

1) Tune-Yards: "Who Kill" - It's hard to choose a number one for this year. There were a lot of good CDs but none that really jump out as really amazing. But I felt that this strange indie rock record had some special innovations, a good arc throughout all the songs, and a couple of single-power songs.

2) Bill Callahan: "Apocalypse" - This neo-folk CD is filled with poetry sung by a deep and earthy voice. The songs are all very intricate, combining aspects of folk music with more modern techniques to create a challenging hybrid.

3) TV on the Radio: "Nine Types of Light" - If there were only a single song that stood out this CD would be number 1. My favorite active band combined the new clean sound they've adopted with popularity with their gritty vocal harmonies that made their best records great.

4) SBTRKT: "SBTRKT" - Half of this record is the best music that came out all year. "Never Never" is a song that challenges the way one hears rhythms. With a masterful command of double time, this DJ combined with an adequate lineup of singers to create some valuable dub pop compositions.

5) Foster The People: "Torches" - Most everyone has heard "Pumped Up Kicks," so you know how the rest of the record sounds: just imagine re-writes of that viral song with varying degrees of catchiness.

6) The Roots: "Undun" - Rap with classic verse-chorus form and well-written hooks with an interesting storyline told backwards.

7) Donny McCaslin: "Perpetual Motion" - Holy smokes, a jazz CD! There's a lot of energy on this tenor player's compositions that leave proper room for improvisation, form, and funk.

8) Paul Simon: "So Beautiful or So What" - Paul Simon's lyrics are always great, and here he produces musical compositions to with them that I think I should describe as "nifty." He takes a risk or two as well, starting with a fun Christmas song and ending with the most powerful and positive message. The record wouldn't work any other way.

9) Tom Harrel: "The Time of the Sun" - It was a hard choice between this and "Ninety Miles" featuring my former teacher Stefon Harris. But this recording is more cohesive, features more interesting compositions, and displays a more connected band dynamic from one of the warmest trumpet players out there.

10) Tinariwen: "Tassili" - Even though I much prefer this African group's CD "Aman Iman: Water is Life," "Tassili" offers some interesting surprises, including guest appearances by a brass quartet and the two singers from TV on the Radio. Also, it was recorded in the African desert, an interesting touch that doesn't come through the speakers very well.

And now: here's a sneak peek at what snowy beauties you can expect from posts to come:

Freedom To Discriminate

Remember when Herman Cain published an article claiming that Jesus was the original capitalist and concluding that government should abandon the poor?

Remember how Rick Perry claimed that homosexuals should not be allowed to openly serve in the military because it infringes on religious freedoms?

Remember the Michigan anti-bullying law that religious conservatives amended, allowing bullying to continue if the bullies have religious reasons? Remember how they achieved religious exception for bullying gays?

Remember when Rick Santorum told a gay man that his relationship has no intrinsic value to society? Remember how he said women in combat could compromise missions? Remember when he said that millions of Americans, including President Obama, aren't really Christians because there's no such thing as a liberal Christian?

Remember how the Virginia state legislature passed legislation requiring women who want an abortion to look at an ultrasound of the fetus first, an ultrasound only obtainable in most cases by probing women's vaginas, in order to preserve the "sanctity of life"? In other words, legalized violation similar to rape?

Remember how some pharmacists refuse to sell the morning after pill to rape victims because they're so pro-life? And others who won't sell birth control at all?

Remember when legislature was proposed in Georgia that would make it illegal to have a miscarriage?

Remember when Prop 8 passed in California in 2008, still in the courts today and still denying rights to same sex couples?

Attention social conservatives:

The religious right is not fighting for the right to free religious practice. It is fighting for the right to discriminate against other in the name of religious practice. The right to establish and practice religion as specified in the first amendment does not give the right to persecute others with religious freedom as the excuse. It does not give you the right to do whatever you want simply because you are religious.