April 30, 2010

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

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

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

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

April 29, 2010

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

April 28, 2010

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

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

---

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

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

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

April 27, 2010

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

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

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

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

April 26, 2010

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

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

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

April 23, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

April 22, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 21, 2010

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

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

---

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

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

April 20, 2010

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

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

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

April 19, 2010

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

April 17, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 14, 2010

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

April 13, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

April 12, 2010

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

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

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

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

April 10, 2010

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

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

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

April 09, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

April 08, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Some highlights of Finland's school system:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

April 07, 2010

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

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

---

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

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

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

April 06, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

April 05, 2010

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

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

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

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

April 03, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

"This is pink."

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

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

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

"Hey!"

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

---

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

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

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