In 2011, the federal government increased investment in research on gays and lesbians to inform federal policy. Evidence from such research studies over the course of decades has been used to successfully overturn "Don't Ask Don't Tell". Similar research studies had been conducted on gay and lesbian committed relationships in order to provide evidence that the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) should be repealed.
Since 1990 the U.S. Census has counted same sex couples, although the wording and structure of the questions have led to flawed results that could not be compared over time. In future censuses, the federal government will ask clearer, more specific questions about sexual orientation and gender identity to gather more information about LGBT populations. While counting LGBT people is very difficult simply because many gays and lesbians do not feel comfortable coming out, and some transgender people identify as heterosexual, gay, or lesbian first, one must assume that the federal government is collecting this data in good faith, to disprove some peoples' beliefs that "there are no such people" in their communities.
In 2011, the first federally funded study of at-risk and homeless LGBTQ children and youth began, in order to develop best practices for supporting LGBTQ foster children. The study will assess current available services, and collect demographics of LGBTQ children and youth currently in foster care.
In 2013, under the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services will include questions about sexual orientation and gender identity on health surveys to improve the quality of health services for LGBT people. The federal government also wants to determine if lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people are more or less at risk for certain diseases or disorders than heterosexual people, and what might cause that increased or lowered risk.
There are pros and cons to the government collecting information from LGBT people. While the positives--informing lawmakers, the President, the Supreme Court, as well as state governments, and those who interact on a daily basis with LGBT people so that they do not cause undue harm and help LGBT people become equal citizens of the United States--seem obvious, it is possible that future leaders of the United States can use Census data to monitor LGBT people for whatever reason they choose. For now, we must hope that the federal government will use this information in good faith.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Friday, December 23, 2011
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2012
The National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA 2012) was passed by the House and Senate this month. Most of what the Act proposes will help our veterans and do positive things for the military, veterans, and United States defense and peacekeeping operations. Certain parts of NDAA 2012 has caused an uproar across a wide swath of Americans, from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to Ron Paul. It is possible, however, that certain parties want to see this bill fail for reasons other than what they say.
The majority of people enraged about NDAA 2012 have focused on "Sections 1031: Indefinite Detention" and "1032: Requirement for Military Custody".
According to the NDAA text of Section 1031, the President will have the authority to allow the military to detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." This would apply to US citizens and other legal residents of the United States as well as any other human being.
According to the NDAA text of Section 1032, all persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1031, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to serve their time in military prisons run by the US Armed Forces. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."
Sections 1031 and 1032 could potentially put many innocent people at risk for persecution, incarceration, and deportation.
NDAA 2012 has redefined sexual assault and rape, and sets out to make punishments for the perpetrators more strict. Marriage will no longer be a shield that perpetrators can use for abusing their spouses. While this is a positive aspect to NDAA 2012 that should not go overlooked, NDAA 2012 provides no abortion services for women who were sexually assaulted or raped. Military women have less access than civilian women in the United States to abortion services, but are the most at risk for rape.
What no one has mentioned about NDAA 2012, which is buried in the myriad of sections, definitions, and amendments, is that NDAA 2012 sets out to repeal the Sodomy Article--article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Repeal of the Sodomy Article will allow gay and lesbian soldiers to have consensual sexual intimacy in the same way that heterosexual soldiers do. Repeal of the Sodomy Article also will help people in the Armed Forces report sexual assault or rape in a more accurate way that will not discriminate against gay or lesbian soldiers. As the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has already taken place, repeal of the Sodomy Article would drive the final nail in the coffin where discrimination against gay and lesbian servicepeople would be put to rest.
Government documents are long, laborious things to read. They are written that way on purpose, to hide details that might get approved along with major points. For this reason, it is worth the time to locate the original government documents and read them for yourself before reading what others have to say about them. Saint Cloud State University has a great list of resources to help you find any state or federal government document; do not hesitate to contact a helpful librarian to learn how to use them.
The majority of people enraged about NDAA 2012 have focused on "Sections 1031: Indefinite Detention" and "1032: Requirement for Military Custody".
According to the NDAA text of Section 1031, the President will have the authority to allow the military to detain any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces," under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of hostilities." The text also authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin," or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity." This would apply to US citizens and other legal residents of the United States as well as any other human being.
According to the NDAA text of Section 1032, all persons arrested and detained according to the provisions of section 1031, including those detained on U.S. soil, whether detained indefinitely or not, are required to serve their time in military prisons run by the US Armed Forces. Lawful resident aliens may or may not be required to be detained by the Armed Forces, "on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States."
Sections 1031 and 1032 could potentially put many innocent people at risk for persecution, incarceration, and deportation.
NDAA 2012 has redefined sexual assault and rape, and sets out to make punishments for the perpetrators more strict. Marriage will no longer be a shield that perpetrators can use for abusing their spouses. While this is a positive aspect to NDAA 2012 that should not go overlooked, NDAA 2012 provides no abortion services for women who were sexually assaulted or raped. Military women have less access than civilian women in the United States to abortion services, but are the most at risk for rape.
What no one has mentioned about NDAA 2012, which is buried in the myriad of sections, definitions, and amendments, is that NDAA 2012 sets out to repeal the Sodomy Article--article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Repeal of the Sodomy Article will allow gay and lesbian soldiers to have consensual sexual intimacy in the same way that heterosexual soldiers do. Repeal of the Sodomy Article also will help people in the Armed Forces report sexual assault or rape in a more accurate way that will not discriminate against gay or lesbian soldiers. As the repeal of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has already taken place, repeal of the Sodomy Article would drive the final nail in the coffin where discrimination against gay and lesbian servicepeople would be put to rest.
Government documents are long, laborious things to read. They are written that way on purpose, to hide details that might get approved along with major points. For this reason, it is worth the time to locate the original government documents and read them for yourself before reading what others have to say about them. Saint Cloud State University has a great list of resources to help you find any state or federal government document; do not hesitate to contact a helpful librarian to learn how to use them.
The French-British Love Hate Relationship Extends to Breasts
France and the United Kingdom issue clashing advice on breast implants
The French government asked approximately 30,000 women to remove their breast implants, made by a defunct French company. According to the French government, the implants could rupture and cause inflammation and irritation...which has the possibility of leading to cancer.
The British government, however, advised British women who had received the same implants not to worry.
One would think that the British would listen to the French for once, since the breast implants had come from France in the first place, and the French government is announcing that the implants are dangerous. Is this a case of latent British "stiff upper lip" reflex, or does the British government put more stock in their National Health Service's research on breast implants than the French research?
The French government asked approximately 30,000 women to remove their breast implants, made by a defunct French company. According to the French government, the implants could rupture and cause inflammation and irritation...which has the possibility of leading to cancer.
The British government, however, advised British women who had received the same implants not to worry.
One would think that the British would listen to the French for once, since the breast implants had come from France in the first place, and the French government is announcing that the implants are dangerous. Is this a case of latent British "stiff upper lip" reflex, or does the British government put more stock in their National Health Service's research on breast implants than the French research?
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Not Free to Say Stupid Things in France
The National Assembly in Paris is backing a bill to make it illegal to deny that the mass killing of Armenians by the Turks was genocide. If someone is caught saying it, they could be fined up to 48,000 Euros (approximately $58,000). According to the French, they are not punishing the Turks in their country, or making a statement of any kind other than to comply with European law, which states that people who deny the existence of genocides should be sanctioned.
In the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects speech that other countries would classify as hate speech. At the same time, while Americans will not be sent to jail for saying ignorant things, they will be stigmatized socially and sometimes professionally. Newt Gingrich, in the eyes of many people (including Republicans), will never regain his professional reputation after calling Michelle Obama "uppity" and calling the Palestinians "an invented people". Comedians who go too far in their shtick are often forced into apologize for their words, or face lawsuits from anti-defamation groups. Teachers who voice negative opinions about LGBT people or other protected classes when their school administrators are trying to stop bullying in the schools are often forced to resign.
Is it possible that, in France and in other countries, the common people actually agree on some level with certain perspectives on genocide and minorities, and this is why those governments have to outlaw it outright?
That is one thing about people in the United States. Americans have the freedom and the right to state whatever half baked opinion they have on any subject, and make Americans look like fools in front of the whole world...but just because public figures show their ignorance does not mean that all Americans believe it or support it. In fact, the deeper a public figure puts his foot in his or her mouth, the higher a social, professional, and political price they will have to pay in their own country as well as abroad.
In the United States, the First Amendment of the Constitution protects speech that other countries would classify as hate speech. At the same time, while Americans will not be sent to jail for saying ignorant things, they will be stigmatized socially and sometimes professionally. Newt Gingrich, in the eyes of many people (including Republicans), will never regain his professional reputation after calling Michelle Obama "uppity" and calling the Palestinians "an invented people". Comedians who go too far in their shtick are often forced into apologize for their words, or face lawsuits from anti-defamation groups. Teachers who voice negative opinions about LGBT people or other protected classes when their school administrators are trying to stop bullying in the schools are often forced to resign.
Is it possible that, in France and in other countries, the common people actually agree on some level with certain perspectives on genocide and minorities, and this is why those governments have to outlaw it outright?
That is one thing about people in the United States. Americans have the freedom and the right to state whatever half baked opinion they have on any subject, and make Americans look like fools in front of the whole world...but just because public figures show their ignorance does not mean that all Americans believe it or support it. In fact, the deeper a public figure puts his foot in his or her mouth, the higher a social, professional, and political price they will have to pay in their own country as well as abroad.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
This Too is a Form of Terrorism
U.S. asks journals to censor articles about flu studies.
According to this New York Times article, "A government advisory board is afraid that the details of certain biomedical experiments could be used by terrorists to create deadly viruses and touch off epidemics."
Apparently, the government advisory board believes that active terrorists could be studying and working at university libraries, where such medical and scientific journals would be housed and indexed. They must also not be aware that access to the online databases which index the articles from those medical and scientific journals are password protected and closed off to people who do not work or study in higher education. Either that, or this government advisory board must believe that people working or studying in academia have the potential to share this password protected information with others.
If scientific research is censored for fear of "terrorism", then how will people in the medical and scientific fields acquire knowledge about advances in their field, especially when health is concerned? Will the potential lack of complete published knowledge cause scientific study in the United States to stagnate, or cause millions of dollars to be wasted on repeated experiments? Or will there be two sets of published information--one "censored" version for the general public, and one "uncensored" version for those working in the field, which would be kept under some strong security system?
If researchers in the United States cannot have full access to the details of published research studies for fear of terrorism, this could mean that such research will be conducted in other countries, and the results sold to us in exchange for our ignorance. How would we know that what we were sold was the truth, and not in fact results of inaccurate, biased research which could harm us more than help?
According to this New York Times article, "A government advisory board is afraid that the details of certain biomedical experiments could be used by terrorists to create deadly viruses and touch off epidemics."
Apparently, the government advisory board believes that active terrorists could be studying and working at university libraries, where such medical and scientific journals would be housed and indexed. They must also not be aware that access to the online databases which index the articles from those medical and scientific journals are password protected and closed off to people who do not work or study in higher education. Either that, or this government advisory board must believe that people working or studying in academia have the potential to share this password protected information with others.
If scientific research is censored for fear of "terrorism", then how will people in the medical and scientific fields acquire knowledge about advances in their field, especially when health is concerned? Will the potential lack of complete published knowledge cause scientific study in the United States to stagnate, or cause millions of dollars to be wasted on repeated experiments? Or will there be two sets of published information--one "censored" version for the general public, and one "uncensored" version for those working in the field, which would be kept under some strong security system?
If researchers in the United States cannot have full access to the details of published research studies for fear of terrorism, this could mean that such research will be conducted in other countries, and the results sold to us in exchange for our ignorance. How would we know that what we were sold was the truth, and not in fact results of inaccurate, biased research which could harm us more than help?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)