How often do you think about your own race on a day-to-day basis?  Are you aware of the race of those around you?  Do you interact mostly with people of your own race or another race?  Describe the feelings you experience in this area.  Does your own race impact how you live your life, or how happy you are?  How does race affect your family and friends?

If you are white, have you ever thought about these questions before?  Think about whether you notice your own race very often.  If you are black or Latino or part of another minority, reflect on how often you think about your own race on a typical day.  Describe how you think society effects your awareness of your own race as you go about your day.

Do you think white people have less than, the same as, or more responsibility to be cognizant of racism than black people or other minorities?

Thanks for any thoughts you have!

The Innocence Project reviews criminal cases in which DNA evidence may be used to overturn convictions.  When a case is accepted, staff lawyers assist in the case or actually represent clients in court.  Even if you don't recognize the name The Innocence Project, you have probably heard of the shocking cases they have assisted in during the last several years; well-known stories of death-row occupants who were nearing execution dates when they were exonerated, or those who had sat behind bars for decades before being proved innocent.  While the use of DNA is the best-known focus of the Project, they are also exploring other failures of the justice system that have led to wrongful convictions.  One focus now is a critical examination of eyewitness testimony. The fallibility of this type of evidence has long been known, but The Innocence Project has been at the forefront of quantifying exactly what aspects of the procedure can be tweaked to make it more effective and reliable. 

One procedure the Project promotes as a best practice is the double-blind method of conducting photo-lineups, in which law enforcement officials presenting the pictures to potential witnesses do not know which of the pictures is of the suspect, so as not to purposely or inadvertently provide hints about which photo is of the suspect. 

This work is exciting to me because it is solution-oriented.  It is such a concrete, practical thing police departments can do to improve the objectivity and fairness of their investigations.

The Innocence Project:

• founded in 1992
• over 200 exonerations
• read about individual cases on their website: www.innocenceproject.org
• see their FAQ's for fascinating stats, and info on how to submit a case for review

Who is the pillow on this gurney for? The convict about to be executed? Is it to allow the chamber attendants a feeling that they are comforting the convict before inserting the needle?  It's bizarre, and simply plays up how bizarre this practice is.  It shows we are in conflict as a country about capitol punishment. 

Did you know that some states allow a condemned person to take an anxiety pill about an hour before their execution?  Who is that anxiety pill for?

Catholic institutions should not have to pay for contraception for their employees.  It's a clear violation of the First Amendment.  This is one of those most difficult of issues we face  - the delicate balance between the Constitutional protection we enjoy from having any religion imposed on public life, and the protection we count on for any religion to practice its teachings freely.  Sometimes I think this is one of the most important clauses - at least it requires the most of all of us to think through, be careful, and imagine how we would want specific laws and rules pertaining to this issue implemented by succeeding generations.

Obama and Sibelius made a drastic error in refusing to grant the Catholic church an exemption from providing free birth control to its institutions' employees.  I kept waiting to hear arguments that would convince me otherwise, but I still can't see it any other way.  I appreciate the thoughts and concerns of people on the left that I have discussed it with, and I believe they are advocating for women, and not just politicking.  But I just haven't heard a single thing that refutes the idea that this is a very dangerous First Amendment imbalance, that if implemented, would not be justified or legal.  (As I write this, Obama has made a reversal of sorts, for which I am glad.  But it's hard right now to say if the switch is to a plan that really relieves the church of having to take responsibility for providing contraception.)

As I was reading commentary about this on various websites, it wasn't Republican Congresspersons who convinced me, unsurprisingly.  They apparently aren't worried about the votes of centrist women, or centrist men who care about women's issues.  They aren't even making a stab at acknowledging that we as a society have an interest in seeing that women have as much access as possible to comprehensive health care.  I would think that even apolitical, moderate citizens, if they don't have a religious objection to birth control, are likely to see that there are a couple of opposing interests to be weighed here, so I don't know why Republicans aren't giving that thought the time of day.  No, they went straight to:  this is a secular attack from an unholy socialist President, intent on suppressing religion in the US.  Their infuriating hyperbole embarrasses them - they don't need it here, so what's the point?  They needed hyperbole to make people think the Obama "War on Christmas" is bad, because it isn't real, so hyperbole is all they have. But since this is a real issue, I don't know why they feel they have to resort to the "War on Religion" rhetoric.  Yuck.

What actually confirmed my immediate gut feeling that this would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state was the rationale for the rule provided by people on the left.  A piece of Kevin Drum's blog on Mother Jones sums up the argument.  (My comments are in brackets.): 

"(I) support the Obama administration's decision to require health care plans to cover contraception, as well as its decision to permit only a very narrow exemption for religious organizations.  (Here's why.)

• In any case like this, you have to look at two separate issues: (1) How important is the secular public purpose of the policy? And (2) how deeply held is the religious objection to it?

[Agreed.  So far so good - those are exactly the things we should look at.]

• On the first issue, I'd say that the public purpose here is pretty strong. Health care in general is very clearly a matter of broad public concern; treating women's health care on a level playing field with men's is, today, a deep and widely-accepted principle; and contraception is quite clearly critical to women's health. Making it widely and easily available is a legitimate issue of public policy.

[Agreed on the sentiment, absolutely.  Access to contraception is a critical public health concern.  Barriers to access include lack of information, lack of resources like cash and transportation, and difficulty finding service providers.  But it is legitimate, when the First Amendment stakes are this high, to consider degrees of hardship.  I am willing to factor in that we are talking about women in the workforce here.  Even though that doesn't guarantee they have much money or reliable transportation or understanding of where to go, those are things that could be addressed by the government in other ways.  The big box pharmacies sell generic birth control for $4-5, and non-profit agencies provide them for free, so its a matter of getting referrals and getting there. 
(back to Drum's quote)]

• "On the second issue, I simply don't believe that the religious objection here is nearly as strong as critics are making it out to be. As I've mentioned before, even the vast majority of Catholics (underline his) don't believe that contraception is immoral. Only the formal church hierarchy does."

(end quote)

The latter statement provides a precise example of why government has to stay out of religion.  The number of people within a religion's ranks who practice what their leaders preach has nothing to do with the law.  And he displays an ignorance of a piece of Catholic culture that is important here.  (Why wouldn't he be ignorant of it, but that's why the public should be hands off with the private.)

Individual members of a religion - even lots of them - may feel out of sync with the hierarchy's teachings, but they should still be able to expect their church to have full legal protections.  There is probably scarcely a religious tenet that isn't questioned, opposed, or just not followed by some of the members of its church.  Whose business is that, and what does it have to do with respecting the legal rights of that church? 

For Catholics, coming to grips with the most conservative teachings of their church in real life application is not a new question.  I come from a family of eight.  As much as that is a reflection of Catholic teachings being followed, the fact that I don't come from a family of twelve reflects that (thankfully!) at some point my parents obviously did not follow the Churches teachings.  (The old joke was, what do you call people that use the rhythm method?  Parents.)  Catholic teachings oppose divorce, too, but Catholics do get divorced.  These are things we have to leave up to them to work out.

Regardless of what my readers think about how individual Catholics work out their faith in their own lives, the law says their church has a right to practice its teachings.  I am not a religious person, and I am pro-choice and certainly pro-contraception.  But I have to admit to some respect for the consistency of the Catholic belief system about the sanctity of life.  They are steadfastly opposed to the taking of any life as they define it.  I personally have different views about when a fetus becomes a person, and whether a person has a right to choose to die, and other such specifics.  But what I'm saying is, they are so devoted to this concept that it is central to their beliefs, and it is consistent.  They are against the death penalty, against the killing of enemy combatants that don't present an imminent threat, and only accept war in a self-defense capacity.  What of individual Catholics practicing birth control?  That is personal, very personal.  I can guarantee you something:  while it may be difficult for a practicing Catholic, working for a Catholic employee, to have to get a hold of their own birth control, not on the company's dime, you will have a hard time finding Catholics who want these employers to be compelled to offer it.  It will be in those numbers that you will see the mistake the left is making in trying to argue, "no trust me, this is what these people want, most of them use birth control anyway."

Again, I need to take some time to look at this recent reversal on Obama's part.  I was going to change this post drastically in light of it, but I have a feeling there will be a few more rounds before it's settled, so I will post this part for now.  I think he made a huge blunder politically, and I'm not sure the reversal solves anything yet.  I hope I am overestimating what a problem it will be, but it's going to be at least an ugly fight. 

If this revision doesn't solve anything for the Catholic leadership, I hope we will keep working on it.  There is some real compromise that could happen here.  Would the church be willing to provide an allowance for discretionary health spending?  Sort of like a flexible spending account, but not out-of-pocket?  Or would the state be willing to partner with employees' current providers to defray the cost of birth control for employees of exempted institutions?  We can make it work.  

I'm off to research the revision - hopefully it provides the compromise we need.  Look for an update soon._