March 31, 2010

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

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

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

---

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

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

March 30, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 29, 2010

To follow up on this story, Myanmar's main opposition party, the National League for Democracy (the party of Aung San Suu Kyi), says it will not take part in the country's upcoming election. They have decided not to register because of "unjust" electoral laws. The party's refusal to register means the NLD will no longer be legally recognized. The BBC South East Asia correspondent said the party's decision to boycott the upcoming election, rather than dropping Suu Kyi as their charismatic leader in order to participate in the election, was largely expected. If the party would have taken part in the election, it would have implied that they accepted the new elections laws and, more importantly, the military's constitution -- which the party has so far refused to do.

Some senior leaders of the NLD worried about the decision to not participate in the election. There is fear that the party will be rendered irrelevant, and that without a party they will have no power. However, proponents of not registering said if the party would have participated in the election, their actions would be constrained by the military. In addition, party leaders say that the decision to boycott the elections does not mean the end of the party. The deputy leader of the party said, "There are many peaceful ways to continue our activities." The party's decision to boycott the elections will definitely raise international concerns about the legitimacy of the upcoming elections (no date has been set yet by the military junta). (Full Story)

---

As if there was any doubt that insurance corporations are terrible, they go and prove us right again. Just days after Obama signed the new health care law, insurance companies are arguing that the wording of the law means they do not have to cover children with pre-existing conditions until 2014. One part of the law was coverage for children with pre-existing conditions and it's supposed to be implemented in September 2010. Obama said at a health care rally last week, "Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions." The law was meant to ban all forms of discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions like asthma, diabetes, birth defects, and leukemia. The lawmakers' goal was to provide kids with access to insurance and full benefits. However, insurance companies are arguing that the law says if they insure someone, they have to provide coverage of pre-existing conditions for children covered in the policy -- BUT -- they say the law doesn't require them to sell insurance to somebody with a pre-existing condition until 2014 (starting in January 2014, the health care law requires health plans to accept everyone who applies for coverage). Insurance companies say the law that takes effect in September does not include a "guaranteed issue" requirement -- which means until 2014 they can continue to deny coverage for those with pre-existing conditions by simply not selling them insurance.

The law says that healths plans and insurers offering individual or group coverage "may not impose any pre-existing condition exclusion with respect to such plan or coverage" for children under 19. The lawmakers say the intention of the law is to provide children with access to insurance and then a full range of benefits once they are in the health plan. But insurers say the wording only indicates that children cannot be denied full benefits once they are in a plan. In the past, insurers have often limited coverage of pre-existing conditions sold in the individual insurance market. For example, an insurer might cover a family of four, including a child with a heart defect, but the policy would exclude treatment of that condition (in other words, 'We're covering you, but we're not really covering you. We're not covering the thing that will actually cost money.') As of September, insurance companies will not be allowed to exclude treatment of a specific condition. However, that's only part of the problem if insurers are refusing to sell insurance to people with pre-existing conditions (or children with pre-existing conditions) until 2014.

Congressional Democrats were furious to learn that insurance companies are questioning the interpretation of their law. Representative Harry Waxman (D-CA) said, "The concept that insurance companies would even seek to deny children coverage exemplifies why we fought for this reform." Senator John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV) said, "The ink has not yet dried on the health care reform bill, and already some deplorable health insurance companies are trying to duck away from covering children with pre-existing conditions. This is outrageous." A research professor at the Health Policy Institute at Georgetown University pointed out, "If you have a sick kid, the individual insurance market will continue to be a scary place." A White House spokesman said the administration planned to issue regulations that makes their views clear that "the term 'pre-existing' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in a plan." But lawyers have said the rules could be challenged in court if they went beyond the law or were inconsistent with it.

Until January 2014, people with pre-existing conditions could seek coverage in high-risk insurance pools run by states or by the secretary of health and human services. The new law provides $5 billion to help pay claims filed by people in these pools. (Full Story)

And tell me again why driving these despicable insurance companies out of business with a public option is a bad idea?!

March 28, 2010

The political party of Iraq's current prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki lost the recent election. Ayad Allawi and his Iraqiya Party got a plurality with 91 parliamentary seats compared with 89 for Maliki's State of Law party (in addition to more seats, Allawi's party also got the most popular votes). Mr. Allawi is a secular Shiite, and his Iraqiya Party included Sunnis; his list won heavily in the Sunni parts of the country. Mr. Maliki's Shiite party went up against other religious Shiite parties, which ended up splitting the vote of the Shiites (who make up 60% of the population). Neither candidate won enough seats to have a majority in Parliament (that would require 163 seats). In the days before the election, it was widely assumed that whichever candidate won the most seats would be given the first attempt to form a government (i.e., to form a parliamentary coalition -- by joining forces with other elected candidates from other parties -- to get enough seats to have a majority) and be given 30 days to do so. Because Ayad Allawi's party got the most seats, it was expected that he would be the new prime minister and would form the new government. Allawi was the former interim prime minister of Iraq. However, Maliki is contesting the election results -- despite the United Nations, the elections commission, and international observers having declared the election legitimate.

Minutes after the UN and the Independent High Electoral Commission announced the election results on Friday, Maliki went on television to counterattack. He said "No way will we accept the results." He vowed to fight back. He also said that some members of Parliament elected on Mr. Allawi's list "are terrorists held in Iraqi prisons." (The top political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq said that U.S. officials had no knowledge backing that claim). Some worry that Maliki might forcibly hold on to power or stage a coup, but American officials said they are confident he will behave lawfully.

On Thursday, a day before the official election results were announced, Maliki quietly persuaded the Iraqi Supreme Court to issue a ruling that potentially allows him to choose a new government instead of Ayad Allawi. The court's ruling, which was made quickly and with little explanation, stated that the leader of the bloc with the most followers once Parliament convenes -- probably in June -- would be the one to form a government. That gives both candidates until June to win over candidates from other alliances. In other words, Allawi would not be given the chance to form a government now, despite getting a plurality in the election -- instead Allawi and Maliki have to "square off" to win over candidates to their blocs and whoever has the most in June gets to form the government. Legal experts have said the court's ruling is binding. Mr. Allawi was also dismissive of the legal challenge. He said, "The Iraqi people have honored the Iraqiya list and chose it to be the basis of forming the next government."

In addition, officials from the government's Accountability and Justice Commission that are in charge of purging the government of former members of the Baath Party (Saddam Hussein's party) said on Saturday that they still expected to disqualify more than 50 political candidates, many of whom are members of Allawi's Iraqiya Party. The election commission has still not released the names of the winning candidates, only their total numbers by party affiliation, so it is unclear how many of the 52 potentially disqualified candidates are among the winners. An Iraqiya lawmaker said if any of their winning candidates are disqualified, they will be replaced by another Iraqiya candidate. The deputy head of the electoral commission also said that would probably be the outcome, and that it's up to the electoral commission to decide in cases like that. However, the executive director of the Accountability and Justice commission said the party cannot just replace a candidate. He said the votes for the disqualified candidate and his list will be nullified completely. If this happened, it could strip Allawi's plurality (his party currently holds only two more seats than Maliki's party).

And if all that does not work in Maliki's favor, he can call for a recount. Maliki said he plans to file an appeal for a recount, even though international observers said the election was valid. Ultimately, the Supreme Court of Iraq -- which has proved to be friendly to Maliki in the past, despite being nominally independent -- will decide the recount issue. The top political officer in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, Gary Grappo, said that Maliki and his supporters are "still going to take advantage of all the means at their disposal to eke out a victory. They're all politicians."

Iraqi and international analysts had predicted that even if the election process went according to schedule, the earliest that a new government will probably be formed is July. However, all the likely legal disputes will further set the process back. This raises the prospect of Iraq remaining under a caretaker government still led by Maliki. (Full Story)

March 26, 2010

On Thursday, agents from Venezuela's military intelligence agency arrested Guillermo Zuloaga, the owner of the independent television network Globovision. He is also one of President Hugo Chavez's most influential critics. The Attorney General said he was arrested in connection with comments he made this month at the Inter American Press Association Meeting that were considered false and "offensive" to Chavez. Mr. Zuloaga criticized methods used by the Chavez government to shut down news outlets and was quoted as saying the country lacked freedom of expression (in the ultimate irony, he was arrested for saying the country lacked freedom of expression). Mr. Zuloaga was released several hours after being arrested and was told not to leave the country while the investigation continued. International human rights groups and the Organization of American States had pressed for his release while he was being held. He could face prison terms of three to five months for comments considered offensive to the president, and three to five years for the charge of divulging false information.

There have been growing concerns about Venezuela's crackdowns on news organizations and political opponents. The government's approach to dealing with Chavez's critics has grown increasingly harsh. News outlets face sharp penalties if they are deemed to be inciting disorder. Chavez recently pulled a television network (RCTV) that was critical of him off the airwaves. President Chavez has been facing an increasing amount of public criticism as a result of the continuing electricity blackouts and the faltering economy. A leading rights lawyer said, "This is about the criminalization of opinion. It is an extremely grave matter."

Earlier this week, prior to Mr. Zuloaga's arrest, a high-profile opposition political figure, Oswaldo Alvarez Paz, was also arrested for making critical comments of the Chavez government. His comments were broadcast on Globovision. Mr. Paz had said that he supported claims by one of Spain's top judges that Venezuelan officials had helped ETA (the armed Basque separatist group) train with leftist Colombian guerillas. Mr. Paz also said that Venezuela has become a center for drug trafficking in South America (an assertion that has also been made by independent media investigations). Mr. Paz has been charged with conspiracy and spreading false information. (Full Story)

---

A prominent Chinese scholar (who is also a poet and film critic), Cui Weiping, was prohibited by her country from traveling to the U.S. for an academic visit. She was planning on giving a lecture at Harvard University and attending a conference for the Association for Asian Studies in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The director of her university told her this week that she had been forbidden to travel. Ms Cui said, "I was told I had classes to teach and that the lecture I was giving was not my specialty, but those were just excuses." [That seems crazy to be told you're not allowed to go to a conference or give a guest lecture because the lecture is not your specialty. Who are they to decide that? We take for granted how easily U.S. academics and students are able to travel to go to conferences and to present papers]. She said she was barred from leaving China as punishment for her commentary on human rights and free speech, and it's an attempt to put pressure on her.

She said "the authorities" have repeatedly rebuked her for posting social criticism on her blog, sponsoring a seminar on the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, and twittering about the jailing of Liu Xiaobo (a writer who was convicted of subversion last year for demanding increased liberties in a widely circulated petition). Ms. Cui was punished previously for her writings by having academic officials cancel her guest lectures across China. In addition, during last year's 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests, two carloads of police officers spent several days parked outside her apartment. "Until now, I didn't want to talk about these incidents, but now that they are limiting my academic freedom, I have to speak out," she said. She added, "It really doesn't make sense to do this [to restrict her travel]. In fact, it's stupid. Everyone at the conference knows I've been forbidden from attending. This is just hurting China's national image." Checkmate.

This is not the first time Chinese officials have used travel restrictions to punish those who speak out against the government. Earlier this month, Liao Yiwu (a writer and critic of the government) was removed from his plane and prohibited from going to a German literary festival. Other scholars and writers, including Tsering Woeser (a Tibetan essayist), have repeatedly been denied a passport. (Full Story)

March 25, 2010

The law that legalizes same-sex marriage and adoption in Mexico City goes into effect today. Mexico City's passage of this law has angered the Catholic Church and the president of Mexico (President Calderon and his conservative National Action Party). Mexico allows the federal district of Mexico City to pass their own laws, and Mexico City's center-left Democratic Revolution Party (PRD) has been able to advance liberal legislation. In recent years, Mexico City's PRD-dominated Legislative Assembly has recognized civil unions, instituted no-fault divorce, legalized abortion in the first trimester, and gave terminally ill patients the right to refuse treatment. Now they have legalized same-sex marriage and legalized gay people to adopt -- a first in Latin America.

Many gay couples in Mexico City are planning on getting married. Mexican actress Jesusa Rodriguez will marry her partner after 30 years together. Another couple planning to get married -- Reyna and Sandra -- expressed their happiness that the new law grants equality and security. Reyna and Sandra have been together 36 years. Reyna, who is a literature professor, has cancer and is on chemotherapy. She said, "This way, [Sandra] is protected. She will get my pension, our house, everything from the life we built together."

Advocates of the law say that there has been no popular backlash against the law. A Mexican intellectual said, "There has been a campaign by the church and the right, but not by the people. There is still a lot of machismo, but not as much as there used to be -- and not nearly as much as people believed." An opinion poll in November by El Universal newspaper found that 50% of Mexico City respondents accepted gay marriage and 38% opposed it. Residents aged 18 to 39 were more likely to be supporters. In a completely-legitimate-I'm-sure survey by Calderon's conservative party found that more than half of those polled opposed same-sex marriage and 74% oppose adoption by gay couples.

Critics of the law have promised to challenge same-sex marriage. Gay rights activists fear there will be a backlash and that conservative provincial leaders will chip away at same-sex marriage. For example, after abortion was legalized, states altered their constitutions to say that life begins at conception. There also are concerns among gay couples and activists about the legal complications with binational couples. For instance, one couple that plans to wed includes a Mexican native and a California native. When they get married, their marriage will not be recognized in California. This can effect benefits and also citizenship. Mexicans who marry partners from countries that recognize same-sex marriage, such as Spain and Canada, could ask for citizenship; but their spouses would not be eligible for the same in Mexico. One gay rights activist said, "If a heterosexual couple gets married, they're automatically eligible for citizenship." Still, advocates say the law is a significant milestone and a very important first step forward. (Full Story)

March 24, 2010

The Arizona Legislature gave preliminary approval of a provision that would allow the police to arrest illegal immigrants on trespassing charges simply for being in the state. The provision is part of a larger bill on illegal immigrants. The sponsors of the bill say they hope to make life tougher for illegal immigrants. The House bill must be reconciled with a version passed by the Senate -- this could happen within the next week or two. The governor, a Republican who is seeking re-election, had indicated her support for the bill. However, her spokesman said she would not take a position until the final bill reaches her desk.

Both bills include measures that make it illegal to hire day laborers off the street, prohibits anyone from knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant anywhere in the state (even if it's a relative), and compelling local police to check the status of people they "reasonably suspect" are in the country illegally. What, exactly, results in 'reasonable' suspicion? Brown skin? And stopping people on the street to check to see if they're "legal" seems unconstitutional. This pretty much just translates into discrimination against Latinos. Plus, the rule that prohibits anyone from knowingly transporting an illegal immigrant is absolutely absurd. They're going to make that a crime? They're not just talking about transporting immigrants across the border, they're talking about simply transporting an illegal immigrant anywhere in the state. Like taking them to a lawyer's office, a doctor, a grocery store, etc. What will the punishment be for these transporters?

Immigrant advocates say this is some of the harshest legislation they have seen on the issue. This wide-ranging bill is a first in the nation. Civil libertarians say this legislation could open the door for racial-profiling and the ACLU says the bill is unconstitutional. Several police chiefs and sheriffs have also criticized the bill, saying that it is burdensome and impractical. They also said the measure would scare immigrants out of cooperating with investigations and reporting crimes.

The chief sponsor of the legislation, Republican State Senator Russell Pearce, brushes aside any criticism of the bill. He said the bill gives the police a tool to compensate for lax enforcement of immigration law by the federal authorities (there it is, blaming the federal government. Without fail.). I don't think the problem is "lax enforcement", I think what he really means is that the federal immigration laws aren't crazy, racist, or unconstitutional enough for his liking. He also said that the Arizona police do not have to arrest every illegal immigrant on trespassing charges, it just gives them that discretion. Oh, well that makes me feel better... that they have the authority to arrest every illegal immigrant if they wanted, but they won't necessarily arrest everyone. That makes me feel a lot better. Mr. Pearce also said, "American citizens have a constitutional right to expect their rights and laws to be enforced." But you're making this law. It's not like this was a law before that wasn't being enforced -- you're making it a law to arrest people for transporting illegal immigrants; you're making it a law to allow police to stop anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant and arrest them for trespassing. So don't act like this is all an attempt to enforce the constitution. And I don't think it's a constitutional right to have racist, discriminatory, privacy-breaking laws. I hope this legislation fails. And if it passes, I hope it's not really enforced. (Full Story)

---

A Mississippi high school canceled their prom instead of letting a lesbian student attend with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) sued the school district and wanted the district to put the prom back on and allow Constance McMillen to attend (and be allowed to wear a tuxedo). The school district said they canceled the prom because McMillen's challenge to the rules had caused disruptions. The superintendent said they decided to cancel it "after taking into consideration the education, safety, and well-being of our students." [How are any of those things affected by the sight of a girl in a tuxedo?!] A federal judge ruled that the school district's actions did violate McMillen's constitutional rights. The judge noted that McMillen has been openly gay for several years and that she intended to communicate a message by wearing a tuxedo and escorting a same-sex date. The judge said, "The court finds this expression and communication falls squarely within the purview of of the First Amendment." He said he will hold a trial on the issue. However, the judge did stop short of forcing the school district to put the prom back on, as the ACLU had wanted. Still, the ACLU Mississippi legal director called the court decision a victory.

In the aftermath of the decision, McMillen said that she faced a lot of hostility and comments from other students, and it has led to her missing school. A private prom is being planned by parents (what an alliteration!), and McMillen is trying to decide if she will attend or not. She said, "I'm going to school tomorrow (Wednesday) and will get a feel of how everybody feels about me. That will help me make my decision about whether I'm going to the private prom. I want to go because all my junior and senior class will be there, but I don't want to be somewhere I'm not welcomed." That just breaks my heart.

I like what a senior scholar from The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center (another alliteration) said about this case, "This case is different because this is not just a dress, it is a higher claim of personal identity. I think that if the student prevails in this case, it will send a message to school districts that they need to accommodate students now who are openly gay and lesbian and want to participate in student activities." (Full Story)

This case reminds me of when East High School in Salt Lake City, Utah banned all student clubs not related to the curriculum in an attempt to block a gay-straight alliance club from being formed. And, of course, they were sued and had to allow the clubs. It's sad when schools or organizations go to such lengths to hinder lesbians and gay people from being open and participating in events.

March 23, 2010

Interesting article on India's skin-whitening industry. The Indian whitening cream market is expanding at a rate of 18% a year. The figure is estimated to rise to about 25% this year, and the market will be worth an all-time high of $432 million. The sale of whitening creams are surpassing the sales of Coca-cola and tea. This phenomenon is being referred to as the "Snow White syndrome" in India.

There is a demand in India for brides and grooms with fair complexions. It is believed that this demand is fueled by India's reality TV shows, where being fair-skinned, lovely, and handsome means instant stardom. The assumption is that the lighter the skin, the more attractive you are. Bollywood actors and stars are even endorsing skin-lightening products and are the brand ambassadors for these products.

A recent study by Hindustan Unilever (one of the makers of skin-lightening cream) found that men in southern states like Tamil Nadu and Kerala are big purchasers of these creams. For example, this past year Tamil Nadu had the highest number of sales for Narayanan, a cream from Unilever. Another report in the daily Economic Times found that sale of these creams were high in tribal-dominated states. Experts say there is demand for these creams because of the tendency to discriminate against a person based on their skin color -- this discrimination is still widespread across rural India.

Doctors worry about the effect of these creams on people's skin, especially since many of these creams contain steroids. However, doctors' concerns are often overlooked by the public. The head of the dermatology department at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences said, "Very few know that many of these creams contain steroids. Whatever doctors say will always be a drop in the ocean, as advertisements flooding the market have a far larger impact on the minds of people." (Full Story)

---

Aung San Suu Kyi says she opposes her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD), participating in the upcoming elections in Myanamar because of their unjust laws. She said the NLD should "not even think" of taking part in the election. Myanmar's leaders have said they will hold elections this year -- the first time in two decades. However no date has been set. Just in time for this fair, democratic election, Myanmar recently enacted election laws which prevent people with criminal charges from being a member of a political party or voting. The laws also ban civil servants and members of religious orders from joining political parties. This is most likely in response to the fact that Buddhist monks were the driving force behind the anti-junta protests in 2007. Protesting Buddhist monks continue to be a thorn in the military junta's side. The election laws have been criticized internationally, and the U.S. had said the laws were a setback for political dialogue in the country.

Because of the new election laws, Aung San Suu Kyi cannot take part in the elections. In addition to Ms. Suu Kyi, many of the top NLD leaders will not be able to participate because they have been jailed on political charges. The NLD won the last elections in 1990, but they were never allowed to take power and Ms. Suu Kyi has been detained in some form for the past two decades.

Ms. Suu Kyi said she would allow the NLD to make their own decision despite her opposition. Her lawyer said on her behalf, "She will never accept registration under unjust laws, but her personal opinion is not to give orders nor instructions to the NLD." The NLD are planning on meeting next week to decide whether to participate in the elections. (Full Story)

March 22, 2010

A report by the American Association of University Women (and supported by the National Science Foundation) has found that stereotypes and cultural biases continue to impede women's progress in the sciences (specifically in the STEM fields: science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). For their report, they reviewed decades of applicable research studies. One study of postdoctoral applicants found that women had to publish three more papers in prestigious journals or 20 more in less-known publications to be judged as productive as male applicants. They also found studies that concluded that girls' performance suffers from any suggestion that they're not as good at math. In one experiment, college students with strong math backgrounds and similar abilities were divided into two groups and given a math test. One group was told that men perform better on the test, while the other was told there was no gender difference in the performance. In the group that was told that men do better, men indeed do better -- the men had an average score of 25 while the women's score was 5. In the group that was told there was no difference, women scored 17 and men 19. Another study found that any suggestion of advantage based on gender affects results, even where there is no cultural stereotype. In this experiment, the researchers tested men and women's "contrast sensitivity ability" -- which is a skill they made up. When men and women were in a group that was told there was no difference between the sexes in this ability, they rated their own ability equally. But the group that was told that men were better at this ability, men rated their skills far higher than women did.

Women are also underrepresented in the STEM fields. Harvard just tenured their first female math professor, after 375 years. The report found that women are earning a growing share of the doctorates in the STEM fields, but they do not show up a decade later in a proportionate number of tenured faculty positions. In a survey of 1,200 female and minority chemists and chemical engineers, two-thirds cited the persistent stereotype that STEM fields are not for girls or minorities as the leading contributor to their underrepresentation. Many in the survey said that they had been discouraged from going into their field in college, most often by a professor. Mae C. Jamison, who is a chemical engineer and the first African-American female astronaut, said, "My professors were not that excited to see me in their classes. When I would ask a question, they would just look at me like, 'Why are you asking that?' But when a white boy down the row would ask the very same question, they'd say 'astute observation.'" The university women's report found that girls have less confidence in their math abilities than boys with equal achievement levels. As most people choose careers where they believe they can do well, girls' lesser belief in their skills may partly explain why fewer young women go into these fields.

The report acknowledges that there are differences in male and female brains. But the lead author of the study said, "None of the research convincingly links those differences to specific skills, so we don't know what they mean in terms of mathematical abilities." The report found that at the top level of math abilities, where boys are overrepresented, that the gender gap is rapidly decreasing. Among "mathematically precocious youth" [those kids sound like a handful!], who are 6th and 7th graders who score more than 700 on the math SAT, boys had outnumbered girls 13-to-1 thirty years ago; today it's only about 3-to-1. The lead author said, "That's not biology at play, it doesn't change so fast. Even if there are biological factors in boys outnumbering girls, they're clearly not the whole story. There's a real danger in assuming that innate differences are important in determining who will succeed, so we looked at the cultural factors."

The report also suggested recommendations. They found that small things can make a difference, like teaching children that math ability is not fixed, but instead improves with effort. They also said that teaching girls about how stereotypes affect performance can diminish the effects of gender disparity in testing and achievement. The report also stressed the need for more female mentors and role models. (Full Story)

March 12, 2010

That crazy Glenn Beck told his conservative viewers last week that Christians need to leave their churches if their churches preach about social or economic justice. He said those words are just code words for Communism and Nazism. He said on his radio show, "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church website. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words...Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! ... If you have a priest that is pushing social justice, go find another parish. Go alert your bishop."

Understandably, this has created a lot of outrage among Christians. One reverend called on Christians to leave Glenn Beck (oh snap!). I don't know what Beck was thinking. Attacking churches that preach about social justice is pretty much attacking every church. Pretty much every church preaches about social justice (though, for some churches, practicing what they preach can be a different story...). Social and economic justice was Jesus's whole modus operandi. "Religion scholars say the term 'social justice' was probably coined in the 1800s, codified in encyclicals by successive popes and adopted widely by Protestant churches in the 1900s. The concept is that Christians should not merely give to the poor, but also work to correct unjust conditions that keep people poor. Many Christians consider it a recurring theme in Scripture."

Glenn Beck is Mormon (the article says Mormonism is "a faith that identifies itself as part of the Christian family, but is nevertheless rejected by many Christians." Burned by the NYT!), and even the LDS church preaches social justice. Philip Barlow, a professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University, said, "One way to read the Book of Mormon is that it's a vast tract on social justice." He added that the church's highest authority, The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, issued a new "Handbook of Instructions" this year and they revised the church's "threefold mission" and added a fourth: Care for the poor. Mr. Barlow said, "A lot of Latter-Day Saints would think that Beck was asking them to leave their own church." (Full Story)

I seriously don't understand how people can listen to Glenn Beck and think he makes any sense.

---

What, unfortunately, doesn't come as a shock is that the military government of Myanmar has passed new election laws that prohibits anyone that was convicted of a crime from being a member of a political party or voting. Oh and would you look at that, Aung San Suu Kyi (the detained opposition leader) was convicted in August of violating the terms of her house arrest (when an American swam to her house) -- and thus she's not able to run for office or vote in the elections this year. What a coincidence. Aung San Suu Kyi said the laws were "repressive" and "unjust", and she called for a strong response from supporters of her democracy movement. (Full Story)

March 11, 2010

The Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell, has directed state agencies not to discriminate against gay people. This is in response to the state attorney general telling public colleges that they lack the authority to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, and that they need to rescind any anti-discrimination policies that include protection for gay people. Essentially, the governor overrode what the state attorney general said. (Full Story)

I'm glad to see there was such an uproar about what the attorney general said and that Virginia took enough of a beating over this in the media that the governor was willing to make a change. Was the governor's heart and mind changed enough that he's willing to promote anti-discrimination policies that include protection for gay people in their state constitution -- making gay discrimination illegal across the state?! Not likely...

---

Senate Republicans -- as well as some Democrats -- defeated a measure to provide $1.3 billion for summer jobs for young people this year and a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. The summer jobs program would create 500,000 temporary jobs for young people. One of the co-sponsors, Patty Murray-WA, said, "I have personally heard the stories of these young men and women whose summer jobs changed their lives across the country... [This program] will invest in critical employment and learning programs that will help not only these young people but the businesses that hire them." The subsidies for poor families with children would have been via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. The stimulus bill had created the TANF Emergency Fund, which provided $5 billion to reimburse states for 80% of increased state spending on cash assistance, subsidized jobs, and other short-term benefits for families. This most recent measure would provide $1.3 billion to extend the program, which expires in September, until March 2011. A senior policy analyst with CLASP said the TANF program will have subsidized at least 100,000 jobs by the end of September. The Vice President of the Economic Policy Institute said, "The TANF Emergency Fund and the summer jobs program are proven successes from last year's Recovery Act and deserve to be renewed and extended."

The measure did not pass because Republicans objected to spending the money. Senator Judd Gregg (NH) raised a budgetary point of order. He said, "Why do we keep doing this? Why do we keep passing on to our children these debts?" [Maybe because in a time of economic crisis you're supposed to spend money on programs to help bring us out of this economic crisis. Not all deficits are equal. Economists will tell you that deficits that build infrastructure or create long-term positive outcomes are not the same as those that do not provide long term effects. And where were you when George W. Bush was unnecessarily creating massive deficits out of the record surpluses of the '90s]. The Democrats could only get 55 votes, five short of the supermajority needed to overcome Gregg's budgetary point of order. Democratic Senators Claire McCaskill (MO), Jim Webb (VA), Mark Warner (VA), and Ben Nelson (NE) joined the Republicans in voting no. A senior policy analyst from CLASP said, "Obviously, we're disappointed. People need the jobs and they're not going to get them this way. It's frustrating that it got a majority but was defeated on a pay-go point of order because it's paid for over 10 years instead of one year." She said that she hopes Democrats reintroduce the TANF funding before the enhanced program expires in September.

Hours after the vote was taken, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid took the floor to announce the sponsors of the measure (Johny Kerry-MA and Patty Murray-WA) had agreed to drop TANF in exchange for a new vote on just the summer jobs provision. Reid said, "The objection that a number of senators raised was that it was paid over ten years rather than five years. In an effort to compromise on this, Sens. Murray and Kerry have agreed that they would drop anything relating to TANF...and over five years pay for summer jobs in the amount of $743 million. As everyone will remember, that was originally $1.5 billion." Gregg still objected. And thus there was no new vote. The Democrats cut their measure by more than half (and personally I believe that TANF extension is much more necessary than the summer jobs program. Both are very important and needed, but TANF is probably more important) and try to compromise, and still...nothing. So much for the bipartisanship the Republicans are constantly whining about and saying they want, but are actually hindering every chance they get. (Full Story)

---

A top editor for a Chinese weekly newspaper was fired for writing an editorial that criticized China's household registration system. The registration system ties Chinese people to their parents' hometown if they want government services. Many government services, like schooling, are tied to the household registration system, and the rules for changing the locale are very tedious and bureaucratic. Regardless of the incentive to stay in their hometown, hundreds of millions of Chinese have migrated to the cities in hopes of finding a good job and a better life, and they end up sacrificing the rights and benefits they would be entitled to in their hometowns. Defenders of this 50 year old policy say that without it, Chinese cities would be overwhelmed with migrants and ringed with slums. The editorial asserted that the system was unfair because it restricted the right of Chinese citizens to seek a better life outside of their hometown. The editorial stated, "We believe in people born to be free and people possessing the right to migrate freely."

The editorial was published by a 13 Chinese publications including newspapers, financial publications, and regional dailies. Within hours the editorial vanished from the internet as a result of censors. Though, before it was taken down, it was picked up by foreign news outlets. The editor, Mr. Zhang, reported that after the editorial was published, he was "punished" and let go. He added that the editorial was the product of a few editors working behind closed doors, and that that those colleagues also felt repercussions. The incident was seen as especially provocative because it was an organized effort, not an individual complaint. After the editorial was published, propaganda authorities launched an investigation and issued an official warning to the Economic Observer (the paper Mr. Zhang worked for). The reprimands serve as a warning to journalists that if they challenge government policy, they will face consequences. "The struggle between China's censorship system and the country's more independent-minded media outlets is a constant theme as the government tries to steer public opinion in its favor while presenting itself as open -- even eager -- for criticism."

The editorial was timed to appear just before the annual meetings of more than 5,000 legislators and representatives of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. These representatives' roles are mostly ceremonial and their election is far from democratic, but the representatives sometimes highlight issues of concern for ordinary Chinese. Mr. Zhang said that, like many Chinese, he does not know which representative supposedly represents him. But he said, "As media, we hope that the people's voice can be heard by the representatives who 'represent public opinion.'"

Mr. Zhang says that he is now an "independent commentator" and his colleagues hope that he will be able to return to the newspaper at a later time. (Full Story)

March 10, 2010

Interesting article about Israel's controversial citizenship law. The Citizenship and Entry Law was passed in 2003, during the second Palestinian uprising when suicide bombers were targeting Israeli public places, and it said that no one with a West Bank or Gaza ID card would be given permission to move to Israel to be with a spouse there. Initially the law was emergency legislation, but it has been extended every year since then. In 2005, the law was amended and they allowed women over 25 and men over 35 to apply for temporary permits to live in Israel, but they still didn't allow citizenship (except for a handful of cases). In 2007, the law was expanded to include citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon (i.e., they were added to the list along with West Bank and Gaza). In contrast, non-Jewish people that do not live in those areas who marry Jewish Israelis can apply for citizenship and it's a five-year process and they are subject to security checks.

The law is at the center of a long legal battle in Israel's Supreme Court; the latest hearing happened last week. Critics of the law, who include Jewish Israelis as well as Israeli Arabs, say that it goes against Israel's self-proclaimed standards of democracy and equal rights. They say it's a racist law and should be overturned. A lawyer for an Israel-Arab rights organization, who is one of several that has petitioned the Supreme Court against the law -- says that the principle behind the law is "very, very dangerous." She explained, "It stereotypes every person just because he belongs to a national and ethnic group and discriminates against him because of that." Israeli Arabs -- people of Arab descent who stayed in Israel after its creation in 1948 -- make up 20% of the population and they have long faced discrimination. Campaign groups estimate that at least 15,000 couples are affected by this law.

Israel says the law is a form of protection and it's been defended on security grounds. "For the Israeli government, it's about life and death -- the prevention of lethal attacks and the survival of the only majority Jewish state in a post-Holocaust war." The state representative for Israel said that in the past two years, 27 people who had applied for permission to join their spouses in Israel were directly involved in attempted or actual attacks. She said without the law, the numbers would be much higher. Defenders of the law say that security trumps any other rights. Other proponents of the law say it's important to maintain Israel's demographic make-up. They want Israel to remain a Jewish state. A lawyer for one of the right-wing organizations that support the law said that if the law is overturned then Israel will eventually become "a Muslim state" and "the Jewish people will become a minority in their own country" and thus be "exterminated." Wow, that is an extremely loaded term with historical implications. Obviously, fear is the tactic that these right-wing groups are using.

The article gave the story of the Khatib family. Mrs. Khatib is from the West Bank and Mr. Khatib is an Israeli citizen. They both consider themselves Palestinian. They met in 2001 and married in 2003. Mrs. Khatib was given permission to enter Israel for a single day. The next day, she went back home alone. They visited each other when they could, and she sometimes stayed illegally. Mr. Khatib said, "I was always afraid. It was hell. One day you have your wife with you, the next you don't." Things did improve after the 2005 amendment, but Mrs. Khatib still has no state health insurance, she is not allowed to work or drive, and she has to renew her permit to be in Israel every six months. They now have two children, who were both born and raised in Israel. Despite having an Israeli husband and two kids, Mrs. Khatib still cannot apply for citizenship. Mr. Khatib fears that one day they won't renew her permit, "It's very insecure. Maybe one day they won't give her the permission and I'll be left alone with two kids." The family currently lives in the mixed city of Acre in northern Israel. The family says they could leave Israel, but they are strongly opposed to it. Mr. Khatib explained that this is the land of his family, this is where his heritage is. This is his home. He says he understands the security concerns, but he wants couples to be screened on a couple-by-couple basis. However, Israel says there have been past attackers who would have passed security checks. The Supreme Court is likely to rule on this law within the next few months. (Full Story)

March 09, 2010

The Brazilian government has announced trade sanctions against a variety of American products in retaliation for U.S. subsidies to cotton farmers. Brazil and other critics have said that the U.S. has given its cotton growers an unfair advantage by paying them billions of dollars each year. They say the U.S. subsidies hurt their competitiveness in international markets. In 2008, the World Trade Organization ruled that subsidies to U.S. cotton producers were discriminatory. The WTO found that the subsidies unfairly help U.S. cotton producers undersell foreign competitors and depress world market prices.

Brazil said they regret imposing the sanctions, but they feel it is necessary because eight years of litigation has failed to produce results. Brazil published a list of 100 U.S. goods that will be subject to import tariffs in 30 days, unless an agreement is reached between the two countries. If no agreement happens, Brazil will raise tariffs on $591 million worth of U.S. products. For example, the tariff on cars will increase from 35% to 50%; wheat tariffs will increase from 10% to 30%; milk powder will see an increase from 28% to 48%; ketchup rises from 18% to 38%; and sugar-free chewing gum doubles to 36%. Cotton and cotton producers would be charged a 100% import tariff, which is the highest tariff on the list. The head of economic affairs at Brazil's foreign ministry said, "The idea was to distribute the retaliation broadly in order to maximize pressure." In a rare move, the WTO has approved the sanctions. This is one of the few instances in which the WTO allowed cross-retaliation -- where the wronged party can retaliate against a sector not involved in the dispute. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said it was "disappointed" with Brazil's decision and called for a negotiated settlement.

Cotton producers in the U.S. say that cotton subsidies systems have changed since the WTO made its original ruling in 2005. A chief economist at the National Cotton Council said that the U.S. has made changes in the cotton program as well as the export guarantee program, and that U.S. cotton production is now 40 to 45% lower. In 2006, the U.S. Congress scrapped some export credits and ended their cotton-marketing program that paid exporters and domestic mill users for buying higher-priced American cotton. But in 2008, the U.S. approved a new farm bill worth nearly $300 billion that left a number of other contentious cotton programs in place. (Full Story) (Full Story).

---

The Thai government has said they will invoke emergency law March 11-23 in Bangkok and seven surrounding provinces. They instituted the Internal Security Act as a result of a planned march by opposition protesters ("red shirts"). The red shirt protesters are mainly supporters of the former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a military coup in 2006. Last month the Supreme Court ruled that over half of the assets belonging to Mr. Thaksin or his family, which were frozen since the coup, should be seized. The red shirt movement, which is led by the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD), is said to be planning a huge, but peaceful, demonstration. They are planning on rallying until the current coalition government calls for new elections. The red shirt movement has already been holding smaller rallies, meetings, and "political schools" in various provinces in preparation. Now convoys of vehicles are expected to carry protesters to the capital this weekend.

The International Security Act puts the military in charge, and they have the power to impose curfews, restrict numbers at gatherings, and set up check points if they deem the actions necessary. Thailand's finance minister said, "There is a very small minority who is trying to cause instability through, frankly speaking, potentially violent acts." He added that the government intends to "use all means within its powers, within the laws of the country, to make sure that the property and safety of its citizens are protected." He also admitted that political reconciliation in the country remained a distant dream.

The last time the ISA was invoked was during the ASEAN meeting held in Thailand in October (which was initially planned earlier in April, but was postponed as a result of red shirt protests). In October, the police had failed to stop the red shirts as they took over conference center, and then the army asserted control to keep Mr. Abhisit's government in power. (Full Story)

March 08, 2010

Officials and human rights groups in Nigeria say that about 500 people were killed this weekend due to ethnic violence near the city of Jos. The victims were Christians killed by Muslim herdsmen who apparently were seeking revenge for similar attacks against Muslims in January. The city of Jos has been considered a hotbed of ethnic and religious violence because it it near the dividing line between the country's mainly Christian south and Muslim north. Hundreds on both sides have been killed as recently as January. The information commissioner for Plateau (the state where the attacks took place) said the attackers this weekend were "hoodlums, Fulani herdsmen", who are Muslims from the neighboring state of Bauchi. He said they were going after Christians that are members of Plateau's leading ethnic group, the Berom, in the villages of Ratt and Dogo Nahawa. The attacks began at 2 AM and lasted for four hours. The attackers first began firing guns and then they set homes on fire. Some died in the fires; others were attacked with machetes as they came out of their burning homes. The information commissioner said the attackers killed mostly women, children, and elderly people.

The attacks come at a time when Nigeria is in a political crisis. The President of Nigeria, Umaru Yar'Adua, fell gravely ill and he left the country in November to seek medical help. His absence created a dangerous power vacuum in Nigeria. His vice president, Goodluck Jonathan (yes, that's really his name), was finally appointed as the acting president by the National Assembly. It has been rumored that President Yar'Adua has returned to Nigeria -- though his state of health is unclear. There has been speculation that he's still on a life support machine. There are still questions about how much authority Goodluck Jonathan has. Mr. Jonathan had sent troops to Jos in January to quell violence, but security forces were scarce this past weekend. Mr. Peter from the League for Human Rights, a Nigerian group, said there were just two military personnel hanging around the village. One villager who was present during the attacks said, "We thought the military would protect us." (Full Story)

---

China's foreign minister is shaking things up: He recently said in a news conference that relations with the U.S. have been "seriously disrupted". Looks like someone got a hold of a thesaurus! There has been tension between the two countries recently due to China's internet censorship, trade disputes, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, and President Obama meeting with the Dalai Lama. The foreign minister of China said, "The responsibility does not lie with China." He added that the U.S. "must respect China's core interests" and that "resolutely adhering to one's principled stance is not the same thing as being hardline." [Though I do believe that is the definition of hardline...]. Last weekend, the Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said he wanted trade friction with the U.S. to ease. (Full Story)

March 07, 2010

The U.S. military is taking on a new experimental program in Afghanistan. Next month, 40 female Marines will deploy to Afghanistan to work as members of the first full-time "female engagement teams". These four- of five-member units will accompany male soldiers on patrol in Helmand province, and will try to speak with and win over rural Afghan women. These Afghan women are not allowed to talk to men outside of the family. "The teams, which are to meet with the Afghan women in their homes, assess their need for aid and gather intelligence, are part of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal's campaign for Afghan hearts and minds. His officers say that you cannot gain the trust of the Afghan population if you only talk to half of it."

These female soldiers underwent "cultural awareness" classes and were trained on what to do (and what not to do) when talking to villagers in Afghanistan. For example, don't start off by firing questions, but do break the ice by playing with the children. They have been told to be sensitive to local customs, and as a result the female soldiers will wear head scarves. They are to wear head scarves under their helmets, but if that becomes too hot or uncomfortable, they will wear their scarves around their necks and then put them over their head once they take off their helmet. While on patrol, the female soldiers will carry M-4 rifles (which the article had to point out are "shorter and more maneuverable than the military's standard M-16s"), but once they are inside an Afghan compound (and Marine guards will be posted outside), they have been advised to remove their rifles, helmets, and body armor in order to not be seen as intimidating. This is assuming they feel safe enough to remove their armor. These teams are not looking for combat and they will mostly be working in areas largely cleared of militants. Though, as the war in Afghanistan essentially has no front lines, the teams took an extended combat-training refresher course in order to prepare for ambushes and snipers

The plan of the teams is to go to a village, get permission from the male elder to speak with the women, settle into a compound, hand out school supplies and medicine, drink tea, make conversation, and, ideally, get information about the village, local grievances, and the Taliban. The soldiers will ask the village women questions, such as what is the most difficult problem facing the village. The answers will then go into a database to guide military and aid workers. As a training instructor told the Marines, "If the population has told you that their biggest problem is irrigation and your unit does something about it, that's a huge success."

Ad-hoc teams in the past have found that rural Afghan women have more influence in their villages than they had previously believed. They found that these women often have a lot of information that is crucial to American forces, including information about the district's social fabric, power brokers, and militants. In some instances, women have provided information about specific insurgents and bomb-makers. In addition, they found that Afghan women could make other Afghans less suspicious of American troops. However, these village women are not able to talk to outside men. Thus comes the need for the female teams. The military captain who helped to create and train the teams recently said that when one of the teams visited a village in Afghanistan, a gray-bearded man allowed the women into his home, saying, "Your men come to fight, but we know the women are here to help."

The article also had to mention that this captain in charge of the teams wrote in an online publication that these female team members were "good for my old eyes." (Full Story)

I like that there are these teams that are receiving cultural awareness classes (definitely a must and often overlooked by the military) and that they will be talking with villagers. And that female villagers will be addressed as well. I think it's very important for villagers' needs and concerns to be taken into account. Plus, it's good that soldiers are attempting to form a relationship with the villagers. Nothing is going to be "won" in Afghanistan if the people of Afghanistan feel that the U.S. military are no better (if not worse) than the Taliban or other insurgents. So while I like the soldiers building relationships, the villagers and their concerns being taken into account, and women being addressed as well -- I am also a little skeptical about the motives. I can't help but think, and I don't think it's a stretch for me to think this, that the main motivation is intelligence gathering. And that they're pretty much using the people. Though that is kind of to be expected with the military. But I'm hoping that the relationship will be mutually beneficial. If the military is in fact using the villagers for intelligence, in turn, they should help the villagers out -- actually bring that irrigation system; don't just hear they need an irrigation system and then do nothing about it. If you actually take into account these villagers concerns and do something about it, that's the kind of alliance-building you need in order to be successful in Afghanistan (ask Greg Mortenson).

March 06, 2010

Washington, D.C. will become the first U.S. city in the United States to distribute female condoms for free. This is part of a project to fight HIV/AIDS. Nationwide, the leading cause of death for black women aged 25-34 is HIV/AIDS. A 2008 report found that DC's HIV/AIDS rate is 3%, or about 15,100 people -- a major epidemic. Some health officials think the rate is probably closer to 5% because many people might not be aware that they are infected.

Distribution will begin in a few weeks in the areas of DC that have been found to have high HIV rates and a large number of individuals engaging in risky sexual behavior. The female condoms will be distributed by social service organizations, such as Planned Parenthood, the Community Education Group, and the Women's Collective. In addition, the female condoms will be made available in places like beauty salons, convenience stores, and high schools. They program officials say anywhere male condoms are available, female condoms will be available too. Staffs of community organizations are training to demonstrate how the condom should be used properly. One group is in talks with a DC hair salon to introduce the condom and provide instructions there. The project is funded through a $500,000 grant from the MAC AIDS fund.

This new program is an acknowledgement that relying solely on male condoms to stem the spread of HIV/AIDS is not working -- as male condoms have been distributed citywide for nearly a decade. Officials said they are turning to female condoms to give women more power to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases, especially when their partners refuse to wear protection. (Full Story)

---

In "More Reasons Why I'm Glad I Don't Live in Virginia" news: The attorney general of Virginia is advising the state's public colleges to rescind policies that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. He stated that only the Virginia General Assembly can determine which classes of people are protected by state government nondiscrimination policies. Proposals to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation have repeatedly failed in the legislature. The attorney general said that state institutions cannot adopt a policy position that is rejected by the General Assembly.

In response, Virginia's Democratic Party chairman said that colleges can set their own policies. Furthermore, gay rights activists say that this could cost Virginia top students and faculty. (Full Story)

In addition to what the opponents above said, it should also be stated that an attorney general should not be working to discriminate against people. Plus, these Republicans are always the ones complaining about big government interfering too much...

March 05, 2010

The U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee narrowly approved (23 to 22) a resolution that labeled the killings of Armenians in WWI by the Turks as genocide. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians died in 1915, when they were deported en masse from eastern Anatolia by the Ottoman Empire. They were killed by troops or died from starvation and disease. Armenians have campaigned for the killings to be recognized internationally as genocide. Currently, more than 20 countries have done so. However, Turkey is very opposed to the label. Turkey accepts that atrocities were committed but they say that they were part of the war, and that there was no systematic attempt to destroy Christian Armenians.

The House committee resolution, in addition to labeling the atrocities as genocide, calls on President Obama to ensure that US foreign policy reflects an understanding of the genocide and to label the WWI killings as such in his annual statement on the issue. The Armenian government welcomed the vote, calling it "an important step towards the prevention of crimes against humanity." However, not surprisingly, Turkey is not too happy about the vote. The government of Turkey -- which is considered a key American ally and fellow NATO member -- had lobbied Congress not to vote on the issue. The Turkish president responded angrily to the vote and said it was "an injustice to history" to make such a decision with "political concerns in mind". He said, "Turkey will not be responsible for the negative results that this event may lead to." (Yikes, that sounds kind of menacing...). The prime minister of Turkey said his country has been accused of a crime it did not commit. He added that the resolution would harm US-Turkish relations. Turkey has recalled their ambassador from Washington for consultations and they say they are considering other responses. The Foreign Minister of Turkey said they were determined to continue their efforts to normalize relations with Armenia. However, he said the ratification by parliament of peace accords signed last October are now in jeopardy (in October last year, Turkey and Armenia signed a peace accord normalizing relations between them after a century of hostility).

The White House had urged against the vote. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged the House committee not to vote on the grounds that it would damage reconciliation efforts between Turkey and Armenia. During Obama's campaign in 2008, he promised to brand the mass killings of Armenians as genocide. Hillary Clinton acknowledged the Obama administration's change of opinion on the issue, saying that circumstances have "changed in very significant ways." Turkey and the Obama administration are hoping the issue will not come to the House floor for a full vote. This is what happened two years with a similar resolution. In 2007, the resolution passed the committee stage, but was shelved after pressure from George W. Bush's administration. Hillary Clinton said, "We do not believe that the full Congress will or should act upon the resolution, and we have made that clear to all the parties involved." (Full Story)

March 04, 2010

The House voted to approve a bill that restricts the use of forcible restraint and seclusion as a form of discipline in schools. This bill provides the first comprehensive protections for children against abusive disciplinary actions by schools. The bill says that children cannot be held down, drugged, or isolated in a locked room to control their behavior. The bill prohibits, except in cases of imminent danger, the use of any restraint that restricts breathing, any mechanical restraint (like straps), and any chemical restraint by drugs other than those prescribed by the child's doctor. One of the sponsors of the bill said, "Restraints and seclusion are complicated practices. They are emergency interventions that should be used only as a last resort, and only by trained professionals." The bill says that "time outs" are still allowed, but the child cannot be locked in a room, away from supervision. Furthermore, the bill requires states to keep careful records of incidents of restraint and seclusion, and for schools to report these incidents immediately to the parents.

In approving the bill, the House sided with dozens of disability groups, as well as the American Federation of Teachers (and sided against some private school groups...yikes). The legislation was motivated in part by a government report last year that found evidence that hundreds of children -- from preschool age to high school -- had been traumatized or physically harmed by being held down, locked alone in a room, or even being tired to chairs. These disciplinary measures were used against students in "regular" classes, as well as students with developmental problems or were in special needs programs. Some children have even died from overly aggressive discipline.

The companion bill in the Senate is expected to be debated this year (this bill better pass the Senate!). If the bill becomes law, it will apply to any school receiving federal money. (Full Story)

I'm glad this passed, but I'm kind of concerned about a couple of things. First, how the hell is this not already a national law? How is it that this bill provides the first comprehensive protections for children against disciplinary abuse in schools? I know that individual schools and states have passed protections and instituted bans already, but how did Congress not tackle this issue already? My second concern is that this bill passed 262 to 153 (238 Democrats and 24 Republicans). How did 153 people vote against this bill? How could they possibly explain or justify voting against this? Given the huge differential between Democrats and Republicans, I'm "hoping" (I guess) that this is simply partisan politics -- that Republicans voted against it just because they're trying to be difficult and go against the Democrats (and that's why only 24 Republicans broke party ranks). I never thought I'd say that I was hoping for partisan politics...but I hope that's the case and NOT that 153 people voted against this because they want to continue to allow schools to restrain and seclude children as a disciplinary measure.

---

Yesterday, Washington D.C. became the sixth place in the United States where same-sex marriages can legally be performed. Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont also issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Washington D.C. council had passed the gay marriage bill and it was signed into law by Mayor Adrian Fenty in December. However, since D.C. is not a state and is under Congressional control (which is ridiculous), the law had to first undergo Congressional review. Congress had 30 (in-session) days to block it. The law ended up surviving attempts to block it in Congress, and the review period officially ended on Tuesday. In addition, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. rejected a request on Tuesday from opponents of same-sex marriage to have the U.S. Supreme Court delay the D.C. law. I'm glad Chief Justice Roberts didn't interfere with the law or stand in its way (although I would be up for the issue being taken up by the Court in an attempt to rule that amendments that ban same-sex marriage are unconstitutional -- though with the make-up of this court, I don't think the ruling would go the way it should go). Despite failing in court, opponents of the law vowed to continue fighting. Just get over it and realize how this decision doesn't affect your life at all. On Tuesday, the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington limited their employee health care benefits to avoid the coverage of same-sex couples. Way to make Jesus proud!

At the Marriage Bureau in DC, they have now changed their license applications. They now ask for the name of each spouse, instead of the bride and the groom. And officials who perform weddings now say "I now pronounce you legally married." Court officials said that, on a typical day, they usually process 10 marriage applications. By late Wednesday afternoon, more than 140 couples had filed marriage applications. Though, because of a mandatory waiting period, couples will not be able to marry in D.C. until Tuesday.

City officials also reported that the new law will provide a boost to the local economy. A study by the Williams Institute at UCLA predicted that more than 14,000 same-sex marriages would occur in D.C. over the next three years. This will bring in $5 million in new tax revenue and create 700 jobs.

In response to the D.C. gay marriage law, the attorney general of Maryland issued a legal opinion that the state will now recognize same-sex marriages performed in other places. Some believe that the next step in Maryland will be to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in the state. (Full Story)

March 03, 2010

The Obama administration has adopted a revised formula to count the number of people living in poverty. The new formula is supposed to provide a new way of counting the poor. Previously, poverty was based on a formula developed in the mid-1960s (based on data from the 1950s), and it was based on the cost of food and a family's cash income. The new "Supplemental Poverty Measure" announced by the Commerce Department acknowledges that food has become a smaller share of poor families' costs, and that there are more expenses to be considered, such as housing, utilities, transportation costs, child care, and medical treatment. Furthermore, the new measure will include financial help from housing and food subsidies (i.e., non-cash aid), in addition to money from jobs and cash assistance programs. The new measure will also take into account geographical variations in living costs.

The first set of figures from the new formula will not be published until September 2011. However, the Census Bureau uses an alternative measure for poverty and the new formula is based on that (as well as a recommendation from the National Academy of Sciences on how to measure poverty). Using the Census Bureau alternative figures as a guide, it is expected that under the revised formula more people will be counted as living in poverty. Overall poverty is expected to increase from 13.2% (39.8 million people) to 15.8% (47.4 million). [Just wait, that statistic is going to appear in the next Freakonomics book. 'In September 2011, 7.6 million people instantly fell into poverty. The night before they were not living in poverty, but by the next day they were. Were their mass job lay-offs that day? Did a natural disaster occur that wiped out the homes and places of business for an entire major city? No, instead what happened was the government reformulated who was considered living in poverty.' P.S., if any Freakonomics authors stumble upon this (ha!), I want my cut!]. Furthermore, the number of older people classified as living in poverty is expected to double. Under the traditional measure, 9.7% of Americans 65 and older are classified as living in poverty (3.7 million); under the new measure the figure is expected to be 18.7% (7.1 million). That is nearly 1 in 5 older Americans. The difference is mostly due to out-of-pocket expenses due to rising Medicare premiums, deductibles, and a coverage gap in the prescription drug benefit. However, a Census Bureau chief said that while substantial increases are expected in the number of older Americans living in poverty, he thinks the final numbers could be cushioned somewhat because the new formula will take into account whether a person is more likely to own a home without a mortgage. In addition, child poverty is expected to be lower under the new measure (17.9%) than it was under the traditional measure (19%). The change is mostly due to the fact that single mothers and their children disproportionately receive non-cash aid such as food stamps (which wasn't previously counted) [However, I hope this measure is used appropriately. This drop in the number of children living in poverty shouldn't be used as a justification to cut or reduce benefits, especially if it was the benefits in the first place that helped them to be lifted above the poverty line. And being lifted above the poverty line doesn't necessarily mean the family is financially solvent. The poverty line for a family of four is $22,050. A family of four making $23,000 is not exactly financially set]. Also, under the new measure, the Northeast and West are expected to see a bigger jump in poverty due mostly to larger cities with higher costs of living such as New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.

However, the new measure will not replace the official poverty rate (which is determined by the old/traditional measure); instead, the new figures will be published alongside the traditional figures as a "supplement" for federal agencies and state governments. Because it is just a supplemental measure, it will not change how billions of federal dollars for the poor are distributed for health, housing, nutrition, and child care benefits. How federal dollars are distributed for Medicaid, welfare, food stamps, and other aid programs will still be determined by the old official poverty line -- which is the threshold of eligibility for assistance programs. From a demographic standpoint, it will be nice to have these "supplemental" figures to provide a more accurate picture of the number of poor people in the United States. However, I cannot believe this new formula is just being considered a "supplemental" figure. It should replace the old formula. I know that this is all about politics, and changing how the official poverty line is calculated will bring about major change. Government assistance is already such a testy area for people (this perpetual idea that people are not worthy of government assistance -- except Medicare and Social Security -- and that they should just go out and get a job and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Simple as that). I'm sure there are politicians that are not in favor of putting in place a new measure that will likely acknowledge there is more people living in poverty and thus will require an expansion or reconfiguring of government assistance. So it's easier to just do nothing. Essentially, by taking on this new "supplemental" formula, the government is acknowledging that the old system doesn't adequately measure the number of people living in poverty. And they're essentially acknowledging that the new formula will be more accurate and will take into account the current American family and what their costs are (this is not the 1960s anymore). So they acknowledge this, but then they're doing nothing about these people. They're not changing the system. That almost seems worse than ignoring them all the while. At least before, the government could claim ignorance and say they didn't realize there was a problem with the traditional formula -- they didn't realize all these people were being miscounted or that the measure was out of date (even though they should know that. But they could claim ignorance). By instituting the new supplemental formula, the government knows the traditional formula is limited. They see these figures of additional people that need help and that should probably be under the poverty line, but are not counted as such under the traditional formula. And yet they do nothing about it. We don't need these new statistics to just be written alongside the official statistics (providing only a demographic research purpose), we need changes to occur from these new statistics. We need to acknowledge there are people struggling in the United States even if they're not under the current official poverty line. We need to change how poverty is officially measured in this country, and then we need to increase resources and allocate resources accordingly. (Full Story) (Full Story)

March 02, 2010

Chinese security agents detained Liao Yiwu, a prominent author and critic of the government, as he was preparing to fly to Germany for a literary festival. This is the 13th time that he has been prevented from leaving the country. Mr. Liao was removed from the plane at the airport, and was then questioned for four hours by security guards. He has now been placed under house arrest. Telephone calls to his home produced a recording saying that the line was temporarily unavailable. Calls to his cellphone went unanswered.

He was planning on attending a Cologne literary festival where he was scheduled to read from his book "Miss Hello and the Farm Emperor: Chinese Society from the Bottom." Mr. Liao is a poet, screenwriter, and new-journalism author. Many of his works tell the stories of people who have been left behind in China's rush to economic and political prominence -- the "lower rungs" of Chinese society. His characters include people like prostitutes and lavatory attendants. Mr. Liao was imprisoned for four years in the early 1990s after writing an epic poem called "Massacre", which denounced the Chinese government's suppression of the 1989 Tienanmen Square protests. His works have gained international acclaim, but his works are banned in China. However, he does have a large underground following in China, and pirated versions of his works can be found in some Chinese bookstores. In December 2007, he traveled to Beijing to receive an award from a writers' rights organization, but he was detained by the police and sent back to his home. Last September, he was barred from traveling to Berlin for the Frankfurt Book Book, at which China was designated the guest of honor.

Mr. Liao's scheduled reading will still take place at the Cologne literature festival, but someone else will read from the book. Proceeds from the ticketed event will be donated to Amnesty International (oh snap!). In addition, the PEN American Center, which is one of the 145 affiliates of the International PEN Center (a writers' rights organization), called on China's president, Hu Jintao, to lift restrictions on Mr. Liao and other writers. Human Rights in China, a group based in Hong Kong, published an open letter from Mr. Liao to German readers. In it, Mr. Liao said, "Writers like me from the bottom of society still have to write, record and broadcast, even to the dismay of the Communist Party of China. I have the responsibility to make you understand that the life of the Chinese spirit is longer than the totalitarian government."

Germany's Foreign Ministry issued a statement expressing "regret" at China's detention of Mr. Liao (talk about pussyfooting!). China's Foreign Ministry spokesman told journalists that Chinese citizens are free to travel according to Chinese law ("according to Chinese law" is the kicker). He said, "We hope the relevant government will respect the law enforcement carried out by Chinese authorities." ...Or relations will be strained; yeah, we got it. (Full Story)

---

Yesterday the Iranian authorities shut down two major opposition publications. These two publications were among the last to remain in circulation as the Iranian government has suppressed opponents' communications in recent months. The authorities have already blocked most opposition websites inside Iran, and have limited internet connections to prevent protesters from organizing demonstrations. The two opposition publications that were shut down yesterday -- a daily newspaper and a weekly magazine -- were both linked to Mehdi Karroubi, an opposition leader who has spoken out against the Iranian authorities. Last week he challenged the government by calling for a referendum on the government's popularity (you challenged the government last week and this week your two publications are shut down. Coincidence?). There was also a ruling last week by the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that Mr. Karroubi and Mir Hussein Moussavi (another opposition leader. Both were candidates in the June election) have no place in politics.

In addition, yesterday the opposition website Jaras reported that as many as 20,000 people were arrested on February 11, the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. This was an attempt by the government to hinder opposition plans to stage a large anti-government rally. Jaras said the figure included those briefly detained on February 11, as well as others who were arrested earlier and still remained in prison. They said the figure was leaked from internal communications among the three divisions of the security forces: the police, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, and the Basij militia. In another attempt by the government to intimidate protesters from organizing on February 11, the government hung two political prisoners days before the anniversary.

The article also mentioned that Tehran's troubles are not limited to the political realm. The Human Rights Activists News Agency reported that 200 employees of a telecommunications company in Shiraz went to Tehran to demand 13 months worth of back wages. Also, 80 employees of a steel and industrial equipment manufacturer gathered in front of the company offices demanding to know why they haven't been paid in seven months. The workers then forced their way into a board meeting and confronted the managers. The managers promised an initial payment and a settling of debt by mid-March. Stories like this are becoming more frequent in Iran as the industrial sector suffers from unpaid government debts and a tightening of bank credit. As a result, many factories are only operating at a fraction of their capacity. Meanwhile, government money is going into producing and testing guided bombs and other weapons. (Full Story)