Thursday, June 16, 2011
Stop the demand; heal the supply
Though I agree with what some of these organizations are trying to accomplish, I say one simple solution, if not the only solution, is to stop or at least stem the demand. Much harsher punishments for those who patronize prostitutes, a la Sweden. We have to make it not ok to be a john - this is not simply buying a service; this is exploiting another human being. At the very least, for those who feel prostitution should and (most importantly) can be legal, we need to ensure "fair-trade" services just like any other to ensure that all sex workers are doing so purely out of their own free will, and by free will I truly mean voluntarily - not as a last resort financially.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Excellent responses to Amy Chua's article
Couldn't have said it better myself:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/lac.su.tiger.mother.scars/index.html?hpt=C1
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/chen.tiger.moms/index.html?hpt=C1
So true. Amy Chua does a fantastic job of confusing career success with the important goals in life, as well as summarily stereotyping all Chinese-American families & drawing lines & divisions where they don't exist. She manages to confuse derision, belittling, and abuse with strictness & setting high standards for children. And she feeds the stereotype that the stereotypically successful Asian-American is a result of cultural values and not America's selective immigration process for businesspeople & engineers.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/lac.su.tiger.mother.scars/index.html?hpt=C1
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/01/20/chen.tiger.moms/index.html?hpt=C1
So true. Amy Chua does a fantastic job of confusing career success with the important goals in life, as well as summarily stereotyping all Chinese-American families & drawing lines & divisions where they don't exist. She manages to confuse derision, belittling, and abuse with strictness & setting high standards for children. And she feeds the stereotype that the stereotypically successful Asian-American is a result of cultural values and not America's selective immigration process for businesspeople & engineers.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
very interesting & metaphysical view questioning how we conduct science
Really interesting article from the New Yorker that's worth reading & thinking about, especially if you're a scientist.
It gets me thinking about an idea I've had for a while, which they touch upon as well - somewhere where scientists can post their experimental design for critique before they even bother doing the experiment. Otherwise it can be years wasted once it gets to peer review. People are frightened of getting scooped, so perhaps we should just patent those design ideas and then, if nothing comes to fruition within a certain period of time, the patent is then open for re-application by anyone else so that it can be performed by a different laboratory.
It gets me thinking about an idea I've had for a while, which they touch upon as well - somewhere where scientists can post their experimental design for critique before they even bother doing the experiment. Otherwise it can be years wasted once it gets to peer review. People are frightened of getting scooped, so perhaps we should just patent those design ideas and then, if nothing comes to fruition within a certain period of time, the patent is then open for re-application by anyone else so that it can be performed by a different laboratory.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
more questionable science
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/scienceshot-the-downside-of-manliness.html?etoc
The last sentence is unsupported. This presumes that female chimps are capable of knowing and detecting everything about their mates, including their internal parasite levels. This I think is frankly unlikely. They haven't even a causal relationship between testosterone and parasite levels, and even if there is, it's unclear in which direction this causality goes. In addition, it's perfectly reasonable that the females prefer the higher-testosterone males in spite of their parasite levels. Or it could be that the stress of keeping a harem or defending territory makes these male chimps more susceptible to these parasites.
The last sentence is unsupported. This presumes that female chimps are capable of knowing and detecting everything about their mates, including their internal parasite levels. This I think is frankly unlikely. They haven't even a causal relationship between testosterone and parasite levels, and even if there is, it's unclear in which direction this causality goes. In addition, it's perfectly reasonable that the females prefer the higher-testosterone males in spite of their parasite levels. Or it could be that the stress of keeping a harem or defending territory makes these male chimps more susceptible to these parasites.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Americanness, Constitutionality, and the maintenance thereof
Couldn't have said it better myself:
14th Amendment is key to the American experiment
By Cristina Rodriguez, Special to CNN
August 17, 2010 11:09 a.m. EDT
Editor's note: Cristina Rodríguez is professor of law at the NYU School of Law. She is the co-author of Immigration and Refugee Law & Policy (with Stephen Legomsky) and is currently at work on a series of papers on state and local participation in immigration regulation. Rodríguez served as a law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Calls for modification of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantee have appeared during other moments of immigration-related hand-wringing. The question is whether the idea is a good one.
And the reform is not unthinkable from a democratic point of view. In fact, the United States and Canada stand apart from other major immigrant-receiving societies in the breadth of birthright rules. The United Kingdom amended its laws in 1981 to provide that only children born to citizens, or permanent residents born in the U.K., are citizens at birth.
In 2004, voters in Ireland amended their constitution along similar lines, in part for reasons familiar to the American audience: fear that birthright citizenship attracted asylum claimants who could use their children as anchors. The French rule allows children born to foreign parents to become citizens at the age of majority (when the state no longer considers a person a minor), rather than at birth.
But if ever there were a case for maintaining American exceptionalism, the 14th Amendment is it. Rejection of universal birthright citizenship would upend practices vital to the success of the American venture.
The proposed amendment's implicit premise, that children of parents who have broken the law do not deserve U.S. citizenship, contradicts a basic American value: the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children.
Justice Robert Jackson put it succinctly in dissent from the Korematsu decision (1944), which found Japanese internment policies during World War II constitutional: "If any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable."
Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned similarly in Plyler v. Doe (1982) when striking down a Texas law that would have denied unauthorized children access to public schools. Frustration with illegal immigration, he wrote, ought not lead to unequal treatment of children who had no hand in creating their "illegality."
U.S. courts and most legal scholars have consistently interpreted the Citizenship Clause to apply universally, save to the children of diplomats, invading armies and Native Americans (though the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the status of children born to unauthorized immigrants).
The clause thus operates as a constitutional reset button. Each generation born in the U.S. stands on its own, with equal citizenship status, regardless of parentage. Given our history as a society of immigrants, this rule has been crucial to our development into a cohesive political community and to our ability to integrate each new immigrant cohort.
It ensures that those who are born and raised in the United States have an equal opportunity to participate and contribute and are regarded by others as full Americans.
Not all children born in the U.S. remain, and perhaps those Senate Republicans envision deporting all unauthorized immigrants and their children. But clear-eyed pragmatism tells us that most children born here also go to school, become socialized and enter adulthood here, making them functionally American.
Unless we are prepared to tolerate the emergence of castes based on parentage, universal birthright citizenship and a robust naturalization regime should remain in place.
The goals of the proposed amendment are not strictly punitive, though its effects inevitably would be. Its supporters argue it would reduce incentives for illegal immigration. But this argument is not serious.
The obstacles to passage are nearly insurmountable, and this particular amendment has never come close to succeeding. More important, changing the birthright rule would have little to no effect on illegal immigration.
No doubt stories exist of Mexicans crossing the border just to give birth or of tourists arranging vacations to produce U.S.-citizen children. But the actual causes of illegal immigration are complex and overwhelmingly related to the absence of job opportunities in Mexico and the demand for immigrant labor in the U.S. Precisely because illegal immigration is difficult to prevent, lawmakers substitute symbolic posturing for genuine policymaking.
Though the 14th Amendment is likely safe, it is instructive whenever politicians propose manipulating it to remember its historical role.
The reset principle can also inform debates over other issues, such as the DREAM Act, which would legalize high school graduates who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Even the debate over whether to legalize existing unauthorized immigrants, which is more complex because of their culpability, would benefit from an appreciation of how second chances can advance equality and integration.
The conventional interpretation of the 14th Amendment reminds us that we take our aspirations to equality seriously. We are willing to risk certain costs, such as opportunistic immigration and the creation of citizens who may never develop ties to the U.S., to ensure political equality.
For the United States to stand alone on this principle does nothing less than reaffirm traditions that have helped turned a collection of people from all over the world into an integrated and powerful success.
14th Amendment is key to the American experiment
By Cristina Rodriguez, Special to CNN
August 17, 2010 11:09 a.m. EDT
Editor's note: Cristina Rodríguez is professor of law at the NYU School of Law. She is the co-author of Immigration and Refugee Law & Policy (with Stephen Legomsky) and is currently at work on a series of papers on state and local participation in immigration regulation. Rodríguez served as a law clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court and to Judge David S. Tatel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Calls for modification of the 14th Amendment's birthright citizenship guarantee have appeared during other moments of immigration-related hand-wringing. The question is whether the idea is a good one.
And the reform is not unthinkable from a democratic point of view. In fact, the United States and Canada stand apart from other major immigrant-receiving societies in the breadth of birthright rules. The United Kingdom amended its laws in 1981 to provide that only children born to citizens, or permanent residents born in the U.K., are citizens at birth.
In 2004, voters in Ireland amended their constitution along similar lines, in part for reasons familiar to the American audience: fear that birthright citizenship attracted asylum claimants who could use their children as anchors. The French rule allows children born to foreign parents to become citizens at the age of majority (when the state no longer considers a person a minor), rather than at birth.
But if ever there were a case for maintaining American exceptionalism, the 14th Amendment is it. Rejection of universal birthright citizenship would upend practices vital to the success of the American venture.
The proposed amendment's implicit premise, that children of parents who have broken the law do not deserve U.S. citizenship, contradicts a basic American value: the sins of the parents should not be visited upon the children.
Justice Robert Jackson put it succinctly in dissent from the Korematsu decision (1944), which found Japanese internment policies during World War II constitutional: "If any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is that guilt is personal and not inheritable."
Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned similarly in Plyler v. Doe (1982) when striking down a Texas law that would have denied unauthorized children access to public schools. Frustration with illegal immigration, he wrote, ought not lead to unequal treatment of children who had no hand in creating their "illegality."
U.S. courts and most legal scholars have consistently interpreted the Citizenship Clause to apply universally, save to the children of diplomats, invading armies and Native Americans (though the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the status of children born to unauthorized immigrants).
The clause thus operates as a constitutional reset button. Each generation born in the U.S. stands on its own, with equal citizenship status, regardless of parentage. Given our history as a society of immigrants, this rule has been crucial to our development into a cohesive political community and to our ability to integrate each new immigrant cohort.
It ensures that those who are born and raised in the United States have an equal opportunity to participate and contribute and are regarded by others as full Americans.
Not all children born in the U.S. remain, and perhaps those Senate Republicans envision deporting all unauthorized immigrants and their children. But clear-eyed pragmatism tells us that most children born here also go to school, become socialized and enter adulthood here, making them functionally American.
Unless we are prepared to tolerate the emergence of castes based on parentage, universal birthright citizenship and a robust naturalization regime should remain in place.
The goals of the proposed amendment are not strictly punitive, though its effects inevitably would be. Its supporters argue it would reduce incentives for illegal immigration. But this argument is not serious.
The obstacles to passage are nearly insurmountable, and this particular amendment has never come close to succeeding. More important, changing the birthright rule would have little to no effect on illegal immigration.
No doubt stories exist of Mexicans crossing the border just to give birth or of tourists arranging vacations to produce U.S.-citizen children. But the actual causes of illegal immigration are complex and overwhelmingly related to the absence of job opportunities in Mexico and the demand for immigrant labor in the U.S. Precisely because illegal immigration is difficult to prevent, lawmakers substitute symbolic posturing for genuine policymaking.
Though the 14th Amendment is likely safe, it is instructive whenever politicians propose manipulating it to remember its historical role.
The reset principle can also inform debates over other issues, such as the DREAM Act, which would legalize high school graduates who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. Even the debate over whether to legalize existing unauthorized immigrants, which is more complex because of their culpability, would benefit from an appreciation of how second chances can advance equality and integration.
The conventional interpretation of the 14th Amendment reminds us that we take our aspirations to equality seriously. We are willing to risk certain costs, such as opportunistic immigration and the creation of citizens who may never develop ties to the U.S., to ensure political equality.
For the United States to stand alone on this principle does nothing less than reaffirm traditions that have helped turned a collection of people from all over the world into an integrated and powerful success.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Misunderstandings, lies, and deceit surrounding SB 1070
An open letter to Kirk Adams, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, in response to the following article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702527.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
To the Honorable Kirk Adams:
While I appreciate your efforts to explain the rationale for Arizona SB 1070 and HB 2162 in your recent Washington Post article, I would like to express to you my understandings of the issue and hope to better explain some of the rationale in opposition to these bills.
As a longtime Arizona resident, a child of legal immigrants, and above all a proud American, I find SB 1070 and HB 2162 with great conviction to be unconstitutional, un-American, and without a doubt the greatest incursion upon civil and human rights in our nation's recent history. I am appalled that majority support for such measures can be used to justify the suppression of the minority. I remind you that the citizenry of this nation do not yet fully grasp the invasiveness and demeaning nature of these bills. Many do not feel they could be directly targeted by these laws and thus feel little consequence in supporting them. I also remind you that the majority of Southerners were in favor of segregation and Jim Crow laws to some extent or another, but the beauty and glory of our nation and its Constitution is equal protection under the law, including for minorities; due process; and protection against unlawful searches and seizures.
Despite the revisions made in HB 2162, the primary concerns still remain. This bill, by singly out only individuals that could arouse “reasonable suspicion, 1) legitimizes profiling and identity politics, 2) sets the stage for a police state, and 3) presumes guilt before innocence while providing no basis or guidelines for assessing guilt, not to mention the fact that 4) the legislation is completely ineffective at catching most illegal immigrants, 20% of whom are not Latino, and many of whom can adjust their lives, detrimentally so, to accommodate such tight restrictions.
With all due respect, your defense of "reasonable suspicion" is most objectionable. No standard for reasonable suspicion can be created that fairly assesses behavior or actions alone. Such "suspicion" inherently involves an element of profiling, be it racial, socioeconomic, or otherwise, since it is widely accepted that being of European, African, or Native American descent bars one from, or at least severely reduces, any suspicion. This is a horrifying testament to the unequal protection afforded those individuals. The current "reasonable suspicion" course being developed for law enforcement contains no content other than the admonition to refrain from racial profiling. The only quasi-guidelines provided thus far by Kris Kobach are remarkably ill-conceived and ill-willed: people who “speak English poorly” (many citizens don’t speak English that well and have accents), “appears to be in transit” (would my drive home from San Francisco to Phoenix make me seem illegal?), “out of place in a specific locale,” (is it illegal to be brown-skinned and poor in a white neighborhood?), and “indications from dress, appearance, and demeanor” (is standing on a street corner in workboots suspicious or criminal?). Russell Pearce is proud to proclaim that being Latino can increase scrutiny. Joe Arpaio is known for his abuses of the law and of those in his custody. In essence, it is and should remain impossible to assess legal status without performing a background check.
There is nothing more painful than to be judged as any less American than anyone else. This is the core pillar and dream of our society. I as a second-generation Asian-American understand this pain more intimately than some. Asian-Americans were barred from obtaining their rightfully-earned citizenship (Ozawa vs. US, 1922, where Japanese were ruled as “non-whites” and thus “unassimilable” and ineligible for naturalization) until the Walter-McCarran Act of 1952. As I’m sure you are aware, minorities’ fights and struggles in this nation to fulfill our American dreams have been long, hard, bloody, and disappointingly recent. To assign any minority group a second tier of Americanness simply because of how they look is remarkably insulting, mean-spirited, and dangerous to every American, for we are all minorities. In the last century, we have set tremendous examples to the world and have gained their profound respect for our civil rights and women's rights work, and our deep-seated belief that ethnic origin is of no consequence in being American. We cannot even in the most indirect way to begin chipping away at our foundation.
I am aware of the frustration surrounding illegal immigration and illegal entry into the US, particularly by those with maleficent intentions. I agree that these hardened criminals must be stopped. I agree that immigration reform is urgently needed and that it is important to reduce illegal immigration, be it via hard-lined prosecution or realistic and compassionate measures such as increasing the number of visas, guest worker programs, or amnesty for children brought here illegally. However, we must make a distinction between classes of infractions. We need to remember that illegal presence in the US is a misdemeanor, and we should not distract our law enforcement from tracking down real crimes in pursuit of individuals enduring severe hardship with great determination and tremendous devotion to their loved ones. These are individuals that should be protected; we simply cannot scapegoat all undocumented individuals for the more heinous crimes of a few.
Nor can we see illegal immigrants (in contrast to illegal enterers) as takers from our bread basket. We must remember that each individual in our economy contributes to it, and we must consider the contributions made by many laborers who make it possible for us to enjoy a thriving economy, an economy built on thrift and production that cannot in its current state be maintained by our native-born residents alone. Corporations and private individuals require cheap labor, and their willingness to look the other way, even seek out undocumented workers, should be punished far harsher, for they as people with means can afford to uphold the law and hire individuals whose wages are protected by the law.
I thank you for providing the Washington Post readership with your views, but I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues re-evaluate your original understandings and assertions. We cannot let fear and a desire for heavy-handed law enforcement stand in the way of fixing the fundamental problem or of upholding equal enforcement of reasonable laws, our values, our Constitution, and basic human dignity. We cannot allow such disgraceful acts to occur under our sovereignty and in our home state, acts that the United Nations has condemned as serious human rights violations. Let us continue to be a beacon of freedom and hope for the world so that we can make it a better place.
With high hope and great faith,
Elisa Zhang
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052702527.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
To the Honorable Kirk Adams:
While I appreciate your efforts to explain the rationale for Arizona SB 1070 and HB 2162 in your recent Washington Post article, I would like to express to you my understandings of the issue and hope to better explain some of the rationale in opposition to these bills.
As a longtime Arizona resident, a child of legal immigrants, and above all a proud American, I find SB 1070 and HB 2162 with great conviction to be unconstitutional, un-American, and without a doubt the greatest incursion upon civil and human rights in our nation's recent history. I am appalled that majority support for such measures can be used to justify the suppression of the minority. I remind you that the citizenry of this nation do not yet fully grasp the invasiveness and demeaning nature of these bills. Many do not feel they could be directly targeted by these laws and thus feel little consequence in supporting them. I also remind you that the majority of Southerners were in favor of segregation and Jim Crow laws to some extent or another, but the beauty and glory of our nation and its Constitution is equal protection under the law, including for minorities; due process; and protection against unlawful searches and seizures.
Despite the revisions made in HB 2162, the primary concerns still remain. This bill, by singly out only individuals that could arouse “reasonable suspicion, 1) legitimizes profiling and identity politics, 2) sets the stage for a police state, and 3) presumes guilt before innocence while providing no basis or guidelines for assessing guilt, not to mention the fact that 4) the legislation is completely ineffective at catching most illegal immigrants, 20% of whom are not Latino, and many of whom can adjust their lives, detrimentally so, to accommodate such tight restrictions.
With all due respect, your defense of "reasonable suspicion" is most objectionable. No standard for reasonable suspicion can be created that fairly assesses behavior or actions alone. Such "suspicion" inherently involves an element of profiling, be it racial, socioeconomic, or otherwise, since it is widely accepted that being of European, African, or Native American descent bars one from, or at least severely reduces, any suspicion. This is a horrifying testament to the unequal protection afforded those individuals. The current "reasonable suspicion" course being developed for law enforcement contains no content other than the admonition to refrain from racial profiling. The only quasi-guidelines provided thus far by Kris Kobach are remarkably ill-conceived and ill-willed: people who “speak English poorly” (many citizens don’t speak English that well and have accents), “appears to be in transit” (would my drive home from San Francisco to Phoenix make me seem illegal?), “out of place in a specific locale,” (is it illegal to be brown-skinned and poor in a white neighborhood?), and “indications from dress, appearance, and demeanor” (is standing on a street corner in workboots suspicious or criminal?). Russell Pearce is proud to proclaim that being Latino can increase scrutiny. Joe Arpaio is known for his abuses of the law and of those in his custody. In essence, it is and should remain impossible to assess legal status without performing a background check.
There is nothing more painful than to be judged as any less American than anyone else. This is the core pillar and dream of our society. I as a second-generation Asian-American understand this pain more intimately than some. Asian-Americans were barred from obtaining their rightfully-earned citizenship (Ozawa vs. US, 1922, where Japanese were ruled as “non-whites” and thus “unassimilable” and ineligible for naturalization) until the Walter-McCarran Act of 1952. As I’m sure you are aware, minorities’ fights and struggles in this nation to fulfill our American dreams have been long, hard, bloody, and disappointingly recent. To assign any minority group a second tier of Americanness simply because of how they look is remarkably insulting, mean-spirited, and dangerous to every American, for we are all minorities. In the last century, we have set tremendous examples to the world and have gained their profound respect for our civil rights and women's rights work, and our deep-seated belief that ethnic origin is of no consequence in being American. We cannot even in the most indirect way to begin chipping away at our foundation.
I am aware of the frustration surrounding illegal immigration and illegal entry into the US, particularly by those with maleficent intentions. I agree that these hardened criminals must be stopped. I agree that immigration reform is urgently needed and that it is important to reduce illegal immigration, be it via hard-lined prosecution or realistic and compassionate measures such as increasing the number of visas, guest worker programs, or amnesty for children brought here illegally. However, we must make a distinction between classes of infractions. We need to remember that illegal presence in the US is a misdemeanor, and we should not distract our law enforcement from tracking down real crimes in pursuit of individuals enduring severe hardship with great determination and tremendous devotion to their loved ones. These are individuals that should be protected; we simply cannot scapegoat all undocumented individuals for the more heinous crimes of a few.
Nor can we see illegal immigrants (in contrast to illegal enterers) as takers from our bread basket. We must remember that each individual in our economy contributes to it, and we must consider the contributions made by many laborers who make it possible for us to enjoy a thriving economy, an economy built on thrift and production that cannot in its current state be maintained by our native-born residents alone. Corporations and private individuals require cheap labor, and their willingness to look the other way, even seek out undocumented workers, should be punished far harsher, for they as people with means can afford to uphold the law and hire individuals whose wages are protected by the law.
I thank you for providing the Washington Post readership with your views, but I sincerely hope that you and your colleagues re-evaluate your original understandings and assertions. We cannot let fear and a desire for heavy-handed law enforcement stand in the way of fixing the fundamental problem or of upholding equal enforcement of reasonable laws, our values, our Constitution, and basic human dignity. We cannot allow such disgraceful acts to occur under our sovereignty and in our home state, acts that the United Nations has condemned as serious human rights violations. Let us continue to be a beacon of freedom and hope for the world so that we can make it a better place.
With high hope and great faith,
Elisa Zhang
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
