The Latest

February 11, 2011

2011-02-11T14:34:00.012-05:00

House Republican budget officials have proposed more than $40 billion in cuts to Obama's suggested budget. Considering the budget is expected to be $3.83 trillion, that's about 1% of the budget. Are the Republicans proposing cuts to some of the most expensive programs that would really make a dent in spending? No. They're cutting programs that don't take up that much money (relatively speaking, of course). The expenditures of these programs are pretty much a drop in the bucket when it comes to federal expenditures. But that doesn't mean these programs are unimportant; on the contrary. Republicans are proposing cuts to programs that could have a big impact on people's daily lives and health, economic recovery and job creation, and future innovation. So what cuts are they proposing? The short answer: They're making cuts that make them look like huge assholes.

They want to cut funding to family planning programs, job training programs, community health centers, a program that provides food to pregnant women and their babies. They want to cut funding to the Office of Science, National Institutes of Health, high-speed rail initiatives, clean energy programs (so much for innovation...). They want to reduce funding to the EPA (huge shocker there). The cuts would also take 4,500 cops off the street. This definitely sounds like the best cuts to make when several Americans are struggling with unemployment and tough financial times. Plus, they want to eliminate all funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting! What did Sesame Street ever do to you?! Going after public tv and public radio? That's real big of you. In another huge shock, they also propose cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities.

There's already in-fighting going on in the Republican party, as many freshmen and tea party-backed House members want to see $100 billion in cuts. They say this was a campaign promise that Boehner and other Republican leaders made. However, after taking office (of course), Republican leaders dismissed the idea as unrealistic.

Obama is also proposing some asshole cuts, including cutting in half funding for low-income heating assistance. Obama wants the funding amount to return to the 2008 level -- there was an increase since then because Congress recognized you need to take into account the spiked increase in the price of fuel.

Something to keep in mind is that Congress never approved a budget for the fiscal year that began in September. Government operations have been financed through a temporary resolution that expires March 4. If Congress and the White House can't agree on a budget for the rest of the fiscal year, this could lead to a standstill (i.e., government shutdown) (Full Story)(Full Story)

Fighting in southern Sudan had resulted in more than 100 deaths. The fighting, which broke out on Wednesday, is a result of rebels loyal to George Athor attacking the army. Southern Sudan security forces, rebels, and civilians have been killed in the fighting. During the fighting, two army trucks were blown up by land mines.

George Athor took up arms last year when he believed there was fraud in the state elections. Athor was accused by people in the south that he was part of a ploy by the north to stir up trouble and to derail the referendum. The north denied any involvement. Athor finally agreed to a ceasefire deal with the military (the Sudan People's Liberation Army) last month, just days before the independence referendum vote. However, he did not attend the signing ceremony in person.

Athor has blamed the SPLA for attacking his forces. However, he also said that he is willing to hold new talks with the SPLA. This in-fighting is one of the challenges Southern Sudan faces in forming their own country and maintaining security. (Full Story)

Yesterday, President Mubarak announced in a speech to the country that he would not step down as president. He said he would remain in office until September, when the elections will be held. He did say he would turn over some power to his vice president (although, given that the vice president position was only created a few weeks ago, of course there would naturally be some power delegated from the president to the vice president. This doesn't seem like much of a concession). The crowds of protesters, of course, were not happy with Mubarak's announcement. They vowed to continue protesting and striking.

And then today, in an about-face, Mubarak has stepped down. It's believed that the protesters' furious response after Mubarak's speech and then international leaders subsequently pressuring Mubarak to listen to his people is what resulted in him stepping down. He has resigned his position and turned over all power to the military. All authority has been passed to a council of military leaders (the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces). Last I heard, Mubarak has gone to his coastal resort home in Sharm el-Sheik (which is in Egypt). The military has pledged to carry out constitutional reforms. The military is much more popular among the Egyptian people than Mubarak's government was. It not clear yet what role, if any, Vice President Suleiman will have under the military council's rule.

It will be interesting to see what develops in Egypt over the next little bit, and whether the military council does indeed enact reforms that the people want (including a democratic government). Hearing the news today about Mubarak stepping down really makes you reflect on the past couple of weeks in Egypt. It is impressive that a mostly non-violent (violence was started on the other side), grassroots effort created such political change. The recent stories of Tunisia and Egypt are very exciting and monumental. (Full Story)

February 09, 2011

2011-02-09T16:11:00.002-05:00

A massive study that looked at global health has found some interesting trends. The study, which will be published in three papers in the Lancet, had over 100 collaborators and used data from 199 countries and regions. One trend they found is that the world is getting fatter. From 1980 to 2008, the average BMI for men rose in all but eight countries; for women, it rose in all but 19. During that same time frame, obesity increased from 4.8% to 9.8% for men, and from 7.9% to 13.8% for women. The data revealed that men and women on the Pacific island of Nauru are the heaviest groups in the world.

Another trend is that blood pressure has been coming down in recent decades. Worldwide, blood pressure has fallen from 131 to 128 for men, and 127 to 124 for women. Researchers found that significant progress has been made in industrialized nations. Treatment of hypertension and efforts to limit the amount of salt in the diet has led to huge reductions. The U.S. and Australia now have some of the lowest average blood pressures in the world. Among industrialized countries, American men and South Korean women have the lowest blood pressure. American women have the fourth lowest. In contrast, blood pressure is highest in the Baltic countries and in east and west Africa.

Looking at cholesterol levels, there has been little change over the past three decades. For men it's 179 milligrams per deciliter and 184 for women (the target for healthful cholesterol is under 200). However, although it has remained pretty stable, there have been some countries that have experienced drops in cholesterol and some that have experienced increases. The researchers found a trend of cholesterol levels falling in "developed" countries and rising in "developing" countries. In Europe, North America, and Australia, cholesterol levels fell, as a result of cholesterol-lowering medicine and some dietary changes. The U.S., Canada, Sweden, and Finland have achieved large decreases in average cholesterol over the past 20 years. Conversely, cholesterol rose in East and Southeast Asia. This is probably a result of additional animal fat in the diet that comes with greater wealth. Icelandic men and women from Greenland have the highest cholesterol in the world.

The epidemiologist that headed the project concluded, "Our results show that overweight and obesity, high blood pressure, and high cholesterol are no longer Western problems or problems of wealthy nations. Their presence has shifted towards low- and middle-income countries, making them global problems." Cardiovascular disease now kills more people than any other cause of death. A major question that has risen from this project is whether Asian countries, with their rising cholesterol and blood pressure, will experience a heart disease epidemic like Western nations did in the post-WWII decades -- or whether these public health problems can be avoided through behavior change, medical treatment, and public health campaigns. Some epidemiologists are skeptical, as the lessons of history are not encouraging: often health problems aren't addressed until they rise to high levels.

The head researcher of the project also added that a study looking at rising blood sugar and rates of diabetes worldwide is underway. (Full Story)

Thousands of workers in Egypt, from a variety of different sectors, have gone on strike to demand better pay, benefits, and working conditions. More than 5,000 workers went on strike in Suez, and smaller strikes involving hundreds of workers haven taken place in cities across Egypt, including in Cairo. Thousands of others have held protests on company grounds. It's believed that these strikes will add further momentum to the anti-government protests. The Egyptian government had already offered a 15% pay raise for all public workers, effective in April. However, there are some doubts as to whether the promise will be honored. (Full Story)

The Pew Research Center has found that the political unrest in Egypt is the biggest international news story in the past four years (it was four years ago that the Pew's Project for Excellence in Journalism first began collecting data for their News Coverage Index). It's also the fourth biggest story of any kind (behind two weeks of the 2008 presidential campaign and the Tucson shooting spree that happened in January). Between January 31 and February 6, 56% of news stories were devoted to the situation in Egypt. The next most-covered international event was the war in Iraq from September 9 to September 14, which had 43% of news stories. The coverage of Egypt also surpassed the coverage of the conflict in Afghanistan, the protests in Iran, and the earthquake in Haiti. (Full Story)

February 08, 2011

2011-02-08T14:05:00.010-05:00

The leadership in Egypt held meetings with the opposition in order to generate discussions. Prime Minister Shafiq and Vice President Suleiman have met with protesters including ElBaradei, representatives from the Muslim Brotherhood (the outlawed Islamist group that the Egyptian government has attempted to repress for many years. In related news, King Abdullah II of Jordan met with his country's branch of the Brotherhood last week as well), and youth factions. The opposition coalition group consisted of about 50 people. The meetings were held to discuss ways this impasse could possibly end -- though some of the opposition say they were more sizing up the other side rather than negotiating. One proposal floated included dissolving parliament and ending emergency laws that grant power to the police. Another proposal involved Mubarak giving more power to his vice president and stepping down in all but name. However, the opposition is still firm in their dedication to not back down until Mubarak steps down. Overall, a consensus was not reached during the discussions, but the fact that the discussions even happened (and that people like ElBaradei and the Muslim Brotherhood were included) is a step towards progress.

Egyptian leaders continue to make concessions: The top leaders of the ruling party, including Mubarak's son Gamal, stepped down on Saturday. During the meetings with the opposition, Vice President Suleiman said the government would allow concessions like freedom of the press, release of detainees imprisoned since the protests began, the eventual abolishment of the country's emergency laws (these "emergency laws" have been in effect since 1981 when Mubarak took office. These laws give police extreme powers to suppress civil and human rights), and a pledge not to interfere with text messaging and internet access. Suleiman also announced that committees have been created to propose constitutional amendments that many have called for in the past, including presidential term limits and relaxing eligibility rules for who can run for political office.

Protesters feel the concessions fell short (they still want Mubarak to step down), and they vowed to continue protesting. Many protesters believe the Mubarak regime simply wants to wear down their movement and are only enacting superficial reforms. They believe these 'reforms' will keep the same monopoly of power in place. More than 100,000 people turned out in the capital's central square today to continue protesting. Protests are also continuing in Alexandria and other cities around Egypt. (Full Story)(Full Story)(Full Story)(Full Story)

The Southern Sudan Referendum Commission announced the official vote tally, and they confirm that 98.83% of the voters in Southern Sudan voted in favor of independence and forming their own country. Sudan's president (the political leadership is located in the capital of Khartoum, which is in Northern Sudan), Omar al-Bashir, has previously said that he will accept the outcome of the vote.

The referendum, which took place in January, was part of the 2005 peace agreement which ended the civil war between the south and the north in Sudan. The civil war lasted over 20 years. The south wanted independence because they see themselves as culturally, religiously, and ethnically different from the north, and they have suffered years of discrimination by the north. The U.S., which was part of the peace agreement process, said they would remove Sudan from their list of countries that sponsor terrorism if the referendum goes well (i.e., it's peaceful, the results are recognized, etc). The U.S. intends to formally recognize the newly formed country of Southern Sudan in July. The formal declaration of independence will be made on July 9.

Overall, the vote was peaceful, but tensions still remain high in the border region (where the north and south meets. The ownership of some of this land is still contested. Adding to the conflict is that some of the border regions are oil-rich). At least 50 people were killed over the weekend when fighting broke out between soldiers in south Sudan's Upper Nile state. The referendum vote was the first step in the process. Negotiations on how to divide up the disputed border regions (like Abyei), and how to deal with issues of citizenship, legal matters, and natural resources (like oil) still need to occur. Hopefully these issues get worked out non-violently, and hopefully the north (and Omar al-Bashir) continues to be cooperative. (Full Story)

A study published in the journal Health Affairs has found that female physicians' average starting salary was nearly $17,000 less than their male counterparts' in 2008. This is even with researchers controlling for work hours, choice of specialty, practice setting, and other factors. Furthermore, this is a significant increase in the gap -- in 1999, the gender gap in starting salaries was $3,600. This finding is alarming because female and male doctors are now on track to reaching parity. Today, half of all medical students are female. In the mid-1960s, only 9% of medical students were female. One in three U.S. doctors are women.

The results came from a 10-year analysis of data from New York. The researchers analyzed starting salary because they felt it was a good measure due to the fact that it avoids possible differences in productivity that might come later in doctors' careers, such as taking time off to have children. Some have argued that women make less on average because they tend to go into lower-paying fields, such as pediatrics, family practice, or general internal medicine. However, the study found that women are now no more likely to go into these fields than new male doctors. In addition, they found that women that go into high-paying fields like cardiology, radiology, and anesthesiology all start at salaries thousands of dollars less than comparable men. For example, a starting cardiologist in 2008 made $228,188 if they were male and $204,671 if they were female. For radiologists, men made $250,709 while women made $244,532.

More research would need to be conducted in order to explain the $17,000 gap, as the researchers found that the gap cannot be explained by the factors mentioned above (work hours, choice of specialty, etc). The authors of the paper say that they don't believe gender discrimination in the labor market is the result, but they can't prove it. [FYI, the authors of this study are economists...As a sociologist, I think gender discrimination definitely plays a role in differential hiring and salary for females in comparison to their male counterparts with similar credentials. It might not be the result of explicit gender discrimination (though sometimes is), but there's definitely implicit discrimination. In addition, the historical impacts of discrimination play a role. The many years women were left out of the labor market (and particularly in "male-dominated" sectors) has definitely had a lasting effect on women's positions and salaries throughout the years.] The authors think one possible explanation is that as more women becomes doctors, employers are offering greater flexibility in hours -- and that these family-friendly policies are "more appealing to female practitioners", but it comes at the price of lower pay. However, I thought the research found that when controlling for hours worked, the gender gap still wasn't explained. Regardless, this raises another issue: why are female workers the ones that often take advantage of (or are responsible for taking advantage of) flexible, family-friendly policies? Mothers are often seen as the ones responsible for taking care of the bulk of family care, and thus they're the ones that have to take on flexible schedules (potentially at the cost of advancement in their careers or salary increases). Parental responsibilities need to be divided up more evenly, and maybe then we'd start to see a decrease in pay gaps between the genders. (Full Story)

February 03, 2011

2011-02-03T16:27:00.003-05:00

Inspired by the events in Tunisia and Egypt, there is a growing youth movement in Sudan that is protesting the ruling government. President Omar al-Bashir has been in charge of the country for 21 years. Messages calling for protests began to appear on Facebook, and in the past week thousands of young Sudanese have begun protesting. Like in Tunisia and Egypt, the protesters are upset about the poor economy, the rising price of food, unemployment, and political repression. Although each individual protest is not very big -- sometimes a dozen people, sometimes a few hundred -- they are well-organized and they're happening all across northern Sudan. They're becoming more widespread. The police have cracked down hard on these protests. Many protesters have been beaten with batons and sticks, and some have been arrested. One protester has died as a result of injuries caused by the police. (Full Story)

Violence has broken out in Egypt as Mubarak supporters clash with protesters. Thousands of Mubarak supporters flooded the capital yesterday and this sparked violent clashes. The showdown started when men riding camel and horses started hitting the protesters with whips and clubs. Then both sides started attacking each other with rocks, sticks, and firebombs (e.g., Molotov cocktails). There has also been gunfire. A portion of the Egyptian Museum in Cairo was sit on fire by a Molotov cocktail. So far eight people have been killed as a result of the violence over the last two days. Five of the dead were shot by Mubarak loyalists. It is believed that more than 800 people have been injured. Initially the military stood by neutrally, but it seems as if they are now making more of an effort to keep the rival groups apart. The Prime Minister and Vice President both vowed to find those responsible for the violence (though some observers say that the attacks were orchestrated by the government and that the mobs were encouraged by Mubarak).

In addition, many foreign journalists have been attacked by pro-Mubarak mobs and some journalists have even been detained. Journalists have reported being been beaten with sticks and fists. In addition, there have been reports that security forces and mob members have stolen or destroyed their media equipment. The mobs are unhappy with the journalists bringing attention to the protesters and for reporting on the violence against the protesters. The Egyptian government has accused the foreign media of being sympathetic to the protesters. This is obviously an organized effort to hinder reporting and to intimidate journalists.

The Egyptian government has announced recently that Mubarak's son will not take his father's place and will not run in the upcoming presidential election. Mubarak also told ABC News that he wants to step down, but fears that there would be chaos if he did (yeah....nice excuse). (Full Story) (Full Story) (Full Story)

February 02, 2011

2011-02-02T15:15:00.004-05:00

As a result of thousands of protesters taking to the streets in Yemen, President Ali Abdullah Saleh announced today that he plans to step down when his term is up. However, his term expires in 2013. President Saleh has been president for more than 30 years. The president also announced that he will not turn the power over to his son once he steps down. Saleh made this announcement the day before a planned rally ("a day of rage") in the capital. He announced this as a concession and called on the opposition to stop all planned demonstrations. President Saleh has already made earlier concessions to the protesters, including halving the income tax, ordering his government to control prices, and he pledged to raise the salaries of civil servants and military personnel. The largest opposition party in Yemen welcomed his announcement, but said the planned rally would not be called off. It should be noted that President Saleh made a similar announcement to step down before the 2006 presidential election, but then he reversed his decision. (Full Story)

An opposition website in Iran is reporting that a prominent Iranian lawyer that has defended opposition activists has been sentenced to 18 months in prison. He was convicted of spreading propaganda against the ruling government and insulting the head of the country's judiciary. This is another example of Iran's crackdown on dissidents after the contested June 2009 presidential election. More than 100 people -- including activists, political figures, and journalists -- have been tried since the election. Last month, a human rights lawyer was sentenced to 11 years in prison on security charges. (Full Story)

In addition, the UN's high commissioner for human rights has reported that executions in Iran have surged this year. The commissioner, Navi Pillay, said that Iran has executed at least 66 people this year. Her tally is based on Iranian press reports, as Iran does not officially report execution numbers. Most executions were for drug offenses, but at least three were for political activism. Two executions were held in public. Pillay said she is worried about the large number of political prisoners, drug offenders, and juvenile offenders who remain on death row.
This week the Dutch government froze all official contact with Iran as a form of protest after a Dutch-Iranian woman was hung in Terhan this past Saturday. Iranian state television reported that she was hung for possessing and selling drugs. However, she was arrested in December 2009 after protesting President Ahmadinejad's re-election...(Full Story)

February 01, 2011

2011-02-01T15:33:00.006-05:00

Illinois has legalized civil unions for gay and lesbian couples. The legislation passed the state Senate and House, and the governor signed the bill into law yesterday.The state will now recognize same-sex couples, and as a result, these couples will be granted significant legal protections and rights. This includes things like the right to decide medical treatment for their partner, visitation rights at the hospital, inheritance rights, and insurance coverage. The law will take effect June 1. Illinois is now the sixth state to allow civil unions. Five other states and Washington DC have legalized gay marriage. Marriage is still defined in Illinois as a union between one man and one woman, but this is still a huge step in the right direction. It should also be noted that civil unions are still not recognized by the federal government. (Full Story)

The influence of the Tunisian uprising has rippled across North Africa and the Middle East. There have since been protests and calls for reform in various countries including Egypt, Yemen, Algeria, Syria, and Jordan. Today in Egypt protests continued as a "march of millions" was held. Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators gathered in Cairo's main square to protest the government and call for President Mubarak to step down (he has run Egypt for nearly 30 years). The crowd has been estimated at anywhere between 250,000 and 2 million people. Thousands of other protesters have gathered in cities across Egypt. These protests have been happening despite Mubarak instituting a curfew and cutting internet and cellphone service.

Over the past several days, Mubarak has taken actions to appease the protesters -- he asked his cabinet to resign, he named a new prime minister and installed new members of the government, and he appointed a vice president for the first time during his rule. However, he has, as of yet, sidestepped the protesters' demands for him to step down. It's being reported that Mubarak will allegedly make a speech today where he announces that he won't run for reelection, but he will stay on until the end of his term (which will be in September). I cannot imagine the demonstrators will be happy with this concession, and I would assume they won't not stop until Mubarak steps down. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of days.

The Palestinian government in West Bank also recently pledged to hold local elections "as soon as possible". Many think this is a result of what's been happening in Egypt. Furthermore, the king of Jordan dismissed his government today and appointed a new prime minister as a result of several thousand people protesting and calling for reform in the country. (Full Story)(Full Story)

In China, news from Egypt is being censored. Two of China's largest online portals blocked keyword searches for "Egypt" (hopefully no one had to do a report on the Pyramids for school...). Searching "Egypt" has also been blocked from China's equivalent of Twitter. In addition to blocking information online, the Chinese government has also started to "spin" the events in Egypt. They can't keep this international news completely hidden (a task like this is too hard to carry out this day and age), but they can manipulate the stories. In articles and editorials in state-controlled newspapers, the protests in Egypt have been described as chaotic and riotous, and that this is the downside of trying to establish democracy in a country that is not yet ready for it (this is the line China's leaders have been saying for a while). The events in Egypt are being framed in China as an example of another unsuccessful attempt at democracy. One editorial mirrored official thinking and stated that "color revolutions will not bring about real democracy" (Read: don't even try it!). In some of the articles that appear in the Communist Party's main newspaper and China's official news agency, it was simply left out that the origins of the unrest in Egypt is political discontent. The last thing China wants is for Chinese citizens to see that political reforms can happen due to grassroot efforts to organize citizens together in order to express their unhappiness with the way their government is running. (Full Story)

January 31, 2011

2011-01-31T15:54:00.001-05:00

Belarus has begun releasing political opposition leaders that were imprisoned after a large anti-government protest last month. The protest was in response to a fraudulent election in December, in which, huge surprise, the incumbent President Lukashenko (who has been president for 16 years) won. (And he won with almost 80% of the vote! At least try to hide the fact that the election was fraudulent!). At least seven people have been freed over the past few days, and it appears to be a last-minute attempt to appease European leaders who are planning to put in place sanctions against Belarus. Approximately two dozen opposition leaders, including three presidential candidates, still remain in jail. They face up to 15 years for their roles in organizing the protest after the election.

After the election in December, thousands of people were angry about Lukashenko's victoy and they held a protest in a central square in the capital. They called for the president to step down. The protest was mostly non-violent. Lukashenko claims that this was an attempt to overthrow his government and that Western powers were involved. Many protesters were arrested, including opposition leaders that ran against Lukashenko as presidential candidates. One presidential candidate was beaten unconscious during the protest, and was taken to prison directly from his hospital bed.

The EU is expected to complete their plans this week for sanctions against Belarus -- including travel bans and asset freezes against the president and other government officials. EU leaders have said that only the unconditional release of those jailed after the elections could result in them dropping the sanctions. Those that were recently released, including journalists and former presidential candidates, were put under house arrest and 24-hour surveillance. The mother of a journalist that was recently released (the journalist's husband, one of the presidential candidates, is still in jail) said her daughter is not allowed to speak with anyone, no one can come over to her home, she's not allowed to speak on the phone, and two KGB agents are stationed inside her home at all times. (Full Story)

The New York Times has an interesting article on aging and the elderly population in China. The Civil Affairs Ministry to China's State Council has submitted a proposal that adult children would be required by law to visit their elderly parents. And if they do not, they can be sued by their parents. The proposal could be considered by the National People's Congress, which holds its annual session in March, but some believe that it is not likely to pass.

Beyond this controversial new proposal, I like how the article discussed the changing demographics in China and how this is affecting the elderly. With rapid urbanization and economic growth in China, which can greatly change living arrangements and family obligations, the elderly appear to be getting less care and attention. China has the third highest elderly suicide rate in the world (behind South Korea and Taiwan). The average suicide rate among people aged 70-74 living in cities nearly tripled between 2002 and 2009. One explanation for this is urbanization. More and more older people are moving out of intimate, smaller neighborhoods where they were surrounded by family and friends, and moving into lonely high-rises where they don't feel a sense of belonging and feel forgotten. However, suicide does not seem to only be a problem for the urban elderly. Although the suicide rate among 70-74 year olds in rural areas has decreased compared to the average rate for the 1990s, the rural elderly suicide rate still remains higher than their urban counterparts.

Another factor playing a role in the treatment of the elderly is that China's elderly population is rapidly growing, while the number of young adults is decreasing. It's estimated that the proportion of the elderly will nearly double between 2008 and 2025. By 2050, one in four Chinese will be 65 and older. As a result, there's more people to be cared for than there are family caregivers. In addition, while the idea of adult children caring for their elderly parents is deeply ingrained within Chinese culture, changing times and demographics can make this ideal more difficult to carry out. Younger generations are moving away from their parents more and more (for work or for school, for example), and this can lead to the children developing different values or priorities (or simply being unable to care for the family because they're a distance away). Today it is less common than in the past to have several generations living within one household. Now more than half of all Chinese over the age of 60 do not live with their adult children. In some major cities, it's as high as 70%.

While I think this is an interesting concept -- forcing children to spend more time with their elders and caring for them -- I think there needs to be a much better (and lasting) solution to address the physical, mental, and social needs of the elderly. While it should definitely be encouraged to spend more time with your elders, the family should not be considered the only source of care -- especially as the changing demographics and the mobility of the younger generations makes that more difficult to carry out. The proposal does in fact address the need for more facilities, community care, and in-home services for the elderly, as well as other social services like free routine medical check-up. I think that's what they should be focusing their attention and not on suing the children. When family care is not available (or not given), the elderly need to have access to care facilities or care resources (like community homes, nurses, in-home care), affordable medical treatment, affordable mental health care, and a sense of community. There should be an effort to get more community groups or clubs -- like exercise clubs, reading clubs, dance classes, educational classes, support groups, etc -- that the elderly can be a part of. We all need to feel as if we belong to something -- and if family is not one of those things (or isn't frequent enough), there needs to be other options available for them in which they are encouraged to join. (Full Story)

November 23, 2010

2010-11-23T15:28:00.001-05:00

Here's an update on the senate race in Alaska: Last week Lisa Murkowski was declared the winner (in the press) after they finished tallying the write-in votes. She beat Joe Miller by just over 10,000 votes. But that was very short-lived.

A few days later, an Alaskan federal judge ruled that Joe Miller's challenge to the counting of write-in ballots (he wanted to stop the state from determining voter-intent when it came to misspellings. Miller said spellings had to be perfect or thrown out) is valid and does raise "serious" legal issues. However, the federal judge said that it's a matter to be decided in a state court, not a federal court. In the interim, the federal judge granted a temporary injunction to stop the election results from being certified. The stipulation was that Miller would have to take his case to state court by Monday. (Full Story)

And that's exactly what Miller did. In addition to complaining about the way votes were counted (determining intent when it comes to phonetic spellings), he also complained that write-in candidates like Murkowski have a huge advantage because the state hand-reviews write-in ballots, but the ballots for other candidates went through automatic machines. That seems like a pretty lame complaint. How many people are actually on the side that write-in candidates have a better advantage than candidates whose names appear on the ballot?! I think Joe Miller (and his supporters) is the only one. Write-in candidates are often at a huge disadvantage. The fact that Murkowski seemingly won with a write-in campaign just goes to show how much Alaskans did not want Joe Miller to be their senator. And now he's also complaining about his ballots being counted by a machine whereas Murkowski's were hand-reviewed!? He is really stretching. Traditional ballots are designed to be read by machines. There's no "intent" involved. The whole reason write-in ballots are hand-reviewed is because it is hand-written and computers can't review that. And are you really going to throw out a vote because the voter wrote Merkowski? Counting that vote isn't a result of determining intent, it's a result of using common sense.

So now Miller is waiting for the state court to decide on the standard by which ballots should be judged. The Miller campaign has already said that after the court rules, Miller wants a hand count. I assume that means he wants a hand recount of all the votes. What a huge waste of time that would be. Murkowski is ahead of Miller by 10,328 votes. There are 8,159 ballots contested by Miller observers. Even if those were thrown out, she'd still be ahead by 2,169 votes. Just give it up already, Miller. Even the Alaska Republican Party has urged Miller to concede. (Full Story)

November 22, 2010

2010-11-22T12:08:00.003-05:00

Although Myanmar leaders have released Aung San Suu Kyi, it doesn't mean they're being reasonable now. Myanmar's government has shut down a shelter for patients with HIV and AIDS, and ordered more than 80 people to leave. This came a day after Suu Kyi visited the shelter and promised to get the shelter badly needed medicines. She also addressed a crowd of more than 600 that gathered to see her.

The day after Suu Kyi's visit, government officials said that the center's permit was not being renewed and told the patients that they would have to leave the shelter by next week or face legal action (what a coincidence...). In Myanmar, it is the law that homeowners must seek government permission every two weeks to allow visitors to stay over night (!). One of the organizers of the shelter said, "We have been allowed to renew our resident permits in the past. I think authorities want to pressure us because of aunty's [Suu Kyi, she is referred to as "aunt" or "aunty" by Burmese supporters] visit to the shelter."

The shelter -- which currently accommodates 82 patients, including children -- provides housing, food, medicine, and educational opportunities. Health authorities offered to move the patients to their own HIV center; however, patients have said they do not want to leave the shelter that has become home for them. They want to make their own choice as to where they stay and they don't want to be pressured to leave. (Full Story)

In another incident in Myanmar, a popular Burmese sports magazine First Eleven was shut down by the government for two weeks. The reason? They had a front page soccer headline that read: "Sunderland Freeze Chelsea, United Stunned By Villa, & Arsenal Advance To Grab Their Hope." Apparently some letters in the headline were shaded a different color from the rest, so that it could have been read as "Su Free, Unite & Advance To Grab The Hope."

Either the government is stretching and they're being overly conspiratorial OR that sports magazine is absolutely brilliant. If it is true (if the magazine did intentionally shade the letters to get a secret message across), what a novel way to get messages of activism out. If that is the case, you see what lengths people have to go to try to organize in Myanmar.

In Myanmar, daily and electronic media is monopolized by the state. All privately-owned publications have to submit their issues to the Press Security Board, a government censorship board, for approval (!). The government has recently suspended eight magazines in Myanmar for their coverage of Suu Kyi's freedom. It is believed that their suspension will last one to two weeks. These eight magazines had prominently published news and photos about Suu Kyi's release. One magazine, 7 Day News, got in trouble for a supplementary section on Suu Kyi. In the supplementary inserts they printed photos of her, and they were used as wrap-around covers. They got suspended supposedly because the size of the insert was against regulation. One of the editors of the magazine explained, "The Press Security Board said we violated the regulations by printing the second cover the same size as the actual magazine, but I think the real reason is for using [Suu Kyi's] photo on the cover." (Full Story)(Full Story - at the bottom)(Full Story - at the bottom)

Luckily, in a rare bout of reasonableness, the ruling junta in Myanmar granted Aung San Suu Kyi's son a visa. Suu Kyi hasn't seen her son in 10 years. Her 33 year old son lives in Britain and he has repeatedly been denied visas by the Myanmar government. His last visit to the country was in 2000. The British embassy said his visit is strictly a private one and he doesn't intend to discuss politics. Suu Kyi would not go to visit her son in Britain because she is unwilling to leave Myanmar for fear that she would not be let back in. Her activism and calls for democracy are a threat to the ruling junta in Myanmar, and the government would probably love nothing more than to not let her back in the country.

Suu Kyi was mostly raised overseas, she married a British academic, and she initially raised their two sons in England. She returned to her home country in 1988 when her mother was sick. This is when mass demonstrations against the country's military rule were breaking out. During this time of unrest, Suu Kyi was thrust into a leadership role, mainly because she was the daughter of Aung San -- a revolutionary leader that helped bring about Burma's independence from British colonial rule. He is considered the country's founding father. He is also a martyred leader; he was assassinated for his activism. Suu Kyi took up the cause, and has subsequently faced many years of detention or house arrest. As a result, she hasn't seen her family very much. When she was first arrested in 1989, her eldest son was 16 and her younger son was 11. Her husband died of prostate cancer in 1999. For the three years leading up to his death, he kept trying to get a visa to see his wife but he was always denied. (Full Story)

November 17, 2010

2010-11-17T11:41:00.006-05:00

Quick update on Don't Ask, Don't Tell: No big surprise, but the Supreme Court ruled that DADT can remain in place while a federal appeals court examines the case. The Log Cabin Republicans took the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they would overturn the stay. No such luck. (Full Story)

In other news, Senator John McCain is being ridiculous. McCain is a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back in the day, he said he was against DADT being repealed unless military officials said it was the thing to do. Well, now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen have come out in support of repealing DADT. McCain seems to be ignoring this.

McCain also previously said he was in favor of not repealing DADT until the military can study it. Well, the military has studied it. The Pentagon is preparing a report due December 1 to Obama, but sources familiar with the report have already shared findings from the report. They said the study found that a majority of respondents to the survey said the effect of lifting the ban on gay soldiers would be positive, mixed, or non-existent. Despite this finding, now McCain is dragging his feet some more. He said, "Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted." In other words, it needs to be delayed some more. Despite approving the study earlier, now he's saying they studied the wrong thing. He says the Pentagon should study how ending DADT would impact troop morale and battle effectiveness, instead of reporting how the Defense Department could lift the ban. If the study found that a majority of soldiers don't think lifting DADT will be a problem, I think that's your answer right there in terms of the impact on troop morale and battle effectiveness (read: it won't have a negative effect on those things). Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said, "McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I'm looking for."

Obama is hoping that the senate will repeal DADT during the lame-duck session (i.e., before the new Congressional session starts). McCain has said he does not think the Senate should lift the ban during this time. He has mounted an effort to take out the DADT repealment from the defense authorization bill (which sets Pentagon policy). He said he wants to cut out the DADT amendment so that the defense authorization bill can be passed quickly. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he supports the ban but he will not proceed without Republican support. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she will vote for it if Reid allows Republicans to introduce amendments (Vote the issue, not the procedure! Opening up unlimited amendments by Republicans will probably kill the bill. And then Collins will probably still jump ship. I appreciate the Republican senators from Maine (Collins & Olympia Snowe) expressing a willingness to reach across the aisle and to vote with Democrats on various important measures. At the same time, I'm getting a little annoyed with them requesting all these compromises and favors, being granted those things, and then still not voting with them. Collins, vote the issue, not the procedure! I beg of you!). It's believed that at least 10 senators of both parties are waiting to read the Pentagon report because they make their decision. This seriously is the time to repeal it, here's no reason to keep this policy in place. It's an embarrassment and an injustice. (Full Story)

According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 50 million Americans lived in households (17.4 million households, or about 15% of all households) that had a hard time getting enough food to eat at least at some point in 2009. That includes 17 million children. About 5.6 million of these households had problems throughout the year that severely disrupted eating patterns (and between 500,000 and 1 million of these people affected were children).

These measures reached a record high in 2008, and one explanation for why it remained at about the same level this year instead of going higher (when millions more Americans were out of work) is because of food stamps and other assistance programs. There has been record growth in the use of the food stamps program (it's now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). Forty-two million Americans, or 1 in 8, now use them. The food stamp program was expanded last year by Congress as part of the economic recovery bill, and clearly it has helped to contain hunger [you mean, having a social safety net actually helps people?! What a novel concept!]. Furthermore, one in four households have at least one family member participating in a USDA feeding program, up from one in five two years ago. One source of help is that about one million children got free or reduced-price meals at their schools last year.

In light of this report, it will be interesting to see what happens when Congress faces the task of reauthorizing and expanding school lunch and other child nutrition programs. The bill has stalled in Congress because someone had the genius idea to propose that the $4.5 billion bill should be paid for by cutting future food stamp benefits. So, in order words, they want to fight against hunger by cutting benefits that will help families not go hungry.

Some conservatives are getting their Grinch hats ready for Christmas by saying that these problems are exaggerated. "They clearly exaggerate these numbers for political effect," says Robert Rector (the article calls him "a poverty expert with the Heritage Foundation" -- although we all know that's an oxymoron). Rector says that many of these people counted might have only missed one meal on one day in the whole course of the year. I think beliefs and statements like that are doing a great disservice to the number of people that are struggling. Saying this is exaggerated for political effect is undermining the great number of people that are having a tough time and experiencing food insecurity. Just looking at one statistic, 42 million Americans are on food stamps. People don't apply for food stamps because they missed one single meal throughout the course of the year. This problem is much more prevalent than people like Rector are willing to acknowledge. Regardless of what people like Rector say, people do not have to experience "chronic undernutrition" to have it hard. The problem of food insecurity shouldn't have to reach that extreme level for it to be taken serious. Besides, no family should have to forgo even one meal because they cannot afford it (especially in a prosperous country like the U.S.). (Full Story) (Full Story)

November 16, 2010

2010-11-16T13:46:00.002-05:00

In 2001, the California Legislature passed a measure that any student, regardless of immigration status, that attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated would be able to qualify for in-state tuition at California's public universities. In-state tuition saves each state college student about $11,000 a year and about $23,000 a year for each University of California student. These undocumented immigrant students would still be barred from receiving financial federal aid. The law also requires that the undocumented immigrants that apply for the in-state tuition have to swear that they will attempt to become a U.S. citizen.

A group of out-of-state students (who were U.S. citizens) then filed a lawsuit claiming that the law violated federal laws that bars undocumented immigrants from receiving post-secondary benefits not available to U.S. citizens based on state residency. In 2008, a state appellate court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.

The case then went to the California State Supreme Court. The court has upheld the state law and ruled unanimously that it was not unconstitutional (and six of the seven judges were appointed by Republicans governors). California is now one of ten states that allows undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition; but this ruling is the first of its kind in the nation. The justices said the California provision was constitutional because U.S. residents also have access to reduced tuition rates (yeah, if you want in-state tuition, move your ass to California, whiners) and that the California law is not based on residency. Under the law, the students are not receiving reduced college tuition based on residency; instead, the California law makes an exemption for students that attend state schools for three years. That means any non-resident who meets the law's requirements can get the reduced rate. Some of those students are undocumented immigrants, but it also includes U.S. citizens who attend high school in California but their family does not live in California (e.g., students that attended a California high school for at least three years, but then their family moved away; students that attended a boarding school in California). The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am very pleased with the California State Supreme Court's decision. Undocumented immigrants deserve an education too. They're already not entitled to government aid for education, so it's nice that this is one less financial roadblock to getting a college education (although even with in-state tuition, I bet some people will still have a hard time affording university). Groups opposed to this law say that lower tuition for undocumented immigrants will cost the state money. When in actuality, I bet the state is probably going to make more money than they would have in the first place. By giving the in-state tuition rate, maybe more immigrant students will find that attending university is financially possible. Before you were maybe going to get no tuition out of them, now you might be able to get $4,335-$11,285 annually from each student (depending on what school they attend). In addition, the more degree-holders and highly-skilled people in California translates into more benefits for the state's economy and workforce.

Many of the immigrant students that will benefit from this law most likely came to the U.S. with their families when they were very young. They probably have lived here for most of their life. These are students that attended at least three years in a California high school, they graduated, and they were accepted to a college. These are obviously very bright people (that have obviously overcame many challenges. Imagine the difficulties of going through life in the U.S. being a child of an undocumented worker), and they should be encouraged, not held back, from attending college. (Full Story)

November 15, 2010

2010-11-15T12:01:00.001-05:00

Arizona voters approved medical marijuana by a narrow margin. Arizona is the 15th state (including Washington, DC) to approve medical marijuana. The measure applies to patients with cancer, AIDS, or any other "chronic or debilitating" disease that meets guidelines. Patients have to get a recommendation from their doctor and register with the Arizona Department of Health Services. Once that occurs, they can grow plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.

The measure was opposed by all of Arizona's sheriffs and county prosecutors, the governor, and the state attorney general. Jeez. I know just the thing that will lighten them up... So, let me get this straight: Arizona's political leaders are fine passing racist, discriminatory, privacy-breaking laws regarding immigrants, but they draw the line at alleviating suffering for people with chronic diseases? Ok... (Full Story)

After more than seven years of house arrest by Myanmar's military junta, pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is now free. She has spent 15 of the last 21 years jailed or under house arrest. I know it's no coincidence that she was released after the election, but I'm glad they actually followed through with her release. However, I feel this "gesture" by Myanmar's military leaders (because it pretty much is a gesture, Suu Kyi is arbitrarily held under house arrest at the whim of the leaders) only goes so far. I believe Suu Kyi will try to play a strong role in promoting democracy in the country, and the military leaders (despite holding this recent election, which was a sham) have no intention of letting any power slip from their hands. It is an extremely repressive regime, and I don't think they're going to allow Suu Kyi to be involved in too much activism in Myanmar.

Only a day after being released, and Suu Kyi jumped back into politics. She has spoken with several diplomats, reporters, and members of her National League for Democracy party. She said she wanted to speak with the Myanmar leader General Than Shwe, that she would work to end the international sanctions on the country if the Burmese people wanted her to, and that she would work to help unite the opposition factions in Myanmar. The chairman of the opposition party National Democratic Force (the NDF split from Suu Kyi's NLD party so that they could run in last week's elections) said he welcomed this and that "we have great expectations that she might be able to lead to conciliate all the different forces in the country." Suu Kyi and the NDF have said they plan to investigate the vote rigging in the recent elections.

Suu Kyi is extremely intelligent, has amazing political skills, is very charismatic, and is pretty universally loved in Myanmar (outside of the military leaders, of course). She has the power to unite many people in Myanmar under one united front. Her popularity and her dedication to the cause of democracy in Myanmar makes her a threat to the military leaders. I'm skeptical that they're going to allow her to organize and promote her activism freely. She has been released from house arrest twice before, and in both instances she was put back under house arrest soon after. They have even resorted to violence in the past. For instance, in 2003 government-backed thugs attacked Suu Kyi's convoy and killed more than a hundred of her supporters and fellow party members. I can't imagine they would attempt violence against Suu Kyi again -- I think that could cause a revolt of the people and the international community would be outraged. But I'm not so sure that they won't try to limit her voice and activism through other means.

Amazingly, Suu Kyi said she holds no grudge against her captors. She's a better person than I would be. Also, what broke my heart in the article is when she said she was excited to be released because she was eager to hear human voices again -- for so many years she could only listen to the radio. (Full Story)

November 12, 2010

2010-11-12T12:53:00.007-05:00

After an eight-month political deadlock in Iraq, it has been announced that the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, and his State of Law party, has been given the nod to form the next government after a tentative deal was reached. Maliki, a Shiite, was able to gain enough support from other parties to form a majority coalition. One thing that helped with him forming the winning coalition is that he got the support of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric who was once Maliki's arch rival. It has been reported that Iran (which is Shiite-dominated) was behind this alliance, as they prefer to see all the Shiite parties in one coalition instead of fighting against each other.

After the announcement of a winning coalition was made, it was predicted that the new government would look a lot like the previous one. It was expected that Maliki would remain prime minister; Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, would remain as president; and the third top post, the speaker of Parliament, would go to a Sunni (this division of power is an effort to keep the country's three main factions happy). However, supporters of Ayad Allawi, head of the Iraqiya party (the Sunni bloc), were hoping that he would get a top post. They were hoping he would become president. But the Kurds, who hold the presidency, wouldn't budge on that. There's also been concern that if Allawi didn't take a top post, there could be sectarian unrest -- especially since the Iraqiya party got the most votes in the election. Despite getting the most votes in the election, they were unable to find enough coalition partners in order to get a majority of seats. As a result, it was unclear what role Allawi will play in the new government and how much power Iraqiya will have.

On Thursday, less than a day after the power-sharing deal was reached, the first session of the new parliament was called in order to formally begin the process of approving the new government. This is when the senior leadership positions are named. The first vote went smoothly, and Osama al-Nujaifi (a Sunni from the Iraqiya party) was elected as parliament speaker. Then, before the vote to elect a president, some Iraqiya members wanted to hold a vote to reverse a ban on three Iraqiya members. These members were disqualified from running in the election and were banned from government posts by a committee, headed by Shiites, that was in charge of rooting out candidates whom they described as loyalists to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. The Iraqiya members' request for a vote was rejected. As a result, 57 Iraqiya members (including Allawi) walked out. They had said that it was part of the power-sharing deal that the other factions would agree to get rid of the controversial de-Baathification law (which Sunnis believe is a Shiite attempt to bar Sunnis from returning to power). At a press conference after the walkout, a lawmaker from Iraqiya said they are seeking "explanations from al-Maliki and State of Law over their broken commitments."

After the walkout, the session continued and the remaining members of Parliament elected Jalal Talabani as president for a second term. After being elected, Talabani formally requested that Maliki form a new government. Maliki now has 30 days to do so. The factions will now work out who gets what ministry positions. Once that has been decided, we'll get a clearer idea of what the government will look like -- for instance, how much power Iraqiya is given and even how much power the anti-American Sadrist movement gets. The Obama administration pressed publicly for an inclusive government that would not disenfranchise Allawi's Sunni supporters, out of fear that this could incite insurgency. It is believed that Allawi will lead the newly created council that oversees issues of security and foreign policy. However, the extent of the council's power and authority remains vague. In fact, there is already contention over that. An Iraqiya lawmaker said the 20-member council will be headed by Allawi and that all decisions regarding security or foreign policy will have to pass the council unanimously, which serves as a real check on Maliki's power. But lawmakers from State of Law implied that that was not the case and that Maliki is unlikely to give up any power over security issues. They said he will not submit to the council's decisions, and that the council will serve as a place to come up with ideas, but not to wield power. It will be interesting to see what comes about. (Full Story)(Full Story)

November 10, 2010

2010-11-10T11:32:00.004-05:00

Remember how I thought Joe Miller (the Republican senatorial candidate for Alaska) and his supporters were being babies and "unsportsmanlike" because they tried to register 100 people to be write-in candidates, in order to create a long-list of write-in candidates on the ballot so that it's harder for voters to find his opponent's name (more here)? Well, now Joe Miller has filed a federal lawsuit in which he argues that ballots that have Lisa Murkowski's name spelled wrong (i.e., the voters spelled her name wrong when writing her name down as their write-in choice) should not count in the official tally. Miller asked the judge to stop the state from making a judgment on a voter's intentions. He says that state law allows no leeway for other spellings.

Lieutenant Governor Campbell, who oversees Alaska elections, has indicated that he will accept minor misspellings of Murkowksi's name as long as the "voter intent" is clear. He said, "The court have been very clear for the last 25 years that voter intent is important. You do not want to disenfranchise voters over a technicality." However, Miller's lawyer argues that nothing in the state law allows for that kind of discretion and the law does not allow the election board to weigh voter intent. Miller and his lawyer say the law says that a write-in vote shall only be counted "if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided." I'm no expert on Alaska law, but I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of that law was that when they say "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy" that they do not mean 'It needs to be spelled absolutely correct' but 'The write-in candidate needs to have a declaration of candidacy' (i.e., they need to have registered to be a write-in candidate). I can't imagine the intent was to disenfranchise voters because they used an "e" instead of an "o" in someone's last name, and other than that minor spelling, it's obvious who their vote is for.

Miller, always talking the high road, has also accused Lt. Gov. Campbell of bias, saying he was appointed by Lisa Murkowski's father (Frank Murkowski, who was governor at the time). Frank Murkowski appointed Campbell in 2003 to be the commissioner of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Then-Governor Sarah Palin is the one that chose Campbell to be in the position to take over the Lt. Governorship when she resigned as Governor in 2009. (Full Story)

This is so ridiculous. Miller and his lawyer are making "voter intent" to seem so much more sinister than it really is. It's not like the election board is looking at ballots saying "Hmm, this person voted for Miller, but I can tell by the wobbliness of the pen mark that they weren't certain in their vote. They probably meant to vote for Murkowski. Add one more vote to Murkowski's tally." Instead it's more like, "Oh, this person wrote in Merkowski. I think it's safe to assume they meant Murkowski." Miller should be ashamed of himself.

November 09, 2010

2010-11-09T11:42:00.002-05:00

In a follow-up to Oklahoma's new anti-Shariah amendment (more here): A federal judge temporarily stopped this anti-Shariah law from taking effect. Muneer Awad, head of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations challenged it in federal court a few days after the ballot initiative was approved (by 70% of voters). Awad said, "You have a state-endorsed amendment in our Constitution that isolates, targets, and marginalizes Muslims as a threat to the American way of life. We would be stigmatized by this amendment as being an unequal member in the political community in the state of Oklahoma." Awad told Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange that the amendment hinders his religious freedom. The judge granted a temporary stay and said the law cannot take effect until all the constitutional arguments have been heard.

Many constitutional scholars agree that this law is absurd. This amendment is an example of the fear that Islam is taking over this country. Constitutional scholars say that if religious practice conflicts with American law, courts will strike it down. Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer, says there is no validity to the belief that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here. He stated, "Stoning, cutting off of hands, people being forced to wear veils and the like are simply not going to happen with the assistance of the courts." He argues that what this new Oklahoma amendment does is favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. He gave the example of how it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement, or a contract based on religious law. He explained, "This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law. It doesn't say you can't take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious behavior. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out."

Another problem with the law is that it also said that courts cannot consider international law when deciding cases. It would bar courts of the state from recognizing all international law, including treaties and international business contracts, which are often based on foreign law. Not only does it make Oklahoma seem like crazy isolationists, but it could hurt foreign investment in Oklahoma. A University of Oklahoma law professor argues that this could result in foreign companies not wanting to do business in Oklahoma, especially since international investors rely on international law to protect their contract rights. (Full Story)

According to a new survey conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, 84% of parents reported that their kids had eaten at a fast food restaurant in the past seven days. In addition (and in relation), the researchers found that kids are seeing more fast food ads in recent years. The research team analyzed ads aired by 12 fast food chains (including Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, and KFC), and found that preschoolers are seeing 21% more ads for fast food compared to 2003; older children are seeing 34% more. The average preschooler sees about three ads a day, while teenagers see about five per day.

This is despite fast food industry leaders voluntarily agreeing in 2006, at the recommendation of the Better Business Bureau, to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to kids. They had pledged that in ads directed towards kids, at least 50% of those ads would be devoted to 'healthier choices' at their fast food restaurant. The Yale researchers say these companies have not lived up to the agreement. As part of their study, the researchers sent people into a few hundred fast food restaurants to track how often healthy sides were offered when parents ordered kids' meals. They found that 80% of the time french fries were given automatically, and the customer wasn't even offered the healthier choices.

Burger King and McDonald's say they're both honoring their marketing agreements. McDonald's chief marketing officer says "100 percent" of their children's ads in the US include "dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans." (yeah, they probably include choices that do fit within the guidelines, but then they probably also includes choices that do not fit within the guidelines). McDonald's also says that since 2008, US customers have purchased more than 100 million Happy Meals with apple dippers. That is a step forward -- that people are making healthier choices with their kids' meals by having apples instead of fries...But the problem is still that 100 million Happy Meals have been sold...in two years. The Happy Meal doesn't consist only of milk and apple dippers (and those apples are being dipped in caramel, fyi). Burger King says that their Kids Meal ads only feature combinations that have no more than 560 calories, and less than 30% of those calories are from fat. Obesity experts say that if kids stick with the kids' meals, the calorie count isn't that alarming. The problem is when they move on to the regular meals. The Rudd Center study found that teens often order from the regular menu, and purchase meals that have as much as 1,100 calories. That is almost half of their recommended total daily calories. (Full Story)

November 08, 2010

2010-11-08T11:34:00.006-05:00

The too-close-to-call Washington senate race was finally concluded. Senator Patty Murray (D) defeated her Republican challenger, Dino Rossi. This means the Senate now consists of 53 Democrats and 46 Republicans. The Alaska senate race still hasn't been decided. (Full Story)

Myanmar (Burma) held parliamentary elections on Sunday -- the first election in twenty years. However, it wasn't a free or fair election. The election was designed to guarantee victory for the allies of the military junta that has been running the country for 48 years. There was not much excitement among the voters because they felt they were simply going through the motions of voting, and that the outcome was already predetermined.

The national results have not been announced yet (probably won't be until this evening, at the earliest). But with the Union Solidarity and Development Party and The National Unity Party, which are pro-regime, fielding 80% of the candidates -- it's predicted that they will win easily. The largest opposition group that participated in the election, the National Democratic Force, were only able to field candidates in a small number of available constituencies. They fielded candidates in just 159 of the 1,157 constituencies. In addition, the junta decided in their newly created constitution that 25% of the seats in both of the two new national assemblies and the 14 regional parliaments are reserved for the military.

You may also remember that the National League for Democracy (which has been the main opposition party in Myanmar, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi. They won a landslide victory the last time elections were held in 1990, but the junta refused to hand over power) decided in March that they would not take part in the election because of the unjust electoral laws. In order to participate in the election, they would have to drop Aung San Suu Kyi and other prominent party leaders from their party. The leaders of Myanmar had enacted new election laws that ban people with criminal charges from being a member of a political party or voting (and how convenient that that includes Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for being considered a dissident by the junta). The laws also banned civil servants and members of religious orders from joining political parties. With the largest opposition party boycotting the election, it's pretty easy to win. Suu Kyi did not vote, she remains under house arrest, but her sentence is due to end this Saturday (how convenient that it was after the election). We'll see if they do release her, or if they'll find some other way to keep her under house arrest.

Most international monitors and journalists were barred by the rulers of Myanmar. The leaders of Myanmar instead invited a group of diplomats of their own choosing to observe the election process. The group of diplomats was led by the North Korean ambassador...That's right, North Korea -- as in, the beacon of democracy. Observers of the election say that there did not appear to be overt intimidation of voters to get them to vote for pro-junta parties. However, even if this is true (which it probably isn't), many voters were afraid that authorities would be able to track their votes, and that they would face consequences for voting for the opposition. The chairman of the National Democratic Force, the largest opposition party that participated in the election, filed a complaint alleging that pro-junta parties forced people to cast advance votes in their favor. The United States and the international community have criticized the elections.

Some analysts say that although the election was not fair, at least there was some progress. The fact that an election was even held, and that a parliament was created is a step forward. Analysts say that any process that leads to a dilution of Myanmar's military control presents at least some wiggle room for progress in the future. Having a parliament could provide an opening for movements towards democracy. The deputy director of Amnesty International's Asia program explained, "There may be slightly more political space if the other parties win some seats." (Full Story)

In other news, fighting between ethnic rebels and Myanmar government troops has broken out and at least 15,000 refugees have fled into Thailand. Groups representing the ethnic minorities, who make up 40% of the population, had warned in recent days that a civil war could erupt if the military tries to impose its highly centralized constitution and deprive them of rights. (Full Story)

The New York Times has a heartbreaking story of Afghan women that commit suicide by burning themselves in order to escape their hard lives filled with poverty and abuse. "It is shameful here to admit to troubles at home, and mental illness often goes undiagnosed or untreated...The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: Their family is their fate. There little chance for education, little choice about whom a woman marries, no choice at all about her role in her own house. Her primary job is to serve her husband's family. Outside that world, she is an outcast." The hospital in Herat is the only medical center in Afghanistan that specializes in treating burn victims, and the hospital has experienced a 30% increase from last year of women arriving with burns. Most of the women that are brought in have self-inflicted wounds. However, in some instances (usually the most sinister burn cases), the burn cases are actually homicides, but the family tries to pass it off as a suicide attempt. (Full Story)

November 04, 2010

2010-11-04T12:26:00.004-04:00

Huh. Oklahoma sure was knocking 'em out of the park Tuesday evening. Oklahoma voters approved a measure (75.5% in favor) that requires official state business to be conducted in English (English-only). It's up to the state legislature to determine what documents and state business will be conducted in English only, but the legislator behind the bill says that he expects any state licenses, forms, and applications will be in English only. Opponents say it discriminates against new citizens and it violates the right of free speech. Opponents are already planning on filing lawsuits. (Full Story)

They also voted (70% in favor) to forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law (Sharia law) when deciding cases. There has been no instances of Sharia law used in court cases in Oklahoma, instead this law was designed as a "pre-emptive strike" according to the sponsor of the measure. Members of the Muslim community in Oklahoma say that this is an attack on Islam. A lawsuit is already being filed. The complaint is that this violates the First Amendment right of practicing religion freely. The Center on American-Islamic Relations, who is supporting the citizen that is filing the lawsuit, says that Sharia law is used in divorce cases and other family law cases in some western countries (like the UK and France), but not usually in the U.S. Instead, the way in which it is used in the U.S. has to do with religious practices, like prayer, fasting, and diet. (Full Story)

Both of these measures are obviously examples of the growing fear of outsiders -- particularly Latino immigrants and Muslims. I think these measures have come about due to ridiculous beliefs that some people hold: That Latinos come to America illegally and never learn the language and Americans have to bend over backwards for them (though I don't see how that's happening...), and that Muslims are coming to take over, spread their religion (at the expense of Christianity), and produce terrorists.

Three Iowa Supreme Court justices were voted out of their positions in Tuesday's election. Iowa has a system in place (since 1962) where governor's appoint the justices, but voters have a chance to vote them out at the end of each term. The three that were voted out were among the seven justices that decided unanimously last year that gay couples could get married in Iowa (i.e., that an Iowa law that limits marriage to only a man and a woman was unconstitutional). The justices' decision made them a target of anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, and the Family Research Council. These groups spent more than $1 million on their campaign to convince voters to vote out these justices.

The justices chose not to raise money or campaign for themselves, but a group of former governors, lawyers, and judges came together to form Fair Courts For Us to support the judges. Their message was that it's important to have an independent judiciary and that it's at risk if a one-issue campaign succeeds in removing justices. The group's co-chairman said, "[Iowans] need to know courts will be fair and impartial and decisions won't be based on fear and popularity."

The justices will vacate their spot on the bench at the end of the year. There are likely to be delays in the court issuing rulings until the vacancies are filled. This is the first time Iowa voters removed a Supreme Court justice since this current system started in 1962. Once the state election results are certified (which must be done by November 29), the state's 15-member judicial nominating commission will have 60 days to give the governor three nominees for each Supreme Court vacancy. The governor will then have 30 days to make appointments. The current governor is Democrat; however, he just lost to his Republican opponent in Tuesday's election. Due to the timeline for filling vacancies, it means the current governor will not be able to fill the vacancies before he leaves office. The governor-elect, Terry Branstad (R), has in the past supported amending the Iowa constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. He also once said that same-sex marriage led to the downfall of ancient civilizations. But he has also supported the idea of civil unions. (Full Story)

This is a very dangerous tactic, and these anti-gay groups are obviously trying to intimidate judges outside of Iowa as well. The Iowa Supreme Court justices unanimously decided that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marriage. Iowa citizens, don't you think that maybe seven justices (seven Iowa justices) coming together in agreement on this issue is probably an indication that this is a pretty legitimate decision? These justices did have to get some sort of training to get on the bench, you know. They've had years of education and experience. Instead of thinking about the reasoning and legality behind the justices' decision, and how they came to their decision, these voters acted on emotion. Just because justices don't vote the way you would like, it doesn't mean they're not doing their job. I certainly don't agree with the conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices, but I don't believe they should be fired because they didn't vote the way I want them to. That's just not the way it works. Sadly, Iowa voters decided to kick three justices off the bench because they were manipulated by these hate-mongering groups that somehow think two individuals of the same sex choosing to get married is the worst thing that could happen. One million dollars could have gone to so many more important, worthwhile things. Instead, it went to convincing Iowans to be hateful and vindictive. Sad.

Now there are only two undecided Senate races left. In Colorado, incumbent Senator Michael Bennet (D) narrowly defeated Tea Party favorite Ken Buck (R). With 97% of the ballots counted, Bennet's lead increased to 15,400 votes. The Associated Press projected that Bennet would win with 47.7% of the votes compared to Buck's 46.8%. Ken Buck conceded yesterday. Michael Bennet had been appointed to his senate seat last year by the governor, in order to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ken Salazar (D). Salazar was selected by Obama to be his interior secretary. With Bennet's win, this brings the Senate balance to 52 Democrats and 46 Republicans. (Full Story)

It is now being reported that the House make-up is 239 Republicans to 186 Democrats.

November 03, 2010

2010-11-03T14:08:00.011-04:00

Update on the U.S. mid-term election (election information from Washington Post's website):

The House of Representatives switched majorities from the Democrat party to the Republican party. At this point, there are 240 Republican seats and 184 Democrat seats, with eleven seats undecided (those races haven't been called yet). The Republicans gained 60+ seats. John Boehner (R-Ohio) will become the next Speaker of the House, replacing Nancy Pelosi (D-California).

The Senate is still controlled by Democrats. At this point, there are 51 Democrat seats and 46 Republican seats, with 3 seats undecided. Republicans picked up 6 seats that were previously Democrat (in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). However, their goal to take over the Senate fell short as Democrat Chris Coons defeated Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell in Delaware (57% to 40%), Joe Manchin kept the West Virginia seat that was previously held by the late Robert Byrd in Democrat hands (53% to 43%), and Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) defeated Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle and held on to his seat in Nevada (50% to 45%).

Here are the results of some other closely-watched elections:

Barbara Boxer (D-California) held on to her seat and defeated Carly Fiorina (the Republican candidate that was the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard). 52% to 42%

Richard Blumenthal (D) defeated Linda McMahon (the Republican candidate that was the former CEO for World Wrestling Entertainment) in the Connecticut race for the seat vacated by Senator Chris Dodd (D). 54% to 44%.

In Arkansas, John Boozman (R) defeated the incumbent Blanche Lincoln (D). I guess Arkansas wasn't happy with Lincoln (she got 37% of the vote), despite the fact that Blanche Lincoln could run pretty conservative at times and was a road block for Democrats on some important votes. 58% to 37%

In Florida, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio (R) won the seat vacated by Senator Mel Martinez (R). Rubio defeated Charlie Crist (the Florida governor that ran as an Independent after he was defeated by Rubio in the Republican primary) and Kendrick Meek (D). Rubio got 49%, Crist got 30%, Meek got 20%.

In Illinois, Mark Kirk (R) defeated Alex Giannoulias (D) for the seat held by Barack Obama before he became president. 48% to 46%.

In Kentucky, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) beat Jack Conway (D), 56% to 44%.

In Pennsylvania, Tea Party favorite Pat Toomey (R) beat Joe Sestak for the seat that was held by Senator Arlen Specter (he was elected as a Republican, and was a Republican senator for 28 years; then in 2009 he switched to the Democrat party. He was up for re-election this year and he lost to Sestak in the Democratic Primary).

In the Alaska senate race, which is not yet decided, Lisa Murkowski (in a write-in campaign) appears to be winning. With 99% of precincts reporting, 41% of the votes are write-ins, 34% is for tea party favorite Joe Miller (R), and 24% is for Scott McAdams (D). Lisa Murkowski is the incumbent. She lost in the Republican primary to Miller, but she decided to continue to run and launched a write-in campaign. Though she was not selected as her state's Republican nominee, she still calls herself a Republican. She said that if she wins she intends to caucus with the Republicans, just as she did when she was the Republican senator. Officials in Alaska must now verify how many of the write-in votes are for Murkowski. Counting could take weeks. If Murkowski wins, she will be the first U.S. senator to be elected by write-in vote since 1954 (when Strom Thurmond was elected via write-in).

I'm not surprised by the results at all, it's pretty much what I expected. Often times the president's party loses seats in the mid-term election (especially if they're in charge of Congress). Plus, these are hard times to be in charge. Due to an inherited mess and absolute terrible timing, Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress took office when the economy was tanked, we were in a massive recession, and unemployment was rising. Americans, unfortunately, have unrealistic ideas about what progress can happen in x amount of time. It doesn't help that Obama says perfectly reasonable things like unemployment would be at 12% now without the work his administration has done, because Americans are looking at the 9.6% unemployment rate and want it to magically be decreased down to 5% in a short amount of time. They want big, obvious results. And that's not always possible or realistic.

In addition, Republicans went into this past Congressional session with a genius, but also a very asshole strategy. They decided they were going to do absolutely nothing. They were going to be the Party of No. Their whole goal was to obstruct, to not compromise, and then point out how Democrats aren't doing anything to fix the problems. Unfortunately, Americans are not as adept when it comes to congressional rules. All they hear is that a Democrat is president and Congress is controlled by Democrats, and so if they can't get anything done, it's their own damn fault. However, in a bicameral Congress, both houses need to pass bills for something to become law. This is quite difficult to do, especially as bills get held up in the Senate so much. Although Democrats control the Senate, they don't have a solid 60 votes. Without 60, Republicans can hold up legislation with a filibuster (it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster). The use of the filibuster has been astronomical this session; it's been abused to an absolutely ridiculous level. So blame cannot squarely lie on Democrats for not getting things done, because they've been unable to get things done.

Of course there is fault with the Democrats for not winning more seats. Democrats did not come in to this election with a very strong strategy. There needed to be a much greater effort to let the American public know how much they have in fact achieved, despite the foot-dragging, obstructionist efforts of Republicans. Democrats needed to reassure America of the progress they have made, and that progress will continue to be made, but it doesn't happen as quickly as we would like. They needed to draw more attention to the fact that Republicans have done nothing thus far and that they do not have any real plan for progress. (I recommend this great Steven Pearlstein op-ed piece).

I'm also disappointed with low voter-turnout, especially among young people. I know voting in a mid-term election isn't very cool, especially when someone hip and popular like Obama isn't running for president. And young people feel disillusioned, like Obama hasn't done what he set out to do. Once again, I don't think many people realize all the stuff that Obama and Congress have in fact done. Unfortunately, people do not follow the news very closely (to hear all these things that are being done. Democrats certainly aren't making them obvious) or know how the political system works and what can and cannot be achieved in two years. Also, people seem surprised to learn that Obama is rather centrist. But that's exactly how he ran. He isn't liberal enough for me, most Congresspeople are not liberal enough for me. Unfortunately, a very liberal agenda is not really possible with our current political system and political culture. Maybe people thought the political culture would drastically change with a new president, but it takes more than just the president (and as I mentioned, Obama is pretty center-left or centrist). With health care reform, I would have loved to see universal health care and single-payer system, but I know how difficult that actually is to achieve right now. I was unhappy with the health care reform bill getting watered down as a result of compromise after compromise, but that's not to take away how monumental of a change it was. The fact that it was able to pass is an indication of how hard Democrats worked for it and how dedicated they were to reform. It's not perfect reform, but it is in fact something. When Social Security was first passed, it didn't look like what it does now. It took years of changes and additions. Health care and the health insurance industry is not going to drastically change overnight, it will take time and this reform was a good first step. Of course I would have liked to see more stuff get done these past two years, but considering the political and economic environment, I am impressed with what they have passed.

I wish voters would have given the Democrats (at least) two more years to finish what they started. I wish Democrats would have gained more Senate seats so that they had 60 votes. Then it would have been great to see what they really could have achieved, despite the Republicans. However, the upside of the Republicans winning the House is that now they actually have to do something. It's really easy to do nothing and to criticize, it's more difficult to actually come up with solutions and legislation. They ducked out of taking any responsibility for the first two years, but now they're going to have to at least share responsibility in these upcoming years. It's time for them to actually do their job now.

In terms of individual politicians, I am sad that John Boehner will be replacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I think Pelosi is a very smart and strong leader. She gets shit done. I know she was the big target of Republicans (and Tea Party people) and they love nothing more than to "fire her" (they love saying that, despite the fact that she is not actually fired. She's still an elected Representative in Congress, her party just isn't in power anymore and thus she's no longer the Speaker. Pelosi has done a great job, it's the other colleagues of hers that lost their seats, and thus affected the majority). I definitely believe that the strong conservative hatred directed towards Pelosi (more so than is directed towards Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) is a result of Pelosi being a strong, powerful woman. And that scares the shit out of these conservatives. Just as the election of a black president really got some conservative people going.

I'm also really sad to see Senator Russ Feingold go. He was the incumbent Democratic senator from Wisconsin. He was an amazing progressive senator, and I think Wisconsin will be at a loss in the wake of his absence. He championed campaign finance reform (for instance, the McCain-Feingold Act, which the recent Supreme Court pretty much gutted with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), he was the only senator to have the courage to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act after 9/11, he was one of the 28 senators to vote against the war in Iraq, he supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, he advocates universal health care, he is strongly against capital punishment, and he is against wasteful government spending. For instance, worked to reduce pork barreling and lobbyists' influence, he promised not to accept pay raises while in office (he returned over $70,000 in raises to the U.S. Treasury), and returned money left over from his office budget (since 1993, he returned $3.2 million from his office budget back to the U.S. Treasury). He will be missed.

November 02, 2010

2010-11-02T13:35:00.003-04:00

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 that the military can continue to enforce the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy while the case is being reviewed/appealed. In other words, the court extended the temporary stay that was granted on October 20th (that stay put a halt to U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips's order to stop DADT because it was ruled unconstitutional). This means DADT will remain in effect until at least next spring. Next spring is the earliest the court is expected to make a decision regarding DADT. The court has scheduled written arguments through early March, but they have not yet set a hearing. The appeal could take a year or more.

The two judges in this case that ruled in favor of extending the stay said that their decision was justified by "the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen." Justice Department lawyers were hoping for the stay so that the DADT repeal wouldn't go into effect immediately. They want to make sure the military has time to prepare for this. They don't think DADT should be lifted until the military completes their study of the changes that would be needed before the repeal could happen (the study is due December 1). The Obama administration is also hoping that Congress will be the ones to repeal DADT (not really looking good at this point...). The lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans (the ones against DADT) said that he might ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay (I'm not holding my breath on that one). (Full Story)

A complaint was filed in an Indian court that sought prosecution of the author Arundhati Roy on charges of sedition for alleged anti-India comments. She had said at a seminar that she supports Kashmir independence and that "Kashmir was never an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian government has accepted this." [Background: Kashmir is a very contested region, and it has been fought over by Pakistan and India since 1947. Kashmir was once an independent state. It came under British colonial rule in 1846, and the Dogras (a mostly Hindu ethnic group) were put in charge as the new leaders of Kashmir (i.e, the new leaders were Hindu). British colonial rule in the area ended in 1947 and this is when Kashmir's Hindu ruler decided that Kashmir, which has a Muslim majority, should join the newly-independent India, instead of the newly-created/independent Pakistan (these states become independent after British colonial rule ended). So, pretty much, this conflict is an example of British colonialism fucking things up. The region is currently divided among three countries -- India controls the central and southern parts, Pakistan controls the northwest part, and China controls the northeastern part. However, these borders are still disputed and neither Pakistan nor India recognizes the areas claimed by the other. This has resulted in wars over the territory. Kashmir has become one of the most militarized places in the world and more then 70,000 people have died in the conflict over Kashmir. Some people believe that India has the right to Kashmir, some believe Pakistan has the right to Kashmir, and some believe that Kashmir should be its own independent state. Arundhati Roy is for Kashmir independence].

Roy does not regret the comments she made at the seminar. She wrote in a statement, "I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice." In her statement she also criticized the efforts to silence her. She wrote, "Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free."

Approximately 100 right-wing activists gathered outside Roy's house Sunday to protest. And dozens vandalized Roy's house. Roy was not home at the time and activists were prevented from going inside her home. TV crews were present and apparently were tipped off about the protest. This led to Roy criticizing the media, "What is the nature of the agreement between these sections of the media and mobs and criminals in search of spectacle? Does the media, which positions itself at the 'scene' in advance, have a guarantee that the attacks and demonstrations will be non-violent? What happens if there is a criminal trespass or even something worse? Does the media then become accessory to the crime? This question is important given that some TV channels and newspapers are in the process of brazenly inciting mob anger against me. In the race for sensationalism, the line between between reporting news and manufacturing news is becoming blurred." Very well-said.

Police had been given the go-ahead to arrest the author, but it would have been difficult to convict her. If a sedition charge was brought against Roy, it would have to be proven, according to the law set out by the Supreme Court, that her speeches on Kashmir were an "incitement to public disorder or the use of violence." She cannot be charged with sedition simply for inciting feelings of anger against the government and their stance on Kashmir. The law ministry took advice on the issue, but ultimately the government decided not to proceed with charges against Roy. I'm glad they didn't. I'm sure they realized that proceeding with charges would have brought negative attention to India and most likely international condemnation. (Full Story)(Full Story)

November 01, 2010

2010-11-01T11:38:00.002-04:00

Venezuelan President Huge Chavez has ordered the expropriation of the largest privately owned steel producer in Venezuela. This is the latest in a series of national takeovers of private companies. This is part of Chavez's strategy to transform Venezuela into a socialist state. The steel producer, Siderurgica del Turbio SA, or Sidetur, produces 835,000 metric tons of steel a year. They produce things like steel beams, angles, and flats, which are sold domestically and internationally. Sidetur produces 40% of the rebar used for construction in Venezuela. Chavez ordered soldiers to guard the company's seven plants and urged employees to cooperate with officials rather than protesting the takeover.

Last week, Chavez ordered the takeover of the Venezuelan subsidiary of a US-based glass container manufacturer. Earlier this month, Chavez announced plans to take over a farm supply company. Chavez has expropriated dozens of privately owned companies since he took office in 1999. Business leaders and opponents say that these expropriations scare off investors and that this is hurting the economy. Chavez has said the government will pay fair compensation for these companies.

I understand policies that nationalize a country's natural resources. Many low- to middle-income countries that are rich in natural resources tend to be taken advantage of and have their resources exploited. The corporations (often foreign) that take over these resources benefit greatly from the resources, while the people of the country continue to live in poverty (despite living in a sea of vast natural resources). A lot of times the corporations that took over the rights to natural resources did so under shady circumstances or got a contract for far below the value of the resources. So I understand when different countries in Latin America have a leftist president that introduces policies to nationalize these industries. The leaders make mining and oil extraction a national industry so that the country and the people are the ones benefiting from the profit of these resources (i.e., they own and benefit from their own resources). However, I'm a little wary of governments taking over manufacturing. It seems like governments are not as well-equipped to do this, and these types of companies are usually better kept in private hands. There's too much of a legacy of poorly-run state manufacturing industries. (Full Story)

According to a Defense Department survey given to active-duty and reserve troops, a majority of service members would not object to serving and living with openly gay service members. Not surprising, there were service members that responded that they object strongly to the idea of serving with gay service members and said they would quit the military of the policy changed. The details of the survey are not known because the results have not been publicly shared. The survey was sent to 400,000 troops, but military officials did not say how many completed the survey. Though, according to the Pentagon, at least 103,000 completed the survey just days before it was due. (Full Story)

Brazil has elected their first female president. Dilma Rousseff was hand-picked by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) to be his successor. Rousseff was Lula's chief of staff and also served as energy minister. Lula was a very popular president, and political analysts believe that Rousseff winning indicates the voters' loyalty to Lula and their desire to keep the country going in the direction that Lula had set out during his eight years of presidency.

President-Elect Rousseff will take office January 1. One thing that is interesting about Rousseff is that in the 1960s she was a Marxist guerilla. She joined the rebel movement when Brazil was ruled by a military dictatorship. The military at the time labeled her an urban commander, but she said her role was political and not violent. As she said, "I wore thick glasses, and I did not shoot very well." She was captured by security forces in 1970 and was tortured. She was released three years later and then finished her studies in economics. She then managed the finances of Porto Alegre municipality and the energy policies of the Brazilian state Rio Grande do Sul. She joined the Workers' Party and got the attention of Lula, one of the party's most prominent members. He picked her to be his energy minister in his first term. She later became his chief of staff. (Full Story)

October 29, 2010

2010-10-29T12:37:00.006-04:00

NPR has a great article that exposes the fact that private corporations that own and operate prisons were involved in the writing and the passage of Arizona's new strict immigration law. They had a vested interest in Arizona's immigration law because it means more prisoners coming to their prisons. With Arizona's immigration law, police would be required to arrest anyone they stop that doesn't have proper proof that they're in this country legally. That would greatly increase the number of people going to prison, which means it would greatly improve these companies' profits.

NPR analyzed campaign finance reports, lobbying documents, and corporate records to unearth this. Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce says the bill was his idea. He said it was not about prisons, but what's best for the country. However, when he came up with this idea, he didn't initially take it to the state Senate floor. Instead he took his idea to a hotel conference room in Washington DC, where the American Legislative Exchange Council was meeting. ALEC is considered "a conservative, free-market orientated, limited-government group." This secretive group consists of state legislators and powerful corporations and associations. Members include Reynolds American Inc (the tobacco company), ExxonMobil, the National Rifle Association, and Corrections Corporation of America. The CCA is the largest private prison company in the US. NPR had reviewed CCA reports and found that executives thought that immigration detention is their next big market. Last year, they wrote in a report that they expected "a significant portion of our revenues" would come from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Senator Pearce gave a presentation on his idea and the Council agreed it was a great idea. The 50 of so people in the room, which included officials of the CCA, turned the idea into a model bill; they discussed and debated the language; and then they voted on it. No one voted against it. Four months later, that model bill became Arizona's immigration law; almost word for word.

NPR asked an ALEC employee whether private companies usually get to write model bills for the legislators. He said, "Yeah, that's the way it's set up. It's a public-private partnership. We believe both sides, businesses and lawmakers should be at the same table, together." Russell Pearce said he is not concerned that private companies have an opportunity to lobby for legislation at the ALEC meetings. He explained, "I don't go there to meet with them. I go there to meet with other legislators." If that's the case, why even have corporations at these meetings? Why aren't you just going to or organizing state legislator-only meetings, if that's who you're only interested in meeting with? In reality, private companies pay tens of thousands of dollars to meet with legislators like him, and he knows exactly what they're doing. Don't plead ignorance or non-involvement.

The CCA declined an interview, but a spokesman said that the CCA "unequivocally has not at any time lobbied -- nor have we had any outside consultants lobby -- on immigration law." I guess they can say that because they didn't really lobby for this influence on immigration law...instead it was handed to them by Russell Pearce as a gift, and they just simply worked out the details with him. However, records do show that 30 of the 36 co-sponsors of the Arizona immigration bill received donations from prison lobbyists or prison companies within the first six months of the bill being introduced-- donors included the CCA, Management and Training Corporation, and The Geo Group. 'Oh, we're not lobbying. We're just giving money to people that are sponsoring a cause we benefit from. Totally coincidental.' Governor Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law four days after receiving it, also has connections to private prison companies. Two of her top advisers -- her spokesman and her campaign manager -- are former lobbyists for private prison companies.

Sadly, I find this whole thing unbelievable (unbelievable in that people could be so unethical), but also believable (believable in that I know this stuff happens all the time). (Full Story)

In the Alaska U.S. Senate race, the incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski was defeated in the Republican primary by Joe Miller. He's part of the Tea Party movement. Sarah Palin endorsed him over Murkowski. Since her defeat, Murkowski felt like she still had a chance in the race (and she does), so she decided to launch a write-in campaign. The state Supreme Court ruled that, for the first time in Alaska, voters could have an official list of write-in candidates to consult at polling places. This decision helped Murkowski, because that way people could see her name on the list and remember to write her name in. Otherwise, voters might have a hard time remembering her name or how it is spelled. Supporters of Joe Miller were not happy about this decision. So what are they doing? They're trying to sabotage the write-in campaign. Keeping it classy, as always. At least 100 people filed paperwork yesterday to register as write-in candidates. They're doing this to create a long list of potential write-in choices in an effort to make it harder for people to find Murkowski's name.

One of Joe Miller's supporters that signed up as a write-in candidate in protest explained, "(Murkowski) should have ran harder before the primary. And she didn't. And she lost." However, Murkowski does in fact have the right to run as a write-in candidate. Just because she lost the primary, it doesn't mean she's not allowed to run anymore. And if Joe Miller won the Republican primary (in a Republican state), he should be expected to win the election. But if he doesn't, that's his own fault. If people that voted for him in the primary switch their vote to Murkowski, that's obviously a reflection of voters' growing distaste for Miller and/or support for Murkowski. If Joe Miller is in fact the candidate that the majority of Alaskans want as their senator, he'll get the votes. And allowing Murkowski's name to appear on a list of potential write-in candidates shouldn't affect that (even if she's the only name on the list). If he doesn't get the votes, that's a good indication that Alaska didn't want him to be their senator. So I don't know what the big deal is. I think it's ridiculous that these Joe Miller supporters don't want a fair competition -- that they'd rather play tricks or try to confuse voters to increase Joe Milller's chances. Shouldn't they want their candidate to win because he won the support of the majority, and not because people were tricked into voting for him (or tricked into not voting for his opponent)? (Full Story)

October 28, 2010

2010-10-28T13:20:00.001-04:00

Nestor Kirchner, the former president of Argentina and the husband of the current president of Argentina (Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner), died suddenly of a heart attack yesterday. He was 60 years old. He was president from 2003-2007, and then he stepped aside and his wife was elected as president. The couple had been planning to keep on succeeding each other for the presidency and holding on to power for many years. Most recently he was serving as the Deputy of Argentina for Buenos Aires province and the Secretary General of the Union of South American Nations.

Kirchner was a popular political figure in Argentina, and he helped to steer Argentina out of a devastating economic crisis. His leftist populism made him well-liked by the people. A lot of his policies were designed to help the poor and working classes. One of Kirchner's latest campaign promises was to support a labor movement effort to require all large businesses to open their books to the unions and to give 10% of their profits to their workers. Hugo Moyano, Argentina's most powerful union leader, said, "After Peron and Eva Peron, nobody has done so much for the workers as Nestor Kirchner." In addition, Kirchner was not shy in criticizing the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the "Washington consensus" (neoliberal economic policies which endorses expanding the role of the free market and cutting public services). Kirchner said the IMF ruins economies around the globe as a result of their guidance.

As a result of these viewpoints, he wasn't very popular among the wealthy and business elites in Argentina and internationally. Credit markets were betting that his death will make Argentina more "trustworthy" in terms of the market. So it should come as no surprise that the cost of buying insurance on Argentine debt dropped 0.5% Wednesday afternoon (Kirchner died Wednesday morning), and Argentine-based companies that trade in New York saw a surge in their shares. [I find that kind of depressing. Markets rejoice when certain leaders die]. Investors are hoping that someone who is more favorable to their interests will be able to beat Cristina Fernandez in the election next year (some people are saying she's going to have a harder time winning now that Nestor has died. However, she is a well-liked and powerful political figure. She isn't simply "Nestor's wife". I think more credit needs to be given to Cristina Fernandez. Before she was president, she was a senator for many years, as well as a deputy of Argentina -- which is the lower house of parliament. She wasn't just simply handed the reins of the presidency by her husband).

Kirchner was also praised for his advocacy of human rights. One part of his legacy is that he had reinvigorated efforts to prosecute those that took part in crimes against humanity during Argentina's "dirty war" (which took place during the Pinochet dictatorship, 1976-1983). As a result, military officials that previously had amnesty were stripped of their amnesty during Kirchner's term and were brought to trial for torture, assassination, and other crimes committed during this time. (Full Story)

October 27, 2010

2010-10-27T14:20:00.000-04:00

(Sorry for the lack of updates over the past couple of days, it's been a busy week so far. I try to do this on a daily (M-F) basis, but sometimes it just doesn't work out.)

There is a nationwide shortage of sodium thiopental, a lethal injection drug that is used for the death penalty. There is a sole US manufacturer of the drug (Hospira Inc.), and they have been facing shortages as a result of problems with their raw-materials suppliers. They have said that new batches won't be available until January, at the earliest. This shortage affects many states and their planned executions. Most recently, Arizona was set to execute an inmate (Jeffrey Landrigan), and as a result of the shortage in the U.S., they decided to buy thiopenthal from another country. The issue with this is that these drugs, bought internationally, are not approved by federal inspectors for use in the U.S. They were bought from a non-FDA-approved manufacturer (there are no FDA-approved manufacturers of this drug overseas).

The inmate's lawyer argued that because these drugs were obtained from an unreliable source, there's a chance the drug might not work correctly and could lead to cruel and unusual punishment. With lethal injection executions, the thiopental makes the inmate unconscious, then a second drug paralyzes them, and the third drug stops their heart -- if the thiopenthal doesn't work (and the inmate is not rendered unconscious), they could be suffocated painfully. The inmate's lawyer wanted the state to disclose the source of the drug. The prosecutors said they cannot reveal the source because state law requires confidentiality for those involved with executions. Though they did eventually say that they obtained the drug from Great Britain. The state revealed the origins because they wanted the public to know that the drug came from a reputable place (and not a third world country, said Chief Deputy Attorney General Tim Nelson. Keeping it classy!); though they would not reveal who manufactured it (maybe it was third-world immigrants living on the streets of Great Britain!).

Jeffrey Landrigan's execution was scheduled for Tuesday morning, but a stay was issued by a federal judge in Phoenix, and the execution was temporarily put on hold. The federal judge's ruling was upheld by an appeals court panel. Then the case went to the US Supreme Court and they lifted the stay Tuesday night. They ruled 5-4 that he could be executed. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan made up the dissenting opinion and opposed the lifting of the temporary restraining order. The Supreme Court majority said there was no evidence to suggest that the drug was unsafe. The majority wrote, "The district court granted the restraining order because it was left to speculate as to the risk of harm. But speculation cannot substitute for evidence that the use of the drug is sure or very likely to cause seriously illness and needless suffering." Though, that's what the FDA does when they approve these drugs. They make sure the drug is not likely to cause illness or suffering. As this drug is not FDA approved, no such evidence exists. And so it gets the green-light. Seems like flawed logic: This drug is fine to be administered because it's not proven to be dangerous, and it's not proven to be dangerous because it hasn't been researched by the FDA. What does the Supreme Court propose, that the defense get their evidence by testing this drug out on someone to determine whether it is safe or harmful? I guess Jeffrey Landrigan is that person.

I also believe the Court has it backwards in that I don't think the defendant has to prove the drug is unsafe to use; instead, I think the state has to prove the drug is safe to use (especially as they're the ones resorting to non-FDA-approved drugs). The burden of proof should lie with the state. The Supreme Court majority talked about how the district court was mistaken for allowing the stay because "it was left to speculate as to the risk of harm", and speculation doesn't substitute for evidence -- but the Supreme Court (and the state of Arizona) are speculating on the lack of harm. And that, most certainly, shouldn't be substituted for evidence. I think the burden of proof lies with those claiming safety. If officials (like the state of Arizona, for example) claim some product is safe, and this product is being given to people, the officials have to make the case that it's safe and is fine to be given to the people -- it should not be the responsibility of the people to prove that it's unsafe and that it should not be given to them.

The Supreme Court majority also wrote in their opinion that there was no indication that the drug was unlawfully obtained. But, really, the issue is not that it was unlawfully obtained -- the issue is that it would be unlawfully used. States shouldn't be allowed to inject an inmate with a drug that is not approved for use in the United States. Until that approval is granted, they shouldn't be allowed to use this drug.

After the Supreme Court cleared the way, Jeffrey Landrigan was executed that evening. I did not hear any word that it was a botched execution, so I assume everything went according to plan. The odds are the drug purchased in Great Britain would work effectively, but the issue is that Arizona couldn't be certain. The issue is that this particular thiopental had not yet been approved by inspectors for use in the United States. And the state of Arizona really shouldn't be taking those chances. (Full Story) (Full Story)

October 22, 2010

2010-10-22T12:16:00.004-04:00

The New York Times has an interesting article on a Serbian war criminal suspect and the response of the EU. Ratko Mladic is a former Bosnian Serb general that is accused of playing a brutal role in the Balkan wars of the 1990s. He is blamed for the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the Bosnian town Srebrenica (an enclave which was under the supposed protection of UN peacekeepers from the Netherlands). Mladic has been on the run for 15 years. Sometimes he's in plain sight, like at soccer games and weddings. He once was protected by many personal allies, military forces, and government officials, but it's believed that he's now being hidden by only a small handful of loyalists. As a result, it's assumed that he'd be easier to capture now. But now there's the issue of whether arresting him is a priority.

It was once stipulated that Mladic's arrest was a prerequisite for Serbia to join the European Union. But several European countries seem to be softening their stance. The article discusses the quandary, "In the name of unity and stability, should Europe put a premium on rehabilitating a battered country that became a pariah state in the Balkan wars of the 1990's? Or in the name of its human rights tradition, should Europe first require a friendly Serbian government to make the politically difficult arrest of a man blamed for the worst ethnically motivated mass murder on the Continent since World War II?"

Withholding EU membership was seen as the greatest incentive for Serbia to arrest Mladic. If EU countries decide to not give Serbia that ultimatum, some doubt Mladic will ever be arrested. As more time passes, there's less fervor in the push to arrest Mladic -- he's older, people say he's sicker and living an isolated life. In addition, the vividness of the war atrocities are receding for people outside of the Balkans as more time passes by. The two year old Serbian government or Boris Tadic (which is pro-Western) has vowed to arrest Mladic. Yet, nothing has come of that. Many analysts in Serbia and internationally remain skeptical. A key protector of Mladic's fellow fugitive, Radovan Karadzic (who has been arrested), said with a wry smile, "It's easy to hide successfully when nobody wants to find you."

There's a strong possibility that when European foreign ministers meet in Luxembourg next Monday that they will decide to not require an immediate arrest by Serbia and that instead the EU admission process can start (the process takes several years to complete). However, some senior European officials and human rights groups feel that a compromise over Mladic will undermine international law and is morally reprehensible. Dutch diplomats say they are the lone holdouts for an arrest as a prerequisite. They are hoping to delay any discussions until December, when the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Hague issues his annual report evaluating Serbia's efforts to arrest Mladic. The chief prosecutor, Serge Brammertz, believes that Mladic's arrest should remain a top priority. He described going to a commemoration of the massacre this past summer and how emotional it was. He said, "I could see that for all the survivors and relatives, Srebrenica is not an event from the past, but something dominating their life, not only today but tomorrow. And the number one priority for the victims is to see Mladic in the Hague." (Full Story)

Real pressure needs to be put on Serbia to arrest Mladic. He needs to be brought to justice. It's atrocious that he's still on the loose -- I don't care how old or sick he is. It doesn't necessarily have to be withholding EU membership to put pressure on Serbia, but some kind of real European or international pressure needs to be put on them. I don't care how politically difficult or unpopular it would be to arrest Mladic, the Serbian government has an obligation to bring him in.

Thousands of Tibetan students in western China (mostly in Tibetan towns) have taken part in protests since Tuesday in response to Chinese proposals to limit or stop the use of the Tibetan language in local schools (and limit or stop the teaching of Tibetan in schools). Chinese leaders are pushing a shift towards Mandarin, which is China's official language. The protests that followed were the largest in Tibetan areas since the 2008 uprising that started in Lhasa and soon spread across the Tibetan plateau. Fortunately, this protest has been peaceful. It mostly involves students, though others have joined in. A protest over this issue was also held in Beijing on Friday at a university that specializes in teaching ethnic minorities. The protesters' slogan was "Equality of ethnicities, freedom of language."

The anger over this proposal is that many Tibetans feel that Han Chinese, China's dominant ethnic group (and, thus, the ones that often formulate policy), are diluting their culture. Many Tibetans in western China also complain that there are strict controls in place over the practice of Tibetan Buddhism, including a ban on images of the Dalai Lama (their spiritual leader). There is also concern among Tibetans regarding large-scale Han migration to Tibetan towns. Not only is there a fear of their culture being diluted, but there's also anger that the Han end up taking many jobs that would have gone to Tibetans.

Similar protests regarding language happened in the city of Guangzhou in July. Ethnic Han who are Cantonese speakers protested against a local politician's proposal to force prominent programs on a local TV network to stop broadcasting in Cantonese and instead switch to Mandarin. (Full Story)

I think it's dangerous when communities feel that immigration results in their culture being diluted, but I also think it's dangerous when governments take efforts to minimize the use and teaching of a language. The issue of Tibet is already a very contentious issue in China (and internationally). Many people believe that Tibet shouldn't be a part of China. I think proposed government policies like this are only going to further alienate Tibetans in China, and cause a further rift between Tibetans and Han Chinese. This might motivate more efforts to seek independence -- and as China has remained very firm on their stance of Tibet (that it is a part of China), this could eventually lead to future clashes and conflict. Or perhaps, sadly, it will result in assimilation of Tibetans towards Han Chinese language and values in future generations.

October 21, 2010

2010-10-21T13:57:00.002-04:00

In a Ugandan newspaper, the front page story featured a list of Uganda's 100 "top" homosexuals, with a banner across it that read "Hang Them." The list included names, pictures, and addresses. The article also said that gay men were recruiting one million children by raiding schools, a common fear tactic used in Uganda. Since this article was published, at least four men on the list have been attacked. One person on the list experienced neighbors throwing stones at his house. Many others on the list are in hiding.

This article came out five days before the one-year anniversary of the introduction of a controversial bill that would impose a penalty of life in prison for homosexual acts. The bill also proposed that the death penalty should be imposed if the person was HIV-positive, was a "serial offender", or if one of the participants was a minor. Also proposed in the bill was that family members or friends could face jail time if they knew about homosexuals acts but didn't report it (more here). There was an international uproar over this bill and a lot of international pressure was put on the president of Uganda. As a result, the bill was quietly shelved.

Gay people in Uganda say that they have faced a year of harassment and attacks since the bill was introduced. Many gay people have faced evictions from apartments, intimidation on the street, unlawful arrests, and physical assaults this past year. Over the last year, more than 20 homosexuals have been attacked, and an additional 17 have been arrested and are in prison. The numbers are up from the same period two years ago. One twenty-seven year old gay man in Uganda said, "Before the introduction of the bill in parliament most people did not mind about our activities. But since then, we are harassed by many people who hate homosexuality. The publicity the bill got made people come to know about us and they started mistreating us."

After the newspaper was released, the government ordered the newspaper to cease publishing -- not because of the front story/list, but because the newspaper simply hadn't registered with the the government. After they complete their paperwork, the newspaper will be free to publish again. (Way to take a principled stand, Uganda!) A rights activist has said that a lawsuit against the newspaper is in the works. (Full Story)

Afghanistan has thrown out 1.3 million ballots that were cast in the parliamentary elections because of fraud. That is nearly a quarter of the ballots cast. This indicates that fraud was pervasive in the election (and this adds to Afghanistan's ongoing problem with corruption). However, observers note that these fraudulent ballots having been voided is an indication that officials are looking to cut down on fraud, and that this an improvement. You may remember Afghanistan's presidential election last year when election commissioners included obviously fraudulent ballots in the overall tally, which helped President Karzai achieve a win. It was only after drawn-out investigation (and international pressure) that about one million ballots were thrown out (a majority of them were for Karzai). It went to a run-off election, but Karzai's opponent Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run-off election because he said it would not be a free or fair election. This left a black mark on Afghanistan elections, and this year's parliamentary elections were viewed internationally as a test of whether the Afghan government is committed to reforms and fighting against fraud.

It is not yet clear what these thrown-out ballots will mean to the makeup of the 249-seat parliament.
A five-member fraud investigation panel also needs to rule on more than 2,000 complaints that are considered serious enough to affect the election results. Some candidates might be outright disqualified if the panel finds that they were behind attempt to manipulate the results. The election commission has already referred 224 candidates to the panel to be investigated for being involved in cheating. These investigations will have to be concluded before the election results can be finalized. The election commission said it would probably take about three weeks before the results will be finalized, but now officials are only saying the final results will be released as soon as they can.

There is a fear among Afghans that those living in provinces with a large number of disqualified ballots may not have their legitimate ballots counted. There is also the fear that in ethnically-mixed provinces, there's a possibility that the thrown-out ballots may favor one ethnic group over another. (Full Story)

In an update to yesterday's DADT post, the Obama administration went to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and issued an emergency request to have U.S. District Judge Phillips's ruling stayed. The three-judge panel issued an order that granted the government's request. They are allowing the Pentagon to continue enforcing DADT for now. As early as next week the court will hear arguments and decide whether to allow a longer stay (i.e., a stay until February, when they will hear the full appeal). The lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans (who filed the initial suit) said this was a minor setback and predicted that they will be victorious on the question of the longer stay. That means that as early as Monday the stay might be overturned and the Pentagon will have to stop enforcing DADT again (like they did for approximately two days). Alternatively, if the appeals court sides with the government, DADT will be in effect at least until February and possibly longer depending on their ruling.

The article also provided some quotes and anecdotes from potential recruits at a military recruiting office. One 21-year-old said he would not be happy about a DADT repeal because he fears sexual advances by gay men in boot camp (because that's exactly what gay people do all the time -- hit on bigoted straight people). He said he hoped to finish training before a repeal takes effect (if he really does believe gay people are just looking to hit on straight people all the time, what makes him think the advances would stop after training?!). He then admitted that he knows no gay people (though he probably does whether he knows it or not...) and that he's never actually been approached by one (yeah, exactly). This particular gent declined to give his name. Of course. If you're too ashamed to give your name because of the opinion you're providing, that's probably a good indication that you shouldn't be having those opinions. Welcome to the 21st century. I was also intrigued by another recruit interviewee that said he is not gay, but he does know a gay fashion designer in Manhattan who served in the marines (!)...and a gay actor who played a soldier in an Army commercial (haha! Well, that's pretty much the same thing as being in the military). (Full Story)

October 20, 2010

2010-10-20T13:26:00.001-04:00

France has been experiencing massive strikes and protests as a result of President Sarkozy's plan to raise the minimum retirement age from 60 to 62. He argues that the changes are necessary to relieve the financial burden on the pension system and to keep it from going bankrupt. The French National Assembly passed the pension-reform bill last Wednesday, and the Senate is expected to vote on it soon. The strikes have affected several sectors in France, including transportation, education, justice, hospitals, media, and banking. Ten of the country's twelve oil refineries participated in the strikes. As a result, fuel supplies have been running low. This has had a direct effect on the two main Paris airports and nearly one-third of France's gas stations have run dry. The strikes have also led to reductions in train services throughout France.

On Saturday, protesters took to the streets. A two-mile-long crowd of protesters marched at Bastille Square. The number of people marching on Saturday is in dispute -- the interior ministry says 825,000 and labor unions says 3.5 million. Wow, it's refreshing to see so many people standing up for what they believe in. Even the low-ball government estimate of 825,000 seems like a huge amount to me. It's hard to get 825,000 Americans to agree on something, let alone to be motivated to action.

Unfortunately, some violence has broken out this past week. Protests turned violence in the city of Lyon and police fired tear gas or rubber bullets into the crowd. In the Paris suburb of Nanterre, hooded youths threw stones at anti-riot police and smashed windows. More than 60 police officers have been injured in the violence so far. Nearly 1,500 people have been detained for protest-related violence, and 123 of them are facing legal action.

President Sarkozy recently ordered riot police to break up the fuel depot blockades caused by protesters. Last night the riot police began clearing away striking workers that had been blocking fuel depots for days. The riot police forced open three fuel depots, allowing gasoline supplies to reach thousands of gas stations. The interior minister said the riot police were able to do this without incident. Video footage showed officers peacefully herding striking workers away from the depot, so that trucks could pass in and out.

Despite the public backlash, Sarkozy said he will continue with his reforms and said he will not allow strikers to hold the French economy hostage. France is one of several European nations that is having to come up with policy decisions to keep budget deficits under control. For instance, today British Treasury Chief George Osborne introduced a five-year austerity plan that would cut benefits and public sector jobs. He also announced that the state pension age will reach 66 by the year 2020, which is four years earlier than planned. This austerity plan involves the largest public spending cuts since World War II. (Full Story) (Full Story)

The federal judge in California that overturned Don't Ask Don't Tell (more here) because it was unconstitutional has rejected the government's request that the ban on openly-gay soldiers be kept in place while they appeal her ruling. The government had requested a stay (i.e., a request that the judge holds back from implementing her order just yet) because they argued that the judge's order would be disruptive to the troops during a time of war. They say that the military needs time to prepare new regulations and to train and educate service members about the change. Judge Phillips said the government failed to prove that lifting the policy causes any harm to troops. She said that protecting constitutional rights outweighed the government's unproven concerns of the order's impact on unit cohesion and military readiness.

As a result of her rejection of their stay request, the Pentagon announced Tuesday that the military is now accepting openly gay recruits for the first time in U.S. history (at least for now). A Pentagon spokeswoman said that recruiters have been advised from high-ranking officials to accept applicants who are gay (however AP interviewers found some recruiters following the order, while other recruiters said they had not heard of the announcement). In addition, at least three service members that had been discharged for being gay have begun the process to re-enlist, including Iraq war veteran Daniel Choi (who made national news when he came out and was then discharged). The military is further complying with the judge's order by freezing any discharge cases having to do with DADT. Recruiters have also been told to inform potential recruits that the moratorium on DADT could be reversed at any time if the ruling is appealed or if the court grants a stay. Gay rights groups have been advising service members to avoid revealing their sexuality, as that could have negative ramifications if DADT is reinstated. They recommend not coming out until the ban is lifted permanently.

Before Judge Phillips made her decision, government lawyers told Judge Phillips they would appeal if she rejected their request. This case will likely go to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. I know this is procedure -- that the Justice Department has to defend acts of Congress -- and that this is an important step to ensure that one judge can't decide U.S. policy. But it just seems so backwards that the Obama administration Justice Department is fighting this so hard (when Obama supports a repeal of DADT). Why can't they just put their hands up and say to the judge, "We tried. You got us. We completely agree with you. But we tried!" Let's put this to rest already. It's so sad that for the first time in U.S. history, openly gay recruits can join the military and service members can be openly gay without being discharged...but there's not really cause for celebration yet, because there's the knowledge and fear that this decision could be overturned through appeal in the near future. (Full Story)

October 18, 2010

2010-10-18T14:02:00.011-04:00

A grass-roots group of conservatives are boycotting Campbell Soup Co. They are unhappy that the Canadian subsidiary of Campbell Soup has developed a line of soups that are certified as halal (which means they're prepared according to Islamic dietary laws). The halal-certified soups were introduced in a few Canadian markets in January. Surprisingly, the world didn't explode when these soups hit the shelves. In fact, these new products obviously had such a deleterious effect and so quickly unwound the social fabric of our very society...and that's why it took U.S. conservative bloggers almost a year before they even realized this was happening. They just found out about this earlier this month.

A conservative blogger, Pamela Geller, called for the boycott (her blog name? Atlas Shrugs. Of course.), and soon other bloggers joined in. Pamela Geller says she's not opposed to the halal certification itself, rather she's opposed to Campbell's decision to have the products certified by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). Government prosecutors alleged that this organization had ties to Hamas (the Islamist organization that rules the Gaza Strip. The U.S. State Department classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization). The Indiana-based ISNA was designated an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 2007 prosecution of a charitable organization that funneled money to Hamas.

ISNA has denied any ties to Hamas or to officials of the now-defunct charity Holy Land Foundation, which was convicted in the conspiracy case. The ISNA has specifically condemned religious extremism and violence. Campbell investigated ISNA's background and found "no issues of concern." Campbell's ads for the halal soup state that ISNA is "the largest nonprofit, religious, educational, and non-political Islamic organization in North America." The ISNA was referred to Campbell by a Canadian trade organization whose member companies have used ISNA for their halal certification for years. A Campbell company spokesman said, "They are a very legitimate entity. We feel very comfortable working with them." [He also mentioned that Campbell had set up a tent at the World Trade Center immediately after the attacks and offered free soup and food to rescue workers and the media. Of course he had to get that in! I imagine he also brought up their support of breast cancer awareness this month, and that they're releasing special pink cans. Corporate "philanthropy" aside, it's sad that he's pretty much having to say "No, we're not terrorist-supporters. See, we helped volunteer workers on 9/11!"]

Pamela Geller said, "No one is suggesting they not have halal food. I'm not against halal food any more than I'm against kosher food (is that supposed to be reassuring?). My issue is who's doing the certifying." Call me skeptical, but I believe the anger over these halal-certified soups does in fact have something to do with these conservatives' general concern/fear/hatred/whatever of Islam. This is the same blogger that generated opposition to the Islamic community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan (the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque"). I think they're playing it up as if they don't have a problem with the line, per se, but with who is doing the certifying. I'm sure they do in fact have a problem with who is doing the certifying, but I don't think it stops there. They'd probably find something wrong with any group that would provide halal certification (because they would be a Muslim group, and therein lies the problem. It seems like you can't have Muslims forming a group without fear that they're funding terrorists). I think it's more that these people are unhappy with the "Islamicization of America" (even though this is happening in Canada and this line isn't even available in the US...Which is stupid, this line should be available in the U.S.). I think having something so American as Campbell's Soup being "contaminated" by a halal-certified label kind of freaks these conservatives out. When you think about it, there's plenty of reasons to boycott plenty of corporations. Of all the terrible things corporations do, how did they decide on getting worked up about this particular product (that's not even available in the US)? I think it's because of the Islamic connection. So they can say it has nothing to do with Islam/Muslims, and more to do with preventing terrorism. But I'm not buying it -- I'm boycotting their explanation (you see what I did there?!).

Regardless of the original intent of the boycott, the boycott is quickly becoming more about anti-Muslim sentiment than apprehension towards ISNA. The facebook page for the boycott seems more concerned with the halal-certification than with the ISNA. Their page says "BOYCOTT Campbell Soup for their certification of their products as halal - and supporting the Muslim Brotherhood." That last part seems to be a footnote, an afterthought. And how exactly is Campbell linked to the Muslim Brotherhood now (the Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist political movement founded in Egypt in the 1920s. The U.S. State department does not classify the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization)? How exactly has it been established that Campbell is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood (or even that ISNA and the Muslim Brotherhood are linked)? In the overview for their facebook page, it says "Campbell's Soup goes halal with approval from Hamas-linked ISNA [despite this 'fact' not actually being established]. ISNA had admitted ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood [Another completely incorrect 'fact'. Where are they even getting this information? Or are they just making it up?]. The site also says "Warhol is spinning in his grave." I'm sure Andy Warhol is spinning in his grave, but only because these crazy conservatives are using him and his artwork as a rallying cry. Plus, they hardly mention on the site that this soup line is only happening in Canada.

The Facebook site, with 3,500 members, has pretty much become a forum for anti-Muslim comments, articles, and pictures (like a photoshopped picture of a Campbell's soup can that is labeled "Suicide Bomber Soup"). And the wall posts extend beyond the Campbell boycott; there's several other posts on the idea that Muslims are taking over or are harmful. For instance, an article was recently posted by the page creator about a Massachusetts school system getting a Muslim holiday (Cambridge public schools will close for one Muslim holiday each year beginning next year. Cambridge schools already close for some Christian and Jewish holidays. More here.). Outrage ensues in the comments section. Like I said, I don't think this boycott is really about ISNA, per se, this is about fear of Islam/Muslims.

The Campbell spokesman said they haven't noticed any effect on their sales since the boycott started. (Full Story)

Update

2010-10-11T10:50:00.010-04:00

There will be no posts this week because we have family in town visiting. Check back again next week.

October 08, 2010

2010-10-08T11:58:00.007-04:00

In the first legal challenge to the health care overhaul, a federal judge in Michigan has upheld that the federal government has the authority to require everyone to purchase health insurance. The lawsuit was filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed that Congress was exceeding their powers under the Commerce Clause. The four individual plaintiffs do not have private insurance and they object to being forced to buy it. They also said they are afraid that the financial penalty paid to the government for not having insurance would be used to pay for abortions (yeah, that sounds reasonable...Pretty much all money the government collects goes into their giant abortion coffers which are secretly located in the basement of the treasury building. And they hand out money for free abortions to anyone that asks...).

Judge George Caram Steeh said the mandate that requires people to get health care coverage by 2014 and imposes a financial penalty if one does not get coverage is both legal and necessary. He said that Congress was trying to keep the cost of insurance down by requiring participation. He explained, "Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times. As a result, the most costly individuals would be in the insurance system and the least costly would be outside it. In turn, this would aggravate current problems with cost-shifting and lead to even higher premiums." The group that filed the case said they will take it to a federal appeals court in Cincinnati.

The decision affects only the parties in the lawsuit and is not binding on any other federal judges hearing challenges to the health care law. Though, the ruling could be cited by lawyers to try to persuade other judges. Currently, a federal judge in Florida is overseeing a lawsuit filed by 20 states. A decision on whether to dismiss the case is expected by October 14. There is also a lawsuit pending in Virginia. I'm glad the first challenge against the health care law was rejected. I hope this is a sign of things to come. (Full Story)

Liu Xiaobo, an imprisoned Chinese democracy campaigner (as well as a political essayist and literary critic), was awarded the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize. He was awarded the prize for "his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China." He has repeatedly been jailed since 1989 for his activism, and he currently is serving an eleven-year term on subversion charges. He is the third person to receive the prize while imprisoned (in 1991 the Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi won; in 1935 Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist, won).

Liu first gained the attention of Chinese officials for his activism during the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations. He staged a hunger strike and then negotiated the peaceful retreat of student demonstrators as thousands of armed soldiers stood by with rifles drawn. He was then arrested. As a result of his activism, Liu has been blacklisted from academia (he was a professor) and he is not allowed to publish in China. After being released from prison, he continued to gather petitions that pressed for social and political change in China. He also continued to write a series of essays that criticized the government. He would bicycle across the city to the compounds were foreigners worked and lived, and he would fax his writings to oversea journals. Once the internet became more popular in China, he began posting commentary on overseas websites.

He was most recently arrested in 2008. He was arrested the day before Charter '08, a reformist manifesto he helped create, began circulating on the internet. The petition demanded civil liberties, judicial independence, and an end to the Communist Party's monopoly on power. The petition gathered 10,000 signatures before censors quickly pulled it off the internet. After the incident, several blogs were shut down by the government and the first 300 signatories were interrogated. Liu was taken to an undisclosed location, where he spent a year cut off from any contact with his wife or his lawyer. At his trial, the government said that Charter '08 and nine other essays he had written exceeded his right to free expression by "openly slandering and inciting others to overthrow our country's state power."

In response to Liu being awarded the Peace Prize, Chinese state media censored the news. The Chinese media did not cover the story, and the news was censored on the internet as well. The Nobel Prize reports were also blocked online -- the reports highlighted Liu's calls for peaceful political change from various websites. [Despite efforts to block the news on the internet, on microblogs -- which are monitored by the government -- the news generated almost 6,000 comments within an hour of the announcement]. Broadcasts about Liu on CNN, which only reaches luxury compounds and hotels in China, were blacked out throughout the evening. Cell phone users also reported that they were unable to send text messages that contained Liu's name. On Friday night, dozens of foreign reporters gathered outside the apartment building where Liu and his wife live (when Liu isn't in prison, that is), but they were prevented from going in by the police. A sign was posted that said residents of the complex "politely refused" to be interviewed. It's also reported that Liu's wife has been barred from leaving her apartment. [Update: Now I hear she's been forced to leave her home by police in an effort to prevent foreign reporters from talking to her. More here.]

The Chinese Foreign Ministry called the announcement a "desecration" of the Peace Prize. And, look out, here it comes, a senior Chinese official warned that this would harm Chinese-Norwegian relations (as the Nobel Committee is Norwegian). A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry said, "The Nobel Committee giving the Peace Prize to such a person runs completely contrary to the aims of the prize. Liu Xiaobo is a criminal who has been sentenced by Chinese judicial departments for violating Chinese law." [Maybe Chinese law is the problem...].

I think it's absolutely wonderful that the Nobel Committee granted the Peace Prize to Liu. This brings attention to Liu Xiaobo and his cause, and it also condemns China's authoritarian efforts to suppress opposition at the cost of basic rights. This is a very inspiring announcement. I find it so powerful when the Nobel Peace Prize is granted to activists in prison. These people have fought so hard (and made so many sacrifices) for what they believe in against a government that tries to suppress what they say; and despite efforts to silence these activists, they get intentional recognition with a Peace Prize. (Full Story)

October 07, 2010

2010-10-07T13:34:00.011-04:00

In France a law was passed by parliament last month that forbids face-covering Islamic veils (such as the niqab or burqa) anywhere in public. Anyone wearing one will face a fine of 150 euros and/or a citizenship course (a citizenship course? are you serious?! That's terrible. As if someone wearing a full-face veil is less of a citizen and needs to be reminded of their citizenship...). Those that force women to wear a full veil will face a 30,000 euro fine and a one-year jail term.

France's Constitutional Council -- the highest constitutional authority in France -- expressed concerns about the constitutionality of the law. However, after studying the law, the Council announced that the law adheres to the constitution. However, the Council did make one change to the law. They say the law will not apply to public places of worship, as that would violate religious freedom (I don't understand how the whole law doesn't violate religious freedom. What about the women that feel that wearing a face-covering veil is a part of their religion? They're being denied that right in public places).

The law is set to go into effect next spring. There will be a six-month period of "education" where women wearing face-covering veils will be informed that they could face a fine or arrest if they continue to wear the veil in public places. One last legal challenge to the law is possible at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. (Full Story)

Another concern I have with this law is that women that wear full-face veils (either out of choice or because they're forced) may be restricted to their home now. If their choice is to either take off their full-face veil (or wear a less-covering head scarf) or stay at home, they might just stay at home. This might prevent the women that are forced to wear these full-face veils from going out into public and interacting with others, as should be her right.

For some more of my thoughts on the issue, feel free to refer to this past entry.

Update on Ecuador: Ecuador's interior minister announced that 46 police officers have been detained for alleged participation the police revolt against President Correa. He also said that voice recordings indicate that the uprising was not just a spontaneous revolt because officers were upset by the new law that would cut bonuses. Correa and his supporters believe it was a coup attempt against him. A lawyer for some of the police officers say that there are 57 officers in custody and that they are being held incommunicado. (Full Story)
Here is another case I'm interested in following to see if the "state of emergency" is used inappropriately to garner power and repress opposition. I'm usually suspicious when state of emergencies are extended for a while. The state of emergency in Ecuador was already renewed, but it's still early in the incident.

The New York Times has an article on Thailand in the aftermath of the red shirt protests that happened earlier this year (see previous post). The red shirts were anti-government protesters and they were calling on Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva to dissolve parliament and step down. They felt he took power illegitimately. Most of the red shirts were supporters of the former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was overthrown in a 2006 coup and is now in exile. The red shirts occupied central Bangkok in April, and demonstrations were held for nine-and-a-half weeks. The army used tear gas and also fired ammunitions over and into the crowd. More than 90 people were killed and about 1,400 people were injured in clashes between the protesters and the security forces. The government also shut down news and radio stations that were believed to be supporters of the red shirt movement. Towards the end of May, red shirt leaders surrendered themselves to the police in order to prevent any further violence. Abhisit Vejjajiva is still the prime minister.

Since the protests, Abhisit says he is promoting a policy of national reconciliation, while at the same time he's arresting his opponents and censoring the media. A state of emergency, which prohibits large public gatherings, still remains in effect in Bangkok and surrounding areas. The prime minister acknowledged that a continuing crackdown against the opposition may have led to possible human rights abuses, but he insists the emergency policies are necessary to ensure stability. He said in an interview this week, "Just as in many democracies, we cannot allow newspapers, websites, or radio stations that incite violence." Definitely sounds to me like some fear-mongering used as a justification for repressing opposition. That's certainly never been done before in the history of the world... Oh, and, in case you forgot, Thailand currently holds the presidency of the UN Human Rights Council. Abhisit says he takes complaints seriously and he has allowed human rights monitors to interview people who had been jailed.

He also tried to justify his actions and reinforce that he's dedicated to human rights by suggesting that the policies of his government aren't all that different from what other democracies, including the United States, would do in the same situation. Oh...well in that case, that makes it better... Abhisit also stated that he received little criticism (not no criticism, mind you, just little criticism. haha.) from leaders of the EU at the recent summit meeting in Brussels. Well everything must be great then! You're only violating human rights if you're criticized a lot over it. Abhisit also suggested that Germany's reluctance to sell military equipment to Thailand has nothing to do with the current situation in Thailand or his government's human rights record. Instead, he said it's a result of some other "ongoing problem" since at least 2007 (Abhisit was elected in 2008. Isn't that convenient). (Full Story)

October 06, 2010

2010-10-06T12:51:00.001-04:00

In Ecuador last Thursday, hundreds of police officers took to the streets of Quito to protest the cancellation of their bonuses and promotions. The day before, Congress had passed a law that would end the practice of giving members of the police and soldiers medals and cash bonuses with each promotion. The law would also extend the amount of time required to pass before someone can get another promotion (from five years to seven years). Congress passed this as a part of an austerity plan. Police already complained of having low salaries, and this new law (which hadn't taken effect yet) was an additional blow.

The demonstrators seized government buildings, took over bases, blocked highways, and shut down the airport. They fired tear gas and burned tires. President Rafael Correa took to the streets to try to negotiate with police (some say he taunted the crowd -- sticking out his chest and yelling "If you want to kill the president, here he is! Kill me if you want to! Kill me if you are brave, instead of hiding in the crowd like cowards!"), but he was soon surrounded and jostled by the crowd. Someone fired a tear gas canister at him, he was pelted with water, and video showed at least one man punching Correa. He was then taken to a hospital to be treated. The hospital was then surrounded by protesters and he was trapped inside for more than 12 hours. Correa loyalists tried to come to his aid at the hospital. While recovering in the hospital, Correa was protected by presidential bodyguards and he made several calls to presidents in the area and gave interviews to the news media. He was finally rescued by the army. His car was shot at while it drove away from the hospital. Several people died in gun battles between the troops and the police. The day of unrest resulted in at least five deaths and nearly 200 people injured.

Correa says the protests and the attacks against him were a coup attempt. However, skeptical analysts do not believe it was a coup attempt, but instead a protest over cut benefits that spiraled out of control. Regional leaders and the United States voiced their support for Correa and his administration. Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Evo Morales of Bolivia accused the United States of being behind the revolt. Correa has accused supporters of former Ecuadorian President Lucio Gutierrez of inciting the violence. Gutierrez, who is currently in Brazil, denies any involvement.

Early Friday morning the national police chief resigned in shame, saying that he was "disrespected" and "mistreated" by his subordinates. Correa then named General Patricio Franco the new chief and asked him to reform the police. Three police colonels are under criminal investigation for failing to prevent this mass protest by their subordinates. The three are being investigated for negligence, rebellion, and attempted assassination.

A state of emergency was declared during Thursday's unrest. It was set to expire Tuesday night, but President Correa said he was extending it until Friday. He said he's extending it at the request of the National Assembly. The National Assembly had suspended its session on Tuesday due to "a lack of security guarantees". The army has now taken over from police in guarding the parliament building. Earlier on Tuesday, the government increased army and police pay for several ranks. The defense ministry said the rise was not linked to the police revolt (yeah, I bet...). (Full Story) (Full Story) (Full Story)

October 05, 2010

2010-10-05T10:55:00.008-04:00

Election Updates:
(This is not complete coverage of all the elections going on. Instead, I have provided some summaries on a couple of elections of interest.)

Sweden held elections in late September. The bad news: Sweden Democrats, a far-right party that is anti-immigration, won 20 seats in parliament (there are 349 total seats in parliament). As a result, The Alliance -- a center-right alliance that consists of the four center-right parties in parliament -- fell short of a majority. The Alliance was the previous governing party and their leader Fredrik Reinfeldt is the incumbent Prime Minister. The Alliance will now seek support from other parties.

The good news: No one wants to work with the far-right Sweden Democrats. The Alliance said they would not form a coalition with the Sweden Democrats. Reinfeldt said, "I have been clear on how we will handle this uncertain situation. We will not cooperate, or become dependent on, the Sweden Democrats." The Social Democrats party leader is also opposed to the Sweden Democrats getting any political influence.

Reinfeldt said The Alliance will instead seek support from the opposition Green Party. However, the Green Party is currently allied with the center-left Social Democrats, and the Green Party co-chair said the opposition bloc (which won 157 seats compared to the Alliance's 172 seats) remains united. Reinfeldt said he also is not ruling out working with the Social Democrats -- but it depends on "how the Social Democrats define their road ahead." It's also a possibility that The Alliance could remain in office with a minority government. However, that would mean they need to win over other parties in order to get any legislation passed.

The success of the far-right Sweden Democrats in the election shocked a lot of Swedish voters. Although it's just 20 seats, that's still a concerning number considering this is Sweden (if far-right candidates can get elected in Sweden, it's probably not looking good for other less-liberal countries). Immigrants make up 14% of Sweden's population. The Sweden Democrats obviously tapped into the fear and dissatisfaction over immigration among voters -- which is becoming a growing concern in Europe. A lot of European countries have seen a growing negative response among their citizens towards the issue of immigration. There has been a growing backlash against "outsiders" -- who are feared to be taking jobs, taking benefits, burdening the social welfare system, changing their country's way of life/culture, etc. This concern with immigrants or "outsiders" has grown even more as the global economy has suffered. I hope the Sweden Democrats get very little attention and continue to hold very little political power or influence. (Full Story)

In case you didn't continue to follow the British election -- I last wrote about the hung parliament because no party won an outright majority. Both the Conservative Party (led by David Cameron) and the Labour Party (led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown) tried to strike a deal with the Liberal Democrats (led by Nick Clegg) to form a coalition. If one party doesn't win enough seats in the election to earn an outright majority, they need to form a coalition government (or governing alliance) with another party (or parties) in order to get a majority.

There was an attempt to put together a Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition, and Gordon Brown even resigned as Labour Party leader because he thought it would help his party's chances. However, the attempt to form a coalition didn't work out. The Liberal Democrats ended up forming a coalition with the Conservative Party. As a result, David Cameron became the new prime minister of the UK and Nick Clegg became the deputy prime minister. This new government marked the end of the Labour Party's 13 year rule.

Ed Miliband (former energy secretary) was elected as the new leader of the Labour Party after Gordon Brown resigned. Ed Miliband narrowly defeated his older brother David (who was the former foreign secretary) for the role. In a dramatic run-off vote, Ed won by just a little over 1%. The Labour Party has a complex electoral system in which voting power is equally divided between three sections: Members of Parliament and Members of European Parliament, affiliated organizations including trade unions, and ordinary party members. Preferential votes are cast (where the voter indicates their first choice, second choice, etc). The first candidate to get 50% or more of the votes wins. If no candidate reaches that threshold during the first round of voting, the last place contender is eliminated and the second preference from their backers will be redistributed. In the first three rounds of voting, David was ahead (but he did not reach 50%); but as preference votes were reallocated as the other candidates were knocked out, Ed pulled ahead as the winner. David had won a majority of support from Labour members of parliament and party members, whereas Ed had a lot of support from trade unions and other affiliated organizations. (Full Story)

Iraq held elections back in early March. You may remember that former prime minister Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya bloc got 91 seats, while Nuri Kamal al-Maliki (the incumbent prime minister) and his State of Law bloc got 89 seats. Neither candidate won enough seats to have a majority in Parliament. Both parties have attempted to form coalitions in order to reach that majority. Here is the latest update: A government still hasn't been formed. There have been months of start-and-stop negotiations, but no coalition has materialized. In fact, Iraq has set a new record as the country that has gone the longest between holding parliamentary elections and forming a government. The Netherlands previously held the record when they went 207 days in 1977. Iraq reached 208 days about four days ago.

The most optimistic of Iraqi politicians think the process will take at least another month, but not much longer than that. On the downside, many Iraqis now wonder why they risked their lives to vote. There's also the concern that this stalemate has limited Iraq's ability to make national decisions and that it could make hard-earned security gains vulnerable. An Iraq expert explained, "The Netherlands had strong, functioning institutions and a caretaker government that continued to govern. Iraq has very weak institutions and a caretaker government that can do very little. This makes for a potentially highly unstable and precarious situation."

The U.S. had proposed a power-sharing plan between Allawi and Maliki -- which would have limited Maliki's power as prime minister and would create a new federal position for Allawi. But that plan has all but failed as many of the parties are unwilling to compromise. In the meanwhile, governance in Iraq is suffering during this deadlock. Iraq is unable to ratify legislation, constitutional amendments, and international agreements. This is putting a lot of important legislation on hold. Iraq's ministers are also afraid to make decisions because it is unclear who will be elected as the new leader -- and this undetermined person holds the key to their political future. In addition, business investment has largely been stalled as people are waiting to see what happens and who gets elected. Furthermore, the foreign ministry is unable to implement international treaties or agreements without a new government. Foreign countries are also reluctant to deal with a caretaker government because they have less power and their decisions can easily be reversed by the elected government. (Full Story)

October 04, 2010

2010-10-04T12:46:00.009-04:00

NPR has a heartbreaking article that provides a snapshot of the current American economy. The story is on the phenomenon of midnight shopping at places like WalMart on the last day of the month. When the clock strikes midnight, it's a new month and shoppers' food stamps and government checks go into effect. "Take a trip to one of those 24-hour Walmarts on the last day of every month, and you'll get a glimpse into the lives of low-income families trying to get by."

Shopping at the very first moment they can use their benefits is a good indicator that these shoppers were really in need and necessities were getting low at the end of the month. One WalMart executive said, "And if you really think about it, the only reason somebody gets out and buys baby formula is they need it and they've been waiting for it. Otherwise, we're open 24 hours, come at 5 AM, come at 7 AM, come at 10 AM. But if you're there at midnight, you're there for a reason."

WalMart has noticed this pattern and has adjusted their stocking accordingly. They bring out larger packs of items (bulk items) at the beginning of the month, and smaller sizes at the end of the month. They also make sure the shelves have plenty of diapers and baby formula at the beginning of the month. I don't feel like being super cynical right now, so I'm going to commend WalMart for accommodating these shoppers and making things easier for them, instead of saying that WalMart is trying to capitalize on this situation.

The end of the article broke my heart. "Tracy says their children know when the end of the month is approaching, because what they like to eat is gone and the kitchen shelves have emptied. The children are all home asleep while the parents are out shopping. In the morning, Tracy says, they'll wake up and be able to have what they want for breakfast." (Full Story)

Britain has officially recognized Druidry (but my spellcheck doesn't...) as a religion. Druids, followers of ancient pagan traditions, have practiced for thousands of years in Britain and in Celtic societies throughout Europe. They worship natural forces like the earth and the sun. They do not worship a single god, but instead strive for a sacred relationship with the natural world. They're probably best known for gathering at Stonehenge every summer solstice. There are currently about 10,000 Druids in Britain (and many more in the world of Warcraft. I had to!)

Druidry has formally been classified as a religion under British charity law. The Druids have tried for nearly five years to be recognized by the Charity Commission. Their application has finally been accepted. This means that, in addition to being officially recognized as a religion, Druids can also now receive exemptions from taxes on donations. (Full Story)

Well, alright! Arizona, Georgia, Tennessee, and Virginia recently enacted laws that allow people to bring loaded guns into a bar. Eighteen other states currently allow guns in restaurants that serve alcohol. Now these four states have the courage to take it even further by allowing guns where they're needed most: In a place where people go for the sole purpose of consuming lots of alcohol. Alcohol + Guns? This should go over well. Though under Tennessee's new law, gun permit holders are not supposed to drink alcohol while carrying their weapons. So, uh, why exactly are these gun-holders going to the bar in the first place? Do they just want to be able to go to some public place where they can sit with their gun and enjoy a Coke? Maybe the Tennessee law means you can't actively be drinking alcohol while you're shooting your gun?! Or maybe they mean it literally, you can't be carrying your gun in one hand while holding a drink in the other?! Either way, it seems weird to allow guns in bars if you think there needs to be a separation between drinking and gun-carrying. Critics of these new laws are pointing out that recently a man in Virginia with a permit to carry a concealed weapon shot himself in the leg while drinking beer at a restaurant.

The Tennessee law also allows restaurant and bar owners to prohibit people from carrying weapons inside their places of business by posting signs out front. That is until someone sues because they feel their individual rights are being infringed upon because they can't enter the bar with their weapon, and it goes to the Supreme Court, and the self-described non-activist conservative court overrules the Tennessee law and says bar owners are required to allow people to enter their establishment with a handgun. I guess I'm getting ahead of myself (for now).

The Tennessee law has only been challenged once, so far. A complaint was filed by an anonymous waiter that argued that allowing guns into bars creates an unsafe work environment for waiters. That is definitely a legitimate complaint. However, his complaint was denied by the state's Division of Occupational Safety and Health. The lawyer who represents the waiter said they are preparing to appeal the decision. The lawyer said, "A loaded concealed weapon in a bar is a recognized hazard. I have a right to go into a restaurant or bar and not have people armed. And of course, the waiter has a right to a safe workplace."

These new laws are an example of the recent efforts to change gun laws across the United States. There have been a lot of changes to gun laws (or attempts to change gun laws) since the Supreme Court made two landmark rulings in which handgun bans were overturned in DC and Chicago. The Court ruled that citizens have an individual right (and not just in connection with a well-regulated militia) to keep a loaded handgun for defense. There are now more than 250 lawsuits that challenge various gun laws. Most recently, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a Republican, said that it should be legal for people to have guns on campus. He made this statement after there was a shooting last week at the University of Texas, Austin. He argued that armed bystanders might have been able to stop the gunman. That seems like a lot of potentially dangerous and harmful situations (that can arise from an armed student population) for a big "what if?" (i.e., what if there's a shooting on campus and some student has the ability to stop the shooter because they have a gun; and a minimal amount of people are harmed in the process). This does not seem like a real solution to me. (Full Story)

October 01, 2010

2010-10-01T12:35:00.001-04:00

The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) engaged in a fact-finding mission to investigate the Israeli attack on the Gaza flotilla that occurred in late May. The flotilla, which was organized by the Free Gaza Movement and the Turkish Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief, was carrying humanitarian aid, medical supplies, and building supplies. They were intending on breaking through Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip in order to deliver these materials to the people of Gaza. Israel had set up this blockade to prevent Hamas from acquiring weapons, although this blockade also prevented supplies from reaching civilians in Gaza. Plus, the legality of this blockade had been disputed. The flotilla tried to break through the blockade, but Israeli forces ended up raiding and seizing the ships (in international waters). On one of the boats, the Mavi Marmara, a clash broke out and nine activists were killed and dozens were injured. Seven Israeli commandos were also injured. After the ships were seized, the passengers were detained in Israel and then released a week later. Both sides placed blame on the other for the attack, and details of the attacks have been disputed.
The recent report from the UN fact-finding mission revealed conclusively that the US citizen Furkan Dogan and five Turkish citizens on the boat were murdered execution-style by Israeli commandos. Forensic and firearm evidence revealed that 19 year old Dogan was filming on top of the deck when he was shot twice in the head, once in the back, and once in the left leg and foot. He was lying on the deck in a conscious or semi-conscious state for some time, and then he was shot in the face at point blank range while lying on the ground. The fact-finding panel concluded that these six killings by the Israeli troops "can be characterized as extra-legal, arbitrary, and summary executions."
The report also refutes the version of events told by the Israeli soldiers and supports the testimony of passengers on board. The report suggests that, from the beginning, Israeli policy viewed the flotilla as an opportunity to use lethal force against pro-Hamas activists. Specific orders were given by the Israeli government "to continue intelligence tracking on the flotilla organizers with the emphasis on the possibility that amongst the passengers in the flotilla there were terror elements who would attempt to harm Israeli forces." When details of the Israeli plan to forcibly take over the flotilla were published in the Israeli press, passengers on the Mavi Marmara realized deadly force might be used against them. As a result, the passengers then began efforts to create improvised weapons from railings and other equipment on the ship. The commission concluded that there was no evidence of firearms on the ship, as Israel had claimed. The report also states that the Israeli military never communicated a request by radio to inspect the cargo on board any of the ships, as Israel also claimed. This contradicts the official justification given by the Israeli government for the military attack on the ships (as they said they were preventing any military contraband from reaching Gaza).
It was confirmed in the report that passengers were initially fired on by helicopters flying above. It was also confirmed that some passengers on the Mavi Marmara were able to subdue ten Israeli commandos that came on their ship. The passengers took their weapons and threw the guns in the sea (though they kept one weapon for evidence and hid it on the ship). The soldiers were briefly sequestered below deck and some were treated for wounds before being released. The report also contradicts the Israeli claim that one or more Israeli soldiers were wounded by firearms. No medical evidence was found to indicate an Israel soldier had a gunshot wound.
The fact-finding mission was chaired by Judge Hudson-Phillips, a retired judge of the International Criminal Court and former attorney general of Trinidad and Tobago. It also included Sir Desmond da Silva of the UK (former chief prosecutor of the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone) and Mary Shanthi Dairiam of Malaysia (founding member of the board of directors of the International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific). The mission interviewed 112 eyewitnesses to the Israeli attack. The Israeli government refused to cooperate with the mission and did not grant interviews with personnel involved in the planning and carrying out of the attack. (Full Story)

Between 1946 and 1948 U.S. government medical researchers intentionally infected hundreds of people in Guatemala with gonorrhea and syphilis without their knowledge or permission. The researchers were trying to determine whether the antibiotic penicillin could prevent early syphilis infection. The experiment involved 696 subjects, which consisted of male prisoners and female patients in the National Mental Health Hospital. The subjects were infected with the syphilis bacteria either through visits with prostitutes who had the disease or through direction inoculation. About one-third of those who were infected never received adequate treatment. The project was co-sponsored by the U.S. Public Health Service, the National Institutes of Health, the Pan-American Health Sanitary Bureau (now the Pan American Health Organization), and the Guatemalan government. The records of this study had been hidden after the experiment, and they were recently discovered by a professor of women's studies at Wellesley College.

Today Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius offered extensive apologies to Guatemala and Hispanic residents of the United States for these actions. They added that this study was "clearly unethical". In a joint statement they said, "We are outraged that such reprehensible research could have occurred under the guise of public health. We deeply regret that it happened, and we apologize to all individuals who were affected by such abhorrent research practices." In addition to the apology, the government statement said that the U.S. is setting up commissions to ensure that human medical research conducted around the world meets "rigorous ethical standards". That's great and all, but shouldn't these commissions already have been set up?! (Full Story)

Federal authorities are suing the Fox News Network for allegedly retaliating against a female reporter after she complained about gender and age bias. In 2007, Catherine Herridge filed an internal complaint against the network in which she complained that she received unequal pay and job conditions as a result of her gender and age. The network dismissed her claim and said they found no evidence of bias. But then the network later included language in Herridge's contract that was intended to stop her from making any more complaints. Herridge refused to sign the contract and she complained to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The network agreed to remove the language from her contract after she complained to the EEOC. In regards to the lawsuit, the EEOC is seeking unspecified monetary damages and a court order that would prohibit Fox from retaliating against other employees. (Full Story)

September 30, 2010

2010-09-30T14:00:00.005-04:00

I referenced this bill yesterday, and I'm glad to report that yesterday the U.S. House of Representatives passed the 9/11 Health and Compensation bill. New York lawmakers have been pushing for a measure like this for years, and the bill failed to pass when it was previously brought up in July. Finally the bill passed yesterday 268 to 160. Thirteen Republicans voted in favor of the bill and three Democrats opposed it.

The bill would provide free health care and compensation to 9/11 rescue and recovery workers that became ill as a result of their work at ground zero. These workers suffered illnesses as a result of breathing in fumes, smoke, dust, and other toxic materials. The bill lays out that over the next eight years, $3.2 billion would go to monitoring and treating the illnesses of 9/11 workers (with 10% of those costs being paid for by the city of New York) and $4.2 billion would be allotted to the reopening of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, which provides compensation for any job and economic losses. Up until this point, Congress has been giving money for the medical treatment of ground zero workers on an annual basis. However, the bill's supporters wanted the government to institute a more permanent health program, due to the fear that the annual renewal of these funds were subject to the political whims of Congress.

Those opposed to the bill were concerned about the cost of the bill. They brought up their usual complaint about how this is adding to the deficit. That's their answer to oppose anything (except when it's something they want passed. Like extending the Bush tax cuts to the wealthiest. Or, you know, passing stuff during the Bush years that led to this huge deficit in the first place). Opponents feel like this is just another big government entitlement program that would be a burden on taxpayers. I think this is a cause definitely worthy of the cost. I agree with the supporters of the bill that argued that the country has an obligation to help these workers that risked their lives during a time of national crisis.

Similar legislation is pending in the Senate, though it most likely has a much tougher fight there since Republicans have enough votes to filibuster the bill. I hope they do the right thing, and allow ground zero workers to get the health care and compensation they deserve. (Full Story)

A judge in Ontario, Canada has overturned a brothel ban in the province. Three prostitutes brought their case to the Ontario Superior Court, and they argued that the brothel ban forced them to risk their safety by having to go onto the streets. One of the prostitutes told the court that she had been beaten and raped many times. A very high profile case against Canadian serial killer Robert Pickton, who killed at least six sex workers (and most likely many more) in Vancouver, has brought increased attention to the dangers of street prostitution.

Judge Susan Himel ruled that national laws banning brothels, solicitation of clients, and managing sex workers violated the constitutional guarantee of "the right to life, liberty, and security". She said, "These laws...force prostitutes to choose between their liberty, interest, and their right to security of the person." Judge Himel also urged the Canadian parliament to regulate the sex trade instead of banning brothels.

The national government is considering appealing the ruling. There's a fear that other provinces could follow. If the government does not appeal, the ruling will go into effect in 30 days. Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said the government will "fight to ensure that the criminal law continues to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution." Those that supported the overturned laws fear that the ruling could make Canada a haven for human traffickers. (Full Story)

This is definitely a serious and contentious subject, and I think there are valid points made on both sides. Though I agree with the brothel ban. I think that prostitution is going to continue regardless, and I would much rather have sex workers be in a safer environment where there is protection and oversight. Plus, this allows for better regulation in order to protect sex workers and their clients. For instance, many brothels have rules in place where workers need to get tested for STDs on a regular basis and the use of condoms is required.

September 29, 2010

2010-09-29T11:26:00.026-04:00

There has been a lot of news lately on the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy, which requires that openly-gay soldiers cannot serve in the military. There have been efforts to repeal DADT. A federal judge in California (U.S. District Judge Virginia A. Phillips) ruled in early September that DADT violates the Constitution. She said the policy is a violation of due process and First Amendment rights. The judge can issue an injunction to stop the military from discharging openly gay service members. She allowed the government time to appeal the ruling. (Full Story)

President Obama supports the repeal of DADT, but the (Obama administration) Justice Department defended the law before Judge Phillips. The White House says that the legal filing by the Justice Department is a part of government procedure by defending an act of Congress that is being challenged. They say it does not detract from the president's efforts to get DADT repealed. Though...it kind of does, if we're being honest here. I know it's procedural for the Justice Department to defend an act of Congress, it's just too bad that an administration that supports the repeal is further holding it up.
Last week the Justice Department objected to the injunction to stop the DADT policy. The Justice Department said that immediately ending the military's ban might harm military readiness as we're in a time of war (they do realize that ending a ban on openly gay service members means more people could be in the military, right? You know, like the kind of people that actually want to serve, but they can't because they're openly gay). The Justice Department urged that the injunction should be limited only to the members of the Log Cabin Republicans that brought this case before the court (in other words, only gay service members belonging to the Log Cabin Republicans will be affected). The Justice Department also urged Judge Phillips to wait until the Pentagon completes a study on how to integrate gay people into the ranks (Um, they're already in the ranks. All you have to do is not fire them simply for coming out. There, study complete). The Justice Department attorneys said that Congress is debating this issue and that Judge Phillips would be overstepping her bounds if she halted a policy under debate in Congress. (Full Story) (Full Story)

In another case, a federal judge in Tacoma, Washington (U.S. District Judge Ronald Leighton) heard the case of a U.S. Air Force flight nurse. Major Margaret Witt was dismissed after coming out as a lesbian. She joined the Air Force in 1987 and was suspended in 2004, just short of retirement. She sued to get her job back. Her lawyers argued that the flight nurse had outstanding performance in the service, and that her sexuality never caused any problems in her unit. Air Force attorneys argued that DADT has to be uniformly obeyed in order to maintain morale and order in the military. Judge Leighton ordered that the flight nurse should be reinstated "at the earliest possible moment." If she returns to the military, she will be the first person allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military as a gay person. (Full Story) (Full Story)

Last week, the Senate took up the DADT repeal, but the effort was stalled. Not a single Republican sided with the Democrats in order to begin debate on the defense authorization bill that included the repeal. One reason Republicans were against the defense authorization bill is that an amendment was attached that would grant legal status to young immigrants who attend college or join the military. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) is the one Republican that supported the repeal in the Armed Services Committee, but she was opposed to the defense authorization bill because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) limited the number of amendments that could be offered (though Reid said he would work with Republicans to allow amendments). So, she was opposed to it on procedural grounds.
It's so disheartening when legislation is stalled because of procedural issues -- not that it got voted down, but that it's not even able to get to the point of a vote. It reminds me of when Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) got so upset that Republicans (and some Democrats) voted against a bill that would provide health care and compensation for 9/11 rescue workers that became sick as a result of their rescue efforts. Republicans had voted against it for procedural reasons (Democrats employed a procedural move that wouldn't allow amendments. They didn't want excessively partisan amendments tacked on to delay or kill the bill. As a result, they needed a two-thirds majority to pass the bill) and it didn't pass. Rep. Weiner had an outburst on the floor and said that members often say 'oh we want amendments and debate'...and then they still vote no. He continued, "And then they stand up and say 'oh if only we had a different process, we'd vote yes.' You vote yes if you believe yes! You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing!" It's extremely unfortunate that Congress has not yet repealed DADT, and even more unfortunate that the legislation has stalled. (Full Story)

The Texas State Board of Education has been at it again! Last week they adopted a (nonbinding) resolution that urges textbook publishers not to provide a pro-Islamic (or Islamic-biased) viewpoint in world history textbooks. The board members in favor of this resolution are worried about world history textbooks having too much Middle Eastern influence, and there's a fear of textbooks pushing a "pro-Islamic, anti-Christian" viewpoint. They say textbooks are devoting more lines of text to Islam than to Christianity. First of all, this is world history textbooks we're talking about...and 68-71% of the world's population is not of the Christian faith. Second of all, what textbooks are they actually referring to? I have been out of school for a few years, so maybe things have drastically changed, but I highly doubt American textbooks are even coming close to presenting a pro-Islamic, anti-Christian viewpoint. Does mere mention of the Islamic faith qualify as being pro-Islamic, anti-Christian?

The resolution also claims that "more such discriminatory treatment of religion may occur as Middle Easterners buy into the U.S. public school textbook oligopoly, as they are doing now." Yeah, that would be really terrible if a single group of textbook-buyers had the ability to influence textbook content and have the content reflect their personal beliefs... Oh, you know, kind of like...the Texas State Board of Education. It's funny that they call the textbook industry an oligopoly, when it's their socially conservative board that wields huge influence and power in the textbook industry. The Texas school system is so large that if Texas urges textbook publishers to make changes in textbooks, they often will. This then affects the textbooks available to other states. Thus, the Texas revisions have national implications. Furthermore, in response to their above quote, I can't imagine Middle Eastern countries looking to buy American textbooks have a huge amount of influence on what textbook material is published.

And I love how "religious discrimination" pretty much equals "we feel there's not enough stuff on Christianity." And let's be clear, this board is not a principled proponent of equal coverage for all religions. That's not the real issue here. They're not complaining that Buddhism or Hinduism doesn't get as much coverage as Christianity, for example. They wouldn't complain about Christianity getting more lines of text than Islam. The issue here is of course Christianity -- their faith. And they want their faith to get more attention -- or, they don't want their faith to lose attention to other religions. This is an issue of fear -- fear of "outsiders", fear of immigrants, fear of the changing nature of America that is moving away from the domination of white Christians. This resolution reflects the terrible trend in this country of anti-Muslim rhetoric. (Full Story)

September 28, 2010

2010-09-28T14:24:00.009-04:00

The Census Bureau has recently released a report on income, poverty, and health insurance coverage for 2009. According to the census data, income inequality reached a record high in 2009. In other words, the income gap between the richest and poorest Americans is the widest it's ever been recorded (the Census Bureau began tracking household income in 1967). [This data excludes capital gains. Inequality in earnings between the rich and poor would be even higher if that was take into account]. Those in the top 20% (those making more than $100,000 a year) received 49.4% of all income generated in the U.S. Those below the poverty line (approximately 14% of Americans) made just 3.4%. The income ratio is now 14.5 to 1 -- two years ago it was 13.6 and in 1968 it was 7.7. In elementary school math terms, that means for every one pie those below the poverty line get, the richest 20% get 14.5 pies.

The United States also has the largest rich-poor gap among Western industrialized nations.

The census data also revealed that four million additional people fell below the poverty line in 2009. The total reached 44 million Americans. That is one in seven Americans (14.3%). That's the highest percentage it's been in 15 years. The increase was steepest for children -- now about one in five children (21%) live in poverty. That is a 5% increase since 2000.

This rate could be higher and millions more could have fallen below the poverty line if it weren't for expanded unemployment insurance and other assistance (and yet Republican Senators still try to block the extension of unemployment insurance. Fortunately, their most recent attempt at obstruction was foiled when Republican Senators Collins & Snowe voted with the Democrats to end the filibuster). Another way people have gotten by is moving back in with their parents or other relatives, or sharing homes with nonrelatives. Timothy Smeeding, the director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said, "A lot of people would have been worse off if they didn't have someone to move in with." Census data has shown an 11.6% increase in the number of multifamily households over the last two years.

The poverty rate in 2009 for non-Hispanic whites was 9.4%, 25.8% for blacks, 25.3% for Hispanics, and 12.5% for Asians. There was an increase in poverty for all groups, except for Asian Americans, whose rate remained unchanged.

The number of U.S households that receives food stamps increased by 2 million last year. This brings the total up to 11.7 million (or one in ten) households receiving food stamps -- the highest amount on record.

The percentage of Americans that are below half the poverty line ($10,977 for a family of four) grew from 5.7% in 2008 to 6.3% in 2009. That is the highest percentage since 1975 (when the government first began tracking this group).

Lower-skilled adults that are aged 18-34 experienced the largest jump in poverty last year due to the dwindling labor market. This group has been hit hard by unemployment, especially as employers often kept on or hired older workers.

Another interesting finding from the census report is that the number of U.S. residents without health insurance rose to 51 million in 2009 (up from 46 million in 2008. Yeah, we definitely need to repeal the health care reform law, right Republicans?!). Though, this number is expected to drop as the health care reforms begin to take effect. (Full Story) (Full Story)

Update

2010-05-10T11:07:00.004-04:00

Please excuse the upcoming lack of new entries -- we will be traveling a lot this summer. Check back later.

May 07, 2010

2010-05-07T10:47:00.009-04:00

Yesterday Britain held elections and no party won an outright majority, resulting in a hung Parliament (I need to make t-shirts that say "Britain: The only thing hung in this country is Parliament." Oh snap!). The Conservatives gained a lot of seats (about 94), while the incumbent Labour Party (led by current-Prime Minister Gordon Brown) lost seats (at least 88). The third place Liberal Democrats didn't gain as many seats as was forecasted, and they were down by five seats compared to the 2005 vote. With nearly all the votes counted, the Conservative Party (led by David Cameron) is set to win the largest number of seats. This will end the 13 year reign of the Labour Party holding the majority.The Conservatives won an estimated 36.2% of the votes, while the Labour won 29.1% and the Liberal Democrats won 22.9%. A BBC projection forecasts that the Conservatives will get 306 seats, Labour 261, and the Liberal Democrats 54 (the Liberal Democrats are a much smaller party compared to the Conservatives and Labour).

Over the next several days, the Conservative Party and the Labour Party (the two biggest parties) will try to woo other parties to join them in order to form a governing alliance (in order to get a majority). Both parties are trying to strike a deal with the Liberal Democrats (headed by Nick Clegg), who hold the third highest number of seats. Gordon Brown said that although his party is currently behind, they are not giving up. He offered an alliance with Clegg based on their parties' shared approach to the country's economic crisis and to reforms in the voting system (a central tenet of the Liberal Democrat Party). David Cameron offered the Liberal Democrats some concessions, but not guarantees, on economic measures and electoral reform. Cameron also said that while the two parties disagreed on immigration, the relationship with Europe, and defense, he hoped they could come to an agreement (well, when you put it like that...). Clegg has not made a decision yet.

Under British parliamentary procedures, the party with a plurality of the votes (in this case, the Conservative Party), may form a minority government. This would not require them to form an alliance (but then it's more difficult to get things passed in Parliament because you don't have a majority voting bloc). But the rules also permit the incumbent prime minister (in this case, Gordon Brown) to remain in office and try to negotiate an alliance. Any new government has to be able to withstand an early confidence vote in Parliament (a vote that signifies enough people in Parliament accept or "have confidence" in your government). (Full Story)

May 05, 2010

2010-05-05T11:08:00.005-04:00

Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media watchdog group, released a report that lists the 40 worst offenders against freedom of the press. They released the report for World Press Freedom Day. The list includes the leaders of China, Russia, Rwanda, North Korea, and Myanmar as some of the world's worst "predators of freedom". The report said that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has "promoted a climate of pumped-up national pride that encourages the persecution of dissidents and free thinkers." In Rwanda, elections are due to be held in August and there's growing political tension in the country. An investigative journalists in Rwanda was thrown out of the country for criticizing President Paul Kagame. Robert Mukomboz, the journalist that was thrown out, told the BBC in an interview, "The president's office would try to dictate what I'm supposed to write, would even want to dictate the headlines, and would go to the extent of trying to draft the story for me and include my by-line."

Mexico is listed as one of the most dangerous countries for journalists -- 62 journalists have been killed in Mexico over the last decade. The report also listed Eta, the Basque separatist group in Spain, and criminal gangs in Italy as groups that have threatened journalists. Israeli Defense Forces were criticized for physically injuring 33 Palestinian journalists. The Palestinian militant group Hamas was also criticized. The Defense Secretary of Sri Lanka, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa -- who also happens to be the President's brother -- was accused in the report of condoning attacks against journalists. However, some progress has been made in Sri Lanka. President Rajapaksa ordered the release of a journalist that was sentenced to 20 years in prison on terrorism charges. The journalist was a Tamil and he was convicted because the government said that articles he had written incited racial hatred. His released was ordered by the President on World Press Freedom Day. Other countries on the list include Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Libya, and Iran. For this year's list, Reporters Without Borders has removed several Iraqi Islamist groups from the list. The reason for this is that, while violence remains high in the area, journalists are no longer being singled out as targets. (Full Story) (Full Story)

May 04, 2010

2010-05-04T10:26:00.006-04:00

An Oklahoma state judge temporarily blocked the enforcement of a new abortion law for 45 days. The controversial state law requires pregnant women to get an ultrasound and to hear a detailed description of the fetus before they can get an abortion. The law requires doctors to use a vaginal probe, which provides a clearer picture of the fetus than a regular ultrasound (because the fetus is so small at this point). Then the doctor has to describe the fetus in detail, including its dimensions; whether arms, legs, and internal organs are visible; and whether there is cardiac activity. Doctors are also required to turn the screen with the ultrasound images toward the woman so that she can see them.

Lawmakers in Oklahoma overrode Governor Brad Henry's (D) veto, and the law went into effect last week. The law is being challenged by The Center for Reproductive Rights. The Center, a New York-based abortion rights group, challenged the law on behalf of Nova Health Systems (the operator of Reproductive Services of Tulsa). Officials at Reproductive Services said the law has drawn emotional responses from patients, with some leaving in tears after the ultrasound is performed because of what they had to hear and see. The lawyers for CRR were planning on arguing for a temporary block of the law, but the attorney general agreed to accept the order before the court hearing. The attorney general agreed to the order to give his office more time to prepare a defense of the law and to have more time to retain a law professor, Teresa Collett, who represented the state when a similar law passed in 2008 was challenged by the Center for Reproductive Rights (the law was ruled unconstitutional because it violated requirements that legislative measures deal with only one subject).

The Center for Reproductive Rights sees the law as one of the strictest abortion laws in the nation. They say the law forces women to hear information that may not be relevant to her medical care and could interfere with the doctor-patient relationship by forcing doctors to deliver unwanted speech. Teresa Collett said the new law is consistent with standard medical practice. She said, "It would be remarkable if a woman would undergo a medical procedure and a doctor would not have an obligation to describe the procedure and the results of that procedure to the patient." But that's assuming the patients wants to hear this information. These women against the law do not want to hear this information. They do not want to see an ultrasound image. They do not want to be forced to have a vaginal ultrasound. They simply want to have an abortion performed (which is within their legal rights). They shouldn't have to jump through hoops and be subjected to this. Choosing to get an abortion can be a very difficult and emotional decision, but it's that individual's decision to make. There shouldn't be a law in place to try to emotionally traumatize them or make them feel guilty about getting an abortion in order to scare them out of it. It's not the state's role to scare people out of getting an abortion. I find it terrible all these roadblocks that states set up to hinder a woman's right to receive an abortion (as they cannot outright ban abortions). (Full Story)

April 30, 2010

2010-04-30T10:34:00.006-04:00

In an attempt to reduce labor violations -- like employers not paying overtime and improperly classifying workers are contractors in an attempt to reduce their benefits -- the U.S. Labor Department plans to require companies to prepare and adopt compliance plans. These compliance plans have to be effective in avoiding labor violations. The effort will require companies to document many of their labor decisions and share that information with their workers and the government. For example, one proposed idea is that if companies classify workers as independent contractors -- which is often done to avoid paying Social Security taxes, circumventing wage laws, and denying benefits to the employee -- they will have to prepare a written explanation of why those workers should be considered contractors rather than employees. Companies would then have to give these workers the explanation.

The goal is to reduce the violation of wage, job safety, and equal employment laws. The Deputy Labor Secretary, Seth Harris, said that the goal is to foster a culture of compliance among employers. He said that many companies do already have a culture of compliance, but too many others violate labor laws and have a "catch me if you can" mentality. Companies need to see that the cost of not complying outweigh the benefits of breaking the law. Department officials hope the plan will greatly reduce violations in industries with widespread wage violations, like restaurants and discount retailers, and in industries with widespread safety violations, like coal mining and construction.

The plan is still being drafted and no specifics have been decided on yet in regards to what companies would be required to do. Mr. Harris said that businesses will have a chance to respond before any final rules are issued. The process will probably take more than a year. An employment law professor at NYU praised the plan and said, "It is important to activate internal corporate efforts for compliance." Though she said that violations will probably still continue and that there's no fix-all solution. She said that some companies will engage in "cosmetic compliance."

Business groups attacked the idea and said it would impose new burdens on employers without necessarily improving compliance with labor laws (but the employers are the ones responsible for compliance...So if "burdens" do not translate into compliance, isn't that their own fault?). A senior vice president from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce complained that this plan will "open the door to a Department of Labor compliance officer second-guessing employers on a wide range of issues and micromanaging how employers run the workplace." Colorful language aside ("micromanaging", "second guessing", "run the workplace" -- I expect nothing less from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), that essentially is the duty/role of the Labor Department. Companies are beholden to labor laws. And the Labor Department is supposed to make sure those laws are being followed. That is in fact their job. They don't tell you how to run the workplace, they just say if you don't run the workplace legally, you're going to get in trouble. Or at least that's the idea. Too often companies are allowed to get away with these violations. And the thought of this administration increasing the department's efforts to enforce compliance is obviously the last thing companies want to hear (if they are violating labor laws). If companies aren't violating laws, they shouldn't have a problem with this plan or with documenting their labor decisions. Labor Department officials aren't going to "second guess" the employer if there's no reason to. If an employer classifies someone as a contractor even though they're actually treated like a regular employee, yeah, you're going to get "second-guessed", because you're breaking the law. And, really, why shouldn't there be an explanation for why certain labor decisions are made -- like why someone is classified as a contractor instead of an employee or why overtime was denied? Documenting/explaining a decision and making it available to employees can help reduce decisions being made arbitrarily, it can help employees to understand why decisions were made, and it can serve as a check on abuse of labor laws. (Full Story)

April 29, 2010

2010-04-29T10:45:00.007-04:00

The U.S. Navy has lifted the ban on women serving on submarines. Congress was notified of the military's plan to lift the ban in mid-February, and Congress had until yesterday to challenge the decision. Congress did not challenge it. In the past, the Navy banned women from serving on submarines because they said it would cost too much. In preparation for the new policy, the Navy will phase in women by allowing them to begin serving on submarines that will not require costly alterations to accommodate women. The Navy will start by assigning three female officers each onto eight different crews of guided-missile attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines. There is more living space available aboard these submarines, so it won't require much modification -- allowing the Navy to include women faster on submarines. The female officers will be assigned once they complete the 15-month training for submarine officers. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said, "Enabling them to serve in the submarine community is best for the submarine force and our Navy. We literally could not run the Navy without women today." Women make up 15% of the active duty Navy. The commander of the submarine forces said, "Today, women earn about half of all science and engineering bachelor's degrees. There are capable women who have the interest, talent, and desire to succeed in the submarine force. Maintaining the best submarine force in the world requires us to recruit from the largest possible talent pool." (Full Story)

Sierra Leone has launched a free health care plan for pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and children under five years old. The country has some of the highest maternal and child death rates in the world. One reason for this is that not everyone can afford the health service fees and the cost of medication. The free health care program is expected to save the lives of more than one million mothers and children, at an initial cost of $19 million.

However, there are concerns that Sierra Leone lacks the resources and infrastructure to carry out this plan. Sierra Leone is one of the poorest countries in the world, and they're still rebuilding the country after a decade of civil war that ended in 2002. The country has bad roads and a lack of ambulances, which means pregnant women in the more isolated parts of the country are often slow to receive care. Regardless, efforts are still being made to launch this plan. A UN Population Fund representative reported that medical equipment has been ordered and some drugs have been distributed around the country. However, she said that everything is still not in place for the launch of the plan. She said, "It's not perfect, it's not 100%. But I think we cannot start the program with everything in a perfect condition."

The programs main donors are the UN and the UK. They have helped refurbish hospitals, supplied drugs, and paid health workers' wages. In March public health workers went on a two-week-long strike because they were concerned that free care would result in more patients and longer work hours. The strike ended when the government agreed to increase salaries by 200% to 500%. Another concern about the program is how will the free health care program be paid for once the donor support runs out. (Full Story)

The UN agency for refugees (UN Relief and Works Agency) began distributing 2,100 laptops to school children in the Gaza Strip. They hope to distribute 500,000 laptops to children in Gaza by 2012. The laptops are loaded with textbooks and teaching aids that cover primary school curriculum. The rugged, energy-efficient laptops are made by One Laptop Per Child, a non-profit organization that aims to give a computer to every child in the developing world. One Laptop Per Child believes that computers are a good way to improve the education of children that live in poverty and/or live in a place disrupted by violence. The founder of the organization said, "With the XO the children can continue to stay connected and gain the skills and knowledge required to participate fully and thrive in the 21st century -- even when getting to school is impossible." (Full Story)

April 28, 2010

2010-04-28T10:25:00.006-04:00

A federal appeals court ruled (in a 6-5 decision) that thousands of female Wal-Mart employees can sue Wal-Mart as a single class over allegations that the company paid them less than men for the same work and gave them fewer promotions. Wal-Mart was calling for a reversal of the class certification (in 2007 the appeal's court had already approved the class. But Wal-Mart asked the court to reconsider under a larger panel of judges. This most recent decision upheld the 2007 decision). This decision is the latest step in a nearly decade-long battle to bring the case to trial. Wal-Mart has said they plan to appeal the case and take it to the Supreme Court (give it a rest, Wal-Mart! Unscrupulous). Attorneys for the employees said they hope the case goes to trial by the end of the year.

The appeals court did not make a judgement on whether discrimination occurred, but on whether the female employees could sue collectively. The original class was about 1.6 million women and included employees that had worked at Wal-Mart since 1998 and came from about 3,400 different stores (I don't know about you, but I would consider that a problem. What the hell were you doing Wal-Mart? 1.6 million! That's like the population of Idaho!). But the appeals court reduced the size of the class by taking out workers that left the company before the suit was filed in 2001 (So sad. Those women still, most likely, faced discrimination. The thinking shouldn't be "Oh, if only I could have just put up with the dreadful labor standards and terrible discrimination for a couple of years longer!"). The lawyer for the employees estimates that the class still includes more than 1 million women, but Wal-Mart said the number has been reduced to approximately 500,000. (Full Story)

In Kyrgyzstan, the interim government has charged the former President Bakiyev with mass murder in the deaths of the antigovernment protesters that stormed the capital earlier this month. The police and presidential guards had opened fire on thousands of demonstrators and at least 85 people were killed. The new government has also filed charges against Bakiyev for exceeding his authority.

Bakiyev has already fleed to Belarus, where the president there has guaranteed his security. While in Belarus, Bakiyev has challenged the legitimacy and authority of this new government and he says that he remains president despite signing a letter of resignation. The new government in Krygyzstan said they are making it a priority to prosecute Bakiyev and they are seeking his extradition from Belarus. Bakiyev said that his guards opened fire on the protesters only after the protesters started shooting in his office at the government headquarters. He said that dozens of police were also injured in the violence.

The new government also said they will file charges against other members of the Bakiyev government, including some of his family members. Russia, who has pledged support to the new government, has already extradited Bakiyev's interior minister, who had been recovering in Moscow after being severely beaten during the protests. He also is facing charges in the death of protesters. (Full Story)

April 27, 2010

2010-04-27T10:56:00.005-04:00

Sudan's incumbent president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, has won the country's first multiparty election in twenty years. He received 68% of the votes, though many international election observers said the election was fraught with intimidation, gerrymandering (dividing up districts in a way that will favor a particular party/candidate, at the expense of the other parties/candidates), and fraud. In addition, several of the top opposition parties abruptly dropped out of the race right before the voting started -- which pretty much cleared a path for Bashir to win (see past entry for more information). Although, analysts say that all these efforts by Bashir to ensure that he did not lose were probably unnecessary. Bashir is actually quite popular among many voters because Sudan has experienced rapid economic growth. He's popular among both rural and urban dwellers. In other election news, in the southern Sudan election (southern Sudan is a semi-autonomous region), the incumbent president, Salva Kiir, won 93% of the votes and will remain the president of southern Sudan.

These elections were part of the 2005 American-backed peace treaty between President Bashir's ruling party and the southern rebels. So although the election was marred with fraud in favor of President Bashir, the fact that they even occurred is a milestone. The New York Times summed it up well: "The results were neither surprising nor evidence of a sudden blossoming of democracy. But that does not necessarily mean the election was insignificant. It was essentially Step 1 of what could be a very mess divorce." Next year is when southern Sudan will vote in a referendum on whether they will secede from Sudan. Most expect that they will secede, and the international community is worried about what conflicts may arise. If the referendum does not occur and is held up by President Bashir, or if the referendum does occur and southern Sudan decides to secede, there is fear of conflict. Some fear another war might break out (there have been two long civil wars between the north and the south since Sudan was granted independence in 1956. There have also been incidents of violence since the peace treaty in 2005). It is believed that the Obama administration and other Western leaders have only offered restrained criticism of the recent elections because it is a very politically sensitive and fragile time in Sudan and they don't want to start tension between the two sides -- especially as tensions are mounting in the build-up towards the referendum next year. Western leaders also do not want to confront President Bashir head-on for fear that he would hinder the referendum.

Analysts are already outlining what they think the two post-referendum Sudans will look like ("New Sudan" and "South Sudan" are two possible names for the new country). Analysts suspect that autocracy will be the outcome on both sides. Both sides will essentially be one-party states -- with little democracy and uncompetitive, predictable elections as the norm. Some analysts argue that there will be even less democracy than what there currently is under the flawed coalition government that rules today. If the two sides split, Mr. Bashir (and his ruling party) and Mr. Kiir (and his ruling party) will face less opposition. They'll be able to dominate even more. Mr. Kiir and his party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, has tried to silent dissent in southern Sudan, just as Bashir has done. Recently, the SPLM was accused by election observers of harassing and beating up opposition candidates.

Another source of possible conflict if the south secedes is oil. The most productive oil fields are in southern Sudan or along the contentious and unresolved north-south border. This could result in land disputes. Alternatively, an analyst for the International Crisis Group argues that the oil might be the glue that keeps the two sides civil to each other. There is an oil pipeline that runs from southern Sudan to northern Sudan, and this means the two sides are reliant on each other. The analyst said, "As both regimes rely so heavily on oil revenues, finding a suitable arrangement is a mutual interest and a matter of political survival." (Full Story)

April 26, 2010

2010-04-26T10:40:00.003-04:00

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer did sign the immigration bill into law. Earlier in the day, Obama called the immigration bill "misguided" and told the Justice Department to examine the bill to see if it's legal. He also said that the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level so that it doesn't leave the door open to "irresponsibility by others." He continued, "That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe." Oh snap!

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans to legally challenge the law. The president of The National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders Legal Defense Fund said that his group is preparing a federal lawsuit against Arizona to stop the law from being applied. Mexico warned that the proposal could affect cross-border relations. The day before the bill was signed into law, the Mexican Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Governor Brewer to veto the law. Guatemala's Vice President Rafael Estrada said the law is a step back, and Guatemala's Foreign Relations Department said the measure "threatens basic notions of justice."

The law will take effect in late July or early August (though, if there are legal challenges, it might get pushed back). Governor Brewer ordered the state's law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement the law without violating civil rights. She said, "We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent, or social status. We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong." First of all, "alarmists" and "cynics"? Who is she kidding? It reminds me of a quote by George Bernard Shaw: "The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." Second of all, what is this fantasy world she's living in? So they're going to enforce this law -- demanding proof of citizenship for those they view as suspicious -- but they're not basing it on skin color, accent, or social status? Why do I highly doubt that? This law is intended for a certain population -- don't act like it's anything else. They most definitely will be looking at skin color, accent, and social status. And if they didn't, they'd essentially just be asking everyone for proof of citizenship. Governor Brewer is just trying to silence criticism. She is up for a tough re-election battle -- so she's getting her conservative points in for being tough on immigration, for blaming the federal government for inaction, and heralding the power of the state. Meanwhile, she tries to act like this law won't be about racial profiling. But that's what the bill is and always has been about. They act like the purpose of this law is safety -- that these immigrants are all dangerous criminals that are here to kill white people and sell drugs -- but, I think, it's really just about them not wanting immigrants in their state. It's about race. It's about class. It's about preserving their state and America as the way they want it (which is unrealistic, outdated, and naive). This is what the bill's sponsor, Rep. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa), said about the legislation, "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency room. We'll have smaller classrooms." Now, to me, it doesn't sound like he's most concerned about crime; it sounds like he's most concerned about entitlement. (Full Story)

April 23, 2010

2010-04-23T10:10:00.004-04:00

What is Arizona doing?! The Arizona House passed a bill 31-29 that would require presidential candidates to show their birth certificate to get on the state's 2012 ballot. This is a result of the birther movement -- the crazy belief that Barack Obama is not a "natural-born citizen". These people think Obama was born in Kenya, not Hawaii (despite Hawaii officials repeatedly confirming Obama's citizenship. In addition, Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate was made public and so have birth notices from two Honolulu newspapers). The sponsor of the bill, Judy Burges (R - [Thick] Skull Valley), said she isn't sure that Obama could prove his eligibility to get on the ballot in Arizona, and she said the purpose of the bill is to remove any doubts. The Arizona bill would require presidential candidates to submit documents to the secretary of state that proves that they meet the constitutional requirements to be president. The secretary of state could then decide to keep someone off the ballot if they had "reasonable cause" to believe the candidate was ineligible.

In order for the bill to become law, it has to pass the Senate and also be signed by the governor. In the Senate, supporters of the bill are trying to pull together enough votes for it to pass. A spokesman for Governor Jan Brewer (Republican) said that she will not comment on pending legislation. Though her spokesman said that she does not have doubts about Obama's citizenship. Opponents of this bill say that it's casting Arizona is a negative light. Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix) said, "We're becoming a national joke." [It's true, you are. You have the immigration legislation, the recently passed law that allows people to carry concealed weapons without permits, and now this. Way to go]. Tom Chabin (D-Flagstaff) said, "When you undermine the sitting president of the United States, you undermine our nation, and it makes us look very ugly."

Opponents of the bill also say that it gives the secretary of state broad powers to kick a candidate off the ballot. Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett (a Republican) says that he opposes the bill because it would give his office too much power. He also said he has no doubt about Obama's citizenship. I love how these politicians keep interjecting that. They obviously realize how it's political suicide to express any association with or to give any validity to the crazy birther movement (well, it's political suicide if you have a higher-up position. Obviously state legislators can get away with it...).

Some supporters of the bill insist that it's not about Obama -- but instead is "common sense". State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise, as in "Surprise! You don't know what common sense means"), who believes Obama has proven his citizenship, said, "It's our ballot. That parties need to prove that their nominee is eligible to hold the office of president to be on our ballot." Get over yourselves, Arizona. Obviously, when someone decides to run for president there is some important government official(s) that the candidates have to give their paperwork to in order to prove their eligibility. Obviously someone signs off on the candidate. It's not like any random candidate can get on the ballot without some sort of steps to take first. So candidates have already done their part and have been approved by some important government official, so they definitely don't need to go on a whistle-stop tour to every state in the nation with their birth certificate in tow. They don't need to personally show Arizona's secretary of state their birth certificate, because they already showed it to the person that mattered.

And it's sad that Obama's birth certificate was even shown publicly. There was no need for it be released. (Certain) Americans need to quit acting like it's their right to personally see his birth certificate. And I don't think it's a coincidence that the first time there's an uproar and people are demanding to see documentation is when we have an African-American president. If being absolutely certain about the candidates' citizenship was so important, why weren't people demanding this earlier? And why wasn't there this same crazy doubt with the other presidential candidate (from Arizona)? John McCain was born in Panama. He was born in Colon, which was outside the US-controlled Panama Canal Zone. Plus, the Panama Canal Zone (and its related military facilities) was an unincorporated territory at the time of McCain's birth, and thus was not considered a U.S. territory. However, a year after McCain was born, a law retroactively granted citizenship to individuals born within the Panama Canal Zone or within Panama if they had a parent that was employed by the U.S. government. I personally don't think there's any real issue with McCain's citizenship (in fact, I think the natural-born citizenship requirement is unnecessary), but why wasn't there this same unnecessary, ridiculous scrutiny over McCain's status? (Full Story)

April 22, 2010

2010-04-22T10:17:00.011-04:00

This past fall, the government of Japan announced for the first time an official poverty line. Following an internationally recognized formula, the government set the poverty line at about $22,000 a year for a family of four (that's half of Japan's median household income). The Labor Ministry disclosed that almost one in six Japanese, or 20 million people, lived in poverty in 2007. In addition, statistics showed that one in seven children live in poverty. As a result, the government has pledged to offer monthly payments of $270 per child and to cut the cost of high school education. Researchers estimate that the poverty rate in Japan doubled since the country's real estate and stock markets collapsed in the early 1990s. This led to two decades of income stagnation and economic decline.

These new statistics on poverty stunned the nation. Many Japanese believe in the popular myth that their country is uniformly middle class. "After years of economic stagnation and widening income disparities, this once proudly egalitarian nation is belatedly waking up to the fact that it has a large and growing number of poor people." Many Japanese were shocked to learn their country has a poverty rate of 15.7%, which is close to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's figure of 17.1% for the United States. Japanese have often felt that the United States' social inequalities were too high, and have viewed the problem in the U.S. with "scorn and pity". Thus, many Japanese were astounded that they have a similar rate.

The government of Japan also revealed that it had been secretly keeping poverty statistics since 1998 and that they knew about the poverty problem, but were hiding it. This about-face in terms of being open about poverty statistics is a result of the new left-leaning government led by Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama. Last summer his party replaced the Liberal Democratic Party, which was in power for five decades. Hatoyama campaigned on the pledge that he would force Japan's notoriously secretive bureaucrats to be more open, especially about social problems.

Poverty experts say that more than 80% of those living in poverty in Japan are part of the "working poor". These people hold jobs (often more than one), but these jobs are often low-wage or temporary and they often have no security and few benefits. Economists say that there has been an increase in these low-paying jobs in Japan because of years of deregulation of the labor market and competition with low-wage China. Making matters worse, these jobs are largely uncovered by the social safety net -- which is incredibly outdated considering it was created decades ago when most men could expect secure, lifetime jobs. Thus, when economic problems hit Japan in the early 1990s and "lifetime" jobs were being cut -- and there was an insufficient social safety net -- millions of Japanese fell under the poverty line.

These "working poor" people usually have enough money to eat, but not to take part in often-taken-for-granted social activities like eating out with friends or going to a movie. A social welfare professor at a university in Tokyo said, "Poverty in a prosperous society usually does not mean living in rags on a dirt floor. These are people with cellphones and cars, but they are cut off from the rest of society." In addition, social workers fear that the poor will not be able to pay for the best schools and other expenses that enable their children to compete in Japan's highly-competitive, high-pressure education system. And by not being able to attend the best schools in Japan, there's a fear that the children could continue in the cycle of low-wage work. A board member of a non-profit that helps poor children and orphans said, "We are at risk of creating a chronic underclass."

The article also mentioned how poverty is culturally addressed in Japan. The article featured the story of Ms. Sato, a 51-year-old widow who is raising a teenage daughter on less than $17,000 a year. She works two jobs. She cannot afford to see a doctor or buy medicine to help her growing number of physical ailments. In order to afford the school uniforms her daughter needed for school, Ms. Sato cut back to two meals a day. Her daughter wants to attend vocational school, but Ms. Sato cannot afford the $10,000 annual tuition. When the government recently announced the poverty line, Ms. Sato discovered that she fell below it. However, she said, "I don't want to use the word poverty, but I'm definitely poor. Poverty is still a very unfamiliar word in Japan."

Social workers in Japan are glad that the government's announcement helped to expose the problem of poverty, because they say the problem is often overlooked in Japan, which has a relatively homogeneous population. Experts and social workers say that Japan does not have the high crime rates, urban decay, or stark racial divisions that the U.S. has. They say that Japan's poor can be deceptively hard to spot because people try so hard to keep up the appearance of being middle class. Few Japanese are willing to admit they're struggling financially for fear of being stigmatized. Ms. Sato said that her and her daughter hide their financial woes and outwardly smile, but then "cry on the inside" when friends and relatives talk about vacations -- a luxury Ms. Sato cannot afford. She said, "Saying we're poor would draw attention, so I'd rather hide it." Yet, at the same time, she said her biggest challenge was having no one to talk to. She said she's sure that many other families are in a similar situation as her, but they refuse to admit it (which is exactly what she is doing). (Full Story)

Japan is not the only country that needs to have a better, more open dialogue about poverty and the working poor. Japan is not the only country that needs to remove the social stigma of poverty. Japan is not the only country that needs to improve, not cut, their social safety net -- especially in times of economic crisis, when people are the most vulnerable. Sadly, Japan is just one of many.

April 21, 2010

2010-04-21T10:35:00.004-04:00

An update on the immigration legislation in Arizona (see past entry): Yesterday the state Senate voted 17-11, nearly along party lines, to approve the immigration bill. The House had approved the bill on April 13. Now the bill goes to Governor Jan Brewer to sign into law. The Governor, a Republican, has not yet taken a position on the measure. A Brewer spokesman said that calls, e-mails, and letters were running 3-1 in favor of the legislation (oh great, Arizona residents are just as terrible as the state legislature. Although, let's be honest, who are the ones that spend tons of time calling and writing the governor and other legislators? Crazy old people. And then next in line is just simply crazy people. So that statistic probably doesn't have much weight. Though, I bet upon news of this statistic, those opposed to the law will increase their letter-writing campaign so that their opposition can be heard). Governor Brewer's predecessor Janet Napolitano, a Democrat who is now the Secretary of Homeland Security under President Obama, had vetoed similar legislation in the past.

Senator Leah Landrum Taylor (D-Phoenix) predicted that the legislation would lead to chaos because there would be growing suspicion among neighbors, friends, and relatives about who might be in the country illegally. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has said they will challenge the legislation if it becomes law. They say that the legislation is unconstitutional because the federal government is responsible for immigration enforcement (not to mention the invasion of privacy -- being stopped by the police, asked about your status, and having to show documents simply for being brown-skinned). An attorney for the organization said, "The bill is so vague that it encourages investigation and arrest of people...who essentially have done nothing wrong but because of their racial profile." In addition, Mexico's embassy has voiced concerns about racial profiling. Arizona law enforcement groups are split on this legislation -- a union for Phoenix Police Department officers support it, while a statewide association of police chiefs oppose it. (Full Story)

Thousands of veterans of Bosnia's 1992-95 war came together in Sarajevo to protest the government's decision to cut veterans' benefits as an austerity measure under an IMF loan deal. Bosnia reached a 1.2 billion euro arrangement with the IMF to help ease the impact of the global economic crisis. Under the deal, the government of Bosnia's two regions -- the Muslim-Croat Federation and the Serb Republic -- have to cut public spending, and particularly the generous veterans' benefits. One disabled veteran said, "We who went to war barefooted and hungry are still penniless today but have a new burden -- they are preventing us from sending our children to schools." He carried a banner that read "Government = Elite of Bandits."

When the protesters were told that no government officials would meet with them, they turned violent. The veterans threw huge stone blocks and bottles at the government building and the police guarding the government building. They also tried to storm the building, but police in riot gear prevented it. The protesters also set a police cabin on fire. In turn, police fired tear gas and used water cannons against the crowd. The police also fired stun grenades, which resulted in the windows of nearby building being smashed. The stand-off lasted for hours. Doctors from Sarajevo's Clinical Centre said that 33 people have been wounded, three seriously. (Full Story)

April 20, 2010

2010-04-20T10:22:00.006-04:00

A senior Iranian cleric said that women who wear immodest clothing and behave promiscuously are responsible for earthquakes happening. He said, "Many women who do not dress modestly...lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes." Wow, that sounds like some airtight logic. He added, "What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? There is no other solution but to take refuge in religion and to adapt our lives to Islam's moral codes." In Iran, women are required by law to cover from head to toe. However, many women, especially the younger generations, ignore some of the more strict codes and wear tight coats and scarves pulled back that show their hair.

Iran is one of the world's most earthquake-prone countries. Seismologists have warned for at least two decades that it is likely that Tehran, the capital, will be truck by a strong earthquake in the near future. Tehran straddles several fault lines, including one more than 50 miles long. Some experts have even suggested that Iran should move its capital to a less seismically-active location. Though, Tehran hasn't suffered a major earthquake since 1830 (though a powerful earthquake did hit the city of Bam in 2003, killing 31,000 people). Two weeks ago, President Ahmadinejad predicted that an earthquake is certain to hit Tehran (but he did not give an exact date) and that many of its 12 million residents should relocate. He acknowledged that he could not order all 12 million people to evacuate, but he did say "provisions have to be made...at least 5 million should leave Tehran so it's less crowded." I can see it now, Ahmadinejad addressing the people, 'Hmm, how should we do this? It should be random -- to be fair, of course. Oh I got an idea: I'll just pick a random color and month. Ok, so, if you happened to wear a lot of green in the month of June, please get on this bus that will be relocating you outside of the capital.'

The welfare minister of Iran said, "We cannot invent a system that prevents earthquakes, but God has created this system and that is to avoid sins, to pray, to seek forgiveness, pay alms, and self-sacrifice." Ah yes, don't you just love the A-Form-of-Punishment-From-God explanation for natural disasters? (Full Story)

April 19, 2010

2010-04-19T11:09:00.004-04:00

Indonesia's Constitutional Court ruled in an 8-to-1 decision that a 45-year-old law banning religious blasphemy was indeed constitutional, and so it will remain a law. The law, from 1965, allows the attorney general's office to ban religious groups that "distort" or "misrepresent" official faiths. People found guilty of heresy can serve up to five years in prison. The law is mostly applied to perceived offenses against mainstream Islam. Nearly 90% of the country's population is Muslim. The law also limits the number of officially recognized religions in Indonesia to six: Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. Supporters of the law say that it is necessary in order to prevent confusion and conflict between religious groups.

The judicial review was brought on by a coalition of human rights groups that were led by the Wahid Institute, an organization that campaigns for religious pluralism. They opposed the law because they say it contradicts the country's Constitution which, at least nominally, guarantees freedom of religion. Though the Constitutional Court didn't agree with them. Under Indonesian law there is no appeal process for constitutional challenges. A human rights lawyer that was part of the team that filed the constitutional challenge said, "This is a setback for Indonesian democracy." Furthermore, members of the Islamic Defender's Front, a militant group that has attacked religious pluralism rallies in the past, attacked lawyers seeking to repeal the law during the court's final hearing last week.

In 2008, this particular contested law was cited when the government banned Ahmadiyah, an Islamic sect that does not believe Muhammad is the last prophet -- which is a central tenet of Islam. In 2007, the Indonesian Supreme Court sentenced a leader of religious group known as Lia Eden to three years in prison because he claimed to be the reincarnation of the Prophet Muhammad. In 2007, police arrested Ahmad Moshaddeq, the leader of an Islamic sect known as al-Qiyada, because he said he is the next Islamic prophet and he does not require his followers to pray five times a day towards Mecca. The attorney general's office also banned his sect that same year. In addition, a mob burned down his house. There have been additional religions and Islamic sects banned and leaders of these religious groups have been jailed. For instance, members of the Bahai faith face persecution and have had their rights restricted because it not one of the six recognized religions in Indonesia. It's been estimated that hundreds of people, including journalists, have been arrested because of this law. Human rights campaigners say that the law is used by militant organizations to justify violent attacks against minority religious groups. Followers of these religious groups are regularly attacked and their places of worship have been burned. (Full Story)

Here's an update on the election in Iraq: An Iraqi court on Monday ordered a partial recount of votes that were cast in last month's national election. The recount will only be happening in the province that includes Baghdad. The recount is expected to take at least a week to finish. An official for the three-member court that made the decision said that the court is still considering other complaints of fraud and could order additional recounts in other regions.

The United States and the UN had reported that last month's election were fair and legitimate. The results of the election gave the (narrow) victory to Ayad Allawi, whose electoral alliance won 91 seats in Parliament. The electoral alliance of the incumbent prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, won 89 seats. After the results were announced, Maliki bitterly complained about the results and said there was fraud. He filed the legal challenge that has resulted in the recount. The recount could result in Allawi's narrow victory being overturned. Mr. Allawi, a Shiite whose alliance won a majority of Sunni votes (Mr. Maliki is also Shiite), has warned that violence could erupt if the electoral victory is overturned. He said, "If this happens, there will be very big problems in the country."

The main Kurdish alliance has also objected to the election results and asked the court to review votes in two northern provinces. No decision has been made yet. (Full Story)

April 17, 2010

2010-04-17T13:02:00.010-04:00

President Obama has mandated that nearly all hospitals have to extend visitation rights to partners of gay and lesbian patients, and that they need to respect patients' choices about who can make critical health-care decisions for them. Obama said, "Every day, all across America, patients are denied the kindness and caring of a loved one at their sides whether in a sudden medical emergency or a prolonged hospital stay." He added that he was really affected by "gay and lesbian Americans who are often barred from the bedsides of the partner with whom they may have spent decades of their lives -- unable to be there for the person they love, and unable to act as a legal surrogate if their partner is incapacitated."

The new rule will affect any hospital that receives Medicare and Medicaid funding, which is pretty much most hospitals. The new order will be implemented over the next few months. Previously, hospitals have often barred visitors who are not related to an incapacitated patient by blood or marriage. Plus, same-sex partners have had trouble making medical decisions on their partner's behalf -- often hospitals turn to the patient's family members by blood to make the medical decisions, often over-looking or ignoring the partner. Though the focus of the new rules is extending rights to gay and lesbian couples, the rule also affects widows and widowers who, in the past, were unable to receive visits from a friend or companion. In addition, the new rules allow members of some religious orders to designate someone other than family to make medical decisions.

Gay rights activists and supporters applauded Obama's new order. The article pointed out that since Obama has become president, hate crime legislation was passed, the White House held a Gay Pride Day celebration for the first time, and the administration is advocating a repeal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" military policy (which states that gay people can serve in the military, but only if they aren't open about their homosexuality. Once they're open about it, they can be kicked out of the military. The repeal would allow gay people to serve openly in the military). However, for some gay rights activists Obama is not doing enough or has been moving too slowly on these issues. Some feel that Obama needs to be more vocal and active in the fight for gay rights.

No surprise, opponents of gay rights and same-sex marriage are unhappy about this. They say this is undermining the institution of marriage. It sounds to me like the institution of marriage is just a club of exclusion for these people. You mean to tell me that gay couples being allowed to see each other in the hospital (and make medical decisions regarding each other) is somehow taking away or undermining a straight couple being allowed to see each other in the hospital? Is the institution of marriage only sacrosanct if someone else is being denied rights?

The opponents also say that this is providing special rights for gay people that other Americans do not have. Ok, first of all, why don't you actually read the order. This order is extending visiting/decision-making rights to people that also are not gay. But, let's just pretend for a second that it is extended just to gay people. The whole reason it's being extended to gay people is because they cannot get married. If gay couples were allowed to be married, then there wouldn't be this issue of visitation rights and being able to make medical decisions. The whole reason these "special" rights are being extended is because they're being denied these rights because they cannot marry.

Second of all, as I mentioned already, this isn't just about extending patients' rights to gay people. The main thing is that they want to extend visiting rights/medical decisions to people that aren't just blood- or marriage-related. This order is accepting and acknowledging the reality that people have varying definitions of family and it's not always the case that who you're related to is the person you're closest with. Some people feel a companion is more like family than their sibling. The important thing is that this order requires hospitals to recognize the visitors the patient wants and who the patient wants to make medical decisions on their behalf. And that's what it should be. Just because someone has your blood doesn't necessarily mean they're the best person to carry out your medical decisions or know what you want the most. So this order isn't giving "special rights" to gay people. Instead the order is trying to ensure that everyone has someone they know at their bedside when they're at the hospital. Married people already have that right. But what about those that never got married, but have a significant other? What about widows and widowers that never remarried, but have a significant other? If someone doesn't have any living blood-relatives (or they're estranged from their family) and they happened to not get married (either out or choice or because they weren't allowed to get married), they might not have any familiar faces at their bedside when they're sick or when they pass away -- even if a partner or companion is outside in the waiting room. And that is terribly sad and unnecessary. Obama was really moved by the story of Janice and Lisa, a lesbian couple in Florida that were together for 18 years. Lisa collapsed from a cerebral aneurysm, and Janice and their children (who are biologically Janice's children) were not allowed to see her. Lisa died hours later at the hospital. There is no reason why, other than close-mindedness and an outdated definition of family, this woman had to die without her loved ones by her side. Janice said, "It's not a gay right to hold someone's hand when they die, it's a human right." (Full Story)

April 14, 2010

2010-04-14T10:24:00.006-04:00

If you thought higher-ups in the Catholic Church couldn't possibly make more offensive statements regarding their sex abuse scandal, well, they've done it again. You might remember Pope Benedict's personal preacher having to apologize because he compared the allegations against the church to "the collective violence suffered by the Jews." Father Raniero Cantalamessa said in a sermon that the allegations that the Vatican systematically hushed up cases of sexual abuse of children by priests were similar to the "most shameful aspects of anti-Semitism", with the use of stereotypes and the spreading of collective guilt. Yeah, because 6 million Jewish people being killed for their religion is exactly the same as a church having to deal with much-deserved negative attention because there are numerous priests doing terrible things to children and the church is not doing enough to stop it (and there's proof of that). You also might remember a senior cardinal (Cardinal Angelo Sodano) saying during Easter mass that the Catholic faithful will not be swayed by "petty gossip" about child sex abuse allegations. Because someone stepping forward and saying they were molested by their priest is definitely the quintessential definition of petty gossip.

The latest offensive comment comes from Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who said that it was not clergy celibacy that was to blame for the abuse of children, instead it was homosexuality. He said, "Many psychologists, many psychiatrists have demonstrated that there is no relationship between celibacy and pedophilia; but many others have demonstrated, I was told recently, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia." Who told you that?! What legitimate psychological researcher would say that? Who are these "many" people? It's probably conservative, hack psychologists/psychiatrists (funded by the church).

France became the first country to criticize the cardinal. The French foreign ministry spokesman said, "This is an unacceptable linkage and we condemn this. France is firmly engaged in the struggle against discrimination and prejudice linked to sexual orientation and gender identity." A gay rights activist in Italy said that the cardinal is "clumsily trying to shift attention to homosexuality and away from the focus on new crimes against children that emerge every day." (Full Story)

I cannot believe that the homosexuality-pedophilia link is still being made today. It's disgusting. There is no (legitimate) research that gay people are more likely to be pedophiles or that pedophiles are more likely to be gay. There is no causal link. Could some of these priest sex offenders be gay? Of course. But are they pedophiles because they're gay? No. They just happen to be a pedophile that is also gay. There are plenty of straight pedophiles. Researchers that have examined the Catholic sex abuse cases have found that a majority of the victims were boys (i.e., the abuse was same-sex). However, researchers at John Jay College of Criminal Justice (those behind a lot of the research on the church sex abuse cases) and other experts on sex offenders say that this does not necessarily mean the abusers were gay. They say that priests have the most access to boys, which likely explains the high percentage of male victims. Yes, I'm sure there are priests that are gay and specifically target boy victims -- but once again, the problem is not the homosexuality, it's the pedophilia. There is nothing inherent about homosexuality that makes gay people have the urge to be attracted to children in a sexual manner.

That latest from Kyrgyzstan is that the former president Mr. Bakiyev, who flew to his home village in the south of the country after last week's uprising, has said he will step down in return for security guarantees for himself and his family. He also wanted a "guarantee that the roaming of these armed people in Kyrgyzstan, that this redistribution of property, and this armed free-for-all stops." If these conditions are met, he said he would be willing to negotiate, sign documents that legitimize the interim government, and step down. He also said he was prepared to stand trial as long as it was safe for him to do so. But he warned that there could be further violence if attempts are made to arrest him by force. He also repeated his called for an international investigation into the violent demonstrations that happened last Wednesday, in which more than 80 people died.

In response, Roza Otunbayeva, the interim leader, said Bakiyev had "blood on his hands" and that he should stand trial over the recent deadly political unrest. She said he missed his chance to leave the country. She said, "Bakiyev has exceeded the limits of his immunity by spilling blood and now he must be brought to trial and answer before the law." She added that his relatives, who held influential posts in his government, as well as the former defense minister were "people who shot citizens" and should also stand trial. She warned, "There can be no discussion of assurances of their safety, except for their legal defense in court." (Full Story) (Full Story)

April 13, 2010

2010-04-13T10:33:00.001-04:00

A study by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, a nonpartisan research group (with a terrible mouthful of a name) affiliated with Syracuse University, found that tax audits of the nation's largest corporations are declining. In 2009, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) audited just one in four of the largest corporations (those with $250 million or more in assets), lower than any rate in more than 20 years. The study reported that since 2005 the number of hours devoted to audits of the largest corporations fell 33%, while the hours spent auditing small businesses increased 30.4% and increased 12.6% for midsized businesses. In that same period, the number of audits of large corporations dropped 21.7% (from 4,693 to 3,675). The researchers suggested that a "perverse quota system" within the IRS may be pressuring auditors to focus on small and medium sized businesses and give less scrutiny to the largest corporations. The study concluded, "The decision to audit the smaller companies does not help the government collect more taxes. This is because the data indicate that the larger the business, the larger the dollar amounts of tax underreporting and back taxes on average that they may owe."

The IRS criticized the study's findings and its methodology. One criticism the IRS has of the study is that they say it is misleading to use 2005 as a basis for comparison because that's the year the IRS carried out a major drive to close old cases. As a result, audits were carried forward from previous years and thus they had an unusually high number of audits that year. In addition, the IRS director of enforcement said the study was skewed because it did not take into account a surge in hours that IRS agents spent working with businesses before they filed their returns to prevent errors or underpayments. He said the IRS has actually become more efficient in recovering unpaid taxes from the largest corporations because the average amount of money the auditors recovered per hour had risen to $9,704 in 2009 from $6,928 in 2005 (you mean to tell me that in one hour of auditing they recovered almost $10,000 on average of unpaid taxes. That right there seems all the more reason to audit the largest corporations more.)

The IRS estimates that the nation's tax gap -- which is the amount of taxes underpaid by businesses and individuals -- is more than $345 billion (wow, we are a terrible country...) . Last year, the IRS collected $48.9 billion in underpaid taxes through audits and other collection actions. Of that amount, $28.5 billion were from large corporations and $1.8 billion from small and medium sized businesses. For most of this past decade, as corporate profits soared and the number of wealthy individuals increased, the IRS had decreased the level of scrutiny they directed towards the highest-earning individual taxpayers. However, in the last two years the IRS reversed that trend and are giving increased attention to the wealthiest individuals (hmm...I wonder what changed two years ago that led to this about-face? So from 2000-2008, the richest individuals were given less attention. And then in these past two years, the IRS is auditing more individuals at the top of the income scale. I sense a connection...).

This January, the IRS Commissioner announced that all major businesses would be required to include a detailed statement in their tax return that describes any potentially questionable deductions. This new plan will be put into effect later this year. Yeah, I'm sure corporations that are trying to cheat the government out of taxes will be sure to make a note of all the places they employed trickery or questionable deductions. "And this right here is where I write off my yacht and trips to the Caribbean with hookers as a business expense. And here is where I should owe $50,000, but I put it in an off-shore hidden account in a country that has lax laws and we just have a P.O. Box there." (Full Story)

Regardless of the IRS's complaints that this study's methodology is questionable (which, of course, you expect the IRS to say), I believe the conclusion of this study still stands. Large corporations are not being audited as much as they should. Is there any (real) argument that corporations are being audited too much or just enough? Look at the tax gap -- $345 billion is underpaid and only $48.9 billion of underpaid taxes is collected (which means $296.1 billion dollars in underpaid taxes was not collected). Is that a sign that we need to reduce the number of audits? Especially from these large corporations that make a huge difference in the amount collected? Is there any (real) argument that large corporations shouldn't be audited? Or that there aren't benefits to auditing large corporations? I think this study makes a good case for the importance of auditing large corporations, especially as the federal government has repeatedly pledged to crack down on big businesses that underpay their taxes. These large corporations make an ungodly amount of money; and they might be opposed to it, but tax law is just that...law. So whether they like it or not, they do in fact owe what they owe. And there needs to be more scrutiny of companies to ensure they're following the law.

April 12, 2010

2010-04-12T10:12:00.008-04:00

In Israel a military order was recently amended to allow Israel to remove people from the West Bank if it does not recognize their legal status. The original military order was written in 1969 after Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war. The order was on how to deal with those judged to be "infiltrators" of the West Bank. In the 1969 document, "infiltrator" was defined as a person that entered the area illegally from a neighboring Arab country. The recent amendment redefined the term broadly to anyone who enters the West Bank "unlawfully" or who "does not lawfully hold a permit." The permit required is not specified.

Israel human rights groups warned that this really broad definition could potentially lead to the expulsion of thousands of Palestinians. The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, denounced the change and said, "These military orders belong in an apartheid state...Extensive in scope, they make it infinitely easier for Israel to imprison and expel Palestinians from the West Bank." Critics of the new order say that mass expulsions are probably not as likely, instead they are more concerned about the military deporting those officially registered as residents of Gaza, as well as Palestinians or their spouses who moved to the West Bank from abroad. When the military currently tries to remove individuals like this from the West Bank, they have a hard time arguing the cases before Israel's Supreme Court. The amended order could help the military succeed in arguing their cases.

A spokesman for the Israel military said there had been no change in policy regarding the extradition of illegal residents from the West Bank, and that if people have "the right paperwork" allowing residency, they have nothing to worry about. In addition, he said that under the new order a deportation cannot be carried out until 72 hours after legal papers have been issued, and until the person has had a chance to appeal in a military court. In the past, deportations could be carried out the same day, with no appeal. The spokesman said, "It makes it easier for people without the right paperwork to appeal." (Full Story)

It will be interesting to see how this change pans out and what the effects will be. I'm also curious to see whether these appeals will be taken seriously -- will they legitimately have a chance to appeal (note that it's a military court) or will it be a hollow gesture (i.e., the appeal falls on deaf ears)? I'm always a little wary of rules being changed or amended to allow for more broad language. That usually means trouble. I'm also concerned that the broad change could affect what Israel determines to be "the right paperwork" for people to live in the West Bank.

April 10, 2010

2010-04-10T15:28:00.005-04:00

A plane carrying the Polish president and dozens of the country's top political and military leaders crashed in Russia, killing everyone on board. The people on the plane were heading to the site of the Soviet massacre of Polish officers during WWII, to commemorate the anniversary of the incident (Russia and Poland were beginning to come to terms over the killing of more than 20,000 members of the Polish elite officer corps. Putin became the first Russian leader that agreed to commemorate the massacre). The plane tried to land in thick fog, but missed the runway and crashed into a forest. A top Russian military official said air traffic controllers had several times ordered the pilot not to land the plane because of the fog and recommended they reroute to another airport. Despite the warnings, the plane continued the descent.

All 97 people on board were killed. Passengers included the president of Poland, the First Lady, the deputy foreign minister, the deputy defense minister, several members of Parliament (including the Deputy Speaker of the Polish Parliament), the chiefs of the army and the navy, the president of the national bank, the head of the National Security Bureau, the commissioner for civil rights protection, the deputy culture minister, Poland's Ombudsman, the head of the Polish Olympics Commission, Anna Walentynowicz -- the 80 year old former dock worker whose firing in 1980 set off a solidarity strike that ultimately contributed to the overthrow of Polish communism, and relatives of the victims of the massacre. This is an unbelievably tragic event. A plane crash killing 97 people is a huge loss for Poland -- but even more devastating that it killed several important Polish figures. I can't even imagine what that must be like. Under Poland's Constitution, the leader of the lower house of Parliament -- who is now the acting president -- has 14 days to announce new elections, which must then take place within 60 days.

The plane was twenty years old and was designed by the Soviets in the 1960s and operated by the Polish air force. Russia had halted mass production of these types of jets about twenty years ago. Approximately 200 of them are still in service around the world. Poland officials have repeatedly requested over the years that the government's aging air fleet be replaced. It is still unclear if the plane's age played a role in the crash. (Full Story)

April 09, 2010

2010-04-09T11:24:00.004-04:00

Amnesty International has released a report stating that Hurricane Katrina victims had their human rights violated by the U.S. government and their Gulf Coast states . The report said the treatment of these victims and the government actions in housing, health care, and policing have prevented poor minority communities from being rebuilt. For instance, they reported that in New Orleans (which got the most criticism) public housing was bulldozed, hospitals have been slow to reopen, there has been police brutality, and the criminal justice system suffers from lengthy pretrial detentions and an underfunded defense system. An Amnesty International researcher said, "You have the demolition of most of the public housing units in New Orleans without a one-for-one replacement as well as a lack of rebuilding affordable rental housing."

A spokesperson for Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal defended the state's actions and said that Louisiana has worked "diligently" to rebuild houses and other critical infrastructure like schools and health care facilities. She said that former public housing is being replaced with new mixed-income communities and that $1.2 billion has been set aside for rental housing. I hope "mixed-income communities" isn't a euphemism for gentrification, where lower-income families will be pushed out of their old neighborhood because they cannot afford it. Also, I know the expression 'Rome wasn't built in a day'...but this is 2010; Hurricane Katrina happened in 2005. The fact that people are still unable to return home five years after the incident is unbelievable.

The report also criticized Mississippi. The report found that public housing and affordable housing was lacking. Furthermore, the state's rebuilding program did not pay for wind damage (a hurricane rebuilding program not paying for wind damage?!), which left many homes in poor shape. AI also criticized Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour for using $600 million in federal recovery money for a port in Gulfport. He said the money could be used for that, but Democrats in Congress have said the money was meant to rebuild housing.

A spokesman for the governor said, "I think Amnesty International has missed some details here. Or shaded them to their advantage." (Because AI has an incentive to do that or something?! I don't know what "advantage" they're looking to further...). The spokesman also defended Mississippi's actions and said there was more public housing on the Gulf Coast than before Katrina (hopefully he's not including those sad little FEMA trailers that survivors could stay in. And they were found to be laced with Formaldehyde). The spokesman also said that Mississippi decided to help those on the coast who had their homes destroyed by the storm surge rather than homes damaged by wind far inland. Is that supposed to be an explanation? Homes that are not on the coast also felt the wrath of Hurricane Katrina. That is not an excuse to not help their recovery.

Civil Rights advocates praised the report and said it was accurate. A co-director of the New Orleans-based Advocates for Environmental Human Rights said, "A good part of the beginning of the human rights violations took place on TV screens. It's no longer on TV, but those human rights violations have moved into other areas around housing and racial equality, and our government have been called out." Amnesty International has urged Congress to amend the Stafford Act, which is the nation's main disaster response legislation, to guarantee the humane and fair treatment of all disaster victims as stipulated by the UN's Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement (which the U.S. has endorsed). These UN principles calls for the humanitarian treatment of people uprooted because of war or a natural disaster, and that the government needs to allow victims to "return voluntarily, in safety and with dignity, to their homes" or "resettle voluntarily in another part of the country." The principles also state that the government has the duty to help victims recover their property and possessions that were left behind or taken from them. If their property or possessions cannot be recovered, the government needs to make sure the victims are compensated for their loss. In addition, the agreement says that uprooted people should be allowed full participation in the planning of their return or resettlement. A spokeswoman for the Louisiana Recovery Authority said that Louisiana officials have lobbied Congress to the make the Stafford Act "less bureaucratic and problematic" and make it easier for disaster victims to return home. (Full Story)

April 08, 2010

2010-04-08T10:17:00.008-04:00

Protests in Kyrgyzstan began on Tuesday by those who are unhappy with the government of President Bakiyev. The protesters were unhappy over the increases in electric and fuel rates, which were drastically increased at the beginning of the year as Bakiyev's government sold the country's public utilities to companies controlled by the president's friends. Furthermore, opposition leaders have accused Bakiyev of consolidating power by keeping key economic and security posts in the hands of relatives and friends. In response to the protests, the government arrested opposition leaders. This angered the demonstrators and the protest spread to the capital, Bishkek, on Wednesday. The crowd had grown to 5,000 by noon and the crowd gathered around government buildings. Then the riot police came out and the protesters and the police clashed. The police initially were using water cannons and tear gas, then they began to open fire on the protesters. Witness accounts said machine-gun fire could be heard in the streets into the evening. The violent clashes have left at least 68 dead and more than 400 are wounded.

By early Thursday morning, protesters had seized state television and many government buildings were occupied. Furthermore, widespread looting occurred in the capital. Storefronts in a shopping mall were smashed and shelves were stripped bare of anything that could be carried away. President Bakiyev's house was also ransacked (he was not there at the time). President Bakiyev has fled the country and a former foreign minister (who is an opposition leader), Roza Otunbayeva, has claimed to be in control of an interim government. She said, "You can call this revolution. You can call this a people's revolt. Either way, it is our way of saying that we want justice and democracy...We must restore a lot of things that have been wrongly ruled." This interim government said they have dissolved Parliament and will hold power for six months. However, Bakiyev issued a statement from an unknown location saying that he would not resign. Ms. Otunbayeva insisted that with several provinces under the opposition's control, Mr. Bakiyev's rule is over. Bakiyev also blamed the opposition for the violence on Wednesday, and he said the leaders of the opposition will be punished "to the fullest extent of the law." Several countries and the U.N. have called on both sides in Kyrgyzstan to engage in dialogue and resolve this peacefully and legally.

The unrest has had regional consequences. For instance, Uzbekistan has closed its border with Kyrgyzstan. Furthermore, the U.S. has an airbase in Kyrgyzstan that supports the NATO campaign in Afghanistan, and there is concern about the access to and safety of the base. The base is used to supply troops in Afghanistan. The alleged interim leader, Otunbayeva, said the supply line would not be immediately affected. Though she warned, "We still have some questions on it. Give us time and we will listen to all the sides and solve everything." For now, the U.S. has suspended all flights into the base.

To give some background, Kyrgyzstan -- which is located in the mountains of Central Asia -- has a population of five million and is one of the poorest countries of the former Soviet Union. The country has faced a long history of political conflict and corruption. President Bakiyev came to power in 2005 after a similar upheaval resulted in the then-president being ousted. Bakiyev won a new term this past July, but international monitors, including the U.S., said the vote "was marred by significant obstacles for opposition parties, intimidation, voting irregularities, and the use of government resources to benefit specific political interests." There have also been reports that the government is Kyrgyzstan restricts freedom of expression and the media. They had recently closed down an opposition newspaper and other media outlets that were critical of the government. In recent years, numerous opposition politicians and journalists have been threatened, beaten, or even killed.

Despite the criticism of Bakiyev's government, last spring the Obama administration courted Bakiyev in a attempt to retain the rights to the military base. There was a conflict surrounding the base. Russia was not happy with an American base in Kyrgyzstan. They don't like having an American military presence in their sphere of influence. Plus, Russia has a base in Kyrgyzstan as well. Russia put pressure on Bakiyev and offered a huge increase in new aid. Bakiyev said they would evict the Americans. However, the Obama administration continued talks with Bakiyev and he reversed his decision once the administration agreed to pay much higher rent for the base. Obama praised Bakiyev for his decision. Opposition leaders in Kyrgyzstan were unhappy about this, and said Obama was courting an autocrat. They said it was shameful of the U.S. to preach democratic values while maintaining an alliance with Bakiyev. Opposition leaders have been divided in whether they will continue to allow the American military base to remain. Though it seems clear that they harbor resentment towards the United States. Plus, Russia has been currying favor with the opposition and analysts say that Russia has stoked anti-American sentiment in Kyrgyzstan in recent months, often over the issue of the base. An opposition leader, who fled Kyrgyzstan last August due to fear for his life, said, "The political behavior of the United States has created a situation where the new authorities may want to look more to Russia than to the United States, and it will strengthen their political will to rebuff the United States." The Central Asia project director for the research group International Crisis Group believes that the opposition politicians will in fact allow the U.S. base to remain, but they'll give the U.S. a hard time first. He said, "My gut feeling is that it can be smoothed over. But they [the Obama administration] have got to move fast to reach out to the opposition, and do it with a certain degree of humility." (Full Story)(Full Story)

Interesting case study on Finland's education system. Finland is often one of the top-performing countries when it comes to educational testing among their students. In 2006, Finland's students had the highest average scores in science and reading among the developed countries. They also had the second highest average scores in math (behind South Korea -- a country that has long school days and the students have a very strict study regime). Last year, more than 100 foreign delegations and government visited Finland to learn about their education system, in hopes of making improvements in their own country.

Some highlights of Finland's school system:

*The Finnish educational philosophy is that everyone has something to contribute and those who struggle in certain subjects should not be left behind. As a result, all the students are kept in the same classroom, regardless of their ability in that subject (i.e., they don't divide up students based on their learning abilities). Furthermore, for every lesson there's an additional teacher to help the students who struggle in a particular subject.

*They're working on a program to target the brightest students. Finland's Education Minister said, "The Finnish system supports very much those pupils who have learning difficulties but we have to pay more more attention also to those pupils who are very talented. Now we have started a pilot project about how to support those pupils who are very gifted in certain areas."

*Out of the developed countries, Finnish children spend the fewest number of hours in the classroom. They have a philosophy that less is more.

*Primary and secondary schooling is combined. Thus, children don't need to change schools at age 13. This helps them to avoid a potentially disruptive transition to a new school.

*Students are kept in the same classroom for several years. As one teacher said, "I'm like growing up with my children, I see the problems they have when they are small. And now after five years, I still see and know what has happened in their youth, what are the best things they can do. I tell them I'm like their school mother. "

*Children only start main school at age seven. It is believed that before then they learn best when they're playing. By age seven, they are then are eager to start learning.

*Parents are very involved in their children's education. In Finland there is a culture of reading with the kids at home. In addition, parents have regular contact with their children's teachers.

*Teaching is considered a prestigious career in Finland, and teachers are highly valued. Teaching standards are also high.

*Schools are a relaxed and informal environment. This can helps students study and learn. (There's a picture of one school where students don't have to wear shoes and they walk around in their socks).

*Also a factor in their education system is that Finland has low levels of immigration. As a result, the majority of students start school with Finnish as their native language -- which eliminates an obstacle that schools in other countries face. (Full Story)

April 07, 2010

2010-04-07T10:12:00.014-04:00

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) -- which is an autonomous body of the Organization of American States -- rebuked Chile's Supreme Court for a ruling in which a woman lost custody of her three daughters because she was living with a lesbian partner. The IACHR said the ruling was a violation of the woman's human rights. In 2004, Chile's Supreme Court ordered Karen Atala to hand over her children to her estranged husband. The court had argued that the girls could be psychologically damaged if they stayed in a same-sex household. Karen Atala then took the case to the IACHR. The commission said, "The Chilean state had violated Karen Atala's right to live free from discrimination." They also called on Chile to make reparations. Furthermore, the commission urged the government of Chile to take steps to adopt legislation, policies, and programs to prohibit and end discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Karen Atala was not seeking to regain custody of her children. Her lawyer said, "She doesn't want her daughters to go through everything they went through six years ago." Her lawyer said that Karen's aim was to make sure the government took steps towards ending discrimination based on sexual orientation. The government of Sebastian Pinera, who just took office in March, has indicated that they will accept the IACHR's recommendations. A spokeswoman said, "The government is not going to discriminate against anyone based on their ethnic origin, religion, or sexual orientation." During the election campaign, Mr. Pinera had said that the rights of all people should be protected, "whatever their sexual orientation." Gay rights groups in Chile are hoping the government follows the IACHR's recommendations. These groups also think this is an opportune moment for the president to prove that he meant what he said, and that he will put his words into action. (Full Story)

A federal appeals court ruled in favor of Comcast and against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) when they stated that regulators have limited power over web traffic under current law. The FCC had wanted to require all internet service providers to give internet users equal access to all content, even if some of that content clogged the network (though the companies could still perform "reasonable" network management to unclog congestion and to block unlawful content). In other words, they were against companies like Comcast blocking or slowing access to specific sites. Their "net neutrality" principle is that all internet content should be treated equally by network providers. They didn't want companies like Comcast to block or slow access to sites that are competitors (like blocking or limiting Skype because it's competition to Comcast's telephone service). Comcast said they have the right to slow its customers' access to a file-sharing services, like BitTorrent (which is just part of the problem).

This decision could encourage Congress to change the law in order to give the FCC the explicit authority to regulate internet service. However, many conservative Republicans would be opposed to the idea because they're already against giving the FCC more power and they believe that internet provider companies should be able to decide what services they offer and at what price (yeah, because that's the job of the government -- to step aside while companies abuse their power. It is within the purview (and one of the duties) of the government to set up corporate regulations to protect consumers. We all saw a couple years ago what transpires when you have lax government regulation and a blind acceptance of the invisible hand of the free market...And we've seen throughout history the problem of monopolies. Regulation is needed). Another possible strategy would be to reclassify broadband service as a sort of basic utility, which is subject to regulation (like phone service).

There are also concerns that the ruling could raise obstacles to Obama's plan to increase Americans' access to high-speed internet. Last month, the administration released the National Broadband Plan which proposed a shift in billions of dollars from a fund to provide phone service in rural areas to one that help pays for internet access in those areas. Legal observers argue that the court decision suggested that the FCC does not have the authority to make that switch. (Full Story)

April 06, 2010

2010-04-06T10:18:00.004-04:00

Interesting article on family and how parents are spending their time. A new study has found that mothers and fathers are spending more time with their families than parents of earlier generations did. For the study, two economists at UC San Diego analyzed surveys from 1965-2007 on how Americans spend their time. They found that the amount of time parents devote to child care has risen "dramatically" since the mid-1990s. And this is among parents of all income levels. Before 1995, mothers spent an average of 12 hours a week caring for children. By 2007, the number had risen to 21.2 hours a week for college-educated women and 15.9 hours for those with less education. Mother continue to do the most child care, but fathers are dedicating more time than in the past. College-educated men now spend an average of 9.6 hours a week caring for children; before 1995, it was 4.5 hours. For less-educated men, the average is now 6.8 hours; an increase from 3.7 hours. And these hours reflect the amount of time in which parents are directly involved in the child's care, and not just when the parent is "around" their children (like at the dinner table or when the child is in solitary play). One of the co-authors explained, "It's taking them to school, helping with homework, bathing them, playing catch with them in the backyard. Those are the activities that have increased over the last 15 to 20 years."

In addition, parents are spending more of their child care time together. Among college-educated parents, 2 to 2.5 hours of this increased time in child care took place when both parents were together. Dr. Stevenson, an economist at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said this trend reflects the rise in the "hedonic marriage", where couples share home and work responsibilities so they can spend more time together. She said, "We're seeing a rise in marriages where we're picking people we like to do activities with. So it's not surprising we're going to see that some of the activities we want to do together involve our children." We see more couples sharing tasks and doing child care together, whereas in the past couples from earlier generations typically had "specialized" roles, which tended to keep them apart (for example, the mother cared for the children and the father fixed stuff around the house or did lawn work).

With parents spending more time with their children, where is this extra time coming from? The study found that women, in particular, are spending less time cooking and cleaning, and fathers are putting in less hours at the office. A 2007 report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that leisure time among men and women increased four to eight hours a week from 1965 to 2003.

In addition to the rise in child-centered time, the article also highlighted other recent family changes. For instance, couples are typically waiting longer to get married, couples are having children later, and divorce rates are dropping with each generation. In addition, children are no longer so widely viewed as essential to a successful marriage. In 1990, 65% of Americans said that children were "very important" to a successful marriage. By 2007, that number dropped to 41%. (Full Story)

It would have been interesting if they also discussed "Supermoms" -- moms that try to do it all: work for pay, care for the children, take care of the house, and help care for the husband. These moms might be increasing their child care time, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're also reducing time elsewhere. Instead, they're just putting a lot more on their plate, so to speak, and are trying to balance it all. Sociologists like Arlie Hochschild studied Supermoms in the 90s and found that employed mothers performed nearly the same number of daily household and child care activities as full-time mothers (these mothers experienced what Hochschild called a "second shift"). I wonder if the Supermom phenomena is more common or less common today (or about the same)? For instance, this new study found that mothers are now spending less time cooking and cleaning, and fathers are working less and increasing the amount of time they dedicate to child care -- which could indicate a reduction in Supermoms because fathers are sharing more tasks and domestic tasks are taking up less of their time. But at the same time, in most families there are dual-earners (i.e., both parents work), and yet mothers spend 21.2 hours a week on average caring for the children while fathers spend 9.6 hours a week on average (among college-educated parents). That's still an unequal burden. Fathers are indeed increasing their family time, but women still are doing the most (despite also having paid jobs). So it seems like mothers are still having to deal the most with the dilemma of balancing paid work and childcare, which would lead me to believe that there are still plenty of Supermoms. Yes, the study mentioned that leisure time has increased among parents (since 1965!) -- but it still seems pretty minuscule. Eight hours a week, on average, isn't exactly a huge amount of leisure time. Plus, reducing the amount of time that is spent on cooking and cleaning doesn't necessarily mean that's more leisure time for the mother. Instead, that probably means more time devoted to child care tasks -- which is a good thing (spending more time with your child), but at the same time, it's another task the mother is having to do and another thing she is having to balance with work. She's trying to work hard at her job and not have her family suffer, while trying to spend time with her family without fearing that her work will suffer. I think the type of tasks a mother is doing won't necessarily change the Supermom phenomenon (whether her second shift consists of doing 50% house work and 50% child care, or if it consists of 100% child care), what will change it is the amount of tasks. In other words, only once there is more of an equal sharing among childcare and household tasks between the mother and the father (more of a 50-50 divide) will women not feel as overwhelmed and feel like they have to do it all. Only then will we see a reduction in the second shift for mothers.

April 05, 2010

2010-04-05T11:20:00.014-04:00

There has been an increase in unpaid internships in recent years, and many of these internships could be illegal. This is especially increasing during these tough economic times because employers are looking to cut costs. In addition, students and other young job seekers are willing to take unpaid internships to help their resumes or they feel that taking this internship could help get their foot in the door. Federal and state regulators are investigating this issue to prevent employers from using these internships as a source of free labor, which violates minimum wage laws. Oregon, California, New York, and other states have ordered investigations into several firms' internships and have fined employers. The federal Labor Department's wage and hour division is increasing enforcement nationwide. In addition, they will be expanding efforts to educate companies, colleges, and students on the law regarding internships. Regulators say that the violations are widespread, but it's hard to crack down on firms because interns are often too afraid to file complaints. They fear that they will be labeled as troublemakers in their chosen field, and that this could hurt their chances of finding a career in the field.

For an internship to be unpaid, the internship has to comply with six federal legal criteria. Among those criteria are that the internship should be similar to the training given in a vocational school or academic institution, that the intern does not displace regular paid workers, and that the employer "derives no immediate advantage" from the intern's activities. Many employers that fail to pay their interns do not meet the six criteria. The acting director of the Labor Department's wage and hour division said, "If you're a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren't going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law." California and some other states require that students receive college credit as a condition of being unpaid. But federal regulators say that receiving college credit doesn't necessarily excuse companies from having to pay interns, especially if the internship involves little training and mainly benefits the employer. The rules for unpaid internships as less strict for non-profit groups like charities because people are allowed to do volunteer work for non-profits.

The director of the Career Development Center at Stanford University said that employers posted 643 unpaid internships on Stanford's job board this past academic year -- which is more than three times the 174 posted two years ago. The National Association of Colleges and Employers found that 83% of graduating students in 2008 had held internships, up from 9% in 1992. Hundreds and thousands of students hold internships each year, and it's estimated that one-fourth to one-half are unpaid. Many students say they held internships that involved noneducational menial work. Many internships do in fact involve some unskilled work or tedious tasks, but regulators say that when the jobs are mostly drudgery, it is clearly illegal not to pay interns. For example, one Ivy League student had an unpaid, three-month internship at a magazine, and she said she spent the day packaging and shipping apparel samples to fashion houses that had provided them for photo shoots. An NYU student had an unpaid internship at a children's film company, and was hoping to do some work in animation; instead, the student was assigned to the facilities department and had to wipe down door handles each day to minimize the spread of swine flu.

The rise in unpaid internships is also hurting low-income students. Less affluent students cannot afford to spend their summers at unpaid internships, and as a result they are losing opportunities to make connections and to increase their employment prospects. A Stanford graduate and one-time unpaid intern (who is writing a book on the subject) said, "Employers increasingly want experience for entry-level jobs, and many students see the only way to get that is through unpaid internships." Another harm of the unpaid internship is that the interns are often not considered employees and are therefore not protected by employment discrimination laws. For example, one female intern brought a sexual harassment complaint against an employee, but it was dismissed because the intern was not an employee. (Full Story)

April 03, 2010

2010-04-03T12:40:00.007-04:00

Tens of thousands of Thai protesters have occupied central Bangkok. The anti-government protesters, known as the red-shirts, are calling on Prime Minister Vejjajiva [I can't help it -- every time I see his name in print, it makes me think of "vajayjay"] to dissolve parliament and hold early elections. The red-shirts are mostly supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, an exiled former telecoms tycoon that was overthrown in a 2006 coup. Many of the red-shirts are from rural areas and say their mission is to fight for democracy.

The red-shirts have been holding regular protests for weeks. Saturday's demonstrations in Bangkok resulted in central roads in the capital being blocked, traffic halted, and two of Thailand's biggest shopping malls were forced to close. The crowds defied warnings to leave or face arrest. The government of Thailand says the rally is illegal and so is negotiating with them. A BBC correspondent said the atmosphere of the rally is still good-natured and peaceful, and that there are no signs of security forces.

Prime Minister Vejjajiva said he will hold elections by the end of the year (which is a year earlier than the planned elections), but the protesters rejected the offer and say that it is not enough. There have already been two rounds of talks to resolve the crisis -- but both were unsuccessful. The red-shirts say they are only willing to hold more talks if the prime minister brings forward his timetable.

In response to the red-shirts, on Friday business leaders, academics, and people from the tourism industry decided to come together and wear pink shirts to show their support for the government and to call for an end to the crisis. Several thousand turned up, but it did not compare to the tens of thousands that have attended red-shirt rallies. (Full Story)

And why choose pink (which is near red on the color spectrum)? I can totally imagine a scenario of someone digging through their closet to find a pink shirt and pulling out a somewhat ambiguous pink shirt. When his pink-shirt friends pick him up for the rally they say to him, "Didn't you get the memo? We're wearing pink, not red! It will look like you're supporting the red-shirts."

"This is pink."

"No, I'd say that's a coral red or maybe even a carmine red. Possibly ruby. But definitely not pink."

"It's dark pink! Well, you're one to talk. Your shirt is purple."

"It's fuchsia pink! And at least I'm not trying to pass off salmon as pink like this guy over here..."

"Hey!"

If I were a t-shirt manufacturer, I would definitely set up shop in Thailand. Remember when the yellow-shirts shut down the Bangkok airports last year? Between the red-shirts, pink-shirts, yellow-shirts, and I hear there's also a blue-shirt movement, that is a lot of t-shirts. I'm just saying...

An interesting (short) article that highlights Japanese social attitudes towards work and family. Japan has a very work-dominated culture, where one's job is very important and workers put a lot of time into their profession. Related to this, as more women have entered the workforce over the decades and have become dedicated to their professions, less and less couples are having children (or are having fewer children). Japan has one of the lowest birth rates in the world (the population is projected to decrease by a quarter by the middle of the century). A contributing factor to the low birth rate is that Japan continues to hold traditional gender roles in terms of family responsibilities. Women are still expected to be the main caretakers for children, and many Japanese women feel it is too difficult to have a child and work (especially with so little support).

This BBC article is on a district mayor in Tokyo that is -- gasp -- actually taking paternity leave. And it's making front page news in Japan. He is doing it to set an example and he's hoping to change attitudes. This mayor is the first local government leader ever to take paternity leave. In fact, no other local government leader -- male or female -- has taken time off after the birth of a child. Japanese workers are reluctant to take time off after a child is born, even though Japanese law allows either parent to have up to a year off. In Japan, only one in 100 fathers take any paternity leave. In Bunkyo ward, which is the ward that this mayor is from, no male employees have taken paternity leave.

However, in an indication of how work-oriented Japanese society is, this mayor will still be doing some work during his two weeks of paternity leave. He has said that he will remain in the ward, in case of emergencies; and he will be going to a council meeting on Thursday. (Full Story)

April 01, 2010

2010-04-01T11:29:00.009-04:00

The leading challenger in Sudan's upcoming presidential elections suddenly withdrew from the running Wednesday night. Yasir Arman, the candidate for the Sudan People's Liberation Movement, said he was dropping out because it was "impossible" to hold an election in the conflict-torn region of Darfur and that the whole electoral process had been rigged. However, he said his party would participate in the parliamentary and local elections across Sudan, except for Darfur. The election, which is scheduled for April 11, is considered to be the first meaningful vote in Sudan in over 20 years. Arman's departure casts a cloud of uncertainty over the election (and its legitimacy), and it could also potentially complicate the landmark peace agreement that ended decades of civil war.

Several human rights groups have expressed concerns about the upcoming elections. These groups have complained that Sudan's ruling party has intimidated and tortured opponents, skewed the census in the ruling party's favor, manipulated the media in their favor (and at the opposition's expense), and used state money to bribe local chiefs. As a result of these concerns, some Western election observers recently advised the Sudanese government to postpone the vote. In response, President Omar Hassan al-Bashir (who has been indicted on crimes against humanity for the ethnic conflict in Darfur -- a conflict in which an estimated 300,000 people died) threatened to cut off the election observers' fingers.

While there is concern about the election's outcome, in reality, very few people expected that the elections would be "a shining example of democracy" (as the New York Times so nicely put it). Afterall, Sudan is currently a tightly controlled police state. What people are most concerned about is the referendum scheduled for early next year. This is the vote in which southern Sudanese cast their decision as to whether they want to split off and form their own country. Analysts say that if the referendum is tampered with, it could potentially lead to a huge conflict, or even war, between the north and the south. The previous civil war between the north and south went on for decades and more than 2 million people were killed. The conflict is between Muslims from the north and Christian or animist people from the south. A US-backed peace treaty ended the war in 2005; the treaty also set in place the upcoming elections and the southern independence referendum. President Bashir (from the north) said he would abandon the referendum if the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (from the south) boycotts the elections. He said, "If they say there will be no elections, we will say there will be no referendum."

With the upcoming elections and the referendum, this is a very politically-sensitive time in Sudan, and the peace agreement is hanging in the balance. Especially as each side accuses the other of wrong-doing. In anticipation of the referendum, both sides have been rearming themselves in preparation for another possible war. Thousands of southerners have been killed in recent ethnic clashes that many Sudan analysts believe are fueled by the north.

As for the upcoming election, President Bashir's ruling party accused Arman and his party of simply trying to "save face". They argued that Arman dropped out because he knew he was going to lose badly to President Bashir. While some Sudan analysts suspect that a deal was made between SPLM and the ruling party in which SPLM agreed to give a clear path for Bashir to win the presidency (without a runoff), and in return Bashir guarantees that he won't stop the referendum. Analysts say this secret deal theory is plausible because southern political leaders care much more about the independence referendum than they do about the national elections. Some say that is one reason why the SPLM chose Arman, and not their highest ranking official (who is a vice president in Sudan), to run against Bashir. Regardless, many from the south were still disappointed that Arman dropped out. (Full Story)

March 31, 2010

2010-03-31T11:02:00.004-04:00

Iceland has passed a law that will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees. This includes stripping and lapdancing. The law will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. The new law is an attempt to close down the sex industry. The politician who first proposed the ban said, "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." The country has instituted this ban for feminist, rather than religious, reasons.

According to Icelandic police, 100 foreign women travel to country annually to work in strip clubs, though it is unclear whether the women are trafficked. Supporters of the bill say many of the women work at strip clubs because of drug abuse and poverty, rather than free choice. Supporters also argue that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution. Strip club owners are obviously not too happy about the law. One owner said in an interview to a local paper that Iceland's actions in terms of this new law are reminiscent of countries such as Saudi Arabia, where it is not permitted to see any part of a woman's body in public. Huh, that's one way of looking at it...Those two situations seem completely similar...

The article goes on to discuss that Iceland is one of the world's most feminist countries. Iceland has a high number of female politicians; almost half of the parliamentarians are female. Iceland is ranked 4th out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland, and Sweden. Those Nordic countries know what's up). Iceland also has a female prime minister (who also happens to be the world's first openly lesbian head of state). There also is a strong women's movement in the country. One politician said that one influence for legislation (including this law) is the feminist groups that put pressure on parliamentarians. She said, "These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society. " (Full Story)

Here's an update on the story from the other day about the insurance industry trying to take advantage of wording in the health care reform law: Kathleen Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary, wrote a letter to the insurance industry's top lobbyist demanding they put an end to questions about the law's intent or wording. Sebelius said, "Health insurance reform is designed to prevent any child from being denied coverage because he or she has a pre-existing condition...Congress and the President have acted. Now is not the time to search for non-existent loopholes that preserve a broken system." She specified, "The term 'pre-existing condition exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan." [My emphasis]. She also informed the industry that regulations will be written to ensure that the industry covers children with pre-existing conditions. She urged the industry to follow the spirit of the law.

The insurance industry's top lobbyist Karen Ignagni, the president of America's Health Insurance Plans, wrote back and said the industry will not try to block Obama's efforts to fix the wording in the new law to dispel uncertainty, and that they will "fully comply" with the regulations. She even said in the letter, "Health plans recognize the significant hardship that a family faces when they are unable to obtain coverage for a child with a pre-existing condition." Do you?! Well, I guess they do recognize the significant hardship because they're the ones that created it! She's talking about this like it's a problem unrelated to the insurance industry, like 'Oh I know, all those sick children without coverage...that's just terrible. I wish something could be done about it...' Something can be done about it, and your industry is the one making the rules. So don't say you "recognize the significant hardship" when a family is unable to obtain coverage for a sick child, because you're the group responsible for it and you're the group that can change it. They say now that they will not exclude sick children from plans (or exclude benefits once children are on a plan), but that's only after they were forced to do it because of a law passed by Congress and the president -- a law in which they tried to look for ridiculous loopholes in order to get out of covering sick children. So if they understand the hardship, why didn't they themselves make a change (and decades ago)? And, yeah, it's good they will be accepting the regulations that clarify the intent of the law and they're dropping the stupid wording argument, but they accepted it because they were backed into a corner. They knew it was a weak argument. And if they tried to make a legal fight about the wording versus the intent of the law (a law that would provide coverage to sick children), and tried to have a word war with the president, they would have one serious PR nightmare on their hands. I think they knew it was not a fight worth fighting. I'm sure they'll figure out some other ways to not cover people and to shortchange their customers. (Full Story)

March 30, 2010

2010-03-30T10:42:00.008-04:00

The Houston Chronicle has an interesting story on the Census in Texas. Texas could get four new congressional districts, four new electoral college votes, and millions of dollars in federal aid...but that's dependent on Texans actually filling out their census forms. As of Friday, only 27% of Texas households had filled out and returned their census forms -- which is well below the national average of 34%.

African-Americans and Hispanics have historically been undercounted groups when it comes to the Census. However, Texas is facing a growing problem of anti-government conservatives who refuse to fill out the Census as a form of protest against "Big Brother". A Republican Texas State Representative said, "There's a general distrust of the federal government at every level, starting with Congress and the president, all the way down to executive branch agencies." Another Republican representative said, "People are concerned about the apparent intrusive nature of the census. People are very concerned that the government is going too far."

There's also a growing enthusiasm for not filling out the Census because of popular conservative and libertarian Republicans decrying the Census -- like Michelle Bachman (R-MN) and Ron Paul (Republican Texas State Representative). Michelle Bachman (incorrectly) said last year that the information reported by Americans on their census forms could be used by the government to commit terrible deeds -- such as imprisoning people in internment camps [Sensational much?]. She has urged people to not fill out the Census or to not answer all the questions [which could cost the taxpayers millions because then a census taker has to go out to the house and get the information in person. Plus, if there's an undercount in Minnesota because of people following Michelle's lead, she could potentially lose her seat due to reapportionment]. While Ron Paul said, "The invasive nature of the current census raises serious questions about how and why government will use the collected information. " [The invasive nature of the current census? The Census has pretty much asked the same questions for centuries, if anything it was more 'invasive' in the past when there were more questions]. Earlier this month, Ron Paul voted against a congressional resolution that would ask Americans to participate in the Census.

The Pew Research Center has found that Democrats are more likely than other Americans to view the Census as "very important" to the country (76% compared with 61% of Republicans and 61% of Independents). In Texas, some of the counties with the lowest Census return rates are among the state's most Republican. For example, King County near Lubbock has a return rate of 5%.

The costs to the state of Texas could be immense if there's an undercount. Texas stands to gain four new House seats, but they can only get those seats -- and the influence that comes with those seats -- if enough Texans participate. "Any conservative revolt would only reduce the representation in conservative areas of the state, such as rural Texas and the outer ring suburbs surrounding its largest cities." Moreso, a director of the non-partisan group Texas Kids Count said that for every Texan that is not counted, the state will lose an estimated $12,000 over the next decade in federal funding for things like transportation, agriculture, health, education, and housing. She said that Texas could lose "hundreds of millions of dollars in lost opportunities" due to uncounted residents. She also said that these anti-government groups that are advocating not filling out the Census "think they are hurting the government. They are really hurting themselves and their communities." Oh snap. (Full Story)

I don't get these people that don't want to fill out their census because they believe the government wants this information to control them or watch over them or I don't know what. If you honestly thought the government was out to spy on you always and to control your mind, don't you think they're powerful enough to get your information from sources other than the census that you refused to fill out? But there have always been these crazy conspiracy people that have refused to fill out the Census. That's nothing new. What I'm concerned about is that this anti-Census group is growing larger this year (and includes more "mainstream" people) because of the increased popularity of the anti-government sentiment (and more specifically anti-Obama-government sentiment). You have all these Tea Party protests; and Glenn Beck-and-the-like followers; and people decrying a government takeover, and socialism, and fascism, and communism, and other -isms they don't seem to fully understand. You have people blindly angry at Obama, and angry about health care reform, and angry about taxes, and angry about the government providing services that they enjoy oh so much. And, sadly, the anger these people have is misplaced, and they're being misled, and they're being taken advantage of. And now they're being convinced that the Census is the next battle on the front, and that this is another way to stick it to the government. This is just another thing that the Glenn Becks and the Ron Pauls and different Republican congresspeople are using to rally their people around. The intense rhetoric surrounding health care lost a little bit of steam because the bill passed Congress and has been signed into law. The Census is the new thing to get worked up about. It is sad when something so basic and necessary as the Census becomes partisan. And it's terribly sad when people think they're following their best interests (and sticking it to the government) when they don't fill out the Census. But they're only hurting themselves. Their state could lose a seat in Congress, and then these people complain about not having representation. And their state could lose federal funding for community development, and then these people complain about the lack of services. It's a sad irony that they don't like the idea of big government and government-run or -sponsored programs, so they don't fill out the Census to protest the government; and then their community doesn't receive enough funding to fix bridges, and build parks, and start job programs and after-school programs; and then they will complain that the government isn't doing enough to help average Americans.