Here's an update on the senate race in Alaska: Last week Lisa Murkowski was declared the winner (in the press) after they finished tallying the write-in votes. She beat Joe Miller by just over 10,000 votes. But that was very short-lived.
A few days later, an Alaskan federal judge ruled that Joe Miller's challenge to the counting of write-in ballots (he wanted to stop the state from determining voter-intent when it came to misspellings. Miller said spellings had to be perfect or thrown out) is valid and does raise "serious" legal issues. However, the federal judge said that it's a matter to be decided in a state court, not a federal court. In the interim, the federal judge granted a temporary injunction to stop the election results from being certified. The stipulation was that Miller would have to take his case to state court by Monday. (Full Story)
And that's exactly what Miller did. In addition to complaining about the way votes were counted (determining intent when it comes to phonetic spellings), he also complained that write-in candidates like Murkowski have a huge advantage because the state hand-reviews write-in ballots, but the ballots for other candidates went through automatic machines. That seems like a pretty lame complaint. How many people are actually on the side that write-in candidates have a better advantage than candidates whose names appear on the ballot?! I think Joe Miller (and his supporters) is the only one. Write-in candidates are often at a huge disadvantage. The fact that Murkowski seemingly won with a write-in campaign just goes to show how much Alaskans did not want Joe Miller to be their senator. And now he's also complaining about his ballots being counted by a machine whereas Murkowski's were hand-reviewed!? He is really stretching. Traditional ballots are designed to be read by machines. There's no "intent" involved. The whole reason write-in ballots are hand-reviewed is because it is hand-written and computers can't review that. And are you really going to throw out a vote because the voter wrote Merkowski? Counting that vote isn't a result of determining intent, it's a result of using common sense.
So now Miller is waiting for the state court to decide on the standard by which ballots should be judged. The Miller campaign has already said that after the court rules, Miller wants a hand count. I assume that means he wants a hand recount of all the votes. What a huge waste of time that would be. Murkowski is ahead of Miller by 10,328 votes. There are 8,159 ballots contested by Miller observers. Even if those were thrown out, she'd still be ahead by 2,169 votes. Just give it up already, Miller. Even the Alaska Republican Party has urged Miller to concede. (Full Story)
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
November 22, 2010
Although Myanmar leaders have released Aung San Suu Kyi, it doesn't mean they're being reasonable now. Myanmar's government has shut down a shelter for patients with HIV and AIDS, and ordered more than 80 people to leave. This came a day after Suu Kyi visited the shelter and promised to get the shelter badly needed medicines. She also addressed a crowd of more than 600 that gathered to see her.
The day after Suu Kyi's visit, government officials said that the center's permit was not being renewed and told the patients that they would have to leave the shelter by next week or face legal action (what a coincidence...). In Myanmar, it is the law that homeowners must seek government permission every two weeks to allow visitors to stay over night (!). One of the organizers of the shelter said, "We have been allowed to renew our resident permits in the past. I think authorities want to pressure us because of aunty's [Suu Kyi, she is referred to as "aunt" or "aunty" by Burmese supporters] visit to the shelter."
The shelter -- which currently accommodates 82 patients, including children -- provides housing, food, medicine, and educational opportunities. Health authorities offered to move the patients to their own HIV center; however, patients have said they do not want to leave the shelter that has become home for them. They want to make their own choice as to where they stay and they don't want to be pressured to leave. (Full Story)
In another incident in Myanmar, a popular Burmese sports magazine First Eleven was shut down by the government for two weeks. The reason? They had a front page soccer headline that read: "Sunderland Freeze Chelsea, United Stunned By Villa, & Arsenal Advance To Grab Their Hope." Apparently some letters in the headline were shaded a different color from the rest, so that it could have been read as "Su Free, Unite & Advance To Grab The Hope."
Either the government is stretching and they're being overly conspiratorial OR that sports magazine is absolutely brilliant. If it is true (if the magazine did intentionally shade the letters to get a secret message across), what a novel way to get messages of activism out. If that is the case, you see what lengths people have to go to try to organize in Myanmar.
In Myanmar, daily and electronic media is monopolized by the state. All privately-owned publications have to submit their issues to the Press Security Board, a government censorship board, for approval (!). The government has recently suspended eight magazines in Myanmar for their coverage of Suu Kyi's freedom. It is believed that their suspension will last one to two weeks. These eight magazines had prominently published news and photos about Suu Kyi's release. One magazine, 7 Day News, got in trouble for a supplementary section on Suu Kyi. In the supplementary inserts they printed photos of her, and they were used as wrap-around covers. They got suspended supposedly because the size of the insert was against regulation. One of the editors of the magazine explained, "The Press Security Board said we violated the regulations by printing the second cover the same size as the actual magazine, but I think the real reason is for using [Suu Kyi's] photo on the cover." (Full Story)(Full Story - at the bottom)(Full Story - at the bottom)
Luckily, in a rare bout of reasonableness, the ruling junta in Myanmar granted Aung San Suu Kyi's son a visa. Suu Kyi hasn't seen her son in 10 years. Her 33 year old son lives in Britain and he has repeatedly been denied visas by the Myanmar government. His last visit to the country was in 2000. The British embassy said his visit is strictly a private one and he doesn't intend to discuss politics. Suu Kyi would not go to visit her son in Britain because she is unwilling to leave Myanmar for fear that she would not be let back in. Her activism and calls for democracy are a threat to the ruling junta in Myanmar, and the government would probably love nothing more than to not let her back in the country.
Suu Kyi was mostly raised overseas, she married a British academic, and she initially raised their two sons in England. She returned to her home country in 1988 when her mother was sick. This is when mass demonstrations against the country's military rule were breaking out. During this time of unrest, Suu Kyi was thrust into a leadership role, mainly because she was the daughter of Aung San -- a revolutionary leader that helped bring about Burma's independence from British colonial rule. He is considered the country's founding father. He is also a martyred leader; he was assassinated for his activism. Suu Kyi took up the cause, and has subsequently faced many years of detention or house arrest. As a result, she hasn't seen her family very much. When she was first arrested in 1989, her eldest son was 16 and her younger son was 11. Her husband died of prostate cancer in 1999. For the three years leading up to his death, he kept trying to get a visa to see his wife but he was always denied. (Full Story)
The day after Suu Kyi's visit, government officials said that the center's permit was not being renewed and told the patients that they would have to leave the shelter by next week or face legal action (what a coincidence...). In Myanmar, it is the law that homeowners must seek government permission every two weeks to allow visitors to stay over night (!). One of the organizers of the shelter said, "We have been allowed to renew our resident permits in the past. I think authorities want to pressure us because of aunty's [Suu Kyi, she is referred to as "aunt" or "aunty" by Burmese supporters] visit to the shelter."
The shelter -- which currently accommodates 82 patients, including children -- provides housing, food, medicine, and educational opportunities. Health authorities offered to move the patients to their own HIV center; however, patients have said they do not want to leave the shelter that has become home for them. They want to make their own choice as to where they stay and they don't want to be pressured to leave. (Full Story)
In another incident in Myanmar, a popular Burmese sports magazine First Eleven was shut down by the government for two weeks. The reason? They had a front page soccer headline that read: "Sunderland Freeze Chelsea, United Stunned By Villa, & Arsenal Advance To Grab Their Hope." Apparently some letters in the headline were shaded a different color from the rest, so that it could have been read as "Su Free, Unite & Advance To Grab The Hope."
Either the government is stretching and they're being overly conspiratorial OR that sports magazine is absolutely brilliant. If it is true (if the magazine did intentionally shade the letters to get a secret message across), what a novel way to get messages of activism out. If that is the case, you see what lengths people have to go to try to organize in Myanmar.
In Myanmar, daily and electronic media is monopolized by the state. All privately-owned publications have to submit their issues to the Press Security Board, a government censorship board, for approval (!). The government has recently suspended eight magazines in Myanmar for their coverage of Suu Kyi's freedom. It is believed that their suspension will last one to two weeks. These eight magazines had prominently published news and photos about Suu Kyi's release. One magazine, 7 Day News, got in trouble for a supplementary section on Suu Kyi. In the supplementary inserts they printed photos of her, and they were used as wrap-around covers. They got suspended supposedly because the size of the insert was against regulation. One of the editors of the magazine explained, "The Press Security Board said we violated the regulations by printing the second cover the same size as the actual magazine, but I think the real reason is for using [Suu Kyi's] photo on the cover." (Full Story)(Full Story - at the bottom)(Full Story - at the bottom)
Luckily, in a rare bout of reasonableness, the ruling junta in Myanmar granted Aung San Suu Kyi's son a visa. Suu Kyi hasn't seen her son in 10 years. Her 33 year old son lives in Britain and he has repeatedly been denied visas by the Myanmar government. His last visit to the country was in 2000. The British embassy said his visit is strictly a private one and he doesn't intend to discuss politics. Suu Kyi would not go to visit her son in Britain because she is unwilling to leave Myanmar for fear that she would not be let back in. Her activism and calls for democracy are a threat to the ruling junta in Myanmar, and the government would probably love nothing more than to not let her back in the country.
Suu Kyi was mostly raised overseas, she married a British academic, and she initially raised their two sons in England. She returned to her home country in 1988 when her mother was sick. This is when mass demonstrations against the country's military rule were breaking out. During this time of unrest, Suu Kyi was thrust into a leadership role, mainly because she was the daughter of Aung San -- a revolutionary leader that helped bring about Burma's independence from British colonial rule. He is considered the country's founding father. He is also a martyred leader; he was assassinated for his activism. Suu Kyi took up the cause, and has subsequently faced many years of detention or house arrest. As a result, she hasn't seen her family very much. When she was first arrested in 1989, her eldest son was 16 and her younger son was 11. Her husband died of prostate cancer in 1999. For the three years leading up to his death, he kept trying to get a visa to see his wife but he was always denied. (Full Story)
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
November 17, 2010
Quick update on Don't Ask, Don't Tell: No big surprise, but the Supreme Court ruled that DADT can remain in place while a federal appeals court examines the case. The Log Cabin Republicans took the case to the Supreme Court in the hopes that they would overturn the stay. No such luck. (Full Story)
In other news, Senator John McCain is being ridiculous. McCain is a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back in the day, he said he was against DADT being repealed unless military officials said it was the thing to do. Well, now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen have come out in support of repealing DADT. McCain seems to be ignoring this.
McCain also previously said he was in favor of not repealing DADT until the military can study it. Well, the military has studied it. The Pentagon is preparing a report due December 1 to Obama, but sources familiar with the report have already shared findings from the report. They said the study found that a majority of respondents to the survey said the effect of lifting the ban on gay soldiers would be positive, mixed, or non-existent. Despite this finding, now McCain is dragging his feet some more. He said, "Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted." In other words, it needs to be delayed some more. Despite approving the study earlier, now he's saying they studied the wrong thing. He says the Pentagon should study how ending DADT would impact troop morale and battle effectiveness, instead of reporting how the Defense Department could lift the ban. If the study found that a majority of soldiers don't think lifting DADT will be a problem, I think that's your answer right there in terms of the impact on troop morale and battle effectiveness (read: it won't have a negative effect on those things). Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said, "McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I'm looking for."
Obama is hoping that the senate will repeal DADT during the lame-duck session (i.e., before the new Congressional session starts). McCain has said he does not think the Senate should lift the ban during this time. He has mounted an effort to take out the DADT repealment from the defense authorization bill (which sets Pentagon policy). He said he wants to cut out the DADT amendment so that the defense authorization bill can be passed quickly. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he supports the ban but he will not proceed without Republican support. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she will vote for it if Reid allows Republicans to introduce amendments (Vote the issue, not the procedure! Opening up unlimited amendments by Republicans will probably kill the bill. And then Collins will probably still jump ship. I appreciate the Republican senators from Maine (Collins & Olympia Snowe) expressing a willingness to reach across the aisle and to vote with Democrats on various important measures. At the same time, I'm getting a little annoyed with them requesting all these compromises and favors, being granted those things, and then still not voting with them. Collins, vote the issue, not the procedure! I beg of you!). It's believed that at least 10 senators of both parties are waiting to read the Pentagon report because they make their decision. This seriously is the time to repeal it, here's no reason to keep this policy in place. It's an embarrassment and an injustice. (Full Story)
According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 50 million Americans lived in households (17.4 million households, or about 15% of all households) that had a hard time getting enough food to eat at least at some point in 2009. That includes 17 million children. About 5.6 million of these households had problems throughout the year that severely disrupted eating patterns (and between 500,000 and 1 million of these people affected were children).
These measures reached a record high in 2008, and one explanation for why it remained at about the same level this year instead of going higher (when millions more Americans were out of work) is because of food stamps and other assistance programs. There has been record growth in the use of the food stamps program (it's now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). Forty-two million Americans, or 1 in 8, now use them. The food stamp program was expanded last year by Congress as part of the economic recovery bill, and clearly it has helped to contain hunger [you mean, having a social safety net actually helps people?! What a novel concept!]. Furthermore, one in four households have at least one family member participating in a USDA feeding program, up from one in five two years ago. One source of help is that about one million children got free or reduced-price meals at their schools last year.
In light of this report, it will be interesting to see what happens when Congress faces the task of reauthorizing and expanding school lunch and other child nutrition programs. The bill has stalled in Congress because someone had the genius idea to propose that the $4.5 billion bill should be paid for by cutting future food stamp benefits. So, in order words, they want to fight against hunger by cutting benefits that will help families not go hungry.
Some conservatives are getting their Grinch hats ready for Christmas by saying that these problems are exaggerated. "They clearly exaggerate these numbers for political effect," says Robert Rector (the article calls him "a poverty expert with the Heritage Foundation" -- although we all know that's an oxymoron). Rector says that many of these people counted might have only missed one meal on one day in the whole course of the year. I think beliefs and statements like that are doing a great disservice to the number of people that are struggling. Saying this is exaggerated for political effect is undermining the great number of people that are having a tough time and experiencing food insecurity. Just looking at one statistic, 42 million Americans are on food stamps. People don't apply for food stamps because they missed one single meal throughout the course of the year. This problem is much more prevalent than people like Rector are willing to acknowledge. Regardless of what people like Rector say, people do not have to experience "chronic undernutrition" to have it hard. The problem of food insecurity shouldn't have to reach that extreme level for it to be taken serious. Besides, no family should have to forgo even one meal because they cannot afford it (especially in a prosperous country like the U.S.). (Full Story) (Full Story)
In other news, Senator John McCain is being ridiculous. McCain is a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Back in the day, he said he was against DADT being repealed unless military officials said it was the thing to do. Well, now Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen have come out in support of repealing DADT. McCain seems to be ignoring this.
McCain also previously said he was in favor of not repealing DADT until the military can study it. Well, the military has studied it. The Pentagon is preparing a report due December 1 to Obama, but sources familiar with the report have already shared findings from the report. They said the study found that a majority of respondents to the survey said the effect of lifting the ban on gay soldiers would be positive, mixed, or non-existent. Despite this finding, now McCain is dragging his feet some more. He said, "Once we get this study, we need to have hearings. And we need to examine it. And we need to look at whether it's the kind of study that we wanted." In other words, it needs to be delayed some more. Despite approving the study earlier, now he's saying they studied the wrong thing. He says the Pentagon should study how ending DADT would impact troop morale and battle effectiveness, instead of reporting how the Defense Department could lift the ban. If the study found that a majority of soldiers don't think lifting DADT will be a problem, I think that's your answer right there in terms of the impact on troop morale and battle effectiveness (read: it won't have a negative effect on those things). Aubrey Sarvis, the executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, said, "McCain is telling the Pentagon: Keep working until you produce the outcome I'm looking for."
Obama is hoping that the senate will repeal DADT during the lame-duck session (i.e., before the new Congressional session starts). McCain has said he does not think the Senate should lift the ban during this time. He has mounted an effort to take out the DADT repealment from the defense authorization bill (which sets Pentagon policy). He said he wants to cut out the DADT amendment so that the defense authorization bill can be passed quickly. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) says he supports the ban but he will not proceed without Republican support. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she will vote for it if Reid allows Republicans to introduce amendments (Vote the issue, not the procedure! Opening up unlimited amendments by Republicans will probably kill the bill. And then Collins will probably still jump ship. I appreciate the Republican senators from Maine (Collins & Olympia Snowe) expressing a willingness to reach across the aisle and to vote with Democrats on various important measures. At the same time, I'm getting a little annoyed with them requesting all these compromises and favors, being granted those things, and then still not voting with them. Collins, vote the issue, not the procedure! I beg of you!). It's believed that at least 10 senators of both parties are waiting to read the Pentagon report because they make their decision. This seriously is the time to repeal it, here's no reason to keep this policy in place. It's an embarrassment and an injustice. (Full Story)
According to a report released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 50 million Americans lived in households (17.4 million households, or about 15% of all households) that had a hard time getting enough food to eat at least at some point in 2009. That includes 17 million children. About 5.6 million of these households had problems throughout the year that severely disrupted eating patterns (and between 500,000 and 1 million of these people affected were children).
These measures reached a record high in 2008, and one explanation for why it remained at about the same level this year instead of going higher (when millions more Americans were out of work) is because of food stamps and other assistance programs. There has been record growth in the use of the food stamps program (it's now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). Forty-two million Americans, or 1 in 8, now use them. The food stamp program was expanded last year by Congress as part of the economic recovery bill, and clearly it has helped to contain hunger [you mean, having a social safety net actually helps people?! What a novel concept!]. Furthermore, one in four households have at least one family member participating in a USDA feeding program, up from one in five two years ago. One source of help is that about one million children got free or reduced-price meals at their schools last year.
In light of this report, it will be interesting to see what happens when Congress faces the task of reauthorizing and expanding school lunch and other child nutrition programs. The bill has stalled in Congress because someone had the genius idea to propose that the $4.5 billion bill should be paid for by cutting future food stamp benefits. So, in order words, they want to fight against hunger by cutting benefits that will help families not go hungry.
Some conservatives are getting their Grinch hats ready for Christmas by saying that these problems are exaggerated. "They clearly exaggerate these numbers for political effect," says Robert Rector (the article calls him "a poverty expert with the Heritage Foundation" -- although we all know that's an oxymoron). Rector says that many of these people counted might have only missed one meal on one day in the whole course of the year. I think beliefs and statements like that are doing a great disservice to the number of people that are struggling. Saying this is exaggerated for political effect is undermining the great number of people that are having a tough time and experiencing food insecurity. Just looking at one statistic, 42 million Americans are on food stamps. People don't apply for food stamps because they missed one single meal throughout the course of the year. This problem is much more prevalent than people like Rector are willing to acknowledge. Regardless of what people like Rector say, people do not have to experience "chronic undernutrition" to have it hard. The problem of food insecurity shouldn't have to reach that extreme level for it to be taken serious. Besides, no family should have to forgo even one meal because they cannot afford it (especially in a prosperous country like the U.S.). (Full Story) (Full Story)
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
November 16, 2010
In 2001, the California Legislature passed a measure that any student, regardless of immigration status, that attended a California high school for at least three years and graduated would be able to qualify for in-state tuition at California's public universities. In-state tuition saves each state college student about $11,000 a year and about $23,000 a year for each University of California student. These undocumented immigrant students would still be barred from receiving financial federal aid. The law also requires that the undocumented immigrants that apply for the in-state tuition have to swear that they will attempt to become a U.S. citizen.
A group of out-of-state students (who were U.S. citizens) then filed a lawsuit claiming that the law violated federal laws that bars undocumented immigrants from receiving post-secondary benefits not available to U.S. citizens based on state residency. In 2008, a state appellate court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
A group of out-of-state students (who were U.S. citizens) then filed a lawsuit claiming that the law violated federal laws that bars undocumented immigrants from receiving post-secondary benefits not available to U.S. citizens based on state residency. In 2008, a state appellate court ruled that the law was unconstitutional.
The case then went to the California State Supreme Court. The court has upheld the state law and ruled unanimously that it was not unconstitutional (and six of the seven judges were appointed by Republicans governors). California is now one of ten states that allows undocumented immigrants to receive in-state tuition; but this ruling is the first of its kind in the nation. The justices said the California provision was constitutional because U.S. residents also have access to reduced tuition rates (yeah, if you want in-state tuition, move your ass to California, whiners) and that the California law is not based on residency. Under the law, the students are not receiving reduced college tuition based on residency; instead, the California law makes an exemption for students that attend state schools for three years. That means any non-resident who meets the law's requirements can get the reduced rate. Some of those students are undocumented immigrants, but it also includes U.S. citizens who attend high school in California but their family does not live in California (e.g., students that attended a California high school for at least three years, but then their family moved away; students that attended a boarding school in California). The case is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am very pleased with the California State Supreme Court's decision. Undocumented immigrants deserve an education too. They're already not entitled to government aid for education, so it's nice that this is one less financial roadblock to getting a college education (although even with in-state tuition, I bet some people will still have a hard time affording university). Groups opposed to this law say that lower tuition for undocumented immigrants will cost the state money. When in actuality, I bet the state is probably going to make more money than they would have in the first place. By giving the in-state tuition rate, maybe more immigrant students will find that attending university is financially possible. Before you were maybe going to get no tuition out of them, now you might be able to get $4,335-$11,285 annually from each student (depending on what school they attend). In addition, the more degree-holders and highly-skilled people in California translates into more benefits for the state's economy and workforce.
Many of the immigrant students that will benefit from this law most likely came to the U.S. with their families when they were very young. They probably have lived here for most of their life. These are students that attended at least three years in a California high school, they graduated, and they were accepted to a college. These are obviously very bright people (that have obviously overcame many challenges. Imagine the difficulties of going through life in the U.S. being a child of an undocumented worker), and they should be encouraged, not held back, from attending college. (Full Story)
Monday, November 15, 2010
November 15, 2010
Arizona voters approved medical marijuana by a narrow margin. Arizona is the 15th state (including Washington, DC) to approve medical marijuana. The measure applies to patients with cancer, AIDS, or any other "chronic or debilitating" disease that meets guidelines. Patients have to get a recommendation from their doctor and register with the Arizona Department of Health Services. Once that occurs, they can grow plants or buy 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks.
The measure was opposed by all of Arizona's sheriffs and county prosecutors, the governor, and the state attorney general. Jeez. I know just the thing that will lighten them up... So, let me get this straight: Arizona's political leaders are fine passing racist, discriminatory, privacy-breaking laws regarding immigrants, but they draw the line at alleviating suffering for people with chronic diseases? Ok... (Full Story)
After more than seven years of house arrest by Myanmar's military junta, pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is now free. She has spent 15 of the last 21 years jailed or under house arrest. I know it's no coincidence that she was released after the election, but I'm glad they actually followed through with her release. However, I feel this "gesture" by Myanmar's military leaders (because it pretty much is a gesture, Suu Kyi is arbitrarily held under house arrest at the whim of the leaders) only goes so far. I believe Suu Kyi will try to play a strong role in promoting democracy in the country, and the military leaders (despite holding this recent election, which was a sham) have no intention of letting any power slip from their hands. It is an extremely repressive regime, and I don't think they're going to allow Suu Kyi to be involved in too much activism in Myanmar.
Only a day after being released, and Suu Kyi jumped back into politics. She has spoken with several diplomats, reporters, and members of her National League for Democracy party. She said she wanted to speak with the Myanmar leader General Than Shwe, that she would work to end the international sanctions on the country if the Burmese people wanted her to, and that she would work to help unite the opposition factions in Myanmar. The chairman of the opposition party National Democratic Force (the NDF split from Suu Kyi's NLD party so that they could run in last week's elections) said he welcomed this and that "we have great expectations that she might be able to lead to conciliate all the different forces in the country." Suu Kyi and the NDF have said they plan to investigate the vote rigging in the recent elections.
Suu Kyi is extremely intelligent, has amazing political skills, is very charismatic, and is pretty universally loved in Myanmar (outside of the military leaders, of course). She has the power to unite many people in Myanmar under one united front. Her popularity and her dedication to the cause of democracy in Myanmar makes her a threat to the military leaders. I'm skeptical that they're going to allow her to organize and promote her activism freely. She has been released from house arrest twice before, and in both instances she was put back under house arrest soon after. They have even resorted to violence in the past. For instance, in 2003 government-backed thugs attacked Suu Kyi's convoy and killed more than a hundred of her supporters and fellow party members. I can't imagine they would attempt violence against Suu Kyi again -- I think that could cause a revolt of the people and the international community would be outraged. But I'm not so sure that they won't try to limit her voice and activism through other means.
Amazingly, Suu Kyi said she holds no grudge against her captors. She's a better person than I would be. Also, what broke my heart in the article is when she said she was excited to be released because she was eager to hear human voices again -- for so many years she could only listen to the radio. (Full Story)
The measure was opposed by all of Arizona's sheriffs and county prosecutors, the governor, and the state attorney general. Jeez. I know just the thing that will lighten them up... So, let me get this straight: Arizona's political leaders are fine passing racist, discriminatory, privacy-breaking laws regarding immigrants, but they draw the line at alleviating suffering for people with chronic diseases? Ok... (Full Story)
After more than seven years of house arrest by Myanmar's military junta, pro-democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi is now free. She has spent 15 of the last 21 years jailed or under house arrest. I know it's no coincidence that she was released after the election, but I'm glad they actually followed through with her release. However, I feel this "gesture" by Myanmar's military leaders (because it pretty much is a gesture, Suu Kyi is arbitrarily held under house arrest at the whim of the leaders) only goes so far. I believe Suu Kyi will try to play a strong role in promoting democracy in the country, and the military leaders (despite holding this recent election, which was a sham) have no intention of letting any power slip from their hands. It is an extremely repressive regime, and I don't think they're going to allow Suu Kyi to be involved in too much activism in Myanmar.
Only a day after being released, and Suu Kyi jumped back into politics. She has spoken with several diplomats, reporters, and members of her National League for Democracy party. She said she wanted to speak with the Myanmar leader General Than Shwe, that she would work to end the international sanctions on the country if the Burmese people wanted her to, and that she would work to help unite the opposition factions in Myanmar. The chairman of the opposition party National Democratic Force (the NDF split from Suu Kyi's NLD party so that they could run in last week's elections) said he welcomed this and that "we have great expectations that she might be able to lead to conciliate all the different forces in the country." Suu Kyi and the NDF have said they plan to investigate the vote rigging in the recent elections.
Suu Kyi is extremely intelligent, has amazing political skills, is very charismatic, and is pretty universally loved in Myanmar (outside of the military leaders, of course). She has the power to unite many people in Myanmar under one united front. Her popularity and her dedication to the cause of democracy in Myanmar makes her a threat to the military leaders. I'm skeptical that they're going to allow her to organize and promote her activism freely. She has been released from house arrest twice before, and in both instances she was put back under house arrest soon after. They have even resorted to violence in the past. For instance, in 2003 government-backed thugs attacked Suu Kyi's convoy and killed more than a hundred of her supporters and fellow party members. I can't imagine they would attempt violence against Suu Kyi again -- I think that could cause a revolt of the people and the international community would be outraged. But I'm not so sure that they won't try to limit her voice and activism through other means.
Amazingly, Suu Kyi said she holds no grudge against her captors. She's a better person than I would be. Also, what broke my heart in the article is when she said she was excited to be released because she was eager to hear human voices again -- for so many years she could only listen to the radio. (Full Story)
Friday, November 12, 2010
November 12, 2010
After an eight-month political deadlock in Iraq, it has been announced that the incumbent Prime Minister Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, and his State of Law party, has been given the nod to form the next government after a tentative deal was reached. Maliki, a Shiite, was able to gain enough support from other parties to form a majority coalition. One thing that helped with him forming the winning coalition is that he got the support of Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American Shiite cleric who was once Maliki's arch rival. It has been reported that Iran (which is Shiite-dominated) was behind this alliance, as they prefer to see all the Shiite parties in one coalition instead of fighting against each other.
After the announcement of a winning coalition was made, it was predicted that the new government would look a lot like the previous one. It was expected that Maliki would remain prime minister; Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, would remain as president; and the third top post, the speaker of Parliament, would go to a Sunni (this division of power is an effort to keep the country's three main factions happy). However, supporters of Ayad Allawi, head of the Iraqiya party (the Sunni bloc), were hoping that he would get a top post. They were hoping he would become president. But the Kurds, who hold the presidency, wouldn't budge on that. There's also been concern that if Allawi didn't take a top post, there could be sectarian unrest -- especially since the Iraqiya party got the most votes in the election. Despite getting the most votes in the election, they were unable to find enough coalition partners in order to get a majority of seats. As a result, it was unclear what role Allawi will play in the new government and how much power Iraqiya will have.
On Thursday, less than a day after the power-sharing deal was reached, the first session of the new parliament was called in order to formally begin the process of approving the new government. This is when the senior leadership positions are named. The first vote went smoothly, and Osama al-Nujaifi (a Sunni from the Iraqiya party) was elected as parliament speaker. Then, before the vote to elect a president, some Iraqiya members wanted to hold a vote to reverse a ban on three Iraqiya members. These members were disqualified from running in the election and were banned from government posts by a committee, headed by Shiites, that was in charge of rooting out candidates whom they described as loyalists to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. The Iraqiya members' request for a vote was rejected. As a result, 57 Iraqiya members (including Allawi) walked out. They had said that it was part of the power-sharing deal that the other factions would agree to get rid of the controversial de-Baathification law (which Sunnis believe is a Shiite attempt to bar Sunnis from returning to power). At a press conference after the walkout, a lawmaker from Iraqiya said they are seeking "explanations from al-Maliki and State of Law over their broken commitments."
After the walkout, the session continued and the remaining members of Parliament elected Jalal Talabani as president for a second term. After being elected, Talabani formally requested that Maliki form a new government. Maliki now has 30 days to do so. The factions will now work out who gets what ministry positions. Once that has been decided, we'll get a clearer idea of what the government will look like -- for instance, how much power Iraqiya is given and even how much power the anti-American Sadrist movement gets. The Obama administration pressed publicly for an inclusive government that would not disenfranchise Allawi's Sunni supporters, out of fear that this could incite insurgency. It is believed that Allawi will lead the newly created council that oversees issues of security and foreign policy. However, the extent of the council's power and authority remains vague. In fact, there is already contention over that. An Iraqiya lawmaker said the 20-member council will be headed by Allawi and that all decisions regarding security or foreign policy will have to pass the council unanimously, which serves as a real check on Maliki's power. But lawmakers from State of Law implied that that was not the case and that Maliki is unlikely to give up any power over security issues. They said he will not submit to the council's decisions, and that the council will serve as a place to come up with ideas, but not to wield power. It will be interesting to see what comes about. (Full Story)(Full Story)
After the announcement of a winning coalition was made, it was predicted that the new government would look a lot like the previous one. It was expected that Maliki would remain prime minister; Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, would remain as president; and the third top post, the speaker of Parliament, would go to a Sunni (this division of power is an effort to keep the country's three main factions happy). However, supporters of Ayad Allawi, head of the Iraqiya party (the Sunni bloc), were hoping that he would get a top post. They were hoping he would become president. But the Kurds, who hold the presidency, wouldn't budge on that. There's also been concern that if Allawi didn't take a top post, there could be sectarian unrest -- especially since the Iraqiya party got the most votes in the election. Despite getting the most votes in the election, they were unable to find enough coalition partners in order to get a majority of seats. As a result, it was unclear what role Allawi will play in the new government and how much power Iraqiya will have.
On Thursday, less than a day after the power-sharing deal was reached, the first session of the new parliament was called in order to formally begin the process of approving the new government. This is when the senior leadership positions are named. The first vote went smoothly, and Osama al-Nujaifi (a Sunni from the Iraqiya party) was elected as parliament speaker. Then, before the vote to elect a president, some Iraqiya members wanted to hold a vote to reverse a ban on three Iraqiya members. These members were disqualified from running in the election and were banned from government posts by a committee, headed by Shiites, that was in charge of rooting out candidates whom they described as loyalists to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. The Iraqiya members' request for a vote was rejected. As a result, 57 Iraqiya members (including Allawi) walked out. They had said that it was part of the power-sharing deal that the other factions would agree to get rid of the controversial de-Baathification law (which Sunnis believe is a Shiite attempt to bar Sunnis from returning to power). At a press conference after the walkout, a lawmaker from Iraqiya said they are seeking "explanations from al-Maliki and State of Law over their broken commitments."
After the walkout, the session continued and the remaining members of Parliament elected Jalal Talabani as president for a second term. After being elected, Talabani formally requested that Maliki form a new government. Maliki now has 30 days to do so. The factions will now work out who gets what ministry positions. Once that has been decided, we'll get a clearer idea of what the government will look like -- for instance, how much power Iraqiya is given and even how much power the anti-American Sadrist movement gets. The Obama administration pressed publicly for an inclusive government that would not disenfranchise Allawi's Sunni supporters, out of fear that this could incite insurgency. It is believed that Allawi will lead the newly created council that oversees issues of security and foreign policy. However, the extent of the council's power and authority remains vague. In fact, there is already contention over that. An Iraqiya lawmaker said the 20-member council will be headed by Allawi and that all decisions regarding security or foreign policy will have to pass the council unanimously, which serves as a real check on Maliki's power. But lawmakers from State of Law implied that that was not the case and that Maliki is unlikely to give up any power over security issues. They said he will not submit to the council's decisions, and that the council will serve as a place to come up with ideas, but not to wield power. It will be interesting to see what comes about. (Full Story)(Full Story)
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
November 10, 2010
Remember how I thought Joe Miller (the Republican senatorial candidate for Alaska) and his supporters were being babies and "unsportsmanlike" because they tried to register 100 people to be write-in candidates, in order to create a long-list of write-in candidates on the ballot so that it's harder for voters to find his opponent's name (more here)? Well, now Joe Miller has filed a federal lawsuit in which he argues that ballots that have Lisa Murkowski's name spelled wrong (i.e., the voters spelled her name wrong when writing her name down as their write-in choice) should not count in the official tally. Miller asked the judge to stop the state from making a judgment on a voter's intentions. He says that state law allows no leeway for other spellings.
Lieutenant Governor Campbell, who oversees Alaska elections, has indicated that he will accept minor misspellings of Murkowksi's name as long as the "voter intent" is clear. He said, "The court have been very clear for the last 25 years that voter intent is important. You do not want to disenfranchise voters over a technicality." However, Miller's lawyer argues that nothing in the state law allows for that kind of discretion and the law does not allow the election board to weigh voter intent. Miller and his lawyer say the law says that a write-in vote shall only be counted "if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided." I'm no expert on Alaska law, but I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of that law was that when they say "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy" that they do not mean 'It needs to be spelled absolutely correct' but 'The write-in candidate needs to have a declaration of candidacy' (i.e., they need to have registered to be a write-in candidate). I can't imagine the intent was to disenfranchise voters because they used an "e" instead of an "o" in someone's last name, and other than that minor spelling, it's obvious who their vote is for.
Miller, always talking the high road, has also accused Lt. Gov. Campbell of bias, saying he was appointed by Lisa Murkowski's father (Frank Murkowski, who was governor at the time). Frank Murkowski appointed Campbell in 2003 to be the commissioner of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Then-Governor Sarah Palin is the one that chose Campbell to be in the position to take over the Lt. Governorship when she resigned as Governor in 2009. (Full Story)
This is so ridiculous. Miller and his lawyer are making "voter intent" to seem so much more sinister than it really is. It's not like the election board is looking at ballots saying "Hmm, this person voted for Miller, but I can tell by the wobbliness of the pen mark that they weren't certain in their vote. They probably meant to vote for Murkowski. Add one more vote to Murkowski's tally." Instead it's more like, "Oh, this person wrote in Merkowski. I think it's safe to assume they meant Murkowski." Miller should be ashamed of himself.
Lieutenant Governor Campbell, who oversees Alaska elections, has indicated that he will accept minor misspellings of Murkowksi's name as long as the "voter intent" is clear. He said, "The court have been very clear for the last 25 years that voter intent is important. You do not want to disenfranchise voters over a technicality." However, Miller's lawyer argues that nothing in the state law allows for that kind of discretion and the law does not allow the election board to weigh voter intent. Miller and his lawyer say the law says that a write-in vote shall only be counted "if the name, as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy, of the candidate or the last name of the candidate is written in the space provided." I'm no expert on Alaska law, but I wouldn't be surprised if the intent of that law was that when they say "as it appears on the write-in declaration of candidacy" that they do not mean 'It needs to be spelled absolutely correct' but 'The write-in candidate needs to have a declaration of candidacy' (i.e., they need to have registered to be a write-in candidate). I can't imagine the intent was to disenfranchise voters because they used an "e" instead of an "o" in someone's last name, and other than that minor spelling, it's obvious who their vote is for.
Miller, always talking the high road, has also accused Lt. Gov. Campbell of bias, saying he was appointed by Lisa Murkowski's father (Frank Murkowski, who was governor at the time). Frank Murkowski appointed Campbell in 2003 to be the commissioner of the state Department of Military and Veterans Affairs. Then-Governor Sarah Palin is the one that chose Campbell to be in the position to take over the Lt. Governorship when she resigned as Governor in 2009. (Full Story)
This is so ridiculous. Miller and his lawyer are making "voter intent" to seem so much more sinister than it really is. It's not like the election board is looking at ballots saying "Hmm, this person voted for Miller, but I can tell by the wobbliness of the pen mark that they weren't certain in their vote. They probably meant to vote for Murkowski. Add one more vote to Murkowski's tally." Instead it's more like, "Oh, this person wrote in Merkowski. I think it's safe to assume they meant Murkowski." Miller should be ashamed of himself.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
November 09, 2010
In a follow-up to Oklahoma's new anti-Shariah amendment (more here): A federal judge temporarily stopped this anti-Shariah law from taking effect. Muneer Awad, head of the Oklahoma chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations challenged it in federal court a few days after the ballot initiative was approved (by 70% of voters). Awad said, "You have a state-endorsed amendment in our Constitution that isolates, targets, and marginalizes Muslims as a threat to the American way of life. We would be stigmatized by this amendment as being an unequal member in the political community in the state of Oklahoma." Awad told Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange that the amendment hinders his religious freedom. The judge granted a temporary stay and said the law cannot take effect until all the constitutional arguments have been heard.
Many constitutional scholars agree that this law is absurd. This amendment is an example of the fear that Islam is taking over this country. Constitutional scholars say that if religious practice conflicts with American law, courts will strike it down. Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer, says there is no validity to the belief that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here. He stated, "Stoning, cutting off of hands, people being forced to wear veils and the like are simply not going to happen with the assistance of the courts." He argues that what this new Oklahoma amendment does is favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. He gave the example of how it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement, or a contract based on religious law. He explained, "This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law. It doesn't say you can't take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious behavior. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out."
Another problem with the law is that it also said that courts cannot consider international law when deciding cases. It would bar courts of the state from recognizing all international law, including treaties and international business contracts, which are often based on foreign law. Not only does it make Oklahoma seem like crazy isolationists, but it could hurt foreign investment in Oklahoma. A University of Oklahoma law professor argues that this could result in foreign companies not wanting to do business in Oklahoma, especially since international investors rely on international law to protect their contract rights. (Full Story)
According to a new survey conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, 84% of parents reported that their kids had eaten at a fast food restaurant in the past seven days. In addition (and in relation), the researchers found that kids are seeing more fast food ads in recent years. The research team analyzed ads aired by 12 fast food chains (including Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, and KFC), and found that preschoolers are seeing 21% more ads for fast food compared to 2003; older children are seeing 34% more. The average preschooler sees about three ads a day, while teenagers see about five per day.
This is despite fast food industry leaders voluntarily agreeing in 2006, at the recommendation of the Better Business Bureau, to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to kids. They had pledged that in ads directed towards kids, at least 50% of those ads would be devoted to 'healthier choices' at their fast food restaurant. The Yale researchers say these companies have not lived up to the agreement. As part of their study, the researchers sent people into a few hundred fast food restaurants to track how often healthy sides were offered when parents ordered kids' meals. They found that 80% of the time french fries were given automatically, and the customer wasn't even offered the healthier choices.
Burger King and McDonald's say they're both honoring their marketing agreements. McDonald's chief marketing officer says "100 percent" of their children's ads in the US include "dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans." (yeah, they probably include choices that do fit within the guidelines, but then they probably also includes choices that do not fit within the guidelines). McDonald's also says that since 2008, US customers have purchased more than 100 million Happy Meals with apple dippers. That is a step forward -- that people are making healthier choices with their kids' meals by having apples instead of fries...But the problem is still that 100 million Happy Meals have been sold...in two years. The Happy Meal doesn't consist only of milk and apple dippers (and those apples are being dipped in caramel, fyi). Burger King says that their Kids Meal ads only feature combinations that have no more than 560 calories, and less than 30% of those calories are from fat. Obesity experts say that if kids stick with the kids' meals, the calorie count isn't that alarming. The problem is when they move on to the regular meals. The Rudd Center study found that teens often order from the regular menu, and purchase meals that have as much as 1,100 calories. That is almost half of their recommended total daily calories. (Full Story)
Many constitutional scholars agree that this law is absurd. This amendment is an example of the fear that Islam is taking over this country. Constitutional scholars say that if religious practice conflicts with American law, courts will strike it down. Marc Stern, a First Amendment lawyer, says there is no validity to the belief that fundamentalist Islamic law will be imported here. He stated, "Stoning, cutting off of hands, people being forced to wear veils and the like are simply not going to happen with the assistance of the courts." He argues that what this new Oklahoma amendment does is favor other religious practices over Islamic ones. He gave the example of how it is common for a court to accept a will, a prenuptial agreement, or a contract based on religious law. He explained, "This amendment seems to say the courts can take no notice of Shariah law. It doesn't say you can't take notice of canon or Jewish or any other form of religious law that imposes requirements on religious behavior. That, alone, would seem to be grounds for throwing this out."
Another problem with the law is that it also said that courts cannot consider international law when deciding cases. It would bar courts of the state from recognizing all international law, including treaties and international business contracts, which are often based on foreign law. Not only does it make Oklahoma seem like crazy isolationists, but it could hurt foreign investment in Oklahoma. A University of Oklahoma law professor argues that this could result in foreign companies not wanting to do business in Oklahoma, especially since international investors rely on international law to protect their contract rights. (Full Story)
According to a new survey conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale, 84% of parents reported that their kids had eaten at a fast food restaurant in the past seven days. In addition (and in relation), the researchers found that kids are seeing more fast food ads in recent years. The research team analyzed ads aired by 12 fast food chains (including Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, and KFC), and found that preschoolers are seeing 21% more ads for fast food compared to 2003; older children are seeing 34% more. The average preschooler sees about three ads a day, while teenagers see about five per day.
This is despite fast food industry leaders voluntarily agreeing in 2006, at the recommendation of the Better Business Bureau, to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to kids. They had pledged that in ads directed towards kids, at least 50% of those ads would be devoted to 'healthier choices' at their fast food restaurant. The Yale researchers say these companies have not lived up to the agreement. As part of their study, the researchers sent people into a few hundred fast food restaurants to track how often healthy sides were offered when parents ordered kids' meals. They found that 80% of the time french fries were given automatically, and the customer wasn't even offered the healthier choices.
Burger King and McDonald's say they're both honoring their marketing agreements. McDonald's chief marketing officer says "100 percent" of their children's ads in the US include "dietary choices that fit within the 2005 USDA Dietary Guidelines for Americans." (yeah, they probably include choices that do fit within the guidelines, but then they probably also includes choices that do not fit within the guidelines). McDonald's also says that since 2008, US customers have purchased more than 100 million Happy Meals with apple dippers. That is a step forward -- that people are making healthier choices with their kids' meals by having apples instead of fries...But the problem is still that 100 million Happy Meals have been sold...in two years. The Happy Meal doesn't consist only of milk and apple dippers (and those apples are being dipped in caramel, fyi). Burger King says that their Kids Meal ads only feature combinations that have no more than 560 calories, and less than 30% of those calories are from fat. Obesity experts say that if kids stick with the kids' meals, the calorie count isn't that alarming. The problem is when they move on to the regular meals. The Rudd Center study found that teens often order from the regular menu, and purchase meals that have as much as 1,100 calories. That is almost half of their recommended total daily calories. (Full Story)
Monday, November 8, 2010
November 08, 2010
The too-close-to-call Washington senate race was finally concluded. Senator Patty Murray (D) defeated her Republican challenger, Dino Rossi. This means the Senate now consists of 53 Democrats and 46 Republicans. The Alaska senate race still hasn't been decided. (Full Story)
Myanmar (Burma) held parliamentary elections on Sunday -- the first election in twenty years. However, it wasn't a free or fair election. The election was designed to guarantee victory for the allies of the military junta that has been running the country for 48 years. There was not much excitement among the voters because they felt they were simply going through the motions of voting, and that the outcome was already predetermined.
The national results have not been announced yet (probably won't be until this evening, at the earliest). But with the Union Solidarity and Development Party and The National Unity Party, which are pro-regime, fielding 80% of the candidates -- it's predicted that they will win easily. The largest opposition group that participated in the election, the National Democratic Force, were only able to field candidates in a small number of available constituencies. They fielded candidates in just 159 of the 1,157 constituencies. In addition, the junta decided in their newly created constitution that 25% of the seats in both of the two new national assemblies and the 14 regional parliaments are reserved for the military.
You may also remember that the National League for Democracy (which has been the main opposition party in Myanmar, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi. They won a landslide victory the last time elections were held in 1990, but the junta refused to hand over power) decided in March that they would not take part in the election because of the unjust electoral laws. In order to participate in the election, they would have to drop Aung San Suu Kyi and other prominent party leaders from their party. The leaders of Myanmar had enacted new election laws that ban people with criminal charges from being a member of a political party or voting (and how convenient that that includes Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for being considered a dissident by the junta). The laws also banned civil servants and members of religious orders from joining political parties. With the largest opposition party boycotting the election, it's pretty easy to win. Suu Kyi did not vote, she remains under house arrest, but her sentence is due to end this Saturday (how convenient that it was after the election). We'll see if they do release her, or if they'll find some other way to keep her under house arrest.
Most international monitors and journalists were barred by the rulers of Myanmar. The leaders of Myanmar instead invited a group of diplomats of their own choosing to observe the election process. The group of diplomats was led by the North Korean ambassador...That's right, North Korea -- as in, the beacon of democracy. Observers of the election say that there did not appear to be overt intimidation of voters to get them to vote for pro-junta parties. However, even if this is true (which it probably isn't), many voters were afraid that authorities would be able to track their votes, and that they would face consequences for voting for the opposition. The chairman of the National Democratic Force, the largest opposition party that participated in the election, filed a complaint alleging that pro-junta parties forced people to cast advance votes in their favor. The United States and the international community have criticized the elections.
Some analysts say that although the election was not fair, at least there was some progress. The fact that an election was even held, and that a parliament was created is a step forward. Analysts say that any process that leads to a dilution of Myanmar's military control presents at least some wiggle room for progress in the future. Having a parliament could provide an opening for movements towards democracy. The deputy director of Amnesty International's Asia program explained, "There may be slightly more political space if the other parties win some seats." (Full Story)
In other news, fighting between ethnic rebels and Myanmar government troops has broken out and at least 15,000 refugees have fled into Thailand. Groups representing the ethnic minorities, who make up 40% of the population, had warned in recent days that a civil war could erupt if the military tries to impose its highly centralized constitution and deprive them of rights. (Full Story)
The New York Times has a heartbreaking story of Afghan women that commit suicide by burning themselves in order to escape their hard lives filled with poverty and abuse. "It is shameful here to admit to troubles at home, and mental illness often goes undiagnosed or untreated...The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: Their family is their fate. There little chance for education, little choice about whom a woman marries, no choice at all about her role in her own house. Her primary job is to serve her husband's family. Outside that world, she is an outcast." The hospital in Herat is the only medical center in Afghanistan that specializes in treating burn victims, and the hospital has experienced a 30% increase from last year of women arriving with burns. Most of the women that are brought in have self-inflicted wounds. However, in some instances (usually the most sinister burn cases), the burn cases are actually homicides, but the family tries to pass it off as a suicide attempt. (Full Story)
Myanmar (Burma) held parliamentary elections on Sunday -- the first election in twenty years. However, it wasn't a free or fair election. The election was designed to guarantee victory for the allies of the military junta that has been running the country for 48 years. There was not much excitement among the voters because they felt they were simply going through the motions of voting, and that the outcome was already predetermined.
The national results have not been announced yet (probably won't be until this evening, at the earliest). But with the Union Solidarity and Development Party and The National Unity Party, which are pro-regime, fielding 80% of the candidates -- it's predicted that they will win easily. The largest opposition group that participated in the election, the National Democratic Force, were only able to field candidates in a small number of available constituencies. They fielded candidates in just 159 of the 1,157 constituencies. In addition, the junta decided in their newly created constitution that 25% of the seats in both of the two new national assemblies and the 14 regional parliaments are reserved for the military.
You may also remember that the National League for Democracy (which has been the main opposition party in Myanmar, headed by Aung San Suu Kyi. They won a landslide victory the last time elections were held in 1990, but the junta refused to hand over power) decided in March that they would not take part in the election because of the unjust electoral laws. In order to participate in the election, they would have to drop Aung San Suu Kyi and other prominent party leaders from their party. The leaders of Myanmar had enacted new election laws that ban people with criminal charges from being a member of a political party or voting (and how convenient that that includes Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been under house arrest for being considered a dissident by the junta). The laws also banned civil servants and members of religious orders from joining political parties. With the largest opposition party boycotting the election, it's pretty easy to win. Suu Kyi did not vote, she remains under house arrest, but her sentence is due to end this Saturday (how convenient that it was after the election). We'll see if they do release her, or if they'll find some other way to keep her under house arrest.
Most international monitors and journalists were barred by the rulers of Myanmar. The leaders of Myanmar instead invited a group of diplomats of their own choosing to observe the election process. The group of diplomats was led by the North Korean ambassador...That's right, North Korea -- as in, the beacon of democracy. Observers of the election say that there did not appear to be overt intimidation of voters to get them to vote for pro-junta parties. However, even if this is true (which it probably isn't), many voters were afraid that authorities would be able to track their votes, and that they would face consequences for voting for the opposition. The chairman of the National Democratic Force, the largest opposition party that participated in the election, filed a complaint alleging that pro-junta parties forced people to cast advance votes in their favor. The United States and the international community have criticized the elections.
Some analysts say that although the election was not fair, at least there was some progress. The fact that an election was even held, and that a parliament was created is a step forward. Analysts say that any process that leads to a dilution of Myanmar's military control presents at least some wiggle room for progress in the future. Having a parliament could provide an opening for movements towards democracy. The deputy director of Amnesty International's Asia program explained, "There may be slightly more political space if the other parties win some seats." (Full Story)
In other news, fighting between ethnic rebels and Myanmar government troops has broken out and at least 15,000 refugees have fled into Thailand. Groups representing the ethnic minorities, who make up 40% of the population, had warned in recent days that a civil war could erupt if the military tries to impose its highly centralized constitution and deprive them of rights. (Full Story)
The New York Times has a heartbreaking story of Afghan women that commit suicide by burning themselves in order to escape their hard lives filled with poverty and abuse. "It is shameful here to admit to troubles at home, and mental illness often goes undiagnosed or untreated...The choices for Afghan women are extraordinarily restricted: Their family is their fate. There little chance for education, little choice about whom a woman marries, no choice at all about her role in her own house. Her primary job is to serve her husband's family. Outside that world, she is an outcast." The hospital in Herat is the only medical center in Afghanistan that specializes in treating burn victims, and the hospital has experienced a 30% increase from last year of women arriving with burns. Most of the women that are brought in have self-inflicted wounds. However, in some instances (usually the most sinister burn cases), the burn cases are actually homicides, but the family tries to pass it off as a suicide attempt. (Full Story)
Thursday, November 4, 2010
November 04, 2010
Huh. Oklahoma sure was knocking 'em out of the park Tuesday evening. Oklahoma voters approved a measure (75.5% in favor) that requires official state business to be conducted in English (English-only). It's up to the state legislature to determine what documents and state business will be conducted in English only, but the legislator behind the bill says that he expects any state licenses, forms, and applications will be in English only. Opponents say it discriminates against new citizens and it violates the right of free speech. Opponents are already planning on filing lawsuits. (Full Story)
They also voted (70% in favor) to forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law (Sharia law) when deciding cases. There has been no instances of Sharia law used in court cases in Oklahoma, instead this law was designed as a "pre-emptive strike" according to the sponsor of the measure. Members of the Muslim community in Oklahoma say that this is an attack on Islam. A lawsuit is already being filed. The complaint is that this violates the First Amendment right of practicing religion freely. The Center on American-Islamic Relations, who is supporting the citizen that is filing the lawsuit, says that Sharia law is used in divorce cases and other family law cases in some western countries (like the UK and France), but not usually in the U.S. Instead, the way in which it is used in the U.S. has to do with religious practices, like prayer, fasting, and diet. (Full Story)
Both of these measures are obviously examples of the growing fear of outsiders -- particularly Latino immigrants and Muslims. I think these measures have come about due to ridiculous beliefs that some people hold: That Latinos come to America illegally and never learn the language and Americans have to bend over backwards for them (though I don't see how that's happening...), and that Muslims are coming to take over, spread their religion (at the expense of Christianity), and produce terrorists.
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices were voted out of their positions in Tuesday's election. Iowa has a system in place (since 1962) where governor's appoint the justices, but voters have a chance to vote them out at the end of each term. The three that were voted out were among the seven justices that decided unanimously last year that gay couples could get married in Iowa (i.e., that an Iowa law that limits marriage to only a man and a woman was unconstitutional). The justices' decision made them a target of anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, and the Family Research Council. These groups spent more than $1 million on their campaign to convince voters to vote out these justices.
The justices chose not to raise money or campaign for themselves, but a group of former governors, lawyers, and judges came together to form Fair Courts For Us to support the judges. Their message was that it's important to have an independent judiciary and that it's at risk if a one-issue campaign succeeds in removing justices. The group's co-chairman said, "[Iowans] need to know courts will be fair and impartial and decisions won't be based on fear and popularity."
The justices will vacate their spot on the bench at the end of the year. There are likely to be delays in the court issuing rulings until the vacancies are filled. This is the first time Iowa voters removed a Supreme Court justice since this current system started in 1962. Once the state election results are certified (which must be done by November 29), the state's 15-member judicial nominating commission will have 60 days to give the governor three nominees for each Supreme Court vacancy. The governor will then have 30 days to make appointments. The current governor is Democrat; however, he just lost to his Republican opponent in Tuesday's election. Due to the timeline for filling vacancies, it means the current governor will not be able to fill the vacancies before he leaves office. The governor-elect, Terry Branstad (R), has in the past supported amending the Iowa constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. He also once said that same-sex marriage led to the downfall of ancient civilizations. But he has also supported the idea of civil unions. (Full Story)
This is a very dangerous tactic, and these anti-gay groups are obviously trying to intimidate judges outside of Iowa as well. The Iowa Supreme Court justices unanimously decided that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marriage. Iowa citizens, don't you think that maybe seven justices (seven Iowa justices) coming together in agreement on this issue is probably an indication that this is a pretty legitimate decision? These justices did have to get some sort of training to get on the bench, you know. They've had years of education and experience. Instead of thinking about the reasoning and legality behind the justices' decision, and how they came to their decision, these voters acted on emotion. Just because justices don't vote the way you would like, it doesn't mean they're not doing their job. I certainly don't agree with the conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices, but I don't believe they should be fired because they didn't vote the way I want them to. That's just not the way it works. Sadly, Iowa voters decided to kick three justices off the bench because they were manipulated by these hate-mongering groups that somehow think two individuals of the same sex choosing to get married is the worst thing that could happen. One million dollars could have gone to so many more important, worthwhile things. Instead, it went to convincing Iowans to be hateful and vindictive. Sad.
Now there are only two undecided Senate races left. In Colorado, incumbent Senator Michael Bennet (D) narrowly defeated Tea Party favorite Ken Buck (R). With 97% of the ballots counted, Bennet's lead increased to 15,400 votes. The Associated Press projected that Bennet would win with 47.7% of the votes compared to Buck's 46.8%. Ken Buck conceded yesterday. Michael Bennet had been appointed to his senate seat last year by the governor, in order to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ken Salazar (D). Salazar was selected by Obama to be his interior secretary. With Bennet's win, this brings the Senate balance to 52 Democrats and 46 Republicans. (Full Story)
It is now being reported that the House make-up is 239 Republicans to 186 Democrats.
They also voted (70% in favor) to forbid judges from considering international law or Islamic law (Sharia law) when deciding cases. There has been no instances of Sharia law used in court cases in Oklahoma, instead this law was designed as a "pre-emptive strike" according to the sponsor of the measure. Members of the Muslim community in Oklahoma say that this is an attack on Islam. A lawsuit is already being filed. The complaint is that this violates the First Amendment right of practicing religion freely. The Center on American-Islamic Relations, who is supporting the citizen that is filing the lawsuit, says that Sharia law is used in divorce cases and other family law cases in some western countries (like the UK and France), but not usually in the U.S. Instead, the way in which it is used in the U.S. has to do with religious practices, like prayer, fasting, and diet. (Full Story)
Both of these measures are obviously examples of the growing fear of outsiders -- particularly Latino immigrants and Muslims. I think these measures have come about due to ridiculous beliefs that some people hold: That Latinos come to America illegally and never learn the language and Americans have to bend over backwards for them (though I don't see how that's happening...), and that Muslims are coming to take over, spread their religion (at the expense of Christianity), and produce terrorists.
Three Iowa Supreme Court justices were voted out of their positions in Tuesday's election. Iowa has a system in place (since 1962) where governor's appoint the justices, but voters have a chance to vote them out at the end of each term. The three that were voted out were among the seven justices that decided unanimously last year that gay couples could get married in Iowa (i.e., that an Iowa law that limits marriage to only a man and a woman was unconstitutional). The justices' decision made them a target of anti-gay groups like the National Organization for Marriage, the American Family Association, and the Family Research Council. These groups spent more than $1 million on their campaign to convince voters to vote out these justices.
The justices chose not to raise money or campaign for themselves, but a group of former governors, lawyers, and judges came together to form Fair Courts For Us to support the judges. Their message was that it's important to have an independent judiciary and that it's at risk if a one-issue campaign succeeds in removing justices. The group's co-chairman said, "[Iowans] need to know courts will be fair and impartial and decisions won't be based on fear and popularity."
The justices will vacate their spot on the bench at the end of the year. There are likely to be delays in the court issuing rulings until the vacancies are filled. This is the first time Iowa voters removed a Supreme Court justice since this current system started in 1962. Once the state election results are certified (which must be done by November 29), the state's 15-member judicial nominating commission will have 60 days to give the governor three nominees for each Supreme Court vacancy. The governor will then have 30 days to make appointments. The current governor is Democrat; however, he just lost to his Republican opponent in Tuesday's election. Due to the timeline for filling vacancies, it means the current governor will not be able to fill the vacancies before he leaves office. The governor-elect, Terry Branstad (R), has in the past supported amending the Iowa constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage. He also once said that same-sex marriage led to the downfall of ancient civilizations. But he has also supported the idea of civil unions. (Full Story)
This is a very dangerous tactic, and these anti-gay groups are obviously trying to intimidate judges outside of Iowa as well. The Iowa Supreme Court justices unanimously decided that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marriage. Iowa citizens, don't you think that maybe seven justices (seven Iowa justices) coming together in agreement on this issue is probably an indication that this is a pretty legitimate decision? These justices did have to get some sort of training to get on the bench, you know. They've had years of education and experience. Instead of thinking about the reasoning and legality behind the justices' decision, and how they came to their decision, these voters acted on emotion. Just because justices don't vote the way you would like, it doesn't mean they're not doing their job. I certainly don't agree with the conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices, but I don't believe they should be fired because they didn't vote the way I want them to. That's just not the way it works. Sadly, Iowa voters decided to kick three justices off the bench because they were manipulated by these hate-mongering groups that somehow think two individuals of the same sex choosing to get married is the worst thing that could happen. One million dollars could have gone to so many more important, worthwhile things. Instead, it went to convincing Iowans to be hateful and vindictive. Sad.
Now there are only two undecided Senate races left. In Colorado, incumbent Senator Michael Bennet (D) narrowly defeated Tea Party favorite Ken Buck (R). With 97% of the ballots counted, Bennet's lead increased to 15,400 votes. The Associated Press projected that Bennet would win with 47.7% of the votes compared to Buck's 46.8%. Ken Buck conceded yesterday. Michael Bennet had been appointed to his senate seat last year by the governor, in order to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ken Salazar (D). Salazar was selected by Obama to be his interior secretary. With Bennet's win, this brings the Senate balance to 52 Democrats and 46 Republicans. (Full Story)
It is now being reported that the House make-up is 239 Republicans to 186 Democrats.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
November 03, 2010
Update on the U.S. mid-term election (election information from Washington Post's website):
The House of Representatives switched majorities from the Democrat party to the Republican party. At this point, there are 240 Republican seats and 184 Democrat seats, with eleven seats undecided (those races haven't been called yet). The Republicans gained 60+ seats. John Boehner (R-Ohio) will become the next Speaker of the House, replacing Nancy Pelosi (D-California).
The Senate is still controlled by Democrats. At this point, there are 51 Democrat seats and 46 Republican seats, with 3 seats undecided. Republicans picked up 6 seats that were previously Democrat (in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). However, their goal to take over the Senate fell short as Democrat Chris Coons defeated Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell in Delaware (57% to 40%), Joe Manchin kept the West Virginia seat that was previously held by the late Robert Byrd in Democrat hands (53% to 43%), and Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) defeated Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle and held on to his seat in Nevada (50% to 45%).
The House of Representatives switched majorities from the Democrat party to the Republican party. At this point, there are 240 Republican seats and 184 Democrat seats, with eleven seats undecided (those races haven't been called yet). The Republicans gained 60+ seats. John Boehner (R-Ohio) will become the next Speaker of the House, replacing Nancy Pelosi (D-California).
The Senate is still controlled by Democrats. At this point, there are 51 Democrat seats and 46 Republican seats, with 3 seats undecided. Republicans picked up 6 seats that were previously Democrat (in Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). However, their goal to take over the Senate fell short as Democrat Chris Coons defeated Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell in Delaware (57% to 40%), Joe Manchin kept the West Virginia seat that was previously held by the late Robert Byrd in Democrat hands (53% to 43%), and Harry Reid (the Senate Majority Leader) defeated Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle and held on to his seat in Nevada (50% to 45%).
Here are the results of some other closely-watched elections:
Barbara Boxer (D-California) held on to her seat and defeated Carly Fiorina (the Republican candidate that was the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard). 52% to 42%
Richard Blumenthal (D) defeated Linda McMahon (the Republican candidate that was the former CEO for World Wrestling Entertainment) in the Connecticut race for the seat vacated by Senator Chris Dodd (D). 54% to 44%.
In Arkansas, John Boozman (R) defeated the incumbent Blanche Lincoln (D). I guess Arkansas wasn't happy with Lincoln (she got 37% of the vote), despite the fact that Blanche Lincoln could run pretty conservative at times and was a road block for Democrats on some important votes. 58% to 37%
In Florida, Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio (R) won the seat vacated by Senator Mel Martinez (R). Rubio defeated Charlie Crist (the Florida governor that ran as an Independent after he was defeated by Rubio in the Republican primary) and Kendrick Meek (D). Rubio got 49%, Crist got 30%, Meek got 20%.
In Illinois, Mark Kirk (R) defeated Alex Giannoulias (D) for the seat held by Barack Obama before he became president. 48% to 46%.
In Kentucky, Tea Party favorite Rand Paul (son of Ron Paul) beat Jack Conway (D), 56% to 44%.
In Pennsylvania, Tea Party favorite Pat Toomey (R) beat Joe Sestak for the seat that was held by Senator Arlen Specter (he was elected as a Republican, and was a Republican senator for 28 years; then in 2009 he switched to the Democrat party. He was up for re-election this year and he lost to Sestak in the Democratic Primary).
In the Alaska senate race, which is not yet decided, Lisa Murkowski (in a write-in campaign) appears to be winning. With 99% of precincts reporting, 41% of the votes are write-ins, 34% is for tea party favorite Joe Miller (R), and 24% is for Scott McAdams (D). Lisa Murkowski is the incumbent. She lost in the Republican primary to Miller, but she decided to continue to run and launched a write-in campaign. Though she was not selected as her state's Republican nominee, she still calls herself a Republican. She said that if she wins she intends to caucus with the Republicans, just as she did when she was the Republican senator. Officials in Alaska must now verify how many of the write-in votes are for Murkowski. Counting could take weeks. If Murkowski wins, she will be the first U.S. senator to be elected by write-in vote since 1954 (when Strom Thurmond was elected via write-in).
I'm not surprised by the results at all, it's pretty much what I expected. Often times the president's party loses seats in the mid-term election (especially if they're in charge of Congress). Plus, these are hard times to be in charge. Due to an inherited mess and absolute terrible timing, Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress took office when the economy was tanked, we were in a massive recession, and unemployment was rising. Americans, unfortunately, have unrealistic ideas about what progress can happen in x amount of time. It doesn't help that Obama says perfectly reasonable things like unemployment would be at 12% now without the work his administration has done, because Americans are looking at the 9.6% unemployment rate and want it to magically be decreased down to 5% in a short amount of time. They want big, obvious results. And that's not always possible or realistic.
I'm not surprised by the results at all, it's pretty much what I expected. Often times the president's party loses seats in the mid-term election (especially if they're in charge of Congress). Plus, these are hard times to be in charge. Due to an inherited mess and absolute terrible timing, Obama and the Democratically-controlled Congress took office when the economy was tanked, we were in a massive recession, and unemployment was rising. Americans, unfortunately, have unrealistic ideas about what progress can happen in x amount of time. It doesn't help that Obama says perfectly reasonable things like unemployment would be at 12% now without the work his administration has done, because Americans are looking at the 9.6% unemployment rate and want it to magically be decreased down to 5% in a short amount of time. They want big, obvious results. And that's not always possible or realistic.
In addition, Republicans went into this past Congressional session with a genius, but also a very asshole strategy. They decided they were going to do absolutely nothing. They were going to be the Party of No. Their whole goal was to obstruct, to not compromise, and then point out how Democrats aren't doing anything to fix the problems. Unfortunately, Americans are not as adept when it comes to congressional rules. All they hear is that a Democrat is president and Congress is controlled by Democrats, and so if they can't get anything done, it's their own damn fault. However, in a bicameral Congress, both houses need to pass bills for something to become law. This is quite difficult to do, especially as bills get held up in the Senate so much. Although Democrats control the Senate, they don't have a solid 60 votes. Without 60, Republicans can hold up legislation with a filibuster (it takes 60 votes to end a filibuster). The use of the filibuster has been astronomical this session; it's been abused to an absolutely ridiculous level. So blame cannot squarely lie on Democrats for not getting things done, because they've been unable to get things done.
Of course there is fault with the Democrats for not winning more seats. Democrats did not come in to this election with a very strong strategy. There needed to be a much greater effort to let the American public know how much they have in fact achieved, despite the foot-dragging, obstructionist efforts of Republicans. Democrats needed to reassure America of the progress they have made, and that progress will continue to be made, but it doesn't happen as quickly as we would like. They needed to draw more attention to the fact that Republicans have done nothing thus far and that they do not have any real plan for progress. (I recommend this great Steven Pearlstein op-ed piece).
I'm also disappointed with low voter-turnout, especially among young people. I know voting in a mid-term election isn't very cool, especially when someone hip and popular like Obama isn't running for president. And young people feel disillusioned, like Obama hasn't done what he set out to do. Once again, I don't think many people realize all the stuff that Obama and Congress have in fact done. Unfortunately, people do not follow the news very closely (to hear all these things that are being done. Democrats certainly aren't making them obvious) or know how the political system works and what can and cannot be achieved in two years. Also, people seem surprised to learn that Obama is rather centrist. But that's exactly how he ran. He isn't liberal enough for me, most Congresspeople are not liberal enough for me. Unfortunately, a very liberal agenda is not really possible with our current political system and political culture. Maybe people thought the political culture would drastically change with a new president, but it takes more than just the president (and as I mentioned, Obama is pretty center-left or centrist). With health care reform, I would have loved to see universal health care and single-payer system, but I know how difficult that actually is to achieve right now. I was unhappy with the health care reform bill getting watered down as a result of compromise after compromise, but that's not to take away how monumental of a change it was. The fact that it was able to pass is an indication of how hard Democrats worked for it and how dedicated they were to reform. It's not perfect reform, but it is in fact something. When Social Security was first passed, it didn't look like what it does now. It took years of changes and additions. Health care and the health insurance industry is not going to drastically change overnight, it will take time and this reform was a good first step. Of course I would have liked to see more stuff get done these past two years, but considering the political and economic environment, I am impressed with what they have passed.
I wish voters would have given the Democrats (at least) two more years to finish what they started. I wish Democrats would have gained more Senate seats so that they had 60 votes. Then it would have been great to see what they really could have achieved, despite the Republicans. However, the upside of the Republicans winning the House is that now they actually have to do something. It's really easy to do nothing and to criticize, it's more difficult to actually come up with solutions and legislation. They ducked out of taking any responsibility for the first two years, but now they're going to have to at least share responsibility in these upcoming years. It's time for them to actually do their job now.
In terms of individual politicians, I am sad that John Boehner will be replacing Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. I think Pelosi is a very smart and strong leader. She gets shit done. I know she was the big target of Republicans (and Tea Party people) and they love nothing more than to "fire her" (they love saying that, despite the fact that she is not actually fired. She's still an elected Representative in Congress, her party just isn't in power anymore and thus she's no longer the Speaker. Pelosi has done a great job, it's the other colleagues of hers that lost their seats, and thus affected the majority). I definitely believe that the strong conservative hatred directed towards Pelosi (more so than is directed towards Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) is a result of Pelosi being a strong, powerful woman. And that scares the shit out of these conservatives. Just as the election of a black president really got some conservative people going.
I'm also really sad to see Senator Russ Feingold go. He was the incumbent Democratic senator from Wisconsin. He was an amazing progressive senator, and I think Wisconsin will be at a loss in the wake of his absence. He championed campaign finance reform (for instance, the McCain-Feingold Act, which the recent Supreme Court pretty much gutted with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), he was the only senator to have the courage to vote against the USA PATRIOT Act after 9/11, he was one of the 28 senators to vote against the war in Iraq, he supports the legalization of same-sex marriage, he advocates universal health care, he is strongly against capital punishment, and he is against wasteful government spending. For instance, worked to reduce pork barreling and lobbyists' influence, he promised not to accept pay raises while in office (he returned over $70,000 in raises to the U.S. Treasury), and returned money left over from his office budget (since 1993, he returned $3.2 million from his office budget back to the U.S. Treasury). He will be missed.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
November 02, 2010
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 that the military can continue to enforce the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy while the case is being reviewed/appealed. In other words, the court extended the temporary stay that was granted on October 20th (that stay put a halt to U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips's order to stop DADT because it was ruled unconstitutional). This means DADT will remain in effect until at least next spring. Next spring is the earliest the court is expected to make a decision regarding DADT. The court has scheduled written arguments through early March, but they have not yet set a hearing. The appeal could take a year or more.
The two judges in this case that ruled in favor of extending the stay said that their decision was justified by "the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen." Justice Department lawyers were hoping for the stay so that the DADT repeal wouldn't go into effect immediately. They want to make sure the military has time to prepare for this. They don't think DADT should be lifted until the military completes their study of the changes that would be needed before the repeal could happen (the study is due December 1). The Obama administration is also hoping that Congress will be the ones to repeal DADT (not really looking good at this point...). The lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans (the ones against DADT) said that he might ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay (I'm not holding my breath on that one). (Full Story)
A complaint was filed in an Indian court that sought prosecution of the author Arundhati Roy on charges of sedition for alleged anti-India comments. She had said at a seminar that she supports Kashmir independence and that "Kashmir was never an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian government has accepted this." [Background: Kashmir is a very contested region, and it has been fought over by Pakistan and India since 1947. Kashmir was once an independent state. It came under British colonial rule in 1846, and the Dogras (a mostly Hindu ethnic group) were put in charge as the new leaders of Kashmir (i.e, the new leaders were Hindu). British colonial rule in the area ended in 1947 and this is when Kashmir's Hindu ruler decided that Kashmir, which has a Muslim majority, should join the newly-independent India, instead of the newly-created/independent Pakistan (these states become independent after British colonial rule ended). So, pretty much, this conflict is an example of British colonialism fucking things up. The region is currently divided among three countries -- India controls the central and southern parts, Pakistan controls the northwest part, and China controls the northeastern part. However, these borders are still disputed and neither Pakistan nor India recognizes the areas claimed by the other. This has resulted in wars over the territory. Kashmir has become one of the most militarized places in the world and more then 70,000 people have died in the conflict over Kashmir. Some people believe that India has the right to Kashmir, some believe Pakistan has the right to Kashmir, and some believe that Kashmir should be its own independent state. Arundhati Roy is for Kashmir independence].
Roy does not regret the comments she made at the seminar. She wrote in a statement, "I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice." In her statement she also criticized the efforts to silence her. She wrote, "Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free."
Approximately 100 right-wing activists gathered outside Roy's house Sunday to protest. And dozens vandalized Roy's house. Roy was not home at the time and activists were prevented from going inside her home. TV crews were present and apparently were tipped off about the protest. This led to Roy criticizing the media, "What is the nature of the agreement between these sections of the media and mobs and criminals in search of spectacle? Does the media, which positions itself at the 'scene' in advance, have a guarantee that the attacks and demonstrations will be non-violent? What happens if there is a criminal trespass or even something worse? Does the media then become accessory to the crime? This question is important given that some TV channels and newspapers are in the process of brazenly inciting mob anger against me. In the race for sensationalism, the line between between reporting news and manufacturing news is becoming blurred." Very well-said.
The two judges in this case that ruled in favor of extending the stay said that their decision was justified by "the public interest in ensuring orderly change of this magnitude in the military -- if that is what is to happen." Justice Department lawyers were hoping for the stay so that the DADT repeal wouldn't go into effect immediately. They want to make sure the military has time to prepare for this. They don't think DADT should be lifted until the military completes their study of the changes that would be needed before the repeal could happen (the study is due December 1). The Obama administration is also hoping that Congress will be the ones to repeal DADT (not really looking good at this point...). The lawyer for the Log Cabin Republicans (the ones against DADT) said that he might ask the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the stay (I'm not holding my breath on that one). (Full Story)
A complaint was filed in an Indian court that sought prosecution of the author Arundhati Roy on charges of sedition for alleged anti-India comments. She had said at a seminar that she supports Kashmir independence and that "Kashmir was never an integral part of India. It is a historical fact. Even the Indian government has accepted this." [Background: Kashmir is a very contested region, and it has been fought over by Pakistan and India since 1947. Kashmir was once an independent state. It came under British colonial rule in 1846, and the Dogras (a mostly Hindu ethnic group) were put in charge as the new leaders of Kashmir (i.e, the new leaders were Hindu). British colonial rule in the area ended in 1947 and this is when Kashmir's Hindu ruler decided that Kashmir, which has a Muslim majority, should join the newly-independent India, instead of the newly-created/independent Pakistan (these states become independent after British colonial rule ended). So, pretty much, this conflict is an example of British colonialism fucking things up. The region is currently divided among three countries -- India controls the central and southern parts, Pakistan controls the northwest part, and China controls the northeastern part. However, these borders are still disputed and neither Pakistan nor India recognizes the areas claimed by the other. This has resulted in wars over the territory. Kashmir has become one of the most militarized places in the world and more then 70,000 people have died in the conflict over Kashmir. Some people believe that India has the right to Kashmir, some believe Pakistan has the right to Kashmir, and some believe that Kashmir should be its own independent state. Arundhati Roy is for Kashmir independence].
Roy does not regret the comments she made at the seminar. She wrote in a statement, "I said what millions of people here say every day. I said what I as well as other commentators have written and said for years. Anybody who cares to read the transcripts of my speeches will see that they were fundamentally a call for justice." In her statement she also criticized the efforts to silence her. She wrote, "Pity the nation that has to silence its writers for speaking their minds. Pity the nation that needs to jail those who ask for justice while communal killers, mass murderers, corporate scamsters, looters, rapists, and those who prey on the poorest of the poor, roam free."
Approximately 100 right-wing activists gathered outside Roy's house Sunday to protest. And dozens vandalized Roy's house. Roy was not home at the time and activists were prevented from going inside her home. TV crews were present and apparently were tipped off about the protest. This led to Roy criticizing the media, "What is the nature of the agreement between these sections of the media and mobs and criminals in search of spectacle? Does the media, which positions itself at the 'scene' in advance, have a guarantee that the attacks and demonstrations will be non-violent? What happens if there is a criminal trespass or even something worse? Does the media then become accessory to the crime? This question is important given that some TV channels and newspapers are in the process of brazenly inciting mob anger against me. In the race for sensationalism, the line between between reporting news and manufacturing news is becoming blurred." Very well-said.
Police had been given the go-ahead to arrest the author, but it would have been difficult to convict her. If a sedition charge was brought against Roy, it would have to be proven, according to the law set out by the Supreme Court, that her speeches on Kashmir were an "incitement to public disorder or the use of violence." She cannot be charged with sedition simply for inciting feelings of anger against the government and their stance on Kashmir. The law ministry took advice on the issue, but ultimately the government decided not to proceed with charges against Roy. I'm glad they didn't. I'm sure they realized that proceeding with charges would have brought negative attention to India and most likely international condemnation. (Full Story)(Full Story)
Monday, November 1, 2010
November 01, 2010
Venezuelan President Huge Chavez has ordered the expropriation of the largest privately owned steel producer in Venezuela. This is the latest in a series of national takeovers of private companies. This is part of Chavez's strategy to transform Venezuela into a socialist state. The steel producer, Siderurgica del Turbio SA, or Sidetur, produces 835,000 metric tons of steel a year. They produce things like steel beams, angles, and flats, which are sold domestically and internationally. Sidetur produces 40% of the rebar used for construction in Venezuela. Chavez ordered soldiers to guard the company's seven plants and urged employees to cooperate with officials rather than protesting the takeover.
Last week, Chavez ordered the takeover of the Venezuelan subsidiary of a US-based glass container manufacturer. Earlier this month, Chavez announced plans to take over a farm supply company. Chavez has expropriated dozens of privately owned companies since he took office in 1999. Business leaders and opponents say that these expropriations scare off investors and that this is hurting the economy. Chavez has said the government will pay fair compensation for these companies.
I understand policies that nationalize a country's natural resources. Many low- to middle-income countries that are rich in natural resources tend to be taken advantage of and have their resources exploited. The corporations (often foreign) that take over these resources benefit greatly from the resources, while the people of the country continue to live in poverty (despite living in a sea of vast natural resources). A lot of times the corporations that took over the rights to natural resources did so under shady circumstances or got a contract for far below the value of the resources. So I understand when different countries in Latin America have a leftist president that introduces policies to nationalize these industries. The leaders make mining and oil extraction a national industry so that the country and the people are the ones benefiting from the profit of these resources (i.e., they own and benefit from their own resources). However, I'm a little wary of governments taking over manufacturing. It seems like governments are not as well-equipped to do this, and these types of companies are usually better kept in private hands. There's too much of a legacy of poorly-run state manufacturing industries. (Full Story)
According to a Defense Department survey given to active-duty and reserve troops, a majority of service members would not object to serving and living with openly gay service members. Not surprising, there were service members that responded that they object strongly to the idea of serving with gay service members and said they would quit the military of the policy changed. The details of the survey are not known because the results have not been publicly shared. The survey was sent to 400,000 troops, but military officials did not say how many completed the survey. Though, according to the Pentagon, at least 103,000 completed the survey just days before it was due. (Full Story)
Brazil has elected their first female president. Dilma Rousseff was hand-picked by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) to be his successor. Rousseff was Lula's chief of staff and also served as energy minister. Lula was a very popular president, and political analysts believe that Rousseff winning indicates the voters' loyalty to Lula and their desire to keep the country going in the direction that Lula had set out during his eight years of presidency.
President-Elect Rousseff will take office January 1. One thing that is interesting about Rousseff is that in the 1960s she was a Marxist guerilla. She joined the rebel movement when Brazil was ruled by a military dictatorship. The military at the time labeled her an urban commander, but she said her role was political and not violent. As she said, "I wore thick glasses, and I did not shoot very well." She was captured by security forces in 1970 and was tortured. She was released three years later and then finished her studies in economics. She then managed the finances of Porto Alegre municipality and the energy policies of the Brazilian state Rio Grande do Sul. She joined the Workers' Party and got the attention of Lula, one of the party's most prominent members. He picked her to be his energy minister in his first term. She later became his chief of staff. (Full Story)
Last week, Chavez ordered the takeover of the Venezuelan subsidiary of a US-based glass container manufacturer. Earlier this month, Chavez announced plans to take over a farm supply company. Chavez has expropriated dozens of privately owned companies since he took office in 1999. Business leaders and opponents say that these expropriations scare off investors and that this is hurting the economy. Chavez has said the government will pay fair compensation for these companies.
I understand policies that nationalize a country's natural resources. Many low- to middle-income countries that are rich in natural resources tend to be taken advantage of and have their resources exploited. The corporations (often foreign) that take over these resources benefit greatly from the resources, while the people of the country continue to live in poverty (despite living in a sea of vast natural resources). A lot of times the corporations that took over the rights to natural resources did so under shady circumstances or got a contract for far below the value of the resources. So I understand when different countries in Latin America have a leftist president that introduces policies to nationalize these industries. The leaders make mining and oil extraction a national industry so that the country and the people are the ones benefiting from the profit of these resources (i.e., they own and benefit from their own resources). However, I'm a little wary of governments taking over manufacturing. It seems like governments are not as well-equipped to do this, and these types of companies are usually better kept in private hands. There's too much of a legacy of poorly-run state manufacturing industries. (Full Story)
According to a Defense Department survey given to active-duty and reserve troops, a majority of service members would not object to serving and living with openly gay service members. Not surprising, there were service members that responded that they object strongly to the idea of serving with gay service members and said they would quit the military of the policy changed. The details of the survey are not known because the results have not been publicly shared. The survey was sent to 400,000 troops, but military officials did not say how many completed the survey. Though, according to the Pentagon, at least 103,000 completed the survey just days before it was due. (Full Story)
Brazil has elected their first female president. Dilma Rousseff was hand-picked by President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) to be his successor. Rousseff was Lula's chief of staff and also served as energy minister. Lula was a very popular president, and political analysts believe that Rousseff winning indicates the voters' loyalty to Lula and their desire to keep the country going in the direction that Lula had set out during his eight years of presidency.
President-Elect Rousseff will take office January 1. One thing that is interesting about Rousseff is that in the 1960s she was a Marxist guerilla. She joined the rebel movement when Brazil was ruled by a military dictatorship. The military at the time labeled her an urban commander, but she said her role was political and not violent. As she said, "I wore thick glasses, and I did not shoot very well." She was captured by security forces in 1970 and was tortured. She was released three years later and then finished her studies in economics. She then managed the finances of Porto Alegre municipality and the energy policies of the Brazilian state Rio Grande do Sul. She joined the Workers' Party and got the attention of Lula, one of the party's most prominent members. He picked her to be his energy minister in his first term. She later became his chief of staff. (Full Story)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)