October 29, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

October 28, 2010

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

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

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

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

October 27, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 22, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

October 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

October 20, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

October 18, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

October 08, 2010

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 07, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

October 06, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

October 05, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

October 04, 2010

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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