Way to go, Washington!

A small victory for the LGBT community in Washington state: The LA Times reports that Governor Chris Gregoire signed a law recognizing domestic partnerships between gay and lesian couples. Under the legislation, registered same-sex couples have "hospital visitation rights, the ability to authorize autopsies and organ donations, and inheritance rights when there is no will."

Now if only the state recognized ALL legal partnerships this way and dropped the ideologically and religiously loaded word "marriage" from the books... Baby steps, baby steps...

Commending the Hokies

I think one of the reasons the Virginia Tech Massacre is so terrifying is that it happened on a well-known and respected university campus, one of the last places Americans typically fear for their lives. After reading article after article about the shootings on Monday evening, I found myself looking around from my cubicle in the library and wondering how I would react if a madman with a gun barged in with an intent to kill.

It is so sad and horrifying to think that we can't even feel safe at an institution of higher learning, where diverse opinions and peoples are supposed to be respected and nurtured. In the past few days, my thoughts have of course been with the victims and their families, but I've also wondered how the university plans to continue with the semester. With final exams and commencement rapidly approaching, the work of an entire semester (or rather, an entire college career) seems irreversibly damaged to such a disgusting extreme... I don't know how my school would even think of reacting to such an event.

Which is why I was so incredibly impressed with Virginia Tech's response to the tragedy, in terms of the completion of the semester and evaluating grades in the face of such a crisis. The university's website indicates:

Students will have the option of requesting, on a course by course basis, that the semester grade be based on the faculty evaluation of:

- Materials which have already been submitted for grade prior to April 16, or

- The already submitted material plus any other assigned material which the student wishes to submit for grade, or

- The material that would have been submitted for grade upon regular completion of the course.

Implementation of this procedure will be accomplished in a manner consistent with university academic policy. Existing policies related to other academic issues remain in effect. Flexibility and attention to the needs of the students is a high priority. The deans fully support the implementation and will be supported by the Office of the Provost.

In support of their emotional well-being, it is recommended that students continue to participate in class activities as part of the Virginia Tech community. We encourage students to continue to take advantage of all learning opportunities. Students will be permitted to defer a decision on which option to exercise until the last day of classes. The Course Withdrawal Policy is also extended until the last day of classes. The options for completing course work allow for students to remove themselves from the campus for all or part of the remainder of the semester without penalty to their course completion, or academic eligibility.

The university has decided that those students whose lives were taken will be awarded posthumously the academic degree for which they were enrolled effective Spring 2007. These degrees will be awarded during the college, graduate school, or departmental commencement exercises, where such degrees are usually awarded.

I absolutely commend the administrators at Virginia Tech for responding in such a sensitive, flexible manner to a truly incomprehensible and seemingly impossible challenge. I am also incredibly touched that the university decided to award degrees to the students whose lives were taken on Monday. In the face of disaster, I think Virginia Tech is showing true excellence and poise.

The Ten Commandments of the Ethical Atheist

While I certainly embrace being called an "atheist" (for, in fact, that is precisely what I am), I am often disgruntled with the condescending attitude my more spirited non-secular peers adopt in discussions about morality. "Where do you think your morals come from?" "If we were all atheists there would only be chaos." "Religion provides humanity with a necessary moral code." Although I do not believe that humans have an innate and absolute moral code from which they can determine what is right and wrong in virtually any complex ethical dilemma, I do believe that all rational humans (read: those without mental illnesses) are equipped with a definitive sense of morality on the major issues.

The order of "Thou shalt not kill" from the Ten Commandments of the Judeo-Christian faiths was not revolutionary at its canonization; Murderous crimes were punished with vigor by civilizations predating Moses, and the evolution of human societies and social norms suggest that moral codes dealing with such fundamental issues of order in free societies are here to stay - regardless of whether or not the majority continues to cling to religious codes. Yet despite these self-evident truths about humanity, atheists are often branded as amoral and unconditionally self-interested by the religious right (and my really annoying, evangelical neighbor from spring 2006). For this reason, I like to frame my atheism in the context of secular humanism.

Today, I came across a nice set of "Commandments" for ethical non-believers, straight from the Ethical Atheist Foundation. Click on each commandment to find a more detailed explanation of each moral tenet. And so, let it be known:

1. Thou shalt not believe all thou art told.

2. Thou shalt seek knowledge and truth constantly.

3. Thou shalt educate thy fellow man in the Laws of Science.

4. Thou shalt NOT forget the atrocities committed in the name of god.

5. Thou shalt leave valuable contributions for future generations.

6. Thou shalt live in peace with thy fellow man.

7. Thou shalt live this one life thou hast to its fullest.

8. Thou shalt follow a Personal Code of Ethics.

9. Thou shalt maintain a strict separation between Church and State.

10. Thou shalt support those who follow these commandments.

A Lesson from the Tragedy at Virginia Tech

Government-issued photo ID. (X). Ninety-day residency in desired state of purchase. (X). Basic criminal background check. (X).

And just like that, 32 innocent lives are lost.

Armed with two handguns that were legally and easily purchased from licensed vendors, 23-year-old Cho Seung-Hui stormed his alma mater in Blacksburg, Virginia and brutally attacked students and professors in the deadliest shooting in U.S. history. Today and for countless days to come we must mourn the deaths of those who periled at the hands of such a merciless killer. Yet we must also live with the pungent scent of shame that continues to linger over our nation’s outrageous “right to bear arms.”

Yesterday’s horrific and tragic massacre at Virginia Tech is yet another agonizing reminder that Second Amendment should have no place in our twenty-first century society.

When the Framers embarked on their noble quest to endow the American people with a set of inalienable rights, they had no intention of guaranteeing to civilians the unrestricted or even consciously regulated right to own handguns, rifles, or semiautomatic weapons (all of which have been used with sickening frequency to attack innocents around the country in recent years).

At the time the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was a purely practical consideration to ensure the nascent government would have a ready and able militia if the mighty Brits ever tried to reclaim their rogue colonies. The wording of the NRA’s favorite sentence of all time is crystal clear: “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

Virtually no part of the Constitution explicitly indicates or even subtly implies that any other reason for bearing arms is a sound interpretation of the Second Amendment. Not self-defense. Not game hunting for leisure. Not to “even the playing field” with “bad guys” who “don’t play by the rules.” There is absolutely no reason that anyone outside of the military or law enforcement – those modern day militia-men who keep the free State secure – should be able to own a firearm.

In the aftermath of such a devastating utilization of legally-obtained and registered guns (purchased by a man who seemed “cordial” and “clean-cut” to the responsible store clerk), it is mind-numbing to listen to otherwise-rational Americans cite our nation’s so-called anger problems as the force behind gun violence. Even some parents of Columbine shooting victims are blaming school shootings on an angry American society that tolerates violence.

We do not need to wake Sigmund Freud from his grave to analyze the psychological complexities of Americans and determine why so many people resort to gun violence. People resort to gun violence because they have access to guns.

There is no doubt that the number of American deaths by firearms would be greatly reduced if we outlawed the legal sale of guns in our country. If people do not have sophisticated, efficient, mechanical means to murder, they resort to more primitive and ineffective methods when callously tempted to harm others. And such methods are simply not as successful as guns at bringing innocent victims to death. Most of the developed, democratized world acknowledges the crucial and obvious link between guns and violence, and they enjoy drastically lower homicide rates (specifically, gun deaths) per year because of their much stricter policies on firearms.

Of course, we can never totally prevent renegade individuals from breaking gun control laws and obtaining firearms illegally. Not even the United Kingdom (which outlaws guns completely) was able to prevent a total of 46 gun-homicides last year, compared to America’s 10,105 firearm murders in 2005.

But if we can pass legislation that outlaws the sale of guns and establishes some systematic plan to recall those already in American homes, we can show true respect to the victims at Virginia Tech by reducing the risk of history repeating itself, again. The sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, students, and teachers who were savagely slaughtered by legally-obtained firearms this week should serve as somber reminders that America’s permissive stance on guns is poisonous. Only serious reevaluation of the Second Amendment and new steps to outlaw guns in our country are appropriate cures for America’s perverted gun culture (of which I guarantee the Framers would not approve).

The Way of the Gigolo

In what seems to be a never-ending quest for information on McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky and Van Orden v. Perry, I stumbled upon a gem of a quote on none other than THE DASH - that fun little guy I know and love so well!

“The dash, the gigolo of the punctuation world, has its uses and its dangers. It intrigues the writer with its drama and its convenient ambiguity. Like a gigolo, however, its effectiveness is determined by the user's savoir faire and restraint. If you overuse the dash in legal writing, you run the risk of looking desperate.”

...and yes, I promise that there is more to come from El Kermie (Oh, I mean Oh Kermie) like, yesterday.

Turtle Power!

Everybody please drop everything and get excited... there's a new TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES movie coming out! Cowabungaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Shattering the Glass or Wiping it Down?: Issues in Public Opinion Research on Female Presidential Candidates in the Age of Hillary Clinton

At the height of her short-lived bid for the American presidency in 1988, Congresswoman Patricia Schroeder famously told the press: “When people ask me why I am running as a woman, I always answer, ‘What choice do I have?’” Although her ironic response successfully called attention to the inherent gender-bias associated with such a question, Schroeder was ultimately unable to shake public skepticism at the notion of a female front-runner in the Democratic primary. When the excited buzz surrounding her candidacy failed to produce significant funds to support a competitive campaign, Schroeder’s quest for a seat in the Oval Office ended abruptly with a tearful press conference that was endlessly mocked by critics of the day (Tickner, 1992). Twenty years later, a new woman has emerged from the political landscape with an eye on capturing the highest office in the land. But unlike Schroeder, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is generating both the buzz and the bucks needed to mount a bold campaign for the presidency. As analysts continue to place Clinton’s campaign finances at the top of the list for the 2008 frontrunners, stereotypes of female domesticity, submission, and apathy seem dusty vestiges of great grand-pappy’s political dogma. Yet despite the unprecedented optimism with which Clinton-enthusiasts regard her gendered presidential campaign, a vast and complex body of public opinion research suggests that Hillary’s attempted return to the White House may not be as free from the throes of gender discrimination as the civic-minded, ambitious women of our generation would happily believe. An analysis of the evolution of gender bias in public opinion studies and the attribution of leadership qualities to female political candidates will show that the American public’s readiness to elect a female president remains an elusive question – with Hillary Clinton’s upcoming run in the Democratic primary the nearest thing to an answer on the horizon.

Social scientists have long been fascinated with American attitudes toward female politicians, with inquiry into the public’s willingness to vote for a woman president fundamental in their historic investigations. Although significant numbers of female representatives in senatorial and gubernatorial offices were a dream until the early 1990s, questions probing the willingness of citizens to elect a woman president first appeared in national opinion surveys as early as 1937 (Carpini & Fuchs, 1993). In a survey that would become the first in a long series of investigations into national gender biases, the Gallup Organization asked respondents whether they would “vote for a woman for president if she were qualified in every other respect” (1937). Indeed, the blatantly discriminatory language of this question reflected the cynical public sentiment at the time, with 64% of respondents saying they would not vote for a woman. In hindsight public opinion scholars have been deeply critical of the leading language of this first question, noting that “the use of the word ‘other’ clearly suggests to the respondent that simply being a woman makes one unqualified for the job” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Future researchers were more careful in framing questions about women candidates, and the word “other” was dropped from survey lexicon completely in 1939 (Falk & Kenski, 2006).

Yet despite long running researcher-recognition of problems in framing questions about women presidential candidates, modern opinion surveys persist in using loaded language to ask respondents if they would vote for a female president. Recent surveys from the most respected polling agencies in the United States continue to ask questions such as: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be a woman, would you vote for that person?” or “If your party nominated a woman for president, would you vote for her if she were qualified for the job?” (USA Today & Gallup Poll, 2007; Newsweek & Princeton Survey Research Associates, 2006). Although such wording is by and large an improvement on the 1937 prototype, the underlying assumption in each of these examples is that being a woman is an inherent disadvantage to any individual seeking office, “clearly prim[ing] questions about a woman’s qualifications” (Falk & Kenski, 2006, p. 414). Of course, our country has never had a female president or an official female nominee for the office, so pollsters may make a case for the necessity of such wording; but ultimately this persistence of biased language seems indicative of enduring social norms regarding women leaders.

This is not to say, however, that public sentiment has lain stagnate on the issue of willingness to vote for a woman president. In her acclaimed analysis of Americans’ changing responses to the question, Myra Ferree found that public opinion moved significantly in favor of a woman president between 1958 and 1972, with the most noticeable change occurring between 1969 and 1972 (Feree, 1974, p. 392):

Change over time in percentage of respondents willing to vote for a female presidential candidate
Year of Survey	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
1958	55%	39%
1959	58	38
1963	56	40
1967	57	38
1969	55	38
1972	70	25

In that final period, the number of respondents willing to vote for a woman candidate for president jumped 15% (from a slim majority of 55% to almost two-thirds of the sample population), and the number of those unreceptive to a female president declined at a comparable rate. As may be logically inferred, “the increase in positive attitudes toward a woman for president coincides with the impact of the feminist movement… beginning in the 1970s” (Mandel, 2006, p.5). Since the late 1990s (and the many monumental advances women have made into the public sphere), positive response rates to the woman-candidate question have remained steady at above 90% of most samples.

Indeed, these numbers paint a promising picture for a candidate like Clinton – with deep running campaign funds and a prominent name among the American people to boot – but not all public opinion research paints U.S. voters as so accepting of the prospect of a woman’s leadership. A significant number of social scientists believe that the social desirability effect (whereby individuals feel the need to conform to perceived expectations of interviewers) may be accountable for the large percentage of survey respondents who say they are willing to vote for a female presidential candidate (Falk & Kenski, 2006; Streb et al., 2006). Although this effect is extremely difficult to examine or manipulate in a research setting, those who believe that social desirability has an impact on modern survey respondents wary of being labeled as “sexist” would agree that the effect may explain significantly lower positive responses to survey questions regarding the nation’s overall readiness for a woman president. Carole Kennedy writes: “While most Americans report that they personally would be willing to vote for a woman president, other polls show that a majority of Americans still believe that the country is not ready to elect a woman president” (Kennedy, 2001). Kennedy’s findings reflect those in a February 2007 poll conducted by the Gallup Organization, in which only 60% of respondents felt that America is actually ready for a woman president (CNN & Opinion Research Corporation, 2006). Such a narrow majority of individuals who believe the country is ready to elect a woman to the Oval Office suggests the existence of very real reservations among American voters about the capability of a woman to serve as president.

Researchers have attempted to determine how voters evaluate this presidential capability by examining respondents’ attribution of leadership traits to both male and female candidates; yet perhaps unsurprisingly, the studies have produced unclear results for interpreting the elective power of a woman like Hillary Clinton in today’s political climate. In a 1993 experiment, Alexander and Andersen found that:

…gender role beliefs may predispose people to a more or less favorable view of women politicians, and in particular that those who profess an egalitarian ideology see female candidates in a positive light both in traditional “female” terms and in their possession of more “masculine” attributes (Alexander & Andersen, 1993, p. 541).

But while such a finding is promising for female presidential aspirants counting on votes from so-called egalitarian ideologues, the option of a less favorable view of women politicians remains, with the unfavorable set of biases presumably originating from voters in the conservative heartland of America that has often proved important to presidential hopefuls.

Ultimately, the things that influence individuals to attribute leadership characteristics to political candidates – regardless of gender – are dependent upon multiple factors outside of mere gender stereotypes. Kenski and Falk believe that political partisanship is the most important indicator of voter preference for a female or male presidential candidate, when information regarding their respective policy backgrounds and party identification is readily available (Kenski & Falk, 2006). Yet these scientists also find that “gender, education, and ideology [of respondents] are strong predictors of presidential gender preference,” though it remains unclear how each of these traits may influence an individual’s liking of female (or male) politicians (Kenski & Falk, 2004, p. 58). In short, the effect of voter gender, party identification, ideology, and other demographic characteristics on voter preference for female (or male) political candidates is unknown.

So although we can be confident that the American public is more receptive to a female president now than in 1937, the critical mass of public opinion research on political gender biases has left much to be desired in terms of definitive answers regarding the nation’s true readiness to elect a woman president. But in the absence of any serious female candidates in the United States’ long history of presidential elections, this shortage of conclusive data is not entirely unexpected. Indeed, steadily increasing numbers of female senatorial and gubernatorial representatives indicate that the public is both ready and willing to elect women leaders (in spite of that cursed uterus early Gallup Pollsters once considered damning for a politician). The question remains, however, whether these “uterus votes” can be extended to the Oval Office, the virtual no-woman’s land of presidential power and influence. As the first-ever female candidate to possess substantial financial resources, national visibility, and respected political credentials all at once, Hillary Clinton will doubtless be a crucial figure in public opinion research for her upcoming leading role in the 2008 presidential elections – when we will finally have a chance to determine if America is willing to vote for a woman president.