PHILLIES WIN!!!!!!!!!!!

THE PHILADELPHIA PHILLIES ARE THE 2008 WORLD SERIES CHAMPIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm so excited I don't know what to do with myself!!!

Let's go Phillies!!!

Monday night was a letdown, but at least it wasn't a loss. I am SUPER-EXCITED for tonight! I don't want to get my hopes up too high or jinx them...but I can taste a World Series victory!

Reason #893 to keep that ignorant bitch away from the White House

Someone on the ECOLOG listserve alerted us to this bit about Palin dissing fruit fly research. Here is the link to another blogger's post. Apparently she has no idea how important Drosophila research is for human genetics. Still, even if this were not the case, the fact that she thinks that funding for biological research is an "earmark" or a "pet project" really frosts Sandra Cookie's cookies!!!! Of course, she's a creationist, so what was I expecting?

Here are some quick facts

Click the link above. These are the sorts of problems that most Republicans ignore or won't fix because it's "too much government intervention and money". But just leaving it up to your precious free market isn't gonna fix these things. These problems ultimately affect us all as a nation, and thus as a nation we need to address them.

Equal Pay

I've gotta respond to CG's comments. He wrote: "But don't you think a woman that isn't pregnant is more valuable to an employer than one that is?" and "shouldn't women who choose to forgo pregnancy to focus on their career reap some reward (better job/pay) for the sacrifice they make?"

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Not only should men and women be paid equally for the same work, but parents and childless adults should also be paid equally for the same work. To "forgo pregnancy" does not necessarily mean you are going to be better or more productive at your job than someone with kids. In my field (biological sciences) I know male and female professors with children who manage to teach, publish, and get grants funded at the same (or even higher) rate and quality as professors without kids. So why would you pay them differently? Sure, it is true that there are scientist-parents who may have a brief "hole" in their publication record because of those 3 months they took for paid paternity/maternity leave. Unfortunately, this may affect their ability to get tenure or get grants funded (but fortunately many institutions are becoming more understanding of this). However, it should in no way whatsoever affect their salary!

In academic interviews it is against most institution's policies to ask if a candidate is married, has kids, is planning to have kids, etc. These policies are in place precisely because of the attitude you revealed in your comments in the earlier post. You cannot discriminate against someone based on these factors! And this is why it is best for an institution (or any place of employment) to have equal paternity/maternity leave policies - whether they hire a man or a woman, the possibility that that person will take parental leave is the same. You cannot decide against the woman because "she's a woman of childbearing age, so she'll probably take maternity leave". And actually, you cannot discriminate against men of childbearing age for the same reason either. I can understand the perspective of an employer who is short-staffed and needs someone to work full-time immediately with no extended leave on the horizon. But that employer has to realize that the possibility of extended leave is always there and is unpredictable. You never know if and when a employee will get cancer, have an accident, etc. and need an extended leave of absence. This is why you just have to hire the best candidate for the job and not discriminate based on perceived likelihood that a person will take parental, sick, or disability leave. Actually, I know a woman who, in the few years after landing her tenure-track position, had both cancer and a baby, and has still managed to stay at the top of her field.

All that being said, sure, it is possible that parenthood takes its toll on a person to the extent that their job performance suffers. But this is just one of many factors that can affect a person's job performance (divorce, chronic illness, depression, etc.) And that's why the only factors that should determine someone's salary or whether or not they get hired are their resume and job performance NOT their gender or family status.

In regard to the comment that a woman who isn't pregnant is more valuable than one who is, I look at my own place of employment. I am NO MORE VALUABLE to my employer than the two female teaching fellows currently expecting babies, or the male teaching fellow whose wife just gave birth last week (congratulations Jon and Celia!). Our supervisors at Duke University evaluate us only according to how well we do our jobs, not whether or not we take parental leave, an option open to all of us teaching fellows. It is unfortunate that not all employers practice such non-discrimination, and even more unfortunate that there are politicians do not support this mindset.

Economists' Policy Group for Women's Issues

Jesus Christ, it's 2008! Why haven't we made more progress? See this grade report on McCain and Obama. I absolutely do not understand why BOTH candidates, actually, do not have more As. But McCain and Palin's views here really top everything. They truly disgust me. Even our goddamn president voted for the VAWA. WTF???

Make my autumn!

I will consider autumn 2008 a success if at least 2 of these 3 things happen:

1. The Phillies win the World Series
2. Obama wins the presidency
3. My proposal gets funded.

Let's go, Fate, 3-for-3!!!!

Told you

Thanks for finally making your views loud and clear, Gov. Palin. But if you truly believe that traditional marriages are the foundation for strong families, then why don't you support a constitutional amendment to ban divorce? Or to ban unmarried women from artificially inseminating themselves? Or to require that widows and widowers with children must remarry as soon as possible? Or to require that heterosexual couples with children must get married? Because all of those amendments seem just as logical as banning gay marriage.

I am sure my gay friends with children (as well as those without) take great offense at you implying that their families are not strong.

Are you anti-abortion?

If so, you should read this article from the Washington Post. It's quite interesting and makes several noteworthy points:

• "Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which calls for a 'consistent ethic of life' on such issues as poverty and capital punishment, argue that economic policies may be the most effective way to combat abortion by providing social services, such as affordable health care, for pregnant women." I COMPLETELY agree with them. The way to reduce abortion is not to criminalize it, but to address the root causes of the issue: (1) why do unwanted pregnancies happen and (2) why do women choose to abort their pregnancy. Similarly...
  
• Douglas W. Kmiec, an anti-abortion scholar, argues that "that overturning Roe v. Wade would not end abortion, and that the bigger priority should be addressing 'the economic and cultural and social circumstances that force women to believe that they must make a choice against life.'" YES, once again I completely agree that overturning Roe v Wade would not end abortion.

I found the article somewhat heartening. It is nice to see that there are some anti-abortionists who understand that being "pro-choice" or "pro-life" is not simply a position regarding the Roe v. Wade decision. There are so many factors in our society that influence the amount of abortions that occur. Certain politicians may say they are pro-life, but at the same time they may promote policies that increase the number of unwanted pregnancies (e.g., abstinence only education). When you increase the number of unwanted pregnancies, it's a good bet that you'll increase the number of abortions, too. I wonder if, despite George Bush's pro-life intentions, his policies actually indirectly increased the number of abortions that occurred compared to if he had not been President. Think about it: Roe v. Wade still rightfully stands, thank God, but we've had huge setbacks in the number of poor women with access to affordable health care/ health insurance, the way we educate our young people about sex, and socioeconomic factors that influence whether a woman thinks she can afford a child.

Long story short, if you are pro-life you can go ahead and VOTE FOR OBAMA with a clear conscience!

Yaaayyyyy!!!!!!!!!!!!

My Phillies are the 2008 National League Champions!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3 down, 47 to go!

Hooray! This just in:

Conn. High Court Rules Same-Sex Couples Can Marry

These things take time, but they do happen and will continue to happen. Some day, even Texas and Alaska will be on board, and anti-gay and anti-equality policies and laws will be seen as old-fashioned and narrow-minded.

Also, regarding this issue, I was very disappointed with how Joe Biden handled this question in the VP debate. Yes, I realize that there are virtually no major party leaders that support a constitutional amendment to allow gay marriage. But Biden's and Palin's attitudes towards gay rights and issues differ in significant ways. Check out this Human Rights Campaign video:




In other happy news the Phillies beat the Dodgers 3-2 last night! I'm calling for a Rays-Phillies World Series with the Phillies going all the way!