February 28, 2010

The human rights branch of the Organization of American States has released a 300-page report criticizing Venezuela and its president Hugo Chavez. The report says that Venezuela hinders free speech, the rights of its citizens to protest, and the ability of opposition politicians to function. The report states that Venezuela has punished those who criticize Chavez or advocate a form of government that is different from Chavez's. The state has punished critics such as anti-government television stations, demonstrators, and political opponents. The report also asserted that Chavez holds tremendous influence over the other branches of government, particularly the judiciary. Judges that issue decisions that the government does not like can easily be fired. Political rivals have also seen their powers usurped by Chavez, such as Antonio Ledezma, the mayor of Caracas.

Venezuela declined to cooperate with the commission, and as a result commissioners held hearings and sought out Venezuelan activists and politicians to compile information about the suspected abuses. The commission also incorporated responses from Venezuelan authorities to written questions. Chavez has previously complained that the OAS is simply beholden to the interests of the United State. However, the report was compiled and written by the OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights which is run independently from the OAS and largely free of its political machinations. Commissioners for the report came from several OAS nations including Antigua, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, and the United States.

Chavez did not have an immediate response to the report, but Venezuela's ambassador to the OAS said the commission has become a "confrontational political actor instead of an advocate for defending human rights." He also said the commission had shown support for the failed 2002 coup against Chavez (which the commission denies) and that its members are dedicated to weakening progressive social movements in Latin America. He said, "They have become a mafia of bureaucrats who want to play a bigger role in the efforts against Venezuela's government." The government of Venezuela says it permits protests and opposition groups, while focusing much of their energy on improving Venezuelans' standard of living.

Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, a Brazilian member of the commission who specializes in Venezuela, said, "The threats to human rights and democracy are many and very serious, and that's why we published the report. " He added that the commission recognized Venezuela's progress in areas such as reducing poverty, but he said there can be no "trade-off" between political and economic progress. He said the hope of the commission is that the government will make improvements based on the report's recommendations. He said the report is not an attempt to isolate Venezuela, but to have them more involved.

Though some are skeptical that Chavez or the government will make improvements based on the report. Those that track Venezuela say that often Chavez is prone to disproportionate response when criticized. The Americas director for Human Rights Watch said that after releasing a critical report of Chavez, he and a fellow investigator were detained at their Caracas hotel and escorted by armed agents onto a Brazil-bound flight. He said, "It would be nice to think the Chavez government would pay attention to the report", however Chavez often has "responded to all such criticism by attacking its critics, often using conspiracy theories and far-fetched allegations to distract attention from their own human rights practices." (Full Story)

February 27, 2010

The White House is looking at a new policy that would give an advantage in bidding on government contracts to companies that offer a "living wage" and generous benefits. The policy is known as "high road" contracting. This goes along with Obama's efforts to strengthen the middle class and promote higher labor standards. The plan is to examine the wages and benefits a company pays its employees (e.g., health insurance, retirement benefits, paid leave) as a factor in the contract award process. Another factor would be whether a contract bidder is a repeat violator of labor and employment laws. Businesses with legal violations are already supposed to be restricted from winning bids under current contracting rules, but the new policy would create a better system for tracking those companies. A Labor Department compliance office would compile a score on contract bidders based on the new criteria.

Labor unions advocate this new plan. They say too many jobs financed by government contracts come with low wages and limited benefits, and often support companies that violate employment laws. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that nearly 20% of the 2 million federal contract workers in the U.S. earn less than the poverty threshold wage of $9.91 per hour. David Madland, the director of the American Worker Project at the Center for American Progress, said that research shows that better-paid workers are more efficient and productive. He also added that raising labor standards and wages also saves taxpayers from hidden costs when employers pay so little that their workers rely on publicly funded health insurance and other safety net programs. Another thing he didn't address is that if businesses paid their workers more, the workers would consume more; and that would help businesses more, so then businesses wouldn't feel like they need to cut wages to save money. It's a vicious cycle.

Those opposed to this plan are business groups. They say they're opposed to it because it would shut out small businesses from competing for contracts (yeah, because small businesses are usually a huge priority for these groups... You know a big part of their problem with this plan is that businesses are going to have pay workers more and have benefits, and you know how much they hate that). Critics also say the policy would increase the cost of federal contracting (and is that so terrible if workers are being paid a better, more livable wage? Or getting better, or any, benefits?). The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the pro-business lobbying group, called the policy a payback to labor unions. They argue that unionized companies that already pay workers higher average wages and offer better health and retirement benefits would be in a better position to compete with non-unionized contractors. Uh...isn't that the point? That companies should be rewarded for having good labor standards and paying their workers well -- and that that should be an incentive to other companies to improve their labor standards? That's exactly the point. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a unionized company, just one that has good labor standards. (Full Story)

I think this plan would be a great incentive to get employers to improve the wages and benefits of their workers. Laborers in this country get so under-payed that it's a travesty. It's sad we even have the term "living wage". There shouldn't need to be a separate term that specifies someone getting paid a decent wage that they can actually live on (and be above the poverty line). It should simply be "wage". It's sad we need the phrase "living wage" to differentiate what is, most often, the status quo wage. A living wage should already be instituted (and instituted as a minimum wage) and it should be common sense to pay a living wage.

---

The Libyan leader Muammar Gadaffi called for a jihad, or holy war, against Switzerland. He said Switzerland was an infidel state that was destroying mosques (the Swiss voted in a referendum to ban the building of minarets). He said during a meeting that marked the Prophet Mohammad's birthday, "Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate, is against Mohammad, God, and the Koran...The masses of Muslims must go to all airports in the Islamic world and prevent any Swiss plane landing, to all harbors and prevent any Swiss ships docking, inspect all shops and markets to stop any Swiss goods being sold." Uh...wow. That is incredibly dangerous rhetoric. Gaddafi said "this is not terrorism." He explained, "There is a big difference between terrorism and jihad, which is a right to armed struggle." Yeah, they sound pretty similar to me -- especially the way you're using it.

This isn't the first time Libya and Switzerland have had conflict. In 2008, Gadaffi's son was arrested at a hotel in Switzerland and charged with abusing domestic servants. He was released shortly thereafter and the charges were dropped. But Libya still retaliated by cutting off oil supplies to Switzerland, withdrawing billions of dollars from Swiss bank accounts, refusing visas to Swiss citizens, recalling some of their diplomats, and arresting two Swiss businessmen working in Libya (you'd be crazy to think Muammar Gadaffi doesnt hold a grudge...). One of the businessmen have been released but the other was forced to leave the Swiss embassy where he had been sheltered and was moved to a prison to serve a four-month sentence on immigration offenses. Libya says the case of the two businessmen are not linked to the arrest of Gadaffi's son in Switzerland (they just coincidentally happened right after in each other, in the same month...). Furthermore, earlier this month Libya stopped issuing visas to citizens from many European countries. Libya did this after Switzerland allegedly blacklisted 188 high-ranking Libyans, denying them entry permits. The Swiss ban is said to include Muammar Gadaffi and his family (and if not, I would imagine he is "uninvited" from Switzerland now after his comments...).

A top UN official has condemned Gadaffi's call for jihad. The U.N. chief in Geneva said, "Such declarations on the part of the head of state are inadmissible in international relations." (Full Story) (Full Story)

February 26, 2010

The Utah House and Senate have passed a bill that would allow homicide charges to be brought against pregnant women who arrange illegal abortions. The bill is in response to a woman in Vernal that allegedly paid a man $150 to beat her and cause her to miscarry, but she could not be charged. The bill criminalizes a woman's "intentional, knowing, or reckless act" leading to a pregnancy's illegal termination. The bill specifies that a woman cannot be prosecuted for arranging a legal abortion. The bill has been passed and now it goes to the governor to be signed.

Some Senate Democrats tried to add an amendment to the bill that would remove the word "reckless" from the bill. They argued that criminalizing "reckless acts" leaves open the possibility of prosecutions against domestic violence victims who return to their abusers, only to be beaten and lose the child. But the amendment was not accepted. The sponsor of the bill said that the bill doesn't target victims -- only those that arrange to terminate their pregnancies illegally. (Full Story)

There are a lot of things wrong with this. To start, this law (assuming the governor signs it) seems kind of impractical. It doesn't seem like it will be even be enforced much. How are the authorities even going to be aware when a miscarriage occurs? Furthermore, how will they know it occurred due to an "intentional, knowing, or reckless act"? So while I don't think it's actually going to be enforced much, I don't like the language of the law or even knowing that this law is on the books to potentially be enforced in a pinch to use against someone.

I also don't like this inclusion of "reckless acts". That seems too vague and broad. What will be defined as reckless? The other two words "intentional" and "knowing" indicate that someone was purposely trying to miscarry, whereas "reckless" doesn't fit with the others. If someone was being "reckless" and they end up miscarrying, that doesn't necessarily mean they intended to miscarry. (And that's not to say that someone that intentionally miscarries is justified in being charged with homicide). The Democratic senators were concerned about this language because of domestic violence victims, but I've also heard that critics of the bill are worried about pregnant women that don't wear a seatbelt, or smoke, or drink while pregnant. Yes, there are medical recommendations that people do not smoke or drink during pregnancy because it can harm the fetus; but as is, it's not illegal. Under this Utah law, a woman could be charged with homicide for not wearing a seatbelt or drinking while pregnant, and as a result she miscarries. It just seems like a slippery slope in terms of what will be considered "reckless acts". Could not eating a proper diet while pregnant be considered reckless? Granted, as I mentioned before, I don't think the law will be enforced much. For example, if someone gets in a car accident, doesn't wear a seatbelt, and then miscarries, I doubt she's going to be arrested and charged with homicide. Both because 1) Who would know she miscarried? That's such a personal thing and most people don't announce it to the authorities (though those Utahns are known for getting up in people's personal business... Haha) and 2) Who really is going to prosecute that? But the fact that it is a law and could be done is ridiculous.

Another problem I have with the law is that it's one of those tricky, sneaky attempts to define when life begins. They are counting a fetus as a human life -- one that is considered "murdered" and warrants a charge of homicide. Just like in states where when someone kills a pregnant woman, they're charged with two counts of homicide. So while Utah cannot possibly get away with charging women with homicide that get legal, medical abortions, I can't help but feel they're trying to send a message that they consider any intentional miscarriage (i.e., abortion) as murder.

I agree that it's terrible that a woman would resort to paying someone to beat her up so that she would miscarry. This is what happened before Roe v. Wade and abortion was made legal. This shouldn't be happening today. However, Utah is looking at it all wrong. If you want to stop this type of behavior, don't try to punish the mother, try to help her. Utah should be working on providing women better opportunities to have a safe, medical abortion. Obviously that woman that paid someone $150 to beat her up did not feel that a medical abortion was an option for her. You would think someone would definitely prefer a safe, medical procedure compared to being beat up. But for whatever reason, the woman didn't feel that was an option. Unfortunately, I doubt Utah will be encouraging or promoting opportunity for safe, medical abortions any time soon. As a result, you're going to continue to have people like this Vernal woman who feel like back-alley abortions are one of their only options, and then they could be prosecuted for homicide on top of that. Way to go, Utah.

---

The French parliament is debating legislation that would require men to wear an electronic bracelet (like a tracking device) if they have received a court order to stay away from their partner. If they break the order and approach their partner, police will be alerted. According to the government, approximately 160 women in France are murdered every year by their husbands or partners. Three women are killed by their partners every week, and this doesn't include those who are driven to suicide.

The proposal is part of a draft law on conjugal violence. It has cross-party support and is expected to pass easily. Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence in the home (see our entry on it here), which is seen by many as a precursor to physical violence. However, there is not as much support for this clause -- at least outside parliament. Many lawyers and professionals say it will be impossible to say at what point verbal abuse -- for instance in an argument -- becomes a criminal offense. (Full Story)

---

The International Narcotics Control Board, the U.N. drug control agency, reports that "date rape drugs" are on the rise. The board said that tough measures against the best-known drug, Rohypnol, have worked well -- however, as a result, sexual abusers are now turning to alternative substances which are subject to less stringent international controls. The board wants these drugs placed on governments' controlled substances lists and for manufacturers to develop safety features such as dyes or flavorings, so that the substance will be detected if slipped into someone's drink. I hope countries take this issue seriously. (Full Story)

February 25, 2010

The Cuban political prisoner, Orlando Zapata Tamayo, has died after being on a hunger strike for 85 days. He was 42 years old. He had been refusing food in protest of the conditions at the jail. He had been arrested in 2003 and jailed with 75 other dissidents when the authorities cracked down on opposition groups. At the time of his arrest, he was participating in a hunger strike organized by the Assembly to Promote a Civil Society (they were protesting the arrest of several comrades). He was charged with contempt, public disorder, and disobedience. He was initially sentenced to three years in prison, but this was increased to 25 years in subsequent trials (obviously they felt that he and his activism was too dangerous to be let loose in Cuba. And when I say dangerous, I mean vocal.) Amnesty International declared him a prisoner of conscience. Mr. Zapata's mother told a Miami newspaper that her son was "murdered" by Cuba's authorities. She said, "They managed to do what they wanted. They ended the life of a fighter for human rights." Laura Pollan, a dissident from the group known as Ladies in White, told the BBC, "He wasn't a murderer. He wasn't a thief. He wasn't a rapist. He was simply a young man who wanted a better future for Cuba. "

His death marks the first time in 40 years since a Cuban activist starved himself to death to protest government abuses. Cuba's Human Rights Commission says there are about 200 political prisoners still held in Cuba. Though they say there is about one-third less political prisoners now than when Raul Castro first took over as president from his brother Fidel. (Full Story)

---

Interesting article about recent pro-gun legislation being enacted in different states. In Virginia, the General Assembly approved a bill last week that allows people to carry concealed weapons in bars and restaurant that serve alcohol. In addition, the House of Delegates voted to repeal a 17-year-old ban on buying more than one handgun a month. This comes three years after the shootings at Virginia Tech that claimed 33 lives and prompted a national push for increased gun control. Last year, the legislature also rejected a bill requiring background checks for private sales at gun shows. The recent pro-gun legislation has been enabled by the newly-elected Republican governor. Previously, the Democratic governor would veto legislation like this.

Montana and Tennessee passed measures last year to exempt their states from federal regulation of firearms and ammunition that are made, sold, and used in state. At least three other states are considering similar bills. When I first heard about this, I was thinking how could these states exempt themselves from federal regulation? I think their rationale is that the guns are being made in the state and sold only in the state, and so there's no interstate commerce, so it should just be in the state's control. Regardless, I was uncomfortable with the idea of states being able to skirt federal regulation. Fortunately, I've come to find out that the Montana law is in fact being challenged in federal court. In addition, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has sent a letter to Tennessee and Montana gun dealers stating that federal law supersedes the state measure.

Arizona and Wyoming lawmakers are considering nearly a half-dozen pro-gun measures, including one that would allow residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

In Indiana, the legislature passed a bill last month that blocks private employers from forbidding workers to keep firearms in their vehicles on company property.

Last year, gun rights supporters in Congress played a role in blocking legislation to give D.C. a full vote in Congress by attaching an amendment to repeal D.C.'s ban on handguns. Essentially setting up a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, with either option reducing D.C. autonomy.

However, there have been some gun control successes in the states. Proposed bills to allow students to carry guns on college campuses have been blocked in the 20 or so states where they have been proposed since the Virginia Tech shootings. Also, New Jersey limited gun purchases to one a month.

Gun control advocates are criticizing Obama for not doing more to control guns. He has yet to deliver on campaign promises to close a loophole that allows unlicensed dealers at gun shows to sell firearms without background checks, to revive the assault weapon ban, and to push states to release data about guns used in crimes. Moreover, Obama has signed bills last year allowing guns to be carried in national parks and in luggage on Amtrak trains. The president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said, "We expected a very different picture at this stage." The Brady group issued a report card last month failing the administration in all seven of the group's major indicators. When asked about the Brady group's critical report, a White House spokesman pointed out that the latest FBI statistics show that violent crime dropped in the first half of 2009 to its lowest level since the 1960s. He added, "The president supports and respects the Second Amendment, and he believes we can make common-sense steps to keep our streets safe and to stem the flow of illegal guns to criminals."

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights groups are still skeptical of Obama. The chief executive of the NRA said, "The watchword for gun owners is stay ready. We have had some successes, but we know that the first chance Obama gets, he will pounce on us." He added that Obama signing legislation to allow guns in national parks and on Amtrak trains should not be seen as respect for the Second Amendment. Instead, he said that those measures were attached as amendments to larger pieces of legislation -- a bill cracking down on credit card companies and a transportation appropriations bill, respectively (why do those damn gun-rights congresspeople always pull shit like that?) -- and that Obama just wanted those bills passed. (Full Story)

I don't understand these pro-gun laws. Though I personally would never own one, and I find them to be dangerous for various different reasons, I'm not against people owning guns (certain guns, at least. No one needs an assault weapon). But I think it's perfectly reasonable that there are steps in place to purchase those guns -- like background checks and having to get a permit. Guns shouldn't be extremely easy to get. And if someone is a law-abiding citizen and purchasing a gun for legitimate reasons, they shouldn't have an issue with these protection rules. My issue with these pro-gun laws is that I don't get them. They don't make sense to me. Why, exactly, do people need to have a gun with them while eating at a restaurant? Or attending church? Or going to an amusement park? That seems dangerous and unnecessary. The only explanation I could think of is that they want to have a gun for protection. If someone robs the restaurant they're at, they have their gun on their hip. However, that seems extremely dangerous to me. We don't need a bunch of average Joes bringing about their own vigilante justice (this isn't Pulp Fiction...). That's going to cause more harm than good. Having a loaded weapon in a public place is either completely unnecessary or a recipe for disaster.

February 24, 2010

China has further tightened internet controls by requiring anyone that wants to set up a website to meet with regulators and submit ID documents (identity cards and photos of themselves). They have to do this before their sites can be registered. The technology ministry said these new measures were designed to tackle online pornography (the go-to justification for online censorship), but critics say it's increased government censorship.

This decision by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology effectively lifted the freeze that was introduced in December -- during which no new individual websites could be registered. The freeze had been imposed by the state-sanctioned group which registers domain names, after complaints by state media (complaints by state media, huh. I'm sure that's an objective source) that not enough was being done to screen websites for pornography. The Chinese authorities have already launched a number of campaigns against online pornography -- the government has said that thousands of people were detained last year alone (though considering the source is the government, the number of people detained is probably higher).

As a result of these internet controls, a number of websites are now being registered overseas in order to avoid controls. The BBC's reporter in Beijing said that despite the extensive censorship, "the internet remains a surprisingly vibrant and critical environment in China." The internet has been used to highlight cases of injustice and to embarrass corrupt officials. He added that China's internet users often stay one step ahead of the government controls. (Full Story)

---

Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, made a decree that grants him total control over Afghanistan's Electoral Complaints Commission (ECC). He will have the power to appoint all five member of the commission. The ECC is the group that exposed massive fraud in last year's presidential election. The commission previously had three foreign experts who were appointed by the UN. It was the ECC's Canadian chairman and his two non-Afghan colleagues that led demands for an inquiry into the election due to a suspicion of ballot-stuffing. The commission ended up discounting more than one million votes for Karzai, and he finally agreed to a run-off election. However, days before the run-off vote was to happen, the plans were scrapped. Officials cited a need to avert further political damage to the country and because there was a fear that there would be Taliban violence just like there was during the first round of voting. Karzai was made president and his main rival, Abdullah Abdullah, had earlier pulled out of the run-off because he said it would not be a free or fair election. Karzai and other Afghans were unhappy that the months-long fraud investigation paralyzed the country and delayed NATO members from sending in more troops to combat the insurgency.

This past week, in a speech to parliament, Karzai shared his plans for reforming the ECC. He reportedly said that in this year's parliamentary elections he would limit "interference from others" by "Afghanizing" the poll process. Previously, the BBC had been told that the outgoing UN representative to Afghanistan (Kai Eide, from Norway) had struck a private deal that two of the five commission members would be foreigners, and that one of the appointees would have veto power. But this deal is not in the new decree.

As a result of this change in the commission, some western officials questioned whether the international community would be willing to underwrite the costs of another election when they believe it is likely to be flawed. Peter Galbraith, the former deputy UN envoy to Afghanistan, said, "In principle, Afghanizing the election process is a good idea. But...this clearly is not a matter of Afghanization, it is a matter of getting rid of the international monitors who provided a degree of honesty in the election, so as to enable Karzai and his allies to manipulate -- steal, if you will -- the upcoming parliamentary election." (Full Story)

February 23, 2010

Interesting story about the divisions over a new bus system in South Africa. During apartheid, blacks were required to live in townships that were far away from the nicer, white, suburban areas. The ramifications of that still carry on today, and there continues to be residential segregation. Mostly-black communities are separated from mostly-white communities, and there's still an apartheid-era "buffer zone" of mine dumps, factories, and undeveloped land that separates the two communities. "Millions of blacks still live in townships far from centers of commerce and employment. Those with jobs...must endure commutes that devour their time and meager incomes, while legions of jobless people are isolated from opportunity." In the past, these workers had to rely on minibus taxis to get to work. These minibus taxis have a reputation for being crowded, fast and bumpy, more expensive. Furthermore, the industry is seen as corrupt, ruthless, and violent.

In recent years, new Bus Rapid Transit systems have been planned for South Africa's major cities. This new transit system will have bus lanes cleared of other cars, and the buses are said to provide fast, affordable, and comfortable travel. Prodded by a national commitment to improve public transportation for the soccer World Cup that is being held in South Africa this year, Johannesburg is carrying out the nation's most ambitious program. The city had predicted that by June buses would be running from Soweto (where a quarter of the city's four million people live) to Sandton (the region's commercial and financial hub). It's sad that it takes a World Cup for South African leaders to finally get going on giving their citizens the transportation systems they need (but I guess getting it as a by-product of the World Cup is still getting it).

However, there is conflict surrounding this new BRT system, and, as a result, the bus project is falling short of its goals. There is resistance to the plans by both white suburbanites and the black-owned minibus taxi industry. The city's first challenge was winning over the minibus taxi industry. They move 14 million people daily, which is far more than the bus and rail systems combined. This black-owned industry sprang up during apartheid and is one of the country's greatest success stories of black entrepreneurship. However, the industry has a history of ruthless violence. Experts estimate that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have died in "taxi wars" in an effort to control routes. The city has tried to get the industry involved by offering taxi proprietors ownership of the bus operating company, but negotiations have dragged on and some in the industry still remain adamantly opposed. After the bus line began running five months ago, a bus was shot at and two people on the bus were killed. The city council member that leads Johannesburg's Transportation Department had a gunmen shoot at her home and her body guard was shot in the neck. In another incident, a taxi industry official and an advocate for the bus system deal with the city was killed.

The city also faces opposition from the suburbanites that don't want this transit system to go through their neighborhoods (classic "Not-In-My-Backyard"). There also is an element of racism. Some people are not ready for or open to the idea of bridging racial and class divides. Some white suburbanites do not want their mostly-white enclaves to be accessible to those from other communities (read: black communities). Residents in these suburbs are already raising money for legal battles. One neighborhood association wrote a letter to the city saying they don't oppose the idea of a mass transit system, they just oppose what they consider to be ill-conceived routes (read: their neighborhoods) that they say will pollute the air, cause traffic to spill onto side roads, increase crime (I think we know what they're saying here...), and damage property values. One resident of this neighborhood said their opposition is not motivated by race or guarding white privilege -- in fact, she explained that a lot of the black political elite, including Nelson Mandela, now live in the same neighborhoods. So obviously, it's not a race issue. I think she really set the record straight there ('We allow rich black people to live here...That counts for something, right?'). Shireen Ally, a sociologist at the University of Witwatersrand and also a resident of one of the affected neighborhoods, said that race has everything to do with the suburbs' reaction. She said she grew angry as white residents at the city meetings kept complaining about the bus project damaging their property values. She said these suburbanites with cars are not considering the needs of the people dependent on public transportation -- especially all the housekeepers and nannies that have to make the trek up to the suburbs for these families. One in six working women in South Africa is a housekeeper or a nanny -- the majority of them are black and work for a white family in the northern suburbs. Shireen Ally said she was disturbed by "the incapacity of these suburbanites to think about it from the perspective of the women they trust their children and home to, the women they call part of the family." As a result of the suburbanites' opposition, the city council member that leads Johannesburg's Transportation Department reported that the buses would not reach Sandton before the current city administration's term expired next year, and that they cannot offer a prediction of when that goal would be met.

To show the personal implications of this transit system, the article features the story of Susan Hanong. She is a 67 year old maid who has a very long commute to the wealthy, northern suburbs of Johannesburg. She has never learned to read. She cares for her 14-year-old nephew whose father, a taxi driver, was killed in the industry violence. She gets up at dawn to make the long trek to clean white people's houses and to watch their children. Mrs. Hanong often took a minibus taxi to work, but now she rides the bus. She enjoys the new high-tech bus station and the smooth ride on the bus where she gets to claim a front row seat reserved for the elderly. She finds the bus ride more tranquil -- she explains, "These people on taxis, they shout at us. They say, 'Granny, just move!' They talk funny to the people. On the bus, no one can shout at you." She likes the new buses so much that she walks an extra half hour to reach them. The bus costs her 65 cents each way; taxi fare would be 50 cents more, which is a considerable difference given that her earnings are $160 a month. However, the bus doesn't take her all the way to Sandton (thanks to the suburbanites opposition), and she has to transfer to a taxi. It takes her two hours to get from her home to Sandton. Transportation eats up a fifth of her salary. (Full Story)

February 22, 2010

This article discusses how more places are banning plastic bags or requiring consumers to pay a fee to use disposable bags. These new policies are being instituted in an attempt to reduce litter, pollution, and waste. Washington, D.C. recently instituted a 5 cent levy on paper and plastic bags at grocery stores and businesses that sell food items (the consumer has to pay 5 cents for every bag they use). The collected fees go to a fund for cleaning up D.C.'s Anacostia River. Washington, D.C. is the first in the U.S. to institute this policy, and cities in the U.S. are watching to see how effective D.C.'s program is. There has already seen a reduction in the use of disposable bags in the district. Not everyone is happy about the new policy, but it's effective. I remember reading a Washington Post article that mentioned how people are opting to carry (or, in some instances, juggle) their groceries in their arms because they don't want to pay 5 cents for the bag. The customers grumble about it, but that is one less bag they're using. The new program is definitely making some consumers consider whether they really need a bag.

Some retailers in the U.S. are even offering a credit to consumers that bring in their own reusable bags. For example, Whole Foods takes 5 cents off the total bill for every bag the customer brings in.

There are also cities that have also outright banned plastic bags. In 2007 San Francisco became the first U.S. city to implement the ban. Since then Oakland, Malibu, and parts of North Carolina have done the same. Los Angeles is expected to ban plastic bags in July and charge shoppers 25 cents for a paper or biodegradable bag.

Ireland enacted a nationwide fee of 15 cents per plastic bag in 2002, and the Irish government has reported that their annual plastic bag use has been reduced from an estimated 328 to 21 per person. (Full Story)

---

A research group at the University of California, Santa Barbara has released a new study that found that openly gay military service members do not cause a disruption. The research group, which has no official position on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", studied foreign militaries that had made the transition to allow openly gay service members. They looked at Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, and other countries. The report concluded that openly gay members did not undermine morale and did not cause large scale resignations or mass "comings out". There also were no instances of increased harassment after the bans were lifted. In addition, they found that none of the countries had installed separate facilities for gay troops.

The study said that most countries implemented the policy change swiftly (i.e., within a matter of months), and that there was little disruption to the armed services. Pentagon leaders are in favor of a slower transition -- they say repealing a ban on openly gay men and women should take a year or more. The principal author of the study, Nathaniel Frank, said that their study did not look at what happened if the change was implemented gradually because none of the militaries they looked at had tried that. Though their report did cite a 1993 RAND study on the effects of allowing openly gay service members which concluded that "phased-in implementation might allow enemies of the new policy to intentionally create problems to prove the policy unworkable...Any waiting period permits restraining forces to consolidate." (Full Story)

February 21, 2010

Saudi Arabia is expected to pass a new law in the next couple of days that will allow female lawyers to argue legal cases in court for the first time. Under the new law, they will be allowed to argue cases on family-related issues like divorce and child custody. Currently, female lawyers are only allowed to work behind the scenes in government and court offices. I'm glad some progress is being made, but it's interesting female lawyers are only allowed to be trial lawyers for family-related cases. I assume this is probably seen as more of a "female-acceptable" field of law. Maybe they think that criminal law or corporate law is just too big for women, or out of their league, or they need to be protected from it...

The new law is also supposed to allow women to complete certain judicial procedures with notaries without the presence of a witness. Now they can complete the procedures by just presenting their IDs. Some of these judicial procedures include registration of properties, housing plans, merging of real estate properties of different persons, classification of property ownership, and authorizing corporate contracts. The new law is intended to break routine barriers that obstruct women from approaching notaries.

Saudi Arabia has a system of male guardianship in which women are required to be kept separate from men they are not related to unless they have a male (family) guardian present or permission from a guardian. Women are required to wear a veil in public, they are not allowed to drive, and women under the age of 45 must get permission from a male when they travel. Education and employment are also dependent on male guardianship. However, there has been some progress made recently. For example, women are now allowed to stay in hotels unaccompanied. In addition, a senior cleric was removed last year after criticizing a new co-ed science and technology university. He said that mixing sexes in any university is evil and a great sin. (Full Story)

February 20, 2010

In the wake of Iraq's parliamentary elections on March 7, Iraq's main Sunni party has dropped out. The Iraqi Front for National Dialogue dropped out because they say that Iran is interfering in the election (Iran is largely a Shiite country). A party spokesman said the party "cannot continue in a political process run by a foreign agenda." They believe Iran's influence in the political process will only result in a vote that is not legitimate. The National Dialogue Party stopped short of calling on Sunnis to boycott the election, but they did ask other political parties to join them in withdrawing. The National Council for Tribes of Iraq (a party that includes both Sunnis and Shiites) said they will also drop out.

This decision came after a candidate-vetting panel, led by two Shiite politicians (Ali al-Lami and Ahmed Chalabi), banned more than 440 candidates whom they described as loyalists to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. Most of the blacklisted candidates were Sunni. One of the barred candidates is Saleh al-Mutlaq -- the head of the National Dialogue Party (he said he quit the Baath party in the 1970s). The two Shiite politicians in charge of the candidate-vetting panel are believed to be influenced by Iran.

The U.S. Ambassador Christopher Hill and Army General Ray Odierno (who is the top American military commander in Iraq) each described the Shiite leaders of the candidate-vetting panel as having ties to Iran. General Odierno said in a speech last week at the Institute for the Study of War in Washington that U.S. has direct intelligence that al-Lami and Chalabi "are clearly influenced by Iran." He also accused al-Lami of having been "involved in various nefarious activities in Iraq for some time." The next day Ambassador Hill told reporters in Washington that "absolutely, these gentlemen are certainly under the influence of Iran." He continued, "We remain concerned about Iran's behavior towards its neighbors. Iran should have a good relationship with its neighbor, but it needs to do a much better job of respecting its neighbor's sovereignty."

U.S. and U.N. diplomats fear that if Sunnis boycott the election and Shiites are handed the victory, then the election will not be seen as legitimate. This could result in more divisions or violence in the country. There is a fear that this could set back progress that has been made since 2007 when the insurgency, which threatened a civil war, was reversed. A breakdown in security could also hinder U.S. plans to withdraw all combatant troops by the end of August. (Full Story)

February 19, 2010

A local branch of a fast food chain in France now serves only meat that meets Islamic dietary laws (i.e., halal). Non-halal products and pork have been taken off the menu. This branch in Roubaix is one of several Quick restaurants that had their menu changed to be halal. Quick decided to take a bacon cheeseburger off the menu at eight of its 350 branches, replacing it with a halal version that comes with smoked turkey. Quick said they made this change in order to test the "commercial interest and technical feasibility" of introducing halal menus -- as France is home to more than five million Muslims.

It should come as no surprise that there are people unhappy with the change. The mayor of Roubaix said that the change to a halal menu is a form of discrimination against non-Muslims. He called for a boycott of the branch. The town council also filed a complaint for discrimination with a regional court in Lille. Several deputies from President Sarkozy's conservative UMP party have condemned the menu change. And -- shocker of all shockers -- Marine Le Pen, vice president of the far-right National Front, said this was a sign of "Islamization".

The Quick manager at the Roubaix branch said that there has actually been a slight increase in business after the introduction of the halal menu, and that they have not received complaints from customers. (Full Story)

I don't think it's discrimination that this branch (or chain) is trying to accommodate and adjust to the growing Muslim population. There's no law that says a restaurant has to serve bacon cheeseburgers. Fast food chains have dropped or changed food items from their menus before -- it's not discrimination, it's just change. Plus, non-Muslims can eat halal food, but practicing Muslims cannot eat non-Halal food (unless it's a necessity). I'm sure there's still other places in town where these people can get a bacon cheeseburger if they want. If they think this is discrimination, I should hope they never actually experience real discrimination. I think this is yet another example of the growing fear in France about the growing minority population of Muslims. I'm sure there is an unfounded fear among some people in Roubaix (as well as other places in France) that sooner or later the whole town will be serving nothing but halal food and it won't look like France at all. As I've mentioned in previous posts on this subject, this unfounded fear has rarely played out in history (and not since the conquest days...).

(Plus, it's kind of ironic that what they're fighting for is a fast food chain which seems to be more of an American influence and not a traditional French cuisine institution. You don't often think of fast food restaurants as a symbol of French identity and culture.)

February 18, 2010

The research firm Catalyst conducted a survey of alumni who graduated from MBA programs between 1996 and 2007. They looked at 26 leading business schools in Asia, Canada, Europe, and the United States. The participants graduated from full-time MBA programs and are currently working full-time in companies or firms. They found that men were more likely to start their first post-MBA job in higher positions than women -- even after taking into account the participants' number of years of experience, industry, and global region. It's also not a matter of different aspirations. The findings hold up even when considering only men and women who aspire to CEO/senior executive level positions. Some might say that women's careers stall because they take time out to have children. However, the study found that the results hold up even when considering only men and women who do not have children.

They also found that women's first post-MBA salary was lower than men's -- even after taking into account the number of years of experience, time since MBA, first post-MBA job level, global region, and industry. These salary differences are also not due to different aspirations or parenthood. On average, women are paid $4,600 less in their first job than men.

They also found that women lag behind men in career advancement. Even when taking into account first post-MBA job level (among the other factors I've already named that were controlled for), men were more likely to be at a higher position at the time of the survey than were women. Men were twice as likely as women to be at the CEO/senior executive level. Conversely, more than half of women were at the entry level or first manager levels, and were significantly more likely to be at those ranks than men. The study found no significant gender differences at mid-level jobs.

Furthermore, regardless of the starting level of their first post-MBA job and first post-MBA salary, men's salary growth outpaced women's. Even among those aspiring for CEO/senior level positions and do not have any children, men's salary outpaced women's. Men also significantly outpaced women in moving up "the corporate ladder" -- even if they both started their first post-MBA job at entry level or one level higher, had the same number of years of experience, and received their MBA in the same year. Only when they both started their first post-MBA jobs at the mid-level or senior executive level (though it's harder for women than men to get a senior rank job as their first job) there was no significant difference in the rate of career advancement. However, men still outpaced women in compensation growth amongst those who start at any level other than the CEO/senior executive rank.

On average, men were also more satisfied with their career overall than women -- except at entry level jobs, where there was no difference in career satisfaction. Thirty-seven percent of men reported that they were very satisfied with their overall career advancement compared to 30% of women.

The report concluded, "For the past two decades leaders have counted on parity in education, women's accelerated movement into the labor force, and company-implemented diversity and inclusion programs to yield a robust talent pipeline where women are poised to make rapid gains to the top. But results of this study show that these hopes were ill-founded -- when it comes to top talent, women lag in advancement, compensation, and career satisfaction. The pipeline is not healthy; inequality remains entrenched. " (Full Story) (Full Story)

February 17, 2010

The Center for the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University has released their annual "The Celluloid Ceiling" report that looks at women in film. The study examined women working behind-the-scenes on the 250 top-grossing films of 2009. In 2008 women made up 16% of all directors, producers, executive producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors on these top films. This year's study found that overall women made no gains in employment behind-the-scenes from 2008 to 2009; the overall number is unchanged. However, the overall number of women in film is down 3% from 2001.

The study found that in 2009 only 7% of directors on those films were female. This is a drop of 2% since last year. Martha M. Lauzen, who is the executive director of the Center and the study, said the percentage of female directors this year is the same as it was in 1987.

Women were most represented among producers, where they make up 23%. This number is unchanged from 2008. However, 35% of these top films had no female producers at all. Women made up 17% of executive producers in 2009 (up from 16% in 2008). However, two-thirds of the movies had no female executive producers.

Women were the least represented in cinematography. Only 2% of the top films had female cinematographers. That's the same number from 2007; but it's a drop from 2008 when the number was 4%.

Women accounted for 18% of all editors in 2009 (up from 17% in 2008). However, 78% of films had no female editors.

Only 8% of writers were female, and 86% of the films had no female writers. In 2008, 12% of writers were female and 82% of films had no female writers. Writing is the area where employment of women dropped the most since 2008.

Martha Lauzen said that women were better represented behind-the-scenes on "festival films" than studio films (based on another study she conducted). With festival films, women make up 24% of the behind-the-scene jobs, compared to 16% for the top studio films. However, she says the number still doesn't come close to being representative of the general population. (Full Story)

---

The EU has stated that they will (potentially) suspend Sri Lanka's preferential trade benefits due to the country's human rights record. The EU's decision came after a year-longer investigation by the European Commission identified that Sri Lanka had "significant shortcomings" in adhering to UN human rights conventions. The Sri Lankan government is facing increasing international calls for an independent investigation into alleged war crimes committed during the civil war between Sri Lankan security forces and the Tamil Tigers rebel group.

The EU decision will take effect in six months in order to give Sri Lanka time to address the "shortcomings". If the EU's concerns are not addressed, trade benefits worth $135 million will be withdrawn. Sri Lanka's garment and fisheries industries will be hit the hardest. The garment industry currently enjoys tax breaks to sell to retailers in Europe, and fisheries products are one of the largest Sri Lankan exports to the EU. The EU foreign ministry indicated that they will not be setting "unattainable targets" and that "the shifting of goals posts" will only hinder the efforts of both sides (aka, 'the goals will be easy to reach because we don't want to harm our trade relation in any significant way...'). The Sri Lankan government has criticized the decision and said they would intensify their efforts to engage in negotiations with Brussels to reverse the decision. (Full Story)

February 16, 2010

Amnesty International has reported that Myanmar's ethnic minorities are vulnerable to increased repression leading up to the elections in the country later this year. The military junta in charge of Myanmar say that the country will hold their first election in 20 years at some point this year, though no date has been given yet. Amnesty International says that the ethnic minorities in the country -- up to 40% of the population -- play an "important but seldom acknowledged role" in the opposition movement. This is because international attention tends to focus on opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. Ethnic minorities face surveillance, harassment, and discrimination when they try to carry out political activities. However, these abuses don't get much international attention. Benjamin Zawacki from Amnesty International explained, "The ethnic minorities states are simply beyond the spotlight that's typically placed on Myanmar. So it's much easier for the regime to persecute and to repress ethnic minority activists simply because they feel they can do so without a great deal of attention, much less accountability for those abuses."
An UN envoy for human rights is currently visiting Rakhine state in the Northwest of the country, and home to the Rohingya people. Tens of thousands of Rohingya -- who are mostly Muslim -- have fled the country due to abuse and oppression. Most have fled to Bangladesh. Amnesty International says that the Rohingya suffer persecution under the junta after they led a 2007 uprising that was violently suppressed. In addition to the Rohingya, members of Myanmar's many ethnic groups are waging decades-long armed uprisings along the country's eastern border as a result of neglect and mistreatment.
Amnesty International has urged the Association of South East Asian Nations and China to help ensure that the people of Myanmar are free to openly participate in the political process and upcoming elections (and while they're at it, some of them should probably do the same for their own countries...). (Full Story)

---

Heartbreaking story about sexual assault against women in the military. Congressional leaders have been holding hearings this month on this issue, and they say that more needs to be done to stop this from occurring. In a 2003 survey of female veterans conducted by the University of Iowa (and funded by the US Department of Defense), they found that 30% of the 500 female veterans interviewed were victims of rape or attempted rape. In 2009, the Department of Defense estimated in their annual report on sexual assault that around 90% of rapes in the military are never reported. The article features the story of a female soldier stationed in Afghanistan. Protocol says that soldiers are supposed to carry their weapons at all times in a combat zone. This soldier placed her weapon down and walked away to smoke a cigarette. It was at this time that she was attacked by another soldier. She went to the authorities and told them about the rape. However, they told her that if she filed a claim she would be charged with dereliction of duty for leaving her weapon unattended in a combat zone -- an offense that can get you court-martialed. So she kept quiet and the man that raped her went unpunished.

Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, who sits on the Military Personnel Subcommittee, successfully lobbied last year for the development of a Sexual Assault Database to encourage accountability within the Armed Forces. She says that she gets many calls to her office about women being assaulted in the military. She added, "I'm told that the statistics are that once you have been raped in the military you are most likely to be raped over and over." Congresswoman Sanchez says that the Pentagon is taking this issue more seriously, but there's still not enough prosecutions happening and big changes still need to be made. She said that often times when a woman alleges rape, the man is simply demoted or moved to another unit.

Dr. Kaye Whitley, Director of the US Department of Defense's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office said that for those soldiers who do report a sexual assault, they take the crime very seriously. She said they are seeing progress and that "more and more commanders are referring these cases to court martial." But she added they're still working hard on getting prosecutions, and that there's still things that need to be improved.

Helen Benedict, a writer who has done a lot of research on sexual violence in the military, says that women don't often report the assault because "there is a culture [in the military] that if you report someone, you are seen as a weak soldier who failed to defend yourself." Dr. Whitley explained that another thing that discourages some female soldiers from reporting a sexual assault is that then their command knows and their whole unit knows, and that is said to affect "unit-readiness." As a result, there is now a new "restrictive reporting option" where victims who are afraid to report the assault can get the medical care they need and receive counseling, but their command is not notified and they don't have to participate in an investigation. I think it's good that victims are having their needs met even if they're afraid to report the assault. Before the options were report it or suffer alone. So that's good that there's a program for them to get the necessary help they need. However, I hope this program wasn't put in place to somehow encourage women to not report an incident -- kind of like 'Well, we'll give you all you need. Just don't report it.' I hope it genuinely is a program to look out for women.

Helen Benedict says that economics may help bring about cultural change in the military. Because of the recession, more women are joining the military than ever before. Benedict hopes the current military culture will shift as women become less of a minority in the armed forces and as more women rise in the ranks and gain more seniority. (Full Story)

February 15, 2010

Utah's House of Representatives have passed a resolution (56-17) that declares their skepticism about climate change and called for the federal government to halt programs that work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is a non-binding statement with no legal force. It's more a declaration (and a sad one at that). The resolution and its proponents condemned "climate alarmists", disputed the science of climate change, and declared that emissions are "essentially harmless". The original version of the bill said that climate science was a "well organized and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate tricks related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome." It also accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty." Representative Mike Noel said that environmentalists were part of a vast conspiracy to destroy the American way of life and to control world population through forced sterilization and abortion. He also said, referring to their recommendation to halt carbon dioxide reduction programs, "Sometimes...we need to have the courage to do nothing." (That definitely needs to be his re-election campaign slogan).

In the final version of the bill, after some debating and compromise, the bill dropped the word "conspiracy"; said that climate science was "questionable" instead of "flawed"; and dropped the mention of the "gravy train" (I can't believe that embarrassingly colloquial phrase even made it in the bill in the first place). (Full Story)

You heard it here: Utah House members know more about climate change than scientists. And that you don't need any evidence to make a point or declare a resolution. Thank goodness it's non-binding and has no sort of power at all. And this news story is being picked up by international news; now that's embarrassing.

---

Iran "jammed" international broadcasts during Iran's 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. The BBC, Deutsche Welle, and Voice of America condemned Iran for its "deliberate electronic interference" in their broadcasts. Iran was broadcasting their programs around the world, but blocked programs coming from the outside. The broadcasters said in a joint statement, "We condemn any jamming of these channels. It contravenes international agreements and is interfering with the free and open flow of international transmissions that are protected by international treaties."

Furthermore, a U.S. state department spokesman said there was strong indications that the telephone network had been taken down, text messages blocked, and internet communication was "throttled". The White House spokesman said that Google (and their e-mail provider, Gmail) and other internet service providers had been "unplugged" in Iran. The US accused Iran of using a "near-total information blockade."

On Thursday, the day of the anniversary, the government instituted a day-long security clampdown in the capital, which succeeded in preventing any large-scale opposition protests. (Full Story)

February 13, 2010

Police in Mtwapa, Kenya raided what appeared to be a gay wedding and arrested five men that have been accused of being gay. Homosexuality is illegal in Kenya, but arrests are said to be rare (homosexual behavior is illegal across Africa; with the exception of South Africa). Reportedly, two men were planning on getting married at a private villa at the Kikambala beach resort. Locals heard about the planned wedding and alerted the police. The police then raided the house and found the two men with wedding rings attempting to get married. The other three men were handed to the police by members of the public; two of the men had reportedly been beaten. The district officer said the five men will first undergo a medical examination and then they will be charged with homosexuality. The district officer said, "We are grateful to the public for alerting the police. They should continue cooperating with the police to arrest more. It is an offense, an unnatural offense, and also their behavior is repugnant to the morality of the people." He added that the police force also has plans to also close down bars which "condone gays, lesbians, prostitution, and drug abuse in their premises." [Wow. Likening condoning gays and lesbians to prostitution and drug abuse. As if they all fit in the same category...]. The alleged marriage was also condemned by Muslim and Christian clerics.

On Thursday, two other men that were planning to get married at a seaside villa in the same area abandoned their wedding plans. They did this after local authorities complained. The couple and their guests fled the city when word got out that the police, government officers, and members of the public were looking for them. (Full Story)

February 12, 2010

Related to the post below: According to a new Washington Post-ABC news poll, 75% say that "homosexuals who do publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military"; while 24% said they should not. Among Democrats, 82% said they should be allowed; 77% for independents; and 64% for Republicans. I'm surprised by, but like, that a majority of Republicans support gay people serving openly in the military. The poll also pointed out that there has been huge gains in support since the Don't Ask, Don't Tell debate first started in 1993 during Bill Clinton's presidency. In May 1993, 44% thought homosexuals who do publicly disclose their sexual orientation should be allowed to serve in the military. That is a 31 point change. Another interesting finding is that among those that say they have a gay friend or family member, 81% supported allowing gay people to serve openly in the military; compared with 66% among those that said they did not know anyone that was gay. (Full Story)

---

President Obama has vowed to end the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that bars gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The Pentagon's top leaders have declared that they also support an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This issue has been making a lot of news recently. A CBS/New York Times poll was recently conducted on how people feel about the policy. What's interesting is that they found that the wording of the question can affect the amount of support. When asked "Do you favor or oppose homosexuals serving in the military?", 59% said they support it (34% strongly favor, 25% somewhat favor) and 29% said they opposed it (10% somewhat oppose, 19% strongly oppose). However, when the wording was changed, and they asked "Do you favor or oppose gay men and lesbians serving in the military?" -- 70% said they support it (51% strongly favor, 19% somewhat favor) and 19% said they opposed it (7% somewhat oppose, 12% strongly oppose).

They then asked a question about serving openly in the military. As with the above questions, a difference was found based on the wording. When asked "Do you favor or oppose homosexuals being allowed to serve openly?", 44% said they favored it and 42% said they opposed it. When asked the same question, but using the term "gay men and lesbians" instead of "homosexuals", 58% said they supported it and 28% said they opposed it. It's sad there is that difference of support between supporting gay men and lesbians serving in the military and supporting them serving openly in the military.

It's interesting that overall the phrase "gay men and lesbians" garners more support than "homosexuals". I wonder why that is. Maybe "homosexuals" seems more technical or cold for people, or its associated with the idea of deviance (as that was the word commonly used in the past -- when there was much less tolerance. And you hear gay rights opponents say stuff like "Those homosexuals are sick.") Maybe "gay men and lesbians" seems more personal for people. Maybe people feel like the term makes this group seem more like actual people, and not just one big, nameless, faceless group of homosexuals. Instead these are individuals; these are daughters and sons, and brothers and sisters, and friends and neighbors. I'm not sure of the reason, but I find that interesting. Seems like an interesting study for a linguist. (Full Story)

February 11, 2010

A study conducted at Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies has found that low-income workers have been hit the hardest by the recession and employment crisis. On the other end of the spectrum, there has been "no labor market recession for America's affluent." The study stated, "Workers in different segments of the income distribution clearly found themselves in radically different labor market conditions. A true labor market depression faced those in the bottom two deciles of the income distribution, a deep labor market recession prevailed among those in the middle of the distribution, and close to a full employment environment prevailed at the top. There was no labor market recession for America's affluent." According to the study, in the bottom decile of American income distributions, 50% of households are underemployed; in the second lowest decile it's 37%. In the top two income deciles (households earning over $100,000 per year), there is nearly a "full employment environment." Another way of looking at it, the lowest income group (those with an annual household income of $12,499 or less) had an unemployment rate of 30.8% during the fourth quarter of last year. That is more than five percentage points higher than the overall jobless rate at the height of the depression. Whereas the highest group (those that have a household income of $150,000 or higher) had an unemployment rate of 3.2% in the fourth quarter of last year. In the next highest group (those that make $100,000 to $149,999) had an unemployment rate of 4%.

Bob Herbert from the New York Times commented on the study and said, "The point here is that those in the lower-income groups are in a much, much deeper hole than the general commentary on the recession would lead people to believe." (Full Story)

February 10, 2010

There are reports that in recent weeks Iranian security officials have been making sweeping arrests across Iran in an effort to silence the opposition. It's believed that Iranian security officials are trying to head off widespread protests from occurring on the nation's anniversary of the revolution, which is on Thursday. According to human rights groups, people are being pulled out of bed during late night raids, and then they disappear into the penal system and their family and friends have no official information about where they're held or what they're being held for. The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, a group based in New York, estimated that in the last two months at least 1,000 people have been detained. Many have been arrested under a blanket detention order issued in June that allows the police to detain anyone for any reason.

It's been reported that the government has not arrested the principal leaders of the opposition [probably because that would garner too much attention]. However, a number of well-known reformists were already detained shortly after the contested presidential election in June. Those that have been imprisoned recently include artists, photographers, children's rights advocates, women's rights activists, students, and journalists. The two groups that seem to be targeted the most by the authorities are women's rights activists (who have years of experience in organizing a movement) and journalists. According to Reporters Without Borders, Iran now has more journalists in prison than any other country. There are at least 65 journalists in custody. A director for International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said, "We don't believe their detention has to do with any specific acts they have committed but for the ideas and ways of thinking they represent. By detaining them en masse, the government is spreading fear and intimidation, implementing a sort of a reign of terror, to dissuade potential protesters from coming out to the streets on February 11."

On Tuesday, the Revolutionary Court summoned the wife and children of an imprisoned journalist to appear as "political prisoners." This is likely connected to the the fact that the wife had recently written an open letter to the people of Iran discussing the detainment. Another group that has faced harassment by the authorities is the organization called the Mourning Mothers. This organization was founded by mothers whose children were killed by government agents during the protests after the contested election in June. Every Saturday they meet near the fountains in Laleh Park in Tehran and sit quietly. They are sometimes joined by supporters that do the same. And yet every Saturday they are chased down by the police, put into the back of police vans, and are taken to prison, according to witnesses. The director of ICHRI said, "It shows how frightened they are of their own people, when they cannot tolerate mothers who are holding a silent vigil and want accountability." (Full Story)

February 09, 2010

A Wal-Mart in Colorado is accused of discriminatory actions. Ten West African men (that were from three Wal-Mart stores in Colorado) filed a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They said they had all worked for Wal-Mart for a fear years, mostly without incident. Then after a management change, they said they started to experience discrimination. Six complainants said their new manager at the Avon store called a meeting of virtually all the West African employees and said, "I don't like some of the faces I see here. There are people in Eagle County who need jobs." Three other complainants that worked at the Glenwood Springs store said that an assistant manager also made similar comments at a meeting of mostly West African workers. They say that the assistant manager said to the West Africans, "Wow, there are a lot of Africans, and I don't like some of the faces I see here."

After this, these employees said they were repeatedly disciplined for not meeting production requirements or working fast enough. Eventually, they were all fired. Most of the workers had never previously been reprimanded. They say that non-African workers were not held to the same standards and were not subject to the same criticism. One complainant, that had been working at Wal-Mart for three years, was suddenly fired for not stocking shelves fast enough. Another, aged 61, said he was fired after supervisors told him he had to greatly increase the number of boxes he was stocking. He said he was not physically able to keep up. He said, "I worked here for more than three years and never had any complaints about my job. Now, we have all been getting fired. We felt it was racism." A former assistant manager at the store in Avon, who quit because the job became too stressful, said her supervisors had pressured her to discipline the West African men for not working fast enough, even though she believed they were performing well. She said, "They were trying to get most of the Africans out. A lot of them had been there for a long time. They weren't being treated right."

All 10 of the complainants, who are also Muslim, said they were also refused short prayer breaks -- while other White and Hispanic workers were permitted unscheduled cigarette breaks. All of the complainants are seeking back pay. Wal-Mart denied the prayer break accusation and a spokesman for the company said that Wal-Mart follows the law with respect to requests for religious accommodation. The spokesman also denied that the West Africans had been singled out for discipline; he said many other workers had been laid off as well. He added, "Since that time, the Avon store has continued to hire and promote West African associates" and that three West Africans were promoted to supervisory positions last year.

This isn't the first time Wal-Mart has been accused of discriminatory actions. Since the mid-1990s, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed about 60 employment-discrimination lawsuits against Wal-Mart. Last year, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $17.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of African-Americans applying for jobs as truck drivers who said they were discriminated again. Currently, the company is facing the largest employment-discrimination class-action lawsuit in American history. It's a sexual-discrimination lawsuit brought on behalf of more than 1.5 million women who are current or former employees. (Full Story)

February 08, 2010

Interesting article on Pakistan's "third gender". This community of transsexuals and hermaphrodites is known as "khusra" in Pakistan. Transgender people often view themselves as women born in a man's body, or vice versa. However, in Pakistan and other south Asian countries, they view themselves as neither sex -- a third sex. This community is fighting for recognition and rights. A lawyer filed a petition at the Supreme Court in 2009 in an attempt to stop discrimination against khusra in employment, health care, housing, and other rights. The hearings by the court over the past year has been bringing attention to their cause and could help bring them into the mainstream. The court suggested that authorities consider adding a third gender option to state-issued identity cards (which is a big step for conservative Pakistan). The proposal was inspired by India, whose election commission ruled last year that transgender people could register to vote as "other" instead of male or female. The Supreme Court of Pakistan also ruled, in an attempt to tackle police harassment, that authorities must send them copies of the case files of any khusra arrested. Moreover, the court issued orders to guarantee khusra free health care and their right to inheritance, which is sometimes denied to them by families who have rejected them. The court will hold more hearings, and they have asked provincial governments to provide progress reports on what steps they are taking to improve the khusra's situation.

Those in the khusra community say that since the Supreme Court took notice of their cause their situation has improved, but that members of the community still face harassment and violence. (Full Story)

---

Costa Rica has elected their first female president, Laura Chinchilla. (Full Story)

---

Australia is planning a change to their immigration policies. With the current system, Australia has a list of 106 skills in demand and that helps to determine permanent residency. However, the immigration minister said the current trend is for new arrivals to take culinary or hairdressing courses to gain residency. He explained, "We had tens of thousand of students studying cookery and accounting and hairdressing because that was on the list and that got them through to permanent residency. We want to make sure we're getting high-end applications." The plan is to get rid of the list of 106 skills in demand and instead use a points test to assess migrants. The immigration minister said they're especially looking for health workers, engineers, and miners. Australia's mining industry is struggling to find staff as major firms expand to meet China's growing demand for raw materials.

The new rules will also favor applicants who already have job offers over those who merely have qualifications or who are studying. This is expected to cause a big decrease in enrollment at Australian universities by foreign students hoping to settle in the country. Previously (starting in 2001), students were able to apply for permanent residency while studying. The new rules will cost the education sector, which takes in $12 billion a year from foreign student fees.

The immigration minister said that all "lower-skilled" applications submitted before September 1, 2007, when English language skills and work experience requirements were easier, would have their applications withdrawn and application fees refunded (which is worth a total of $12.15 million USD). Wow, Australia. That is cold. They have to remember that it takes all kinds to run a country. (Full Story)

February 07, 2010

The Department of Defense has reported that the morning-after pill will now be available at all of its hospitals and health clinics around the world. The decision was recommended by the Pentagon's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee, which had voted to include Plan B and the generic Next Choice on the list of drugs that all military facilities should stock. The Pentagon accepted the committee's recommendation. Nancy Keenan from NARAL Pro-Choice America, which estimates that this decision will affect 350,000 women in the military, said, "It's a tragedy that women in uniform have been denied such basic health care. We applaud the medical experts for standing up for military women."

The same panel made a similar recommendation in 2002, when George W. Bush was president, but the policy was never implemented. This decision to allow the morning-after pill is the latest the Obama administration has made in reversing women's health policies that were implemented by George W. Bush. The Obama administration has already overturned a federal regulation that would expand the ability of health care workers to deny care they found morally objectionable (including abortion and Plan B), he's lifted federal restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research, and he overturned the policy (sometimes referred to as the "global gag rule") that forced international family-planning groups to not perform nor promote the option of abortion services if they wanted to receive any federal funding. (Full Story)

February 06, 2010

In an effort to fight against the growing problem of obesity, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working on a campaign to encourage manufacturers of food products to place vital nutritional information on the front of the food package (though FDA officials say that labeling will be voluntary -- though the agency may set rules to prevent companies from highlighting the good stuff about the product while ignoring the bad). The hope is that if people see the nutritional information, it will motivate them to eat less or not eat the product (i.e., make healthy choices).

However, one problem to that plan is that nutritional information listed on the packaging can sometimes be misleading, and that's because serving sizes are often too small [and it's completely on purpose. The companies are definitely trying to manipulate or trick the consumers]. The serving size determines all the other nutritional value on the label. As a result, calorie counts can be deceptively lower, if people don't pay careful attention to the label. For example, most potato or corn chip bags today show a one ounce serving size, containing about 150 calories. But very few people only eat an ounce of chips. For the brand Tostitos Hint of Lime, one ounce equals six chips. For ice cream, the serving size is half a cup. For packaged muffins, it is often half a muffin. For cookies, it usually one ounce which can amount to two Double Stuf Oreos. For most children's cereal a serving is three-fourths of a cup; however, children usually eat two cups or more. A survey conducted by the Food Information Council Foundation found that many more people say they look at the calorie number rather than the serving size on which it is based.

As a result, the FDA is now looking at bringing serving sizes into accordance with how Americans really eat [in other words: Serving Size: The whole bag of chips). They want a more accurate and meaningful portion size. Standard serving sizes were first created by the FDA in the early 1990s in order to make it easier to compare nutritional values of different products. Congress had required that the serving sizes should match what people actually ate. To determine that, the FDA evaluated surveys of Americans' eating habits that were taken in the 1970s and 1980s. Some nutritionists says these surveys might not accurately indicate Americans' eating habits since people typically underestimate how much they eat. Moreover, many say that this information is out of date. The FDA has said they plan on re-evaluating serving sizes. This is not the first time they have made that vow -- they said they would in 2005, but it didn't ever happen. The effort has been revived again by the Obama administration.

Some officials worry that raising the standard portions for food products could send the wrong message. There is a fear that, for example, raising the serving size for cookies from one ounce to two ounces, that some consumers might think that the government was telling them that it's okay to eat more. (Full Story)

February 05, 2010

Interesting and heartbreaking article on food shortages in North Korea. U.N. officials say that millions of children and elderly people are at risk as a result of the shortages. According to a Seoul-based aid and human rights group called "Good Friends", two people a day die from hunger in South Hamgyong province. This week Kim Jong Il made a rare acknowledgement of his state's failure to provide food for its citizens. He said, "I am heartbroken by the fact that our people are living on corn. What I must do now is feed them white rice, bread, and noodles generously."

However, it is believed that the likelihood of him being able to improve nutrition in his country in the short term doesn't look good. South Korean officials have said that North Korea will probably face severe food shortages this spring as a result of a poor harvest this past fall. Adding to the food shortage problems is that last year North Korea unilaterally canceled an aid agreement with the United States that would have brought in 500,000 tons of food. In addition, for the past two years South Korea has refused to deliver large amounts of free food and fertilizer because North Korea has not gotten rid of their nuclear weapons.

There is also food shortages in the army. North Korean army commanders met with government officials a few weeks ago to discuss how to obtain more food for the troops. The priority of feeding the army affects the rest of the population. The army, which has 1.2 million soldiers, normally has first dibs on food that is grown in state-owned cooperative farms. They take as much as a quarter of the crop before it is distributed to civilians.

Further adding to the problem is that the capacity of private markets to supply food to North Korea has also taken a hit because of government-ordered currency revaluation in December. This disrupted market trading and caused inflation -- which drove up the price of rice and other commodities. The disastrous currency revaluation has been blamed on Pak Nam Gi, the head of planning and economy for the Workers' Party. He recently was fired. Outsiders believe he is a scapegoat. Furthermore, the head of the government bureaucracy that focuses on making money for the Kim family ("Room 39") has also been fired (though some believe it might actually be a result of the EU recently blacklisting him and thus he can no longer travel freely in Europe). South Korea's National Intelligence Service reported that North Korea has now recognized the social upheaval in their country caused by the currency revaluation and they are now easing curbs on black market trading to limit discontent. (Full Story)

February 04, 2010

The Chinese government has removed the University of Calgary from its list of accredited institutions. School officials think this move is connected to the university hosting the Dalai Lama last fall and awarding him an honorary degree. Though the Dalai Lama did not go to the campus. The university said they're concerned about what impact this will have on Chinese students that are currently working towards a degree, as well as those that have already obtained their degree. A spokeswoman for the university said, "Our biggest concern is we don't want to disadvantage current or prospective students or our alumni." The university currently has about 600 students from mainland China and Hong Kong. The Chinese government has not given the university an explanation for why they have removed their accreditation. A spokeswoman for the Chinese consulate in Calgary would not respond to questions about why the government removed the university's name from their list of accredited schools. Though she said that the University of Calgary "should know [why]."(Full Story)

---

Human Rights Watch has reported that Libya is censoring the internet. They have blocked several foreign-based sites reporting on Libya, opposition websites, and YouTube, among others. It's believed that the government started blocking sites on January 24th. Internet users were initially told this was a result of technical problems. Human Rights Watch said, "Libya can stick its head in the sand and try to block the free flow of electronic information to its citizens, but the good news is we all know they'll fail. Whether in China or Saudi Arabia or Libya, citizens will always find ways to exchange knowledge and information, with or without their government's consent. " A step-by-step guide on how to access the blocked YouTube site in Libya has already emerged on Facebook in Libya. Moreover, a Facebook group called "We Want YouTube Back in Libya" has been set up and already has 2,000 fans. (Full Story)

Hopefully the next step for the Libyan government won't be to ban Facebook.

---

Switzerland has offered asylum to two ethnic Uighur Chinese inmates from Guantanamo Bay. Switzerland said they made this decision for humanitarian reasons. These Uighurs cannot be repatriated to China because there is a risk that they would be mistreated and persecuted there. These two Uighurs, as well as 20 others, were captured in Afghanistan, and held at Guantanamo Bay. However, after an investigation, they have been described as not posing a risk, and Obama has ordered their release. The U.S. has found homes in various different countries for these Uighurs. China says that all Guantanamo Uighurs are terrorists, and should be returned to China to 'face justice'. In response to Switzerland's decision, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said, "The position of Switzerland will surely undermine China-Switzerland relations." (Full Story)

I think China just has one form for press releases...

February 03, 2010

The French government has refused to grant citizenship to a foreign national because he forced his wife to wear the full Islamic veil. This comes a week after a parliamentary committee proposed a partial ban on full veils and recommended that anyone showing "radical religious practices" be denied residence permits and citizenship. The man, whose current nationality was not given, was applying for citizenship to settle in the country with his French wife. The Immigration Minister said in a statement that he signed a decree that rejected the man's citizenship application. He explained, "It became apparent during the regulation investigation and the prior interview that this person was compelling his wife to wear the all-covering veil, depriving her of the freedom to come and go with her face uncovered, and rejected the principles of secularism and equality between men and women." The minister also stressed that French law requires anyone seeking naturalization to demonstrate their desire for integration. The decree has now been sent to Prime Minister Francois Fillon for approval. (Full Story)

I don't think anyone should be forced to wear a veil or head scarf if they don't want to. That is terrible and goes against that woman's rights. But I'm curious how it was determined that this man was forcing his wife to wear the veil. Does wanting his wife to wear the veil necessarily mean that his wife doesn't want to wear it, as well? I'm just wondering if the citizenship denial was more a result of him forcing his wife to wear a veil, or that he simply believes in the full veil. I'm also curious how one "demonstrates" to the French government their desire for integration when seeking naturalization.

I don't think women should have to wear veils. I think the fact that women have to wear veils and not males is unfair and I believe this dress code originates from ideas that women are lesser than men. And I am a secular person, and I know that affects how I view things. With that said, I don't believe it's right to force someone to not wear a veil or head scarf. If a woman wants to wear a veil or a head scarf, and they feel it is an important part of their religion and an important part of who they are, they should be allowed to. The French government shouldn't force them to not wear it. I think that will only alienate this population even more. History and research has often shown that immigration to a new country usually does result in assimilation. Usually by the second or third generation, the family has taken on the culture and the language. Some because they wanted to and wanted to fit in to their new surroundings. Some because they felt they had to. And it can be sad to see families lose their cultural heritage by the second or third generation (e.g., the children do not know the language or do not practice the same customs). There seems to be a fear in France that immigrants won't assimilate and there will be this radical Muslim population taking over (same with the U.S. and the fear of too many immigrants from Latin America) . But, most likely, after living in France for a couple of years, they will in fact start to take on French ideals and culture. And, really, who says there has to be complete integration into a culture once you immigrate there? Many immigrants can take on French ideals while still holding on to their cultural beliefs. Isn't it possible that French Muslim citizens can take on French culture and ideals, while being a practicing Muslim that wears a veil? Some might say that wearing a veil goes against the French ideal of gender equality and that the veil is a symbol of women's mistreatment. But there are women that wear veils that don't feel that way at all. Plus, there are only about 1,900 women in France that wear full veils. My guess is that number will dwindle as time goes on because of assimilation through the generations (and because of self-selection, the type of people that are immigrating to France are probably not as religiously conservative). France's actions of banning headscarves in public schools, looking into banning veils in public (it has been recommended by a parliamentary committee and is being considered now), denying citizenship to Muslims that show "radical religious practices", and other policies that hinder Muslim practices is simply causing a bigger rift between Muslims French citizens and non-Muslim French citizens -- which could hinder, not help, assimilation. France's actions are counter-productive to their goals. Instead their actions are causing tension, nationalism, and bigotry.

February 02, 2010

Look out, here comes some more threats of damaged relations from China. This time (which is nothing new), a senior Chinese official strongly warned President Obama not to meet with the Dalai Lama. White House officials have said that Obama plans to meet with the Dalai Lama early this year. The senior Chinese official said that any country would suffer consequences if their leaders met with the Dalai Lama (who China considers as a dangerous separatist). The official did not elaborate on what actions China would take. In late 2008 China had protested the president of France (Sarkozy) meeting with the Dalai Lama, and threatened economic sanctions against France. But those never materialized. (Full Story)

I hope Obama does meet with the Dalai Lama and doesn't bend to the will of China -- like last November when Obama declined to meet with the Dalai Lama in order to prevent angering China before his first trip to Beijing that took place that same month.

---

"President Obama has decided not to attend a United States-European Union summit meeting schedule for Madrid in May, and European Union officials found out about the decision through news outlets late on Monday, senior European officials said Tuesday morning... The White House explained the decision as a matter of scheduling, insisting that the May visit to Europe was never on the president's agenda, so it could not be said to have been canceled." (Full Story)

It sounds like Obama is the aloof, unavailable boyfriend that breaks up with his girlfriend over facebook.

---

The Pope has spoken out against a UK Equality Bill that would ban discrimination in employment, services, and education. The Pope is opposed to the bill because it could end the right of the church to ban gay people from being hired as staff (not including the positions of priest or minister). He said the bill "violates natural law", and he urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the bill with "missionary zeal." The Pope said the bill "impose[s] unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs." There is a fear among some Catholics that gay people will be able to hold senior positions. A Catholic MP said, "This isn't a debate about homosexuality, this is a debate about religious freedom... If a faith teaches, as major faiths do, that something is wrong, then quite clearly you cannot have somebody who believes that it's right actually occupying a very senior position." A Liberal Democrat MP, who sits on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said, "Religious people can be reassured that there is nothing in the Equality Bill which imposes gay priests on religions, but it does protect the general workforce from prejudiced employers."

Critics of the Pope's stance say that the Church shouldn't be exempt from the Equality Bill. There should be no exception when it comes to discrimination. A human rights campaigner said of the Pope, "His ill-informed claim that our equality laws undermine religious freedom suggests that he supports the right of churches to discriminate in accordance with their religious ethos. He seems to be defending discrimination by religious institutions and demanding that they should be above the law." Critics argue that the Catholic Church should be preaching about ending discrimination, not perpetuating it. Some say they will oppose the Pope's visit to the UK later in the year. The National Secular Society president said, "The taxpayer in this country is going to be faced with a bill of some 20 million pounds for the visit of the Pope -- a visit in which he has already indicated he will attack equal rights and promote discrimination." (Full Story)