The 'War on Women'

You know, I usually consider myself a reasonable fellow averse to inflamatory terms like 'War on Women.' But I am absolutely flabbergasted at the efforts of GOP institutions across the country to systematically rob women of the rights they are entitled to; the CHOICE of how they want to manage their reproductive health and have families ( see Kansas and Arizona enabling doctors to mislead female patients to prevent an abortion, requiring a woman to be vaginally penetrated by a probe in order to get an abortion, requiring women to carry an non-viable fetus to term), the right to proper healthcare from a trained OB/GYN at a price they can afford to pay(see GOP institutions systematically stripping funding for low-cost women's health services), and the right to earn the same pay that a man does for the same work that he does (see Wisconsin repealing a bill which prohibits discrimination in pay based on gender). I can see nothing else to call this other than a widespread attack on women's rights. Calling this a 'war on women' is not mere disingenuous namecalling. It's a remarkably accurate representation of the attitudes which Republican Party organisations across our land are expressing towards women.

Let me put this in a way that us danglers can understand:

Gentlemen, do you want some old white dude in your state or national capital telling the woman you have sex with what she must do with her body? Do you want a government or employer taking measures to deliberately restrict her ability to have safe, enjoyable sex with you? Do you want your future girlfriends, daughters, and wives to be unable to contribute to their families and their communities in the way that they could if their reproductive organs were located on the outside?

You know what, this is America, and there is a place in our society for people who want to raise their families in a way that teaches that abortion is never permitted, that a woman's duty is to be more of a homemaker than a breadwinner, and that a woman should have only procreative sex within the context of marriage. But because this is America, each woman gets to decide FOR HERSELF whether she wishes to follow this manner of sexual conduct or whether to teach it to her sons and daughters. You're allowed to call a woman who enjoys recreational sex a slut, because this is America (just like I can call you a misogynistic pig who's probably never made a woman's nether-bits tingle in his whole goddamned life). You're allowed to condemn a woman who has lots of sex with many men a whore, because this is America. You're allowed to tell her that God wants her to save herself for marriage, because this is America. But you can only express those things in your speech and how you raise your family. You aren't allowed to impose it on anyone else.

The legal tradition of this country says that a fetus is not a life, that a person should be entitled to pay and employment commensurate with their work, education, and utility as an employee, not based on their gender, colour, creed, or with whom they want to have mature, adult relations. The GOP must quit trying to circumvent the spirit of our nation's legal tradition with these under-handed jabs at the rights our society decided women were entitled to decades ago.

What grounds do we have to complain that Egypt and Tunisia have elected Islamist governments when this is what we do in our own country?

A Legalised Affront to Medical Ethics

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/29/kansas-abortion-bill-governor-sam-brownback_n_1307076.html

Should it pass, Gov. Brownback is set to sign a piece of legislation that, among other things, shields doctors from malpractise suits when they withhold medical information from a pregnant woman in order to prevent an abortion. I will ignore the other absurd provisions of this bill (requiring mothers to hear the fetal heartbeat before getting an abortion, removing tax exemptions for medical providers because they provide abortions, etc.) and the fact that Gov. Brownback has publicly stated that he intends to sign the bill despite not having read it. Nay, I shall focus my attention on something in which I see no reasonable controversy.

Doctors take an oath in order to practise medicine; an oath which obliges them to act in the interests of their patient, avoid actions which would harm their patient, ensure that medical decisions are made at the patient's informed discretion whenever possible, and to give each patient the same high quality of care. This bill is a legalised desecration of the ethical responsibilities to which doctors are bound.

First, and most simply, this legislation permits doctors to restrict their patient's capacity to make informed decisions about their health. It is, in this country, a woman's right to decide whether or not to go through nine months of discomfort, to put herself in a situation which could jeopardise her health, and to either have her abdomen cut open or pass a massive, unwieldy object out of her vagina. It is her decision alone. By withholding information which would be relevant to the patient making an informed decision about whether or not to carry on her pregnancy, the doctor takes this decision into his or her own hands. This is, in itself, a grave violation of medical ethics.

By making this decision, the doctor violates his or her obligation to protect the interests of the patient as the patient sees fit. The patient could very well decide that the risks which a pregnancy poses to her health are too great and that she no longer feels comfortable continuing the pregnancy. One can see that this would be a heart-wrenching decision for the mother, but it is hers alone to make. Our courts have ruled that the father of a fetus does not have standing in preventing its termination. If the fetus' own flesh and blood does not have the authority to prevent abortion, what reason do we have to believe that a doctor should have this right?

This bill also permits doctors to violate their obligation to provide care in a fair and just manner by allowing them to treat women with a lower standard of autonomy. When becoming pregnant, a woman gives up a great deal in order to preserve her health and the health of her fetus. But she makes the choices to give those things up of her own volition, and she in no way surrenders her medical autonomy.

One may argue that the doctor could be justified in withholding information in order to protect the fetus. This argument, however, does not have logical or legal traction. When treating a pregnant woman, the patient is the mother. That is who the law recognises as an autonomous person, and that is who doctor is obligated to serve. The doctor's obligations to the fetus derive from his or her obligations to the mother's wishes that her fetus be healthy. But the doctor has no legal authority to compel the woman to come to OB/GYN appointments, to abstain from tobacco, drugs, and alcohol, or to take care of her body. If the doctor does not have the right to violate the patient's autonomy for the sake of fetal health in this manner, there is no conceivable reason why he or she should have the right to violate the patient's autonomy by mandate these actions on behalf of the fetus, there is no conceivable legal reason why he or she should have the right to do so in regards to whether or not the fetus is carried to term.

Shame on the Kansas legislature for even considering such an abominable affront to medical ethics, and shame on Gov. Brownback for blindly throwing his support behind it.

We learn more every day about Mr. Santorum

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/02/rick_santorum_s_partial_birth_abortion_lie_did_obama_target_the_disabled_.html

*edit: for some reason I can't get the link text to turn a visible colour. Just highlight the space above and you'll see it.
Take a looksie.

Mr. Santorum has, for years, claimed based on unreliable figures that almost all late-term abortions are terminating healthy, normal pregnancies. Now, he does a complete 180 in order to perform the mental gymnastics linking the healthcare law's requirement of free coverage of prenatal testing to culling the disabled.

Mr. Santorum's dishonesty is not what concerns me the most here. What concerns me the most is that this man, who by some cosmic joke is the front-runner for the Republican nomination, is making it such that it would be hard for a Democrat to give him the respect of a handshake. How can this man expect to meet any cooperation from Democrats in Congress if he were to come into office? How can this man expect to shake President Obama's hand and engage him as a reasoned political interlocutor when debate season comes around?

Most of all, when this is how he energises his supporters, how can he expect them take defeat (assuming God grants us that good fortune) as orderly, civilised, and reasonable participants in the political process?

Senators McCain and Obama fought a rough race for President. But in the face of a substantial contingent of his party which was xenophobic, reactionary, and downright batty (think that Grandma who said to McCain that Obama was an Arab, which we all know is a synonym for Muslim), Mr. McCain ensured that his campaign would not besmirch our nation's democratic process by putting itself on a pedestal of anger and venom from which it could not step down.

Mr. Santorum has managed to put itself on such a pedestal many stories high, and it's not even general election season yet.

A Modest Proposal for the Protection of our Nation's Greatest Persons

The Virginia Legislature recently passed a bill which requires women to have an ultrasound exam and look upon the 'person' inside them before they are permitted to terminate their pregnancy. This exam is done by penetrating the woman vaginally with an ultrasound probe. While there is no conceivable medical reason why the patient would need an object inserted into her vagina, Governor Bob McDonnell is expected to sign the bill so that a woman can have “more information” before making what is a very important decision.

I applaud the Commonwealth's efforts to stem the murder of these 'persons' using means which can arguably be termed 'rape.' Indeed, I call upon the Commonwealth and the Federal Government to take action against the legislation which enables the slaughter which takes place all to commonly in this country.

The legislation I speak of, of course, is Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the US Code, which codifies the abominable practise of Chapter 7 bankruptcy; the 'liquidation' of a corporate person.

Year after year, Congress and the Supreme Court fail to find the moral courage to take on this silent campaign of murder. But there is nothing we can do about that. We can, however, follow the lead of brave Virginia by placing arbitrary, useless, and invasive medical procedures in front of those who would seek to end a corporate life.

I call upon the Commonwealth of Virginia, along with the Federal and all state governments to adopt the following set of rules;

• Corporate officials who seek to initiate Chapter 7 bankruptcy procedures must submit to a rectal exam by a doctor

• The exam must be performed as said corporate officials are looking into the eyes of the shareholders and employees of said corporation so they may have all the information they need to make their decision

• If it is found that the bankruptcy substantially resulted from the management choices of a venture capital firm, the executives of said firm must undergo a rectal examination in the same manner

I'm sure you have grown tired of women getting abortion after abortion as a matter of convenience, so they can continue their promiscuous and stretchmark-free lifestyles. Similarly, I have had enough of corporate executives coasting away on their golden parachutes as they leave their charges behind to be torn apart by the bloodthirsty wolves of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the United States Treasury, Federal Bankruptcy courts, and other such fiends. I can stand the slaughter no more!

Some corporation-butcher apologists might plead, “But what if the bankruptcy was the result of a criminal act, such as fraud or theft?” To these people, I say that for every hapless CEO who has a criminal like Bernie Maddoff savage his company's finances, there are at least 5 others whose financial security infrastructures and accounting were so loose and skimpy, they were basically asking for it.

Because of the constitutional prohibition on the retroactive application of law, we will not be able to force those who have facilitated Chapter 7 bankruptcy to face justice for their crimes against the Almighty Dollar. If we could, though, I would call upon the Surgeon General to administer an anal probe to Mitt Romney for every corporation which Bain Capital drove into the ground on his watch.

Ladies and gentlemen, I dream of an America with corporate boardrooms full of tightened sphincters and where they make their decisions carefully. I dream of an America where those companies who will invest their assets with any sharp-looking start-up owner or innovator, who lack proper financial protection, and who say 'it was just a one-quarter-stand,' are made to face the consequences of their decision by feeling the icy-cold touch of a lubricated probe between their legs.

A Case Against Unilateral Tactical Nuclear Weapons Withdrawal in Europe

I was looking today at my daily digest from the Global Security Newswire (a habit I picked up in EPIIC this year), and saw a piece titled “Experts: NATO Should Limit Role of Nukes, Remove U.S. Warheads," I've been closely researching the US-Russia strategic relationship over the past decade-plus for many months (again, brought on by EPIIC). After the passage of the New START (the latest treaty imposing lower caps on the number of long-range nuclear weapons and delivery platforms each side can have), the Obama Administration has sought an agreement with Russia reducing each nation’s tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) arsenal.

The "group of experts and former government officials" argue in a letter to NATO's Secretary General that the weapons serve no purpose in confronting the challenges facing the Alliance today (such as global extremism, terrorism, and cyber threats) and take resources that could be diverted towards presumably more productive causes. Thus, they say, they should be eliminated in order to send "a strong signal that the Alliance is serious about creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons" and to seize an "important opportunity to strengthen the Alliance and resolve differences over NATO’s current nuclear posture that will otherwise undermine Alliance unity in the years to come." I believe that the signers of the letter fail to appreciate the significance that the American TNW arsenal in Europe has in NATO and the US' relationship with Russia and the NATO member states which once lay on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain.

The US has an estimated 200 B61 nuclear gravity bombs (bombs dropped on their targets from aircraft) dispersed in bases in Germany, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, and Belgium. In contrast, Russia has an estimated 2000+ TNWs. Russia views their TNW arsenal as a necessary hedge against vast NATO conventional superiority. Russia sees the expansion of NATO into nearby countries, and its overwhelming power, as its single greatest external security threat (according to their current Military Doctrine, released in February 2010). When considering that there is also a distinct lack of interest in the Russian government to reduce the tactical arsenal, one can see that the chances of a TNW agreement are rather slim.

If the weapons are not withdrawn under some sort of bilateral action, then presumably they would be withdrawn by unilateral action, which seems to be what the signers of the letter are suggesting. I believe such a course of action would be very unwise.

I firstly take issue with the assertion that the American TNW arsenal in Europe is not useable as a deterrent force. A quick look at the Wikipedia article on the B61 reveals that it has an adjustable yield, with a setting as low as .3 kilotons. EPIIC folks will recall Professor Daryl Press’ presentations on low-yield nuclear weapons, in which he showed that sub-kiloton nuclear warheads can be deployed in such a manner that they thoroughly and reliably destroy a target while causing very little fallout damage (he showed us diagrams which indicated that a .5 kiloton weapon deployed on an airburst against a North Korean nuclear site would have a miniscule fallout radius and would cause collateral damage in the low hundreds, as opposed to a high-yield weapon which would kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, across the Korean Peninsula and Japan). For perspective, Richard Muller’s book, Physics for Future Presidents, indicates that the explosive yield of the impact and jet fuel burning of the aircraft that struck the Twin Towers on September 11 was (if I recall correctly) around .72 kilotons. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, in contrast, had an explosive yield of 13-18 kilotons. Thus, we can see that sub-kiloton warheads have the potential to reliably eviscerate a relatively localised area (we’re talking measurements of city blocks), but would not cause the catastrophic damage over a wide area that a larger nuclear weapon would. Such a weapon would be feasibly useable against a target in a nuclear-armed Iran or a Russian ground force, meaning that they have value as a deterrent.

Secondly, one should note that while there are many signatures from leaders of Western European NATO members on the letter, there is a conspicuous absence of support from Eastern and Central European members. Indeed, a report from the Arms Control Association and the British American Security Information Council indicates that “some allies located near Russia believe that U.S. nonstrategic forces in Europe are essential to prevent nuclear coercion by Moscow and indeed that modernized U.S./NATO forces are essential for restoring a sense of balance in the face of Russia’s nuclear renewal.” For example, the report indicates that Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia see the presence of TNWs as a critical hedge against Russian aggression which provides NATO intermediary options between conventional armed action and a globally suicidal strategic nuclear shooting war. While there is widespread support for the elimination of TNWs from Europe, even among Eastern and Central European members, such support is for the elimination of all TNWs from Europe, including Russia’s. Thus, a unilateral American withdrawal seems off the table for former Communist Bloc NATO members. A failure to respect their security needs could result their intransigence on other American-led efforts within NATO, such as operations in Afghanistan, and the reform of the Alliance which Robert Gates called for in his farewell speech as Secretary of Defence, which I believe is a critical part of making America’s military grand strategy fiscally viable in the coming years.

Finally, a unilateral American withdrawal of TNWs would represent a forfeiture of one of America’s few viable bargaining chips in discussions with Russia on mutual TNW reductions with no guarantee of a return. While the Obama Administration’s progress on improving US-Russian nuclear strategic affairs has put both nations, and the rest of the world, on the path to greater nuclear security, the exchange of bargaining chips between the US and Russia has left the US with relatively few assets left to bargain with. After the reductions of New START, it is highly unlikely that the Obama Administration will seek further reductions in the strategic arsenal, making strategic weapons reductions an unviable bargaining asset. The US could theoretically agree to scale back on the conventional strategic warfighting assets which give it thorough conventional dominance over Russia, such as its planned Prompt Global Strike system and its retrofitting of four Ohio class nuclear ballistic missile submarines to carry large numbers of cruise missiles. However, these assets serve a valuable purpose in enabling the US to strike targets, whether they be conventional military installations, terrorist bases, or locations where high-value terrorists are located, with high precision and speed. Thus, it would be strategically unwise, and politically impossible, for the Obama Administration to make such a concession. The US could also theoretically halt the expansion of NATO and the Western/Euro-Atlantic geopolitical sphere out of respect for Russia’s strategic interests, but that would be both politically unviable in the US and would forfeit a valuable foreign policy tool. In my previously mentioned research, I hypothesised that the American open-door policy on NATO expansion has allowed the US to integrate nations like Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, the Baltic States, and other former satellites of the Soviet Union into the Euro-Atlantic geopolitical sphere, hastening their ascension as members of the European political and economic community, a community which is consistently friendly, or at least benevolently neutral, towards American economic, political, and military interests. The responsible spread of NATO and the Euro-Atlantic geopolitical sphere is simply too valuable an asset to bargain with. In terms of chips that the US has to bargain with which can meet Russian concessions to create a strategic equilibrium (which are likely the only chips Russia will accept), the only remaining asset is America’s TNW arsenal. To give up this chip for nothing would not only leave the US less able to deter threats against Europe and shake many NATO members’ confidence in the credibility of America’s security guarantees, but it would leave us with almost no leverage with which to convince Russia to reduce and increase transparency regarding their TNW arsenal, a task which is extraordinarily difficult even with the leverage we have.

The letter sent to the NATO Secretary General does not specify that a TNW withdrawal be unilateral, but merely that it take place. Perhaps the letter represents an effort to muster an official consensus within NATO that a TNW reduction on its side would be acceptable, ensuring that a promise to Russia to withdraw its TNW arsenal would be one that it could deliver on. If this is the case, then I applaud and endorse the effort. However, from the tone of the letter and of the political movement within Europe to eliminate the American TNW arsenal, it seems most likely that the group is calling for a unilateral reduction.

I believe that the time for the Obama Administration to make gestures of goodwill without the promise of a return from Russia came at the beginning of its tenure, when the reset effort was new and Russia had most of the leverage. That time, however, has now passed. If the Obama Administration is serious about further progress on US-Russia strategic affairs, including TNW reductions, it should approach Russia not as a new potential friend with an exchange of goodwill gestures, but as a potential business partner ready to drive a hard bargain. We can’t drive a hard bargain without any bargaining chips.