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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)