politicaljournalism

Homes and Voting in NO

2006-04-23T22:36:00.000-07:00

“It looks like the storm hit yesterday. It looks like a war zone.” This was said by Jessica Felix, a New York University Student who went down to New Orleans in March of 2006, seven months after the storm hit, in order to do reconstruction in the lower ninth ward, the most damaged area by the levee breech. One of the biggest fallacies about the destruction of New Orleans is that the damage was caused by a natural disaster. The truth is that the damage was almost completely due to the flooding caused by several levee breeches. These breeches were forewarned and preventative.

Despite claim by FEMA that they are using every resources in order to rebuild New Orleans and bring resident back to the city, they have continued to deny much needed aid. This is not only from foreign governments, but also the American federal government. When the interior department offered FEMA rooms, equipment, trucks, boats, aircraft, police officers, special agents, and refuge officers; none were integrated into the recovery of Katrina. According to Senator Susan Collins, all of these resources are exactly what were needed in order to respond to Katrina effectively in search and-rescue operations.

Michael Chertoff said, “The idea that this department [Department of Homeland Security] and this administration and the president were somehow detached from Katrina is simply not correct. We were acutely aware of Katrina and the threat it posed.”

With the loss of faith in the levees, and the upcoming hurricane season, there is no confidence in reconstruction. This means that is people do not have confidence in the levee system, that resident will not be coming back.

Another problem was voting. The recent election on April 22, 2006, was controversial due to the number of people who were disenfranchised. Because there were so many displaced residents, more then 60%, there was the problem of how they would vote. There is satellite-voting set up throughout the state of Louisiana, but not outside the state due to legal issues despite most displace resident are outside the state, many in Houston Texas and Atlanta, Georgia.

Though thee are thousands of absentee ballot, there are complaints of them being incorrect, with too little time to correct them. Even with these absentee ballots, a voter is simply getting a list of names with no background to what the candidate stands for, or if that candidate wants them to come back.

Several Civil Rights groups have called the elections unconstitutional, claiming that they favor whites because most displaced residents outside the state are black, and that the elections are requiring an unconstitutional poll tax by require residents to pay travel because they have been displaced outside of the state.

Before the storm, 63% of New Orleans votes were black. But many of the black voters have been unable to come back because the area with the worst flooding and least rebuilding has been the neighborhoods with mostly black residents. Area such as the French Quarter and Uptown, with mostly white residents, are the areas where the most residents have come back.

Due to the close election this past weekend there will be another vote for mayor for the two top candidates, Nagin and Landrieu.

Sources

23 Wanna- Be Mayors vie to Win New Orleans Vote
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/21/new.orleans.elex/

Bush touts $4.2 billion plan for Louisiana homeowners
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/08/bush.gulf/

Homeland Security Chief Defends Katrina Response
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/katrina.response/index.html

Vote for Mayor Points to Change in New Orleans By ADAM NOSSITER
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/us/24orleans.html?hp&ex=1145937600&en=e69345692800aa01&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Message: I don't care

2006-04-23T21:21:00.000-07:00

Chinese President Hu Jintao came state-side late last week to meet with Bush, and the fully photo op'd visit could not have been expected to be a walk in the park, as negotiations were to entail very serious matters: trade and Chinese currency; Iran -- China has a multi-billion dollar petroleum relationship with Iran, and as one might guess, it may be a little concerned with how Bush intends to proceed against the new Beast of the Middle East -- and North Korea on nuclear energy programs; and China's human rights issues, like freedom of expression.

And so, given the significance, the Administration enforced every measure necessary to respect and accomodate President Hu. . . . Ehh, not really.

Dana Milibank of the Washington Post notes in a recent article that "China and Its President Greeted By A Host of Indignities," such as the following:

• The official announcer said the band would play the "national anthem of the Republic of China" -- the official name of Taiwan (China’s longstanding rival).
• Vice President Cheney donned sunglasses for the ceremony
• Hu, attempting to leave the stage via the wrong staircase, was yanked back by his jacket sleeve. ... the president of the United States tugging at it as if redirecting an errant child.
• China wanted a formal state visit such as Jiang (Hu's predecessor) got, but the administration refused, calling it instead an "official" visit
• Bush acquiesced to the 21-gun salute but insisted on a luncheon instead of a formal dinner, in the East Room instead of the State Dining Room
• Even the visiting country's flags were missing from the lampposts near the White House.

The WaPo article failed to mention the Administration's most flagrant act of disrespect: A mindful photographer snapped a shot of Cheney as he slept during an adjoining press briefing by Bush and Hu. Cheney's aides insisted that he was merely reading his notes.

Cheney's untimely nap "outraged" Chinese officials, according to a NY Times article. However, "outrage" probably doesn't encapsulate their feelings as accurately regarding a Falun Gong activist's interruption of President Hu's speech on the White House South Lawn.

The episode went a little something like this. After waxing romantic on the need for China to step up its human rights game in the areas of free speech, freedom to assemble peacefully, and the freedom of expression, Bush handed things over to President Hu. But 90 seconds later a woman, Wang Wenyi, spoke freely, screaming, "President Hu, your days are numbered!" and "President Bush, stop him from killing," among other things. After several minutes she was physically muzzled, hauled off by Secret Service officials, and later arrested. She now faces up to 6 months in prison and a $5,000 fine.

A more ironic juxtaposition is hard to imagine.

When confronted with questions of how the activist was granted access to the event the Administration's reaction was a familiar one: How were we s'posed to know? As Milibank notes:

The Chinese had warned the White House to be careful about who was admitted to the ceremony. To no avail: They granted a one-day pass to Wang Wenyi of the Falun Gong publication Epoch Times. A quick Nexis search shows that in 2001, she slipped through a security cordon in Malta protecting Jiang (she had been denied media credentials) and got into an argument with him.

When it comes to strengthening international relations, the Administration rarely misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. This most recent snafu is especially bad given the circumstances. It is no surprise, as Milibank writes, that

Hu was in no mood to make concessions. In negotiations, he gave the U.S. side nothing tangible on delicate matters such as the nuclear problems in North Korea and Iran, the Chinese currency's value and the trade deficit with China

By Bush Administration standards, that's a success.

Why the ICC means more than justice alone

2006-04-23T20:51:00.000-07:00

A Scathing Report

In “Think Again: International Courts” Helena Cobban takes her teeth to the seams of UN International Tribunals, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and any optimistic outlook for the future of international criminal justice to be seen. Truthfully, her article for Foreign Policy is good. So good in fact, it’s almost convincing. In asking us to “abandon the false hope of international justice,” the transitional justice expert cites instances where the UN tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda failed to achieve peace, advance human rights, and deter future atrocities. She claims "they have squandered billions... and ignored the wishes of the victims they claim to represent." Though persuasive and passionate, many of Cobban's arguments fail to recognize the important precedent the tribunals have created, or to differentiate between the tribunals and the International Criminal Court. In one argument, she asserts

“We can predict that the ICC will be no more effective than the
international courts for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in improving
the lives of war-zone residents who are its primary stakeholders. That
is, not very effective at all [...] When such a trial concerns events that took place in
recent memory, in a society that's still highly divided and deeply
traumatized, the trial itself too often exacerbates existing political
rifts."

Deputy Convenor Wasana Punyasena of the American NGO Coalition for the ICC provides counter-arguments that reaffirm everything you thought was true, and in the end articulates why the ICC is different from the ad-hoc tradition of justice. In one of many points lunging back at Cobban, Punyasena show's her teeth:

"Victims of atrocities generally demand justice. As a 2005 International Center for Transitional Justice survey of residents in northern Uganda discovered, 76% of respondents said that those responsible for abuse should be held accountable for their actions [...] Of those who had heard of the ICC, a majority believed that the court would contribute both to peace (91%) and justice (89%)."

These numbers are surprising, especially that more Ugandans felt that a body of law could be primarily part of an answer in ending the violence even more than it could seek to end impunity. Ugandan Defense Minister Amama Mbabazi and Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa addressed the Security Council during a joint briefing on the situation in Uganda and measures to disarm the Lord's Resistance Army. Mr. Mbabazi "said Uganda hoped to engage the Congolese and Sudanese Governments in the near future, and emphasized the importance of developing combined regional efforts, with the support of the international community, to disarm, capture or arrest indicted LRA terrorist leaders and hand them over to the International Criminal Court in The Hague." In another important step of transparency, Parliament passed the Amnesty Amendment Bill 2003, giving authority to the Minister of Internal Affairs to submit a list to the Parliament to approve names of individuals to be excluded from government pardon.

The Power of a Trial

Meanwhile, three weeks after the Special Court for Sierra Leone requested that former Liberian president Charles Taylor be tried in The Hague, Taylor's transfer is still facing several obstacles. The guarantees required by the Netherlands are not in place; Taylor's lawyer is objecting, while Sierra Leoneans are divided over the issue and various voices in Dutch parliament are opposed to the transfer. With better facilities for holding Taylor than in Sierra Leone, security has been the main argument in favor of the warlord’s transfer.

Sam Kargbo, contributor to Nigeria’s Daily Independent, reports his insights of Taylor’s detention, explaining mostly that Sierra Leoneons are just happy to have him locked up, but that Presidential election contenders plan to exploit the Taylor situation in everyway possible to bolster their respective campaigns. Kargbo's accounts of his time in Sierra Leone show his heightened awareness of his own nationality, although tensions between the two countries may have changed with Nigeria's "eleventh hour" role in turning over Taylor to the ICTR.

Central African Republic (CAR) has asked the ICC to investigate crimes against humanity allegedly committed by former President Ange-Felix Patasse and Congo Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba, suspected of committing murder and rape against civilians. CAR's supreme court of appeal recently opened the door to an ICC investigation that underscored "the inability of the legal services in CAR to successfully conduct an investigation" into the crimes perpetrated in response to the attempted coup d'état led by François Bozizé in 2002. Both are cited in the writ of summons that Bozizé sent over a year ago to the ICC prosecutor, who has been "analyzing the situation" since January of 2004. As Sidiki Kaba, president of the International Federation of Human Rights notes,

"The ICC's silence is deafening when the country's courts have admitted that they are unable to effectively prosecute these crimes [...]"

Cobban concludes that "idealists who supported the ICC's creation hoped that it would help check the power of governments and improve the well-being of much-abused people. There is little to suggest it will do either." Yet from the initiations from governments to reign in their own power and submit infamous names to face charges, it is hard to see how the ICC hasn't already incited both.

Kansas, Phill Kline, and Reproductive Rights

2006-04-23T20:08:00.000-07:00

This week, I’m going to blog about a small victory on the reproductive and sexual rights front. A few days ago, the New York Times published an article about a federal court decision not to enforce health care workers to divulge to the authorities any sexual activities reported by persons under the age of 16 in the state of Kansas. This law reflected a blatantly obvious attempt of attorney general Phill Kline to aid in restricting abortions and cutting down on sexual liberties in Kansas, and what’s more, he masked his attempt by attesting that it was a law designed to protect persons under the age of 16 from sexual abuses. Judge Marten saw right through this proposed law, and ruled against it, deciding that Kline’s opinion basically allowed for sexual activity (which is illegal for those under 16) and sexual abuse to be improperly lumped together. The law was brought up in a class action suit brought by doctors and nurses and sexual health educators who were deeply disturbed by it, and saw it as a huge setback, and terribly detrimental to the sexual health of teenagers. A law like this is very dangerous. Because it is designed to closely monitor the sexual activities that people under the age of 16 are engaging in, it will therefore discourage teenagers from going to clinics and doctors and getting the help, advice and services they need such as STD and pregnancy tests, birth control and other forms of contraception, etc. As a result, teenagers would be neglecting to seek services that they need, thus instead of protecting them, this law would actually end up putting them in great danger.
Like wire taps, this law was just another way to infringe upon the personal lives of US citizens in an absolutely unconstitutional way, and this ruling was dead-on in its decision to eliminate this piece of legislature: it comes down to protecting an individual’s right to have his or her health records sealed, and to have a relationship with a health care worker based around trust and confidentiality.
Although this doesn’t seem to be as large of an issue as South Dakota’s recent abortion ban, but it is certainly significant especially in light of the current anti-choice, anti-abortion climate of the United States. Although, as a representative for the Center for Reproductive Rights said, “the ruling could have broad national implications because it was the first to assure adolescents constitutional protection for private communication with health care workers.” This is perhaps the most progressive thing to happen for the fight for choice in several months, and it is going to ensure that teenagers don’t have to feel as if they are being spied on and essentially ratted out for going to the doctor and being responsible about protecting themselves.

1week.

2006-04-23T18:47:00.000-07:00

Last Thursday was Jamnesty, a benefit concert and the finale of the 1week campaign. 1week was organized by NYU's chapter of Amnesty International to raise money for and awareness of the genocide in Darfur. The campaign started on the thirteenth with a showing of Hotel Rwanda, which was followed by a question-and-answer with Paul Rusesabagina, the inspiration for the film, who has also worked to spread awareness of the crisis in Darfur.

On Tuesday there was a panel discussion entitled "Genocide in Darfur: A Panel on a Global Humanitarian Crisis" that featured Iain Levine, Program Director at Human Rights Watch, Dr. Joyce Apsel, the coauthor of the book "Teaching About Genocide," and Diana Phillips, daughter of survivors of the Armenian genocide. Little new was said on the subject of Darfur and the panel seemed to me to be more of an "intro" discussion for those who knew little about the cause, however it was interesting to see such a detailed description of the cause through the lens of the definition of genocide. Iain Levine began the discussion by stating he would focus on "why and how we are all failing the people of Darfur." He emphasized the importance of political pressure, encouraging audience members to write to their congressmen as a demonstration of American concern for the cause. Without this kind of political pressure, the United States will do nothing, because focusing on genocide, according to Levine, increases unemployment and taxes and results in a decreased approval of the government. Diana Phillips emphasized the importance of "educating people from scratch- we want to reach people for the first time...we want numbers."

Iain Levine blamed the lack of concentrated effort against the genocide on extremely little media coverage, national interests in the Sudanese oil (namely in Russia and China), and the Sudanese government's excuse that they are in the midst of negotiating peace agreements, and complications with and distrust of US foreign policy. Joyce Apsel stated that "people like to think this is age-old tribal conflict" rather than what it is, part of a recurring and consistently successful pattern of targeting civilians because they are part of a group. He added that in order to make a difference, civilian protection must be emphasized, a 20000-strong United Nations force with a robust mandate (allowing UN troops to shoot back), bans, sanctions, freezing of assets and oil embargos on Sudan, and for the murderers to be brought to justice.

The panel the following night was extremely different. "The Best Hope for Peace in Darfur" was held in the New York Society for Ethical Culture amphitheater, and it included Nicholas Kristof, an op-ed columnist for the Times that has written consistently about the situation in Darfur, Juan Mendez and Mark Malloch Brown of the United Nations, Darfurian refugee Traji Mustafa, and Professor Karima Bennoune of Amnesty International. Unlike the previous panel, which was held in a room at NYU's Kimmel Center and had around twenty people in the audience, this panel had what I would estimate to be close to a thousand people. Nicholas Kristof, who won a Pulitzer Prize last Monday for his work on Darfur, began his speech with an explanation of why he has written so consistently on the subject. He is a firm believer that the Sudanese government backs the Janjaweed, explaining that he has seen Janjaweed with government issued uniforms and weapons, and that prisons have opened up to recruit for the militia. He also said that though Janjaweed are able to drive through government checkpoints, they did attempt to arrest a man who was working in Sudan with Nick. He emphasized that President Bush has been good at providing humanitarian aid, but bad at providing security and stopping the killing. Kristof believes this could be accomplished by imposing a no-fly zone and a more effective peace negotiation.

Because the only effective impact the panel could have on the crisis is by gaining advocates for the cause, the most effective statements Kristof made were those describing some of the people he saw. In closing Kristof described two girls who confided in a humanitarian aid worker that a group of Janjaweed moved into their household, making the sisters sexual slaves and the rest of the family domestic slaves, and when their father begged the commander to free his daughters, the sisters were forced to watch their father be beheaded.

Mark Brown addressed what needs to be done for the United Nations involvement to be successful, most importantly, Sudanese approval and the large sum of money it would take for their force to be supported by helicopters and airlifts. Currently the UN has more troops around the world than any other country, and this is detrimental to their popularity because of what it costs the governments supporting the UN. It was at this point in the speech when a man from the audience began to yell about making excuses while people are dying, which Brown listened to without interruption before asserting that the UN is doing everything possible to solidify their forces quickly.

Upon entering the panel, audience members were given an index card to write questions on. I wrote two questions, one of which I directed at Nick Kristof, asking how he felt about his newspaper's acceptance of almost one million dollars from the Sudanese government for an advertisement spread of Sudan. The question was used at the beginning of the question-and-answer session, and he had a lot to say in response. Kristof was apparently in Pakistan when the ad was printed, and was flooded immediately with emails generally focusing on the subject "how could you?" Kristof acknowledged that he felt betrayed, that his paycheck was tainted with blood money from the exchange. However, he stressed that the print of the article did no harm to Sudanese, and instead was another form of media coverage on the issue. While I was satisfied with this response, if I were in Kristof's position I can't see myself staying with the Times. And I'm fairly certain he won't have any trouble finding a job as a recent Pulitzer Prize winner and writer for the biggest newspaper in the country.

Club Med Baghdad

2006-04-23T16:45:00.000-07:00

The largest U.S. embassy in the world is being built in Baghdad, Iraq that will boast a staff of 5,000. The compound, divided up into 21 buildings, will include water wells, an electricity plant, a swimming pool, a gym, a commissary, an American club, and its own defense force. Spanning over 104 acres, it’s about the size of Vatican City or six times the U.N. building in N.Y.C. Sounds like a Club-Med on the Tigris River.

The construction is projected to be finished in mid 2007 and started mid 2005. That’s astonishing compared to the sad rate of reconstruction that exists in the rest of the country. But with $592 million United States tax-payers dollars to fund the project, it shouldn’t be too hard. My favorite part of this all inclusive resort is the waste-water treatment plant that will be completely independent of Baghdad’s utilities.

“The designs aren't publicly available, but the Senate report makes clear it
will be a self-sufficient and "hardened" domain, to function in the midst of
Baghdad power outages, water shortages and continuing turmoil.”

U.S. officials will sleep snug in their private homes and enjoy fresh water, which will be a luxury provided to the ambassador and his deputy as outlined in the building plan, while “raw waste from the western half of Baghdad is dumped into the Tigris River, where many of the capital's 7 million residents get their drinking water.”
I think it is a slap in the face to Iraqi civilians to build such a gaudy compound when reconstruction efforts elsewhere in the country are weak at best. When the U.S. government does acknowledge reconstruction failures, a rare occurrence, the attitude is once again it ain’t my fault. Blame for any halts in reconstruction has been turned toward the failure of Iraqis.

"The United States must ensure that the billions of dollars it has already
invested in Iraq's infrastructure are not wasted," said an October report by the
Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, citing what
it said were "limitations in the Iraqis' capacity to maintain and operate
reconstructed facilities."

Most problems with the decay of infrastructure in Iraq are due to war-related incidents. Tanks that rattle weak water pipes and mortar bombs exploding sewer lines contaminate fresh water daily. That doesn’t seem like an Iraqi civilian induced problem to me.

Chertoff to the "Shadow Economy": Get Back Into the Shadows

2006-04-23T16:39:00.001-07:00

Not one of the millions of undocumented immigrants (many of whom are actually more similar to the people who initially inhabited than Sen. Sensenbrenner or myself) who turned out during the nation-wide mobilizations on April 10th were arrested for protesting.

Or so we thought on April 11.

On Wednesday, Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out what was billed as

“the largest immigration enforcement action in US history.”

Raids were conducted on plants in 26 states operated by the IFCO pallet company. The raids resulted in the detention of nearly 1200 undocumented workers. Many of these workers had been smuggled into the country by the Houston-based company in order to do the very work for doing which they will now be deported. Nearly half of IFCO’s employees were found to be illegal, compared to approximately 1 in 20 in the country as a whole.
Chertoff explained that the raids were part of a year-long investigation into the company, and that they had no relation to the protests. But many immigrants’ rights advocates say the raids were carried out in retribution for the April protests, and as a way of intimidating the immigrant community preceding the planned May 1 “Day without Immigrants”*

This claim is supported by Chertoff’s further statements Thursday that the raids are part of a new government crackdown on undocumented workers. As part of the new “interior enforcement strategy”, DHS has initiated a plan to use its favorite new technique: data-mining. According to senior DHS officials, the department is seeking authority to mine company databases that contain Social Security numbers in order to identify illegal immigrants employed in the country.

Such a crackdown will inevitably lead to legitimization of racial profiling. Already we have discouraged immigrants from Arab countries from entering US universities among a deluge of other racially motivated restrictions, now you can be stopped, even deported simply for looking indigenous. Chicago’s Latino Union reported detentions the day of the IFCO raid at more than 5 different sites around the city’s south side. Spokesperson for the union Jessica Randa said that in known Latino neighborhoods random pedestrians were stopped by ICE officials and asked to provide documentation of their legal status. In the end of March, Merced County school children were removed from schoolbuses by ICE officials, and made to inform on their immigrant parents, who were subsequently deported. I spoke to a woman and her sister whose brother was taken from his home at 4am, without a warrant, despite the fact that he currently has a green card, on charges that he had violated immigration law 21 years previously. He was transported in a van, along with several parentless children, to an ICE facility in San Francisco where he began deportation proceedings, and is currently being detained along with many others on the top floor of thehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif facility, in a room where the detainees sleep on the floor with no blankets, the windows open to the frigid California night. According to attorney Carlena Ruano, incoming president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, “ICE has to have reason to believe that someone is unlawfully in the United States before they can stop them and ask for papers.” This being said, my arguments on this issue will not rely on law, as congress tomorrow resumes talks which will likely increase ten-fold the harshness of current immigration law.

Jorge Mujica, a labor organizer, journalist, and key immigrants’ rights advocate in Chicago of the IFCO raid, “They could have done it two months ago or they could have done it 2 months from now. One week before the May demonstration, you get the feeling like the Sensenbrenner law was already approved.”

In a recently released video, the CAIR coalition estimated that nearly 20,000 immigrants are detained every day. Many of them are held for years, and have been, for years. But there have been two changes:

The first is defined by Chertoff, and I, along with the 12 million undocumented residents of this country look forward with baited breath to the new “strategy.”
The second change is defined by our reaction. If the bold millions who have turned out to protest in recent weeks continue to flood the streets demanding recognition, it will be much more difficult for the level and nature of immigrant detention, deportation, and exploitation that currently is the norm in this country to continue. If they, and we, bow to Chertoff’s “new strategy”, the “shadow economy” will continue to be as such, and we will continue the criminalization and abuse of our millions of shadow citizens.

*There actually was at least one arrest that I personally witnessed at the New York rally, however if there were many more, their families have kept quiet.

**In the mass media on Thursday, numerous articles touted a "split" in the immigrants' rights movement, however on Democracy Now Friday Jorge Mujica wrote the split off as merely a tactical change in language usage.

Swing State Vies for Seat in the Senate and Riding the Abortion Wave to Get There

2006-04-23T15:07:00.000-07:00

The race for the crown in the 2004 Presidential election ended with the reign of one bad candidate over the other less-than-stellar player. However, this game of choosing the lesser of two evils is far from over.

I was able to vote for the first time in 2004, and my family was divided between Bush and A.B.B. They mostly felt that Kerry wasn’t a better option; my mom cried “at least we know what Bush stands for!” Yes, yes we do. The A.B.B philosophy surrounded the election and still rings strong in those that oppose our current President. I follow politics and consider myself to be a decent citizen, yet I remain uninspired by the slew of political candidates. Right now, Pennsylvania is the swing state the Democrats need to win over in order to gain control in the Senate. Bob Casey, Jr. is vying for the seat and hopes to thwart the reelection of staunch conservative/Republican Rick Santorum. One way he hopes to win is to use abortion as his ticket to ride.

Democrats say they need their party to dominate the Senate in order to “bridge the gap” between Pro-Choice and Pro-Lifers. Above all else, it is an excuse to push the vote in Casey’s favor; not because he’s better for the job, but because he is a Democrat. The “big race,” as the series in the New York Times has dubbed the opposition between Casey and Santorum, shows the vigilance of the Democrats. But do not be fooled, our country will not find a happy medium between two morally, ethically and politically opposed groups by a single Senator.

Casey is Pro-Life and believes that prevention will dissipate the need for abortion (like his conservative counterparts) through the use of birth control and family planning (unlike them). Now, outwardly Pro-Choice politicians, like Ms. Hilary Clinton, have begun to sing to a different tune: prevention over abortion. I say, please! Of course prevention is necessary in avoiding abortion but it DOES NOT serve as a substitute for a woman's right to choose. The optimism for a middle ground is dandy, but highly unrealistic. Abortion is a sensitive subject that many people will not see eye-to-eye on and people should not be led to believe otherwise.

The nine female Democrats in the Senate say that Casey’s election is crucial to regain Democratic majority, revealing their main political objective. They are riding on the coattails of South Dakota to put Casey in power. Even avid Pro-Choicers are holding signs singing Casey’s praise, although his beliefs oppose their own.

Santorum, on the other hand, is Bush’s wet dream; he wants to cut money for education and Medicare and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Needless to say, Democrats are giving big bucks to get Casey in power and many have taken notice of how hungry the Democratic party is.

Pennsylvania is historically a swing state. The state's demographic is generally older and is a prime example of how Christian ethics and tax breaks for the rich clash with blue-collar minorities.

I don't know how well the abortion debate will serve as Casey's ticket into the Senate, but for now, he is the lesser of the two evils.

Global Economics

2006-04-23T13:35:00.000-07:00

This weekend is the annual meeting between the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, where members are set to discuss imminent changes in the balance of world power. Some believe the IMF’s influence in worldwide economics is actually waning, as an article in the Economist* points out by saying that while “[t]he IMF spent 1994-2002 dashing from one financial conflagration to the next…the sirens have been silent for some time.” This weekend’s meetings between the two organizations, however, are intended to address issues related to poverty reduction, international economic development and finance on a global scale, as if their influence and policy-making are still significant.
One noteworthy issue that has already graced the pages of the Washington Post is the rise of Asian countries’ international economic influence. The most notable example of this pool of up-and-coming economies is China. Although the World Economic Outlook report on Globalization and Inflation put out by the IMF this month lists China as an Emerging Market, it is beginning to recognize that it might be time to increase Asia’s influence in international economic policies. As one Post article indicates,

Part of the strategy involves making the IMF’s governance fairer. In response to long-standing complaints that fast-growing countries such as China and South Korea are woefully underrepresented in the fund’s decision-making bodies, the committee launched a process to reapportion voting power.

Of course, the World Bank’s principal shareholders (i.e. The United States, Europe, and Japan) are not exactly supportive of this power shift. What a surprise.

Another item on the agenda at the meeting is “a proposal aimed at giving the IMF a more central role in dealing with global problems, including the massive U.S. trade deficit and corresponding surpluses in Asia and oil producing countries.” To try and curb this problem, the IMF is planning to “hold consultations with top officials from groups of large countries about how their economic policies affect each other and the world” (both quotes also taken from Paul Blustein’s article in today’s Washington Post).

A different article in the latest edition of the Economist,* however, states that while “[p]lenty of Americans blame unfair competition on Asia, and especially China, for their country’s gigantic current-account deficit…the group of countries with the world’s biggest current-account surpluses is [actually] no longer emerging Asia, but exporters of oil.”

To be perfectly honest, I don’t know what—if anything—will come out of the meetings between the IMF and the World Bank. But it seems as though many countries are acting with reckless abandon when it comes to making financial decisions. Considering the scale to which globalization is intertwining international markets, maybe governments should begin to consider how their individual fiscal situations are affecting people all over the world. It sure doesn’t seem as if the United States is heeding the economic needs of others…but why should that come as a surprise?

*To read these articles in full, do a Lexis Nexis search for “Not even a cat to rescue; Reshaping the IMF” and “Money to burn; Economics focus,” both published on April 22, 2006. Or, if you have a subscription to the Economist, you may view it at www.economist.org.

"Change to Win" Announces its Change to Win

2006-04-23T11:49:00.000-07:00

Campaign

At its recent convention the Change to Win federation of unions announced its new “Make Work Pay!” campaign. The actions to kick off the make work pay campaign between April 24-28 will kick off new union organizing drives and help develop drives that have already been in progress. The campaign is trying to make sure that the millions of people working harder and longer are able to join the American middle class. Anna Burger, the Chair of Change to Win said, “We are fighting so that individuals who work hard can earn paychecks that actually support families; receive affordable health care, have the chance to give their children a better life and count on a secure retirement.”

Uniting All Unions

Some of the main goals that Change to Win has announced is to create strong cross union local organizing teams and to unite 50 million workers in industries that cannot be outsourced. The federation includes 7 unions representing 6 million people across the country; at their recent convention they brought together local organizing committees with members of each of the separate unions. The federation says that they intend to unite these unions because they want employers to know not only are they fighting against the local union they are fighting against all the members of Change to Win. Greg Tarpinian, an executive direction of the federation said, "This is a permanent campaign to connect the aspirations of working people in multiple industries." On the other side, Change to Win is working to create new unions in industries all over the country. The industries that Change to Win shoots for are those which cannot be outsource such as retail, food processing, hospitality and leisure, health care and social services, construction, transportation and warehousing, and property service. Change to Win has said that it would like to unite 50 million workers across the country in order to raise the living standards and quality of life of American workers. The federation says it is fighting to make sure that America always has a vibrant middle class. In history, unionized labor was the backbone of the middle class, so Change to Win has announced a plan to make that true again.

Television Advertisement

One of the main things that Change to Win has done to kick off its campaign is to run a television add highlighting the gulf of pay between workers and executives. The ad shows photos of hard-working honest workers shrink from full screen to nothing. While a narrator says lines like “They don't own vacation homes or fly on the company jet They are tens of millions of hard working Americans.”“And their CEOs get richer and richer! Average CEO pay rose 27% last year, to $11.3 million. Workers get left farther and farther behind. After inflation, taxes, and health costs the average American worker makes less than he did in the 1960s.” “Don't let America's middle class vanish. It's time to make work pay.” This ad is playing mostly on Sunday during talk shows in at least ten markets. Is an ad the best way to reach people. The lines in the ad are striking and they are going to make people think, but how many people who are not currently in a union will see the ad and then be ready to suddenly start a union? Starting a union is not easy. It seems to me the money could be better spent training or sending out organizers to talk to people. In addition, the federation spent $500,000 on airing this commercial. That is more than 10 times what a lot of the people they are trying to organize make. It seems unfair for a union claiming to work for people with so little money to be throwing money around so carelessly. The money had to come from somewhere and that was probably the pockets of the people in the union. The issues in the ad are important it just seems to me that there ought to be a better way to talk about them.

Enviornmentalism and Women's Rights Meet

2006-04-23T11:24:00.000-07:00

In her article for Planned Parenthood, Rhonda Schlangen writes, “Women in the developing world are often the first to be affected by environmental degradation and the first to act.” Women in developing countries are particularly vulnerable given their biology as well as their social position as care providers in many contexts. The reproductive rights movement has begun to look at the ways in which issues not typically associated with reproductive rights affect women’s lives—the environment, war, poverty, etc. This turning point in the movement shows a shift from the monolithic focus on the right to abortion, to a look at women’s reproductive rights on a larger scale, including their access to conditions that enable them to raise healthy families if they choose to.
In a recent article entitled “Pro-Choice, Pro-Environment,” and an earlier report, “Reproductive Rights, Women, and the Environment,” Planned Parenthood looks at the ways in which the struggle for reproductive rights is connected to the environmental movement. Their focus is on the particular impact the state of the environment has on women’s lives in developing countries. They cite the ways in which pesticide use and unsound manufacturing practices affect women’s fertility, heighten their risk of cancer, and increase the likelihood of their having a miscarriage. In addition, women, often the main providers of food and water in a household, struggle to provide for their families when environmental impurities taint water and food supply. Further, destruction of the natural environment affects women’s ability to provide shelter, energy, and food to their families. The article does not mention that the misuse and corruption of national resources in today’s context of Globalization is a key contributor to economic hardship for women and their families in developing countries, but it is indeed relevant. Finally, women are better able to care for their families, communities, and physical environment when they have personal and political agency, a key goal of the reproductive rights movement.
These articles underscore the importance of and appreciation for interconnectivity in struggles for reproductive rights—the recognition that movements for social and ecological health can and should work in tandem, for example. Western feminists are only recently beginning to understand the public, community-focused nature of reproductive rights, a major rhetorical weakness. These articles are a step in the right direction. When women and their advocates stress the importance of reproductive rights not just on an individual scale, but also for the community, and indeed, the globe, their argument is strengthened and less vulnerable to anti-choice attack.
Reproductive Rights, Women, and the Enviornment
Pro-Choice, Pro-Enviornment
Cairo Consunsus background info

Immigrant Protest

2006-04-16T21:08:00.000-07:00

This past Monday we saw the largest protest in American history, which may have also been the most diverse in terms of ethnicities and immigrant status. This was not only in the hot spot cities like New York or Washington D.C., but in other cities in Texas and Utah. The unprecedented turnout, particularly for immigrant rights, has many surprised; forcing the subject to be seen in a new light.

The protest was in response to the new legislation being proposed in the senate, and House of Representatives. Currently, being in the United Sates undocumented is a civil offense, not a criminal, and deportation can be appealed. The bill being proposed in the House, which is the harsher of the two, calls for being in the U.S. with papers a felony, being banned from the U.S. permanently if found to be here illegally, and no work visa for those currently in the U.S.

The Senate bill allows for undocumented workers who have been here before 2004 to apply for a six year visa and let them bring their families, after this six year period they would be allowed to apply for citizenship (must pay back taxes and know English fluently), and anyone who has been here for less then two years would have to go back to their home countries, but would be allowed to apply for a visa.

Despite the large turnout, there are many Americans do support the stricter legislation, claiming that people who are here illegally should not have rights and be removed. This may seem like the logical answer, but it far from the reality of the situation. It was not only immigrants who were part of the protest, but also family members who are citizens, many born in the U.S., and the undocumented workers themselves. The fact of the matter is that these people build lives and communities in this country, and as easy as it is to say that they should just “go back to where they came from” when not looking at the humanistic aspect of this problem.

But even more than this, how ethical is it to punish people for being part of a system that encourages their presence. To solely blame immigrants for their role is misguided, when both he government and companies encourage their presence. The U.S. allows for a certain amount of undocumented workers as part of the economic structure. This can be seen in the 2002b case Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labors Relations Board, where the Supreme Court decided that undocumented workers did not have to receive back pay for their labor from the companies that employed them because they were here illegally.

This means that there is no accountability to the companies, which recruited the workers, and no protection for the people who do the work. Despite citizenship, all people in America are protected by the constitution, though they do not have the immunities and privileges of citizens. Bush stated that he would not support the court’s decision because what it would mean for the economics of this country.

Immigrants are an easy scapegoat for unemployment by politicians and citizens. But this is a fallacy that is tainted with racism and classism. Let us be real, how many of us would do the work that many undocumented workers do? Not only our most of us not willing to do the same work, but even less of appreciate how our lives are made easier and cheaper by that same labor we easy dismiss.

Non - Hispanics Part of Immigration Debate New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Immigration-Non-Hispanics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Strategy Sessions Fueled Immigrant Marches By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/12/us/12immig.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1595.ZS.html

South Dakota

2006-04-16T20:49:00.000-07:00

It seems that these days, there are so many American wars being waged. Of course, the most high-profile of which are happening on foreign soil, as the war in Iraq continues every day to escalate in seriousness, and we are now on the brink of waging an air strike campaign on Iran.
And then there are those much subtler, somewhat quieter battles that are being waged on our own soil, namely the war that is currently and aggressively being waged on reproductive rights and choice.
The New York Times published an article this afternoon about the current climate of South Dakota, which, as I’ve blogged about before, is knee-deep in a state-wide debate about abortion, and whether or not it should be legal. After the almost total abortion ban was passed, South Dakota has been incredibly divided. Although the legislation is scheduled to go into effect June 1 of this year, there are those who are determined not to accept defeat, and then there are those in absolute solidarity with the legislation who are strongly reacting to the backlash inspired by the passing of this policy.
The residents of South Dakota who are in fact opposed to the legislation are mobilizing as best they can, and currently calling on an 1898 provision that allows the reconsideration of a law passed by state legislation if enough signatures are collected. The article describes one woman as she stands outside of a South Dakota County administration office gathering signatures on a petition to bring the abortion ban back into question. Acts like these honestly reinstate my faith in grassroots efforts: despite the fact that so many South Dakotans are in support of this, those who aren’t are doing their best to protect their rights before June 1, when they will be officially taken away. Unfortunately, it seems that the odds are still against them: they must, according to the article, gather at least 16,728 signatures in support of reconsidering the ban.
Also, to make the odds that much worse, there has been an increase in mobilization of those who are in support of the legislation: the article sites an organization of people in support of the ban setting out across the state “in a bus dubbed ‘the Fleet for Little Feet,’ complete with an ultrasound machine and plastic models of a growing fetus.”
Although the struggle in South Dakota has attracted attention mostly for the fact that its recently passed anti-choice legislature is an incredibly frightening and rather giant leap towards banning abortion, I think the grassroots mobilization of those opposed to the ban, although small, is an excellent start, and I can only hope that more and more South Dakotans are going to be willing to join the fight and do whatever it takes to bring this piece of policy to light before it goes through. Though this article seemed to present the opposition to the ban as being underwhelming, I think it says something that Gov. Mike Rounds’ job approval ratings have dropped dramatically to 58 per cent from 72 per cent since the ban. Perhaps people are realizing the actual effect of this ban, as well as the symbolic significance of such an anti-choice motion.

The Rac/pe Issue

2006-04-16T20:39:00.000-07:00

Happy holidays to those of you that celebrated this weekend. I traveled to Connecticut friends and family and we began to debate whether or not the current rape case against the Duke University Lacrosse team was a hate crime. However, the word on everyone's lips is yes. The case is very sensitive due to the woman’s skin color and occupation especially because of the race relations between Duke and North Carolina University.

Even though my official topic is “woman’s issues,” feminists have historically linked their struggle against a patriarchal majority to race relations. While no arrests have been made and there has been a lack of evidence against the Duke Lacrosse players via DNA, the state’s attorney general has vowed not to drop the charges despite pressure from many high-up officials. However, his suspicions do not stand alone. One player sent an email a little after the crime was supposedly committed that stated his wishes to kill and skin strippers with elicit details about the sexual excitement he would get from these horrendous acts. A week later, the Lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, resigned. The captain of the lacrosse team stated that same day that the lacrosse team would not “not play competitively” until the DNA results came back to show that these men were falsely accused. While they did come back, they were drawn as inconclusive. Now civil rights advocates have offered to pay for the woman’s schooling and many others have spoken out for justice. Yet the Rainbow/PUSH coalition has said they will pay for her tuition so she can support her two children, go to school and not have to expose her body. At first the woman’s occupation was the first thing she was identified by, now her student status has definitely been put out there. A security phoned 911 when found the accuser in a car “passed out drunk,” but not in distress. Yet hospital officials said that her behavior was consistent with somone who had been sexually assaulted when she was examined shortly thereafter. So what does this mean? With what I blogged about last week, blame being the game, when does race become the driving force between justice and lack thereof? New headlines have shown that race is not a main issues but its still the center of this debate. The fact is, whether the rape was a hate crime or not, race is an issue, if not THE issue, here. Prejudices and stereotypes against minorities make it harder to seek justice without having race come into the picture. So before we think that a rape is just a crime of control, we have to think about the factors involved: this is a crime against (mainly) women and more specifically, in the Duke case, a crime against a black woman. With the woman being a stripper and an African American, will justice be served in the same way a white student/stripper if raped by a black lacrosse team would be? You be the judge.

1. "Mike Pressler resigns as Duke mens' lacrosse coach," statement by Mike Pressler. 04/07/2006 Duke University Athletics website http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=25937&SPID=2027&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=264739

2. "Duke Lacrosse captain's statement," made by lacrosse captain (unnamed). 03/28/2006 Duke University Athletics website
http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?SPSID=25937&SPID=2027&DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=251532

3. "Civil rights group to pay tuition for woman who accused Duke lacrosse team of rape," released by AP. 04/15/2006

http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles?id=n20060415221009990004

4. "Police: Duke Accuser 'Passed-Out Drunk,'"released by AP. 04/14/2006

http://sports.aol.com/news/articles?id=n20060414075709990010

The DoD Defends the Indefensible

2006-04-16T20:06:00.000-07:00

I suppose it was only a matter of time before the Defense Department came to the defense of Rumsfeld.

The Pentagon issued a one-page memo to a group of former military commanders and civilian analysts as a challenge to the very public criticisms made by six retired generals regarding the Defense Secretary's handling of the Iraq war.

Today's NYT article "Pentagon Memo Aims to Counter Rumsfeld Critics" includes some highlights:

The memorandum begins by stating, "U.S. senior military leaders are involved to an unprecedented degree in every decision-making process in the Department of Defense." It says Mr. Rumsfeld has had 139 meetings with the Joint Chiefs of Staff since the start of 2005 and 208 meetings with the senior field commanders.

Seeking to put the criticism of the relatively small number of generals into context, the e-mail message also notes that there are more than 8,000 active-duty and retired generals alive today.

Great. But what's that got to do with the price of eggs?

That Rumsfeld is characterized as a workaholic says nothing about the duplicity of his actions, as those numbers merely credit the man with zealotry. By the DoD's logic, we should breathe a sigh of relief because the man has shown a unique dedication to . . . ineffectiveness (among other things).

Similarly, that only a handful out of the thousands of in/active generals have publicly railed against the Defense Secretary, calling for his immediate resignation, says very little as well. First, the likelihood of generals - soldiers who have busted their asses for years and years to attain such prestigious positions - having an opposing mentality about the war, on the whole, is not too great. One could argue it is only with a certain like-mindedness that they would have been able to reach those positions in the first place. Second, the likelihood of active generals publicly speaking out against the war is that of a snowball's chance in Hell, because, as a related Times article "Civilians Reign Over U.S. Military by Tradition and Design" notes, such action mandates a court-martial.

In fact, Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice prescribes a court-martial for any commissioned officer who "uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense" or other federal or state officials.

Third, that same article mentions that "some officers contend Mr. Rumsfeld has promoted top leaders based largely on their fealty to him" -- which is to say, toss your opinions before working under this administration, because they mean nothing to them. Just fall in line and your career will be fine. Unless you're Claude Allen, of course. Moreover, ask Joseph Wilson why some may be reticent in criticizing someone high up in the Administration.

The "Pentagon Memo" article ends with the following:

Mr. Rumsfeld still enjoys support in many Republican circles. Senator John Coryn of Texas, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said his resignation would be a mistake.

"If this were to happen," Mr. Coryn said, "it would encourage demands for other members of the cabinet or other people close to the president to resign."

That's the idea, Senator. Rumsfeld's resignation - a very unlikely move considering Bush's near physical dependency upon him - would change little. The problem is bigger than Rumsfeld, is bigger than Cheney, and is bigger than Bush. I support the call for resignation and hope that it comes to that at the very least. But there's much more to be done if we're to take real steps toward real solutions.

With This Administration, Negotiation Is a Four-Letter Word.

2006-04-16T20:00:00.000-07:00

Go to any newspaper, turn on any television news syndicate, and chances are that the topic will be Iran. I don’t think I’m alone in saying that it’s pretty handy for the Administration to have another world crisis fomenting to take our weary minds off our losses in Iraq. But this cynicism is a little more potent when one looks at the records, specifically through the gaze of a celebrated Iran reporter, Christopher de Bellaigue, who states more than once that the current “crisis” is not all that it seems. Bellaigue is a reporter who writes for the Economist and The New York Review of Books, and his memoirs of his time in Iran were recently published. Bellaigue’s article in the February 24, 2005 issue of the NYRoB (“Bush, Iran & the Bomb”) makes many prescient claims that come to be proven in his most recent article for the publication, now titled simply “Iran & the Bomb” (4/27/06). His claims that the US is ignoring workable options (like negotiations) with Iran in favor of pursuing its own agenda for the region are backed up by Seymour Hersh’s April 17th article in The New Yorker. The lede to Hersh’s article sums up the current double-agenda: “The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.” As long as the Bush Administration refuses to negotiate in good faith with Iran, and tries to speed up the United Nations processes in the IAEA, we may have another Iraq on our hands quite sooner than many think.

In his articles, Bellaigue paints a picture of Iran as a country that is grappling with its place in the international community rather than a trigger-happy nuclear armory. Iran sees the Middle East being ransacked by foreign powers, and at the same time, recognizes that nuclear-armed countries surround it. Bellaigue suggests:

“[One should] review the deterioration in relations between Iran and the US since early 2002, when Bush included the Islamic Republic in his ‘axis of evil’…This speech convinced Iran’s leaders that Bush intended to bring down the Islamic Republic. Iranian insecurities were subsequently heightened by the American invasion of Iraq…and by the US’s stated ambition to democratize the Middle East.”

This explains a lot of President Ahmadinejad’s blustering talk. Though much of it is morally reprehensible and reminds one of the Islamic Republic’s tawdry record with human rights (e.g. Holocaust denial), a good portion of the talk is transparent enough to show the president’s obvious need to appear tough and anti-Western to his fundamentalist base. Israel, to the Middle East, is seen as a Western ally, and why not? Israel is one of the nations that are in flagrant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran ratified in 1970. Yet we never cry foul of this violation, much like we've stood idly by with other Israeli discrepancies and abuses. It is therefore always illogical to me that we are so fiercely contesting Iran’s pursuit of a full nuclear cycle, which it has a right to pursue under the NPT. Ahmadinejad is obviously trying to keep up with the nuclear Joneses. Iran's former chief nuclear negotiator, Hassan Rohani, said as much in 2004:

"...the situation will change. The world didn't want Pakistan to get an atom bomb or Brazil to get a fuel cycle, but Brazil achieved a fuel cycle and Pakistan a bomb, and the world came to an accommodation with them...but we haven't yet achieved a full fuel cycle, and that, as it happens, is our main problem."

What this comes down to is simple: “Iran's leaders are unlikely to abandon their plans to achieve a fuel cycle unless they believe that they will be more secure as a result” (Bellaigue 4/27/06). The only way for Iran to feel more secure, as proven by both statements and diplomatic trends, is through US protection. Bellaigue saw this back in ’05:

“What is clear is that the US, not Europe, can offer the incentives that are most attractive to Iran. The Americans have the Mujahideen in their custody [the People’s Mujahideen, ‘a once-popular left-wing Muslim organization hostile to Iran, now declared a terrorist organization] and can approve Iran’s entry into the WTO [World Trade Organization]. US sanctions against trade with Iran have had a debilitating effect on the Iranian economy, and the Iranians would like that policy reversed. Most important of all, the Europeans cannot offer Iran the security guarantees that it seeks. The US can.”

I am not indicating that there is not a problem here. President Ahmadinejad’s bellicose statements, like the one issued on Friday announcing, “Our answer to those who are angry about Iran obtaining the full nuclear cycle is one phrase. We say, be angry and die of this anger", are making me nervous as well. But I consider them bluffs, particularly when no one news source can agree how close or far away Iran is to making a full-scale nuclear weapon [For example, in Bellaigue’s 4/27/06 article alone, there were conflicting reports. “…a senior British official expects it to have acquired ‘the technology to enable it to develop a nuclear weapon’ by the end of this year.” But then, in the footnotes: “The official, who spoke anonymously to British newspapers following Iran's referral to the Security Council, was referring to Iran's impending mastery of the nuclear fuel cycle, a prerequisite both to generating electricity and building a bomb. But he acknowledged that even with this technology, it would still take several years for Iran to build a serviceable weapon.”].

I place hope in the Security Council, that it will pay a little closer attention to intelligence than it did during the Iraq weapons inspections. But I don’t for a minute trust that there is a ticking clock on this issue. The only deadline being made right now is by President Bush. If the US wants to find a viable solution other than war for this nuclear problem, the bureaucratic channels of the United Nations are the best hope right now. But, as Bellaigue ends his 2005 article, “What is needed to deal with Iran and its nuclear ambitions is the formation of an international coalition including the US, and that is not George Bush's strong point.” Sound familiar?

New York Times Motives- Part Two.

2006-04-16T19:14:00.000-07:00

In what appears to be an indirect response to the force of complaints sent to the New York Times with regards to their publication of an advertisement that the Sudanese government paid a very large amount of money for, the April 2nd issue of the New York Times Magazine (which is buried inside Sunday issues of the paper) included a feature article on Darfur. The cover image of the magazine was a fuzzy picture of a person walking through a desert, and referenced the article with the line "The U.N. is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. The African Union is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. The U.S. is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. NATO is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. The European Union is not going to stop the genocide in Darfur. (And then, in smaller letters underneath a red line) But someday, Luis Moreno-Ocampo is going to bring those who committed the genocide to justice."

An intense opening for an intense article, especially for the Times. But a pleasant alternative to the propaganda that they printed the previous week. One of the most startling statements in the article was within the introduction of the situation, "Militias called janjaweed, recruited from Arab tribes in Darfur and Chad and supported by the Sudanese government, continue to attack, rape ad kill villagers from African tribes..." Every other article I have ever read on the situation, even the most one-sided, would never go farther than stating that the Sudanese government is accused or suspected of supporting the janjaweed. Perhaps this statement means we are one step closer to an international recognition of the Sudanese government as the source of so much of the violence going on in Darfur today. If we internationally acknowledge the government's guilt in the current situation, perhaps countries currently supporting their rejection of involvement of non-African Union forces, including China, will change their position.

The article went on to explain the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, which have begun to examine the numerous cases of human rights violations in Darfur. Luis Moreno-Ocampo is the chief prosecutor in The Hague, where the International Court of Justice is based. The case on Darfur is explained as unique in the difficulties it embodies; because human rights activists must work against the Sudanese government, the process of gathering evidence is made extremely difficult. "They cannot gather any forensic evidence from schools where collective rapes occurred. They cannot gather samples from wells that were poisoned. They cannot even gather shrapnel from bombs dropped on civilians by the government." As a result, those involved in the case depend on the documents provided to them by Sudanese dissidents and activists and the information provided from interviews with victims.

The question is- will the ICC be able to promote any sort of change in the current situation? Many are suspicious of the ICC, namely, of its power to introduce an investigation purely by a prosecutor's will. President Bush has, according to the article, referred to this prosecutor as "unaccountable," though they must present the case to an international panel of judges.

The Sudanese government has created the Darfur Special Criminal Court in what seems to be an effort to show their work towards peacekeeping and prove that the United Nations need not involve them. This court has done little, hearing six cases since last fall (one was dropped when the judges refused to allow a closed-session for a rape victim and she neglected to speak as a result, another in which the robbing and shooting of a USAid worker was reduced to weapons possession). The president of the court, Mahmoud Abkam, blamed the victims for the lack of cases heard, saying that they preferred to speak with foreign journalists and would rarely provide evidence to support accusations made.

One thing is for sure- the current efforts to help victims are going nowhere. The African Union, which the Sudanese government so adamantly believes in, has no power. According to the Times article, "Their mandate is a cruel one in that they are nearly powerless; they must monitor the cease-fire, and that's it, no peacekeeping. Which means that many of these men...have spent the last year picking up and burying hundreds of dead bodies, and even watching as janjaweed burn and shoot. And they can do nothing." Yet several countries have let themselves be persuaded by Khartoum into thinking that the African Union is the only solution to stop the genocide, and continue to think so despite the overwhelming evidence against the notion.

In the documentary "Invisible Children," the rebel groups in Northern Uganda are faceless and nameless, no one knowing who they are led by or what they will do next. In Sudan, everything is out in the open. We know commanders of the janjaweed, one of them, Nazir al-Tijani, has even admitted that he directed many attacks, and was quoted saying "Just because I ordered and planned the attacks doesn't mean that I was present during the attacks" as a means of stating his innocence. So if the situation is anywhere near as clear as it seems from this side of the globe, why has no one been able to do anything?

"Material Support" and the "Battle for Hearts and Minds"

2006-04-16T16:54:00.000-07:00

On Saturday ex-Tampa professor Sami-al-Arian agreed to be deported rather than undergo a second harrowing trial on dismissed charges of providing material support to the terrorist group Islamic jihad. Rather than implying his guilt, Arian’s decision is a testament to the extent to which we as a country have bowed our collective reason to the extent that we throw down our hats at any invocation of the buzzword “terrorist.”

The Al-Arian case could be used to address any number of current issues.

In the context of the current war on immigrants: al-Arian agreed to deportation to a still-to-be-determined country despite the fact that he has lived in the US for longer than I have been alive, and has raised five children here; all of them US citizens. Deporting Al-Arian is not a simple task, the son of Palestinian parents grew up in Kuwait, but immigrated to the US from Egypt.

In the context of the post-9/11 assault on academic freedom: Al-Arian is a computer science professor, not exactly an easy position to transform into a soap-box for anti-Semitic diatribe. Yet regardless, he was not found guilty of any crime, and following his arrest was fired promptly from a professorship he had held for nearly two decades.

In the context of the renewal of the Patriot Act, much of the evidence against Arian, ultimately deemed inconclusive, was gleaned from email, fax and phone correspondence, and would have been illegal for use in making the case against the professor were it not for Patriot Act provisions.

But the timing of Al-Arian’s “sentencing” is also key. The case comes in the context of another stigmatization of a “terrorist” group that will have far more drastic implications. The US/EU decision to financially isolate the PA is undoubtedly costly and potentially lethal for the hundreds of thousands that make up the Palestinian population as well as for those who are effected by the reverberations of a population’s being reduced to abject poverty.

--Note, I published this post originally on Sunday night before the bombings in Tel Aviv Monday. Monday’s bombing was the first major attack since the election of Hamas to the Palestinian authority in January. Nine people were killed, making it the deadliest Palestinian strike against Israel in nearly two years.
The group Islamic Jihad took responsibility for the bombing, however the newly elected Hamas government was criticized for calling the bombing justified. Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said Monday, “the problem is the attackers and the Palestiniann people are defending themselves and they have the right to do so using all the means available.” Also Monday, Israel labeled the Hamas-run Palestinian government a part of a new “axis of terror” along with Iran and Syria, and called Hamas’s justifications of the bombing “clear declarations of war.”--

Many aid organizations, most notably Oxfam and the Red Cross, have condemned the EU and US actions.On Friday, the Daily Telegraph of London published a lengthy piece on foreign aid workers who have evacuated the financially-destroyed Palestinian territories. Why leave the scene of a looming financial catastrophe, where already Oxfam has cited that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians live on less than two dollars a day? According to the article, workers are afraid of being accused of providing material support to terrorism by aiding the popularly-elected Hamas government. And why would workers fear this ridiculous accusation? Likely because the US, over the weekend, banned US companies and private citizens from financially engaging with Hamas-controlled components of the PA.

Hamas has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians by way of indiscriminate acts of violence. But so have a huge number of other national governments we've dealt with financially. To take what’s in the news this week alone, we have not initiated economic sanctions against the government of Nepal, headed by the despot Gyanendra, to whom we've recently funneled tens of millions of dollars and whom we continue to support despite his recent repression of the population and brutalizing of journalists.

We have not entirely divested from Sudan, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands continue to be murdered by the government in Khartoum. For years, we provided a vast quantity of oil revenue to the dictator of Chad, whom we knew at the time was corrupt and abusive. More controversially, we essentially birthed and raised the Iraqi interior ministry and other militias which currently ravage Iraq and have brought the country to the brink of civil war. And as long as we're being honest, have we ourselves not been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians worldwide by way of bombs, militias, gunfire, and meddling essentially since our country's founding?

Therefore it is unlikely that the US/EU funding cuts have much to do with concern for civilians. On the other hand, Hamas's election victory also didn't have anything to do with support for terrorism. Hamas won the legitimate Palestinian elections not because all Palestinians are violent terrorists, but because Hamas, as an organization, served a crucial civilian purpose that the PA and the international community were not fulfilling. Since its initiation, Hamas has provided the population with food, clothing, and other social services.

So why the special targeting of Hamas, a group with a military wing, but which was also popularly elected and will likely brew less violence if left with political power? Is it a Zionist conspiracy? Give me a break. To extrapolate on statements made by Kanye West, George Bush doesn't care any more about Jews than he does about Black people.
It’s highly unlikely that Condoleeza Rice assumes that it will be possible to strategically starve a government, hence starve a people, and simultaneously maintain a favorable image for the US in the eyes of the Palestinian public.

Ultimately, it comes down to control. Control of the region, and control of hearts and minds. Not the hearts and minds of Iraqis this time; with Bush's current 38 percent approval rating, our own hearts and minds are much more likely the target.

French Protestors Win—Then Push for More

2006-04-16T14:49:00.000-07:00

We Won

On the 10 of April President Jacques Chirac of France withdrew the New Employment Contract law known as the CPE. France has replaced the CPE with new training programs subsidized by the government. The programs will cost the government 150 million euros($182 million) in 2006 and up to double that in 2007. One of the problems that the government has been saying that they are trying to fix is the huge amounts of government spending. This will increase compromise will increase government spending, so if it does not manage to increase employment taxes could go up.

We Wanted the CPE

Members of the business community are now complaining that they wanted the CPE so that they could hire new employees. A chief executive officer of Poweo SA that has a staff of 70 said under the CPE he would have hired new employees under the CPE. An owner of a Paris construction company says he is worried the governments retreat will postpone needed labor reform. The business community wants a bill like the CPE because it has become so hard to fire people in France they choose to not hire people in the first place. A bill like the CPE gives them the freedom to fire people that they no longer need.

No CPE

One the other hand, more than one million people marched across France against the CPE. People have compared the recent conflict to the 1968 riots saying the fight is to retain the status quo and resist reform instead of fighting the ideological war of 1968. The fight is against the elimination of job security. The protestors were not the unemployed, ill-qualified youth of the poor suburbs who need these contracts; they were regular students and trade unionists. The fight against the bill says that it attacks the security of employees. Job insecurity is also increasing if they accept things. Before the CPE was passed another similar bill the CNE was passed. Since the acceptance of the CNE led to the CPE the trade unionist and students saw the need to stop the attacks.

Contract Nouvelle Embauche(CNE)

Faith from Success

More confident because of their win the students and Trade Unionists are now taking aim against another measure that attacks job security the CNE.

What is it

The CNE is a bill similar to the CPE, but it only effects businesses with less that 20 employees. It allows these businesses to fire any new employees within 2 years. There is proof that this bill has created 400,000 jobs, but these new jobs only constitute 27% of the CNE contracts being signed. Is it worth the creation of these jobs to take away the job security of the other 73% of these contracts signed.

Are They Going to Far

The question becomes are the trade unionists going to far attacking this bill. Even though it has created jobs, it is still a major attack on job security. The bill was passed just previously to the CPE and both were passed with little resistance. It becomes a choice between job security and jobs.

It aint my fault

2006-04-16T11:46:00.000-07:00

An article in the New York Times published Sunday titled “Political Impasses Delays Iraq Parliament” demonstrates the attitude of U.S. officials toward the looming civil war in Iraq. The article begins by stating that once again postponement to government organization has occurred in Iraq. Next it goes on to point out that four U.S. marines have died and then the article goes back to explaining that the assembly meetings would reconvene Monday once all officials agreed on an appropriate Prime minister.

“U.S. officials have been pressing the Iraqis
to install a new national unity government as quickly as possible to confront armed insurgency and the sharp rise in tensions between Shiites and Sunnis.”

The current attitude of U.S. officials is that the upsurge in sectarian violence is the fault of bickering Iraqi officials. The key words are ‘sectarian violence’ not civil war. We are supposed to think: It’s not that the occupation has lost control of the country, or that U.S. forces have purposefully started attacking militias instead of insurgents, rather it’s these undemocratic people that can’t seem to agree on what we tell them to agree on.

These marine deaths are supposed to tug at our heartstrings, with statements like: “the number of American service members killed so far this month rose to nearly 50 following a sharp drop in March.” Don’t get me wrong, I’m just as sad about marine deaths as the next Yankee doodle sweetheart, but comparing 2,376 U.S. service members with 38,000 civilians(approximate numbers) skews my sympathy. And thinking about the sharp decline in electricity, domestic water supply, the rise in the cost of food, the constant fear of death widespread over a population of about 26 million does not put Americans on an even playing field with Iraqis.

An article in the BBC highlighted the severe condition of healthcare citing that “Three thousand doctors, as an estimate, left Iraq in the last two years” and "Two hundred and fifty have been kidnapped and 60 have been killed inside Iraq." One mother of four children, Om Hamada said, “I am scared, of the road, of the explosions, of the Americans who just shoot at anyone, the national guards, the gangs”.

The worst part about this article in the New York Times is the apparent addendum at the end. It serves as an update from the week, like it’s just something they thought people might want to know

"In other developments Sunday:

-- Police discovered three corpses of handcuffed men in Baghdad. River patrols retrieved two of the bodies from the Tigris River, near the central district of Jadriyah, and the third was found in a gutter in Baladiyat in eastern Baghdad.

-- Police found the body of an Iraqi soldier in Hillah, 60 miles south of the capital.

-- Gunmen attacked a group of Iraqis driving on a rural road south of the northern city of Kirkuk, killing two civilians and wounding two others."

Do wrongful deaths of women and children have no precedence in news anymore? Are we now in a time that an article can casually mention multiple deaths in the context of political delay? How is it that cold-blooded murder can be written about so unemotionally and detached as if to say: This is routine, this is plain events, this only has to do with politics, we shouldn’t be upset about this. And anyway, it’s not our fault. It’s the Iraqi government’s fault.

Different Perspectives on Taxes

2006-04-15T18:42:00.000-07:00

In honor of today being April 15th—which would normally be tax day if it weren’t a Saturday (hence April 17th being this year’s deadline)—I’ve decided to devote my weekly blog on federal spending to taxes. As most tax-paying Americans presumably know, a portion of their hard-earned money gets taken away by the government to pay for local, state, and federal programs. (For a thorough breakdown of the different kinds of taxes, please see What are the Various Taxes? at TeenAnalyst.com.)

Several organizations have come up with interesting reports on things like how our taxes are spent versus how they could be spent; how much of our income pays for governmental programs as opposed to our own personal needs; how long it takes Americans to work off their yearly monetary debt to the country; etc. Hence, I thought it would be interesting to bring these meticulous and somewhat disturbing reports together in one post.

Beginning on a personal level, the National Priorities Project does an annual study published every April 15th entitled Where Do Your Tax Dollars Go? The goal of the study is to show “how the median income family’s income tax dollars are spent for every state and 200 cities, towns and counties.” The Interactive Tax Chart offers “a breakdown of how the federal government spent your income taxes” while the Trade Offs section of the study gives details of “how your tax dollars could be spent differently in your state.” In New York, for example, the $26.5 billion state residents pay in taxes for the war in Iraq could provide 3,100,897 people with health care. That’s just something to think about…

Another compelling report is The Tax Foundation’s America Celebrates Tax Freedom Day. This report, which “compares the number of days Americans work to pay taxes to the number of days they work to support themselves,” found that this year “Tax Freedom Day will arrive on the 116th day of 2006 – Wednesday, April 26.” This means that, as the St. Petersburg Times so kindly put it, “every day from Jan. 1 to that date, we have essentially been feeding Uncle Sam and his kin. After that day, we can start to keep our paychecks.”

This year’s Tax Freedom Day comes “three days later than it [did] in 2005 and a remarkable 10 days later than it [did] in 2004” (Executive Summary). The study claims that this is because of “robust” economic growth accompanied by a 6.5 increase in the country’s GDP. It is not, therefore, entirely due to the United States’ increasing federal budget deficit—which, by the way, is expected to rise to a disturbing $319 billion by the end of fiscal year 2006. (In fact, if taxes had been increased to account for the budget deficits this year, Tax Freedom Day would not have occurred until May 6th. So, there’s evidently good reason not to diminish this nation’s federal deficits in one foul sweep.)

The most disconcerting facts about the study come to the surface when Tax Foundation President and co-author of the study, Scott A. Hodge, states that “[d]espite the tax cuts passed by the federal government recently, Americans will spend more on taxes than they spend on food, clothing and housing combined.” Broken down more precisely, the report reveals the following:

In 2006, Americans will work 77 days to afford their federal taxes and 39 more days to afford state and local taxes. That makes taxation a bigger financial burden than housing and household operation (62 days), health and medical care (52 days), food (30 days), transportation (30 days), recreation (22 days), or clothing and accessories (14 days).

For anyone who’s interested in seeing the study in full detail, please visit Special Report No. 140.

Sermonizing as Public Health Policy

2006-04-13T09:44:00.000-07:00

Why does our nation have the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed country? Simply put, because our teens don’t know the glory of “faith fucking.” The pro-choice and anti-choice camps have very different prescriptions for combating this country’s high teen pregnancy rate. While pro-choice lawmakers, educators, and activists, and those who really aim to reduce the need for abortions call for comprehensive, accurate, proven effective sex education programs, the anti-choice lobby advocates a different approach. In addition to sex education programs that teach teens that condoms are only 70% effective, and that all pre-marital sex is psychologically damaging, proponents of abstinence only education also recommend diversion for curios teenagers. On abstinenceonly.com, they recommend something they call “faith fucking,” suggesting that teens “rigorously rub your face, body, or genetalia against those of your faith partner until orgasm.” (link below) Behind the comical image that this brings to mind is the not so funny fact that, on average, teenagers who take such “faith pledges” for abstinence before marriage are only delayed in sexual activity for a year and a half, and are at a greater risk for unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases once they do become sexually active because of their lack of education about protection. (see Planned Parenthood article linked below) Further, teenagers who do not take such pledges but who are still denied sex education other than the kind cited above because the Bush administration has withdrawn funding from honest sex education programs are also put at risk. Since the Bush administration withdrew funding from effective sex education programs in lieu of pseudo scientific Sunday school lessons, teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease infection has increased, a development that has not encouraged proponents of abstinence only education to change their strategies. In essence, the religious right views unplanned pregnancy and STD infection as due punishment for the sins of pre-marital sex. While this as a foundation for teaching in a religious setting would be dangerous and inappropriate, it is patently absurd and disastrous, as well as unconstitutional, as the basis for public health policy.
Regardless of the overwhelming scientific, educational, and experiential factors that display the inherent flaws in abstinence only education, it remains the prevailing policy of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Indictments against abstinence only education include numerous reports from medical coalitions, lawmakers, and educators, such as a report released by Henry Waxman in 2004 which exposed the various patent lies used in abstinence only programs such as a condom’s 30% failure rate and that HIV can be transmitted through sweat and tears. (see Planned Parenthood link below). Senator Robert Menendez thinks that the nation’s youth deserve better, and has introduced a bill that would give teenagers access to medically accurate information and resources though effective sex education programs. If abstinence only education worked, program developers would be able to support their claims with real science and valid statistical research. It doesn’t work, so rather than focus on high teen pregnancy and infection rates, proponents choose catch phrases like “a celebration of non-penetration,” and scientific falsehoods based on religious speculation
NARAL Pro Choice America's article about the Menendez bill
abstinenceonly.com
Planned Parenthood, "Abstinence-Only Only Gets Worse

Speaking for All

2006-04-09T21:00:00.000-07:00

In this country, one of the last things that it is acceptable to discriminate against is language. If someone does not know how to speak English, or speak it well, there are conations of stupidity and laziness. If you can’t adapt then go back to where you came from. This consequence of this mentality has seeped into our court system, negatively affected victims of violence, particularly immigrant women who suffer from domestic violence. On Wednesday April 5th, 2006 the Bar Association in New York City held a forum about interpreters in the court system.

There is a huge problem with interpreters, in terms
of accessibility, quality, and ethics. There has been a jump in the last ten years in terms of the diversity of where immigrants are coming from, meaning that there is also an increase to the languages spoken. Though the court provides information in English/Spanish forms, this is not the population who need the most help.

Because of the lack of accommodation for languages spoken that are not Spanish, this means that there is also a lack of testing, and therefore a lack of quality. It is so hard to find court interpreters because not only must a person be fluent in a particular language, but also the jargon of that language and the court definitions. Because the court has yet to accommodate to some of these languages, there is a lapse in what is acceptable and what is not in terms of language and how to translate the language.

Problems such as the interpreter explaining and summarizing the questions and answers in court, to not speaking the same dialect as the witness and therefore botching the translation are just some of the issues. Also, because of the lack of interpreters in certain languages, a case can be delayed as much as nine months. This is an insensitive and unethical mistake within the courts. It is not only undermining the credibility of the courts, but also not giving the defendant a fair trial, and making victims go through recounting traumatic experiences without properly making record of it.

Even Judges are greatly concerned over the lack interpreters and lack of high quality. In a survey, Judges reported that a constant problem they had with interpreters been lack of neutrality, and not translating properly. But even if they have concerns, there is nowhere to make a complaint. This lack of options forces Judges to continue on with proceeding that they may feel is not adequate.

Many claim that this is the victim’s fault. That they should know English and are putting themselves in a position to be victimized. This is a part of the American discourse, with the resistance to make Spanish a second national language. Most countries embrace the concept of knowing many languages, seeing is as a form of culture and intelligence, with some having upwards of 40 national languages.

This discourse has set the state for discrimination based on language. Though discrimination is legally recognized for the conventional means such as race and sex through the constitution, the Supreme Court has indicated that if the issue of language discrimination comes before them they will not support it. For this reason, advocates have not pushed for a federal case.

Despite this, there is there are major changes that will be taking place over the next year. Changes includes a centralized complaint system, use of better technology for interpreters to cut down travel time, and more testing, adding more languages to what is thought as needed.

Whether you agree with this or not, the point is that a crime has happened, and a human being does not have access to protect themselves adequately without feeling further victimized. Everyone, despite citizenship status, has the right to be protected.

Sources

Forum hosted by New York City Bar Association
The State of New York Court Interpretation: Are We Talking the Talk
April 5th, 2006

New York court interpreters: Overworked link
Anonymous. Migration World Magazine. Staten Island: 1994.Vol.22, Iss. 1; pg. 8
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=5871554&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1144637174&clientId=60765

New York City Immigrants: The 1990s Wave
Rae Rosen, Susan Wieler, Joseph Pereira. Current Issues in Economics and Finance. New York: Jun 2005.Vol.11, Iss. 6; pg. 1, 7 pgs
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=869104131&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1144636926&clientId=60765

Law Really Is Foreign Language For
The Columbus Dispatch, Alayna DeMartini. Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, Ohio: Jun 4, 2005. pg. 05.B
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=849834351&SrchMode=1&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1144637108&clientId=60765

Insignificant, albeit good-natured, involvement

2006-04-09T19:44:00.000-07:00

The Sudanese government refused renewal this week of an agreement with the Norwegian Refugee Council on their organization and management of Kalma camp, the largest refugee camp in Darfur. The agreement expired last Tuesday and as a result refugees inhabiting the camp will, according to Jens Mjaugedal, the Director of the NRCs International Department, "be deprived of coordination of essential humanitarian services." In an article by the UN News Center last Wednesday, UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland praised the NRC's work in Darfur, saying "Kalma used to be a disorganized area...Thanks to the work of NRC and its UN and NGO partners, it's now a well-managed camp where all the critical needs are being met, and tensions are managed effectively...With no one to replace the NRC, I fear that conditions for the 90000 people who live in the camp will worsen." And I fear that the term "worsen" will prove in the upcoming weeks to be a significant understatement.

In addition to the situation with the NRC, conflict in Chad is escalating, providing refugees with little protection once they've completed their long journey from Darfur. Camps in eastern Chad continue to recieve hundreds of new Sudanese refugees ever week, though "much of the region is beyond the reach of relief agencies" and according to a prediction by the UN World Food Program, several thousand refugees will suffer from starvation.

Despite a newfound urgency in Sudan due to these problems, the current actions being taken by the United States appear far from effective. First, this week has been recognized as the "Week of Prayer and Action for Darfur," a campaign organized by the Save Darfur Coalition and encouraged by President Bush. According to an article by Family News, "White-Hammon [of the Save Darfur Coalition] and faith-based coalitions say a week of prayer will let politicians know that they have your support to end the genocide." Since when has prayer become a public activity that forces the world to recognize issues? I would like to know how praying in my room will force politicians to realize the significance of an increase in US aid to Darfur.

In addition to prayer week, legislation was passed by the House of Representatives that would deny entry to the US to those implicated in Sudanese war crimes, freeze their assets, and "bar US aid to nations violating UN Security Council resolutions that impose an embargo on arms transfers to the Africa nation." Though this legislation does make a strong statement of the United States' position with regards to the situation in Darfur, it is a threat which I fear the Sudanese government will not take seriously. These points do not provide any help to refugees currently suffering, nor do they provide any strong reason for the Sudanese government to change their methods.

In a crisis in need of not only immediate attention but more importantly immediate forces of both money and soldiers, it seems ridiculous that a country that on the surface seems so devoted to the cause would go about helping in such a lame manner. A letter signed by President Bush on the first read "The United States of America is committed to supporting efforts for stability and lasting peace for the people of Darfur." An article by the Daily Dispach provides readers with a strongly opinionated and very sarcastic view of current US efforts regarding Darfur. The article suggests that actions such as those being taken currently have never amounted to any significant change in past situations, such as Somalia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Kosovo, and the only means of promoting recovery in Sudan is through "strong military involvement." The article continued, "American troops are stretched thin as it is, so the rest of the world better get ready to get tough."

It seems that the as a country we should shift our focus in Sudan toward two main goals: first, providing additional monetary aid to the African Union forces, and secondly, promoting awareness of the issue in other countries whose future involvement in the situation could prove to be a positive one. An article by the Miami Herald entitled "Speedier UN action needed in Darfur" emphasized China as a country with significant possibilities despite their current support for the Sudanese government, a support based on oil interests. With China leading a world fight against the genocide in Darfur, the current argument by Khartoum that UN involvement will foster Western imperialist ideas would no longer apply.

A Look in the Mirror: A Projector's Nightmare

2006-04-09T19:38:00.000-07:00

AlterNet.org has an interesting quiz posted, which lists a number of quotes by conservative columnists as a challenge to see if you can guess whether they're fuming about Iraq (2002) or Iran (2006).

For example, here's one from National Review's Jonah Goldberg:

"Conventional wisdom holds that there are really only two options for dealing with Ira[ ]: military strikes (by us or Israel) or the usual bundle of conferences, ineffective sanctions and windy UN speeches that lead to nothing."

Answer: it doesn't matter.

What does matter, in this context, isn't necessarily their evident recycling of pro-war (il)logic vis-a-vis "S'am" Hussein three+ years ago. Rather, what's more noteworthy is the rampant projective animus plaguing America's extreme rightist fringe today (and tomorrow).

Media critic and propaganda expert Mark Crispin Miller notes in a number of interviews and works (most comprehensively in his book Cruel and Unusual) that there is a distinct difference between hypocrisy and projectivity:

"A hypocrite does one thing privately while playing a very different role in public. ... What he does not need is to have some demon-figure(s) onto whom he relentlessly projects those aspects of himself that he unconsciously detests."

The Busheviks (as Miller would call them) now have their sights set on another "demon-figure": Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The widely covered recent Seymour Hersh article gives credence to the much-feared possiblity that the Administration intends to wage pre-emptive war on Iran in order to, as Bush et al. argue, prevent them from developing nuclear weapons.

To be sure, a huge part of the Bush/Cheney cabal's underlying reasoning for such an awful endeavor, as one high-ranking diplomat asserts in the Hersh piece, "is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years." (A point worth noting: Iran ranks third in the world in greatest oil reserves by country with 125 billion barrels of proven oil, that is, 10% of the world total.) However, there is a much darker element at play. Consider the following points in the article and the related contradictions:

1. "Bush and others in the White House view (Ahmadinejad) as a potential Adolf Hitler . . ."
If you were compare their respective histories, Bush, not Ahmadinejad, is most deserving of the comparison. All things considered, if anyone's in need of regime change, it's the U.S.

2. Refering to Iran's underground workspaces: "That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year."
Potentially dangerous? Yes. But Bush is vying for the capability to turn out 125 nuclear bombs per year by 2022. Moreover, the government is going to test a 700 ton nuclear bomb this June in Nevada. Just imagine the choreographed outrage nationwide if Iran was doing that.

Hersh also notes Bush's Messianic complex (something Bush himself has alluded to a number of times) and quotes a government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon as saying that Bush believes "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy." Say it to yourself: Saving Iran. That's pathological, pure and simple. They're going to save Iran just like they saved Afghanistan, just like they saved Iraq, just like they'll save anyone else who defies them.

The results of saving Iran would be unfathomably disastrous - not just for the U.S. but probably for the entire world. If you want to read a related article that'll give you some serious pause, click here. Then ask yourself two things: (1) Do we really want to allow these rogue extremists to push us further to an unthinkable tipping point?, and as Hersh writes, (2) What will 1.2 billion Muslims think the day we attack Iran?

To return to Mark Crispin Miller's logic: If permitted to continue on this course of action, it will not stop. We will always be at war with Eurasia or Eastasia or whomever Bush et al. see fit. They will always be on the attack against a demon somewhere in the world, but the hunt will never cease, because they, in fact, are the demon(s) they pursue.

El Salvador

2006-04-09T18:23:00.000-07:00

This week, I’m going to blog about an incredibly sharp and well-written, albeit frightening article in the
New York Times Magazine The article is about the outlawing of all abortions in El Salvador, and the punishments afflicted not only on those who perform abortions, but also on the women who have them and all who aid in the process.
The journalist peppered the article intermittently with compelling and deeply disturbing quotes from stories and interviews with women who had had abortions in El Salvador, and historical and political background of the ban’s evolution in the country.
In El Salvador, abortion is completely illegal, regardless of rape, incest, or the health and livelihood of the mother. What’s more, if a woman goes to the hospital and is examined by a doctor who finds evidence that an abortion may have been performed, the doctor or nurse is legally required to report the woman to the police, and if the evidence is sufficient, the case will be pursued. If the woman is found guilty, the doctor or “back alley practicioner” who performed the abortion can receive 6-12 years in prison, anyone who might be an accessory is subject to 2-5 years, and the woman herself could face 2-8 years, unless the fetus is in its advanced stages, in which case the charge becomes “aggravated assault” and the woman is subject to 30-50 years behind bars.
Another terrifying aspect of this article is the uncanny connection to current US affairs regarding reproductive rights. In light of the South Dakota abortion ban, and now another piece of legislature in Mississippi, it is frightening to think of a world in which abortion is so illegal that it can be punishable to the severity of 50 years in prison, or what’s more, that, according to the article, “some girls who poison their wombs with agricultural pesticide (its efficacy being a Salvadoran urban legend) would rather report the cause of their resulting hospital visit as "attempted suicide," which is not as felonious a crime nor as socially unbearable as abortion.”
The notion that women are being criminalized for choosing to have an abortion is a horrifying prospect, and one that is becoming all too familiar here in the United States. Although El Salvador is an extreme case, the United States is also heading in this direction, thanks to the heavy religious influences and undertones that are not-so-subtly creeping into politics (El Salvador is a very Catholic country, whose laws are founded out of religious beliefs, just as the Bush Administration infiltrates their policies with religious implications.)
The connections here are obvious, but I thought this would be a good place to point out that the juxtaposition between our reproductive rights and the lack there of in El Salvador really isn’t that striking at all, and this article (which is an exemplary piece of journalism, I think), left me with goosebumps.

A Leak...ok...Where is the flood?

2006-04-09T18:05:00.000-07:00

It has been relatively clear for months that the directives in recent lower-level scandals, from Abu Ghraib to the CIA leak case, have come from the highest levels of government.
The National Journal and the New York Sun were the first to report that Scooter Libby’s leaking classified information to the now-infamous New York Times reporter Judith Miller was in fact authorized by VP Cheney, who in turn received authorization from President Bush.
The leaked, or what McClellan wants us now to call “declassified” information was a portion of the National Intelligence Estimate which bolstered the administration’s case for war with Iraq. It was leaked with a clear political purpose. The specific portion of the NIE leaked was hand-picked to further the administration’s case; had the whole NIE been made public it would not have had the same effect. And the timing of the leak was key: just a week after an op-ed by former ambassador Joseph Wilson in the pages of the New York Times cast doubt on the President’s rationale for war.
The current situation parallels Watergate, yet the level of public outcry has been negligible in contrast. The press’s willingness to present a “fair and balanced," “objective” view has given equal if not more time to the administration’s lackluster response than it has to the facts themselves, allowing weak rhetoric to overwrite solid evidence.
Libby’s testimony implicating Bush and Cheney in the scandal was made public in court documents filed Wednesday. The information was reported in Thursday morning’s New York Sun, however during Secretary McClellan’s 9:30am press briefing that day, not a single reporter addressed the issue.
By 12:30pm several reporters had finally gotten their papers in order: after McClellan introduced the afternoon’s news conference without a mention of the issue, instead choosing to focus on the “strong and growing” economy, a frustratingly inconclusive discussion of it finally ensued.
McClellan laid out the administration's case as follows: The leaked portion of the NIE was not in fact declassified on July 18, 2003, as McClellan had stated in a press briefing on that day. Instead, it was declassified by the President ten days earlier, at which point the information was given to the Times. Why? The President apparently deemed the information of vital "public interest," in the context of the debate over the validity of the Iraq intelligence; a debate provoked by Mr. Wilson days earlier. Why, then, did McClellan explicitly state on July 18, 2003, that “this information was just, as of today, officially declassified”? Well actually the 18th was not when the information was declassified, but when it was released publicly, McClellan explained. Further questions were rejected because of the connection between this case and the ongoing legal proceedings in the Libby leak investigation: given how much the administration clearly cares about Mr. Libby’s well-being, they are adamant that he not be unfairly implicated.
So let’s get this straight:
1. Instead of declassifying the information himself, we are meant to believe that the President decided that the most effective and direct way of getting this crucial information to the public would be to work through Cheney through Libby through Miller…anonymously. In 2003 it was definitely not the case that an anonymous source would have more credibility than the President of the United States. In the current situation, however, such an action might actually be logical.

2. On Friday, McClellan said, “That's when it was officially released. So I think that's what I was referring to at the time. I'd have to go back and look at the specific comments, but I'm not changing anything that was said previously, so let me make that clear.” He later claimed that he couldn't remember "exactly what was said at that time," and when presented a transcript of the statement said, "I'd glad to take a look at exactly what I said," but "I can't do that here in this room right now." It seems highly unlikely that once the press secretary learned Libby's testimony, he would not go over what he said the day the declassified information was initially discussed?

3. Since top members of the administration were implicated in the leak case, McClellan has repeatedly said that he is now unable to discuss the matter due to an administration policy against discussing “ongoing legal proceedings”. Yet in the early stages of said proceeding, McClellan seemed happy to discuss the issue, and in the midst of the trial of indicted, now-resigning Tom DeLay, President Bush felt no inhibition while making a flat-out proclamation of DeLay’s innocence (link).

At least three reporters placed adequate pressure on McClellan, yet in each instance McClellan owned the field. McClellan effectively evaded every question directed to him not because his answers were right, or even because they were logically consistent. In fact the majority of McClellan's responses made no sense all, yet he was permitted to dance circles around the media, turning up his nose at the issues raised.
FOX news went so far as to remove the headline “Libby Tells Prosecutors Bush Authorized CIA Leak” from their broadcast.
We need to wake up. This is not about a lies but about lives: some 2400 Americans and tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This is way worse than Watergate.

(Looking back through this I realize many of the links I used are also used on cursor.org, just a note and a credit, cursor's coverage of this is great.)

Different Interpretations

2006-04-09T17:22:00.000-07:00

It seems as though Bush is stretching the truth again. At a White House press conference on Friday, the President threatened to “veto budget legislation if it does not restrain spending.” He claims that he is aiming to cut the nation’s outrageous $8.393 trillion deficit in half by 2009.

From what I can tell, though, this government’s spending seems like it’s spiraling out of control. The following is a list of issues the Senate Appropriations Committee determined to be in need of more federal money and tacked onto a spending bill that’s currently making its way through Congress:

• the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
• hurricane rebuilding,
• federal aid for farmers,
• fighting the avian flu,
• the fishing industry (as a result of Hurricane Katrina),
• and foreign aid

While these are obviously important programs, this is just a minuscule handful of what the United States is spending money on. In fact, I’m sure we’re not even remotely aware of where most of our country’s money goes.

Back to the press conference, though…

As the Reuters report points out, Bush has not once used his power to veto Congressional legislation during his six-year tenure. This fact doesn’t make me very confident that he will do it now. Besides, if he does finally use his executive power to this end, I wouldn’t be surprised if he cut funding for more imperative programs—such as hurricane rebuilding and education—to push some of his more cherished agendas before he leaves office.

Evidently, though, it may be too late for Bush to make a rebound in the polls. His approval ratings are so low that, as the Washington Post pointed out today,

Bush [has found] himself increasingly powerless to influence events in Congress, where rebellious Republicans and opportunistic Democrats have combined to stall some of his most important initiatives. Heading into a two-week recess, senators could not agree on a plan to revamp immigration policy, while negotiations over the president’s budget and efforts to extend tax cuts collapsed in the House late last week.

With Senator Lewis Libby’s testimony to a grand jury in the CIA leak case making news on Friday (where he said that “President Bush authorized [him] to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq”) and the usual negative reports circulating about the situation in Iraq, it seems like Bush’s legislative influence and power could really be coming to a standstill. I think right now his best option would be to focus on the little things and make sure his stories add up and make sense.

This doesn’t seem to be what he’s going for, however, as evidenced by the press conference referenced earlier in this post. Bush’s tendency to blatantly exaggerate some points while omitting other essential information still seemed to pollinate this public announcement: During the press conference, he focused most of his attention on a report put out by the Labor Department, which says (according to Bush) that 211,000 jobs were added to the economy in the month of March. Not surprisingly, the President read this as “an overall economic resurgence ‘that is strong and broad and benefiting all Americans’” (“Bush Warns,” Washington Post).

Of course, looking at the real report, one might notice that while “[n]onfarm payroll employment increased by 211,000…the unemployment rate was little changed at 4.7 percent.” Now, this unemployment rate is definitely not bad in comparison to many other countries (such as France, for example), but considering it was reported as “little changed,” I think the so-called “nonfarm payroll employment” increase shouldn’t be interpreted as an “overall economic resurgence.” But what do I know? I’m not the one in charge of running this country…

She Had It Coming: High-profile rape victims are being blamed.

2006-04-09T16:16:00.000-07:00

As a member of the third-wave feminist movement, it seems that when our troops take two steps forward, we can also counteract progress and take one giant leap back. In lieu of two recent spectacles including the abduction and rape of young, white American women (Natalee Holloway and Imette St. Guillain) and another that includes the rape of a black exotic dancer by the Lacrosse team at (Dan Abrams’ alma mater, which he mentions every five minutes on his show) Duke University have many people asking, did these girls deserve their fate?

Recently on “The Abrams Report," the dogmatic justice show airing on MSNBC, Dan Abrams featured a commentator who asked this very question in regards to the abduction, torture, rape and murder of New York’s Imette St. Guillain at the local bar “The Falls.” Of course, Abrams was outraged and wouldn’t let the guy speak in complete sentences; but the commentator was not saying that girls like Natalee and Imette deserved to be killed but he believed these women, by separating from their respective groups to wander into the night alone while intoxicated, will find trouble. A brief history, “The Falls” is a SoHo bar on Lafayette near the NYU Broome Street dorms; St. Guillain went to the bar around 2:30am on February 24th after leaving her friend who went home for the night. Witnesses say the 25-year old law student was escorted out of the bar around 4:00am by the bouncer, who is now the main suspect, and was found the following morning in Brooklyn, dead.

Before I make my argument I want to say that under NO circumstances does anyone DESERVE to be raped, murdered, or violated in any other way. However, the main point Abrams’ guest was making was valid: What was a single girl doing in a bar unaccompanied late at night? “The Conservative Voice” had a commentary by Dr. Brooks A. Mick on their website and he believes that the media’s response to the critical analysis of these women’s actions is counteracting awareness.

I agree that it is not safe for any person regardless of gender to bar hop alone anywhere; but when a woman does it, and the outlook is bad, she is accused of asking for trouble. If a man were to be drinking alone at a bar in SoHo, walked out and was stabbed, he would be an innocent victim. The discussion of blame or damnation would not accompany his fate. Yes, it was a lapse in judgment on both Natalee and Imette’s part, and tragically, it cost them their lives. Dr. Mick quotes Kimberly Guilfoyle, the “newsbabe” as he refers to her, on Fox News, who said that young women SHOULD be able to be out alone and have fun and that criticizing them was “blaming the victim.” Mick retorts that this attitude cannot help change the behavior of young women that “contributes” to their victimization.

Ok, so now women are not only actively seeking trouble but now they are “contributing” to their abduction, rape, torture and murder. Hmmm. I agree with Dr. Mick and Abrams’ commentator that these girls did not make wise decisions. I can see their frustration with commentators like Guilfoyle that advocate independent women with a measure of indignance. While I’d love for women to be able to freely drink alone in the middle of the night, it is not reality. Young women are FOUR TIMES more likely to get raped than any other rape victim group; being careful is not being anti-feminist, it’s being smart.

The exotic dancer who was raped and beaten by three men on Duke’s lacrosse team may have something to say for women who go looking for trouble. She makes her living by taking off her clothes, yet it is her job; did she contribute to her victimization? She didn’t go to this frat party alone, she was with another dancer. I feel that this is a very important issue to address: women are targeted for sexual assault and we MUST be aware of this. Being feminist does not include making dumb decisions, it’s making the right ones to better our lives and preserve our health. Think about that next time you want to party like a (wild) man.

1. "Duke Rape Charges Highlight Common Campus Danger" By Allison Stevens and Lauren Fischetti. 04/02/06, Women's eNews. http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2691

2. Statistics provided by Rape, Abuse, Incest National Network (RAINN). http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

3. "'Blaming the Victim' is the New Mantra of Crime Reporters" by Dr. Brooks A. Mick. 03/06/2006, The Conservative Voice. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=12857

"My heroes have always been cowboys"

2006-04-09T08:55:00.000-07:00

It seems that the most realistic and comprehensive report of life in Iraq since the start of the War has leaked into mainstream media. Finally, the mainstream media has pure evidence that the war has indeed shifted into a civil dispute; a sharp contrast to the he said/she said style of media that merely displays quotes from various officials postulating whether or not Iraq is in the throes of civil war. An internal staff report by the United States Embassy and the military command in Baghdad was given to the New York Times by a Washington official who is opposed to the conduct of the war. The January 31, 2006 dated document provided ratings of stability based on governing, security, and economic issues and confirms that 7 of the 18 provinces in Iraq have a “government that is not fully formed, high unemployment, routine violence, assassinations and extremism”.

And yes, the report confirms that:

Ethnic and religious schisms have become entrenched across much of the country, even as monthly American fatalities have fallen. Those indications, taken with recent reports of mass migrations from mixed Sunni-Shiite areas, show that Iraq is undergoing a de facto partitioning along ethnic and sectarian lines, with clashes-sometimes political, sometimes violent-taking place in those mixed areas where different groups meet.

Sounds like civil war to me.

There is hope yet that the American people can distinguish for themselves the state of war in Iraq. A testament to this:

A) Bush’s approval ratings are indeed dropping (according to an AP-Ipsos survey, they are the lowest ever, showing nearly 70% of the nation feels we are headed in the wrong direction)

B) Antiwar sentiment is growing (according to the same study, only 35% of the nation approves of Bush’s handling of Iraq)

C) These numbers are dramatic enough for the Bush administration to tour the nation buoying support for his party and the War- and even more important, put Bush in front of crowds that aren’t pre-screened

Yet, there are still people out there who deny the constant reports of suicide bombers, the obvious increase in sectarian violence, the disclosure of blatant lies on behalf of the Bush administration, the heinous reports of torture by American military forces, the decline in the quality of life for Iraqis, and the palpable lack of a reconstruction plan for this lingering War. Believe it or not, there are American citizens who actually say to the man who is largely responsible for these mistakes that, “My heroes have always been cowboys,” a quote from a woman at Bush’s speech to garner support from a bi-partisan audience in Charlotte, NC.

Let’s see…cowboy:

“In the U.K. and New Zealand, cowboy can mean a dishonest or unqualified tradesman.

During the (American) Revolutionary War, robbers who infested the roads between the American and English forces east of the Hudson River were called cowboys. They pilfered cattle and sometimes other property.

Robert John Burck better known as the Naked Cowboy is a New York City street performer and prominent fixture of Times Square. His routine, consisting of playing guitar wearing nothing but cowboy boots, a hat, and a pair of briefs, has provided him a comfortable living and international notoriety.” Sounds like another cowboy I know of.

The Freedom of Choice Act to Solidify a Woman's Right to Choose

2006-04-09T07:56:00.001-07:00

As Nancy Keegan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America put it, "After years of quietly chipping away at Roe v. Wade, the South Dakota ban on abortion exposed the anti-choice movement's true agenda: to overturn Roe,” If anti-choice activists had respect for established law, the Freedom of Choice Act introduced last week by senator Barbra Boxer and house representative Jerrold Nadler would be redundant. Given that this is not the case, the bill could be a landmark decision paramount to Roe in that it will be less vulnerable to the attacks of anti-choice lawmakers and activists. The FOCA would protect women’s right to choose from the kind of systematic erosion that has reduced the effectiveness of Roe over the past thirty years, or, as the National Right to Life article put it, “invalidate all limits on abortion” including what anti-choice activists have dubbed “partial birth-abortion.” Indeed, there is a provision in the bill that explicitly allows pro-death doctors to feed newborn babies to hungry wolves and sell them to scientists for testing. In all seriousness, the bill doesn’t introduce any revolutionary concepts; it merely reaffirms the right established by Roe v. Wade, which, again, wouldn’t be necessary if anti-choice activists respected established federal law. “Partial birth abortion” for reasons other than the health of the woman is not included in the “limits on abortion” that would be invalidated by FOCA, laws that require doctors to show women photographs of their fetuses as they lecture them on the amorality of their desire to murder their children, laws that make women’s ability to choose dependant on their parents, and laws that restrict services to rape victims are. As it was put in a NARAL Pro-Choice America article,
“In the 33 years since Roe v. Wade was decided, the right to choose has been systematically dismantled by anti-choice legislators. In fact, in some places around America, it is more difficult now than before 1973 to access safe, legal abortion care. States have enacted more than 450 anti-choice measures since 1995 alone. These measures make the right to choose a right in name only for many American women”
Pro-choice activists have come to terms with what anti-choice activists have known all along-- that a woman’s right to choose is only meaningful if it is in the context of laws which protect women’s access to exercising those choices. This could mean a decisive change in the pro-choice consciousness, moving away from its focus on the ways in which laws affect the lives of white, middle class urban women. In that respect the FOCA is revolutionary. The FOCA could have similar flaws to the writing of the Roe v. Wade decision, though, maintaining a focus on a woman’s right to choose as a matter of privacy, rather than on grounds of basic civil and human rights and the necessity of choice in social equity. This theoretical angle adopted by pro-choice activists could be the reason that a woman’s right to choose was vulnerable in the first place— citizens and law makers are more likely to make compromises about a woman’s right to choose when the debate juxtaposes privacy with fetal rights than they are when basic human rights enter the discussion. Language and rhetoric are powerful determiners of public opinion, and although most Americans favor the legal right to choose, they don’t view it as a human rights issue. As long as public opinion stays in this theoretical space, a woman’s right to choose is vulnerable.
Text from the FOCA
National Right to Life artice
NARAL article

A Note on France--A Note on Protest: Why They Can Win

2006-04-09T05:09:00.000-07:00

A comment asked last week why I think there is rioting in France when it would never happen in the US. Looking at history France has a tradition of protests working; this creates the feeling they can win so they believe it is worthwhile to protest. With the current events we can see that they are beginning to win.

A Quick Bit of Background

Previous Blog posts

“Freedom Fries” A Real Fight for Freedom in France

France Passes CPE—Protests continue

The Country

France is a welfare state. They have a 35 hour week, pensions starting at 58 or 60, free healthcare, five weeks vacation a year, and firing workers is basically impossible. Government spending for all of this turns out to be 55%. French labor productivity turns out higher than the USA.

The Law

The new law the CPE was passed last week. It creates a new contract for people under 26 that allows businesses to fire them for no reason within the first two years of work.

The Public

Currently 60% of the Fench people oppose the reform.

The Protests

Protests have rocked France for two months because of this bill and more than 3,500 people have been arrested.

This Week: The Government

Opponents of the law have accused Prime Minister Villepin of pushing the Law through parliament without proper consultation with unions and employers. Because of the rioting President Jacques Chirac suspended the measure asking for a new law to be drawn up with the input of the protest movements. The fate of the CPE was left in the hands of a 12-member union-student alliance and MPs from the ruling party. This and the presidents fear of street movements have lead to his offering a compromise that will be the end of the CPE.

Why They Protest—Why They Win: Students and Unions

They Have So Many People

One of the reasons that the French can win with rallies and rioting is the immense number of people that come out to support the cause. Each week more groups join the rallies last week between 1(police estimates) and 3(union estimates) million people came out to protest disrupting commerce, trains, airports, subways, and traffic. The unions have now threatened more strikes and to “intensify” the strikes. The more people out on the streets the easier it is to get people out on the streets. The strikes show this through their snowballing effect each week more groups and more people come out to support the strike. From the beginning the Unions could expect this support because France has a long history of support for protest.

If the Cities Can’t Function the Cities Can’t Win

The movements in France are a huge risk to the French economy. Wildcat protests Friday blocked roads and public transportations in several cities including Paris. Students have also occupied a post office sorting building and a party deputies offices. The workers strikes that have continued to be held every Tuesday effect national rail company; SNCF; Paris transportation system; RATP; Air France, six of seven civil service unions; media, banking, and telecommunications employees; and the socialist party. With people coming together from such diverse areas of work the economy of the country is in danger. This allows the movement to have bigger demands because their absence causes a bigger problem.

Why Didn’t they Give Up?

The people of France did not give up because they knew that they could win. Their history is littered with protests won by the little guy and their president is terrified of protest. They have wide support(60%) over half of the country with 45% saying the Prime minister should resign.

And now it is starting to look like they will win.

Free Trade, Closed Doors

2006-04-02T20:18:00.000-07:00

As the senate debates two proposed immigration bills, protests are sweeping the country in favor of legalized amnesty for all undocumented immigrants.
A rally in Chicago drew 300,000 people, many of them undocumented workers. A week ago today, a crowd estimated at over 1.5 million filled the streets of LA. This was followed by three days of school walkouts in the city, that drew up to 40,000 students. Despite allegations by the corporate media that the students were just ditching class, every high-schooler I spoke to knew exactly what they were doing and why. A 14-year-old girl said that she and her parents had been camped out in front of LA’s city hall for three days. A boy explained that he was out protesting because his father, who was working and paying taxes to the US government, could not be. Susie Delgado, a student at LA’s Renaissance Academy said that House Bill HR4437 if passed, “would make criminals out of families. It would make criminals out of our families.”
Yesterday, marching under the flags of Mexico, Ecuador, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Korea, and the Dominican Republic, among others, a crowd of nearly 30,000 crossed the Brooklyn bridge shouting “el pueblo unido jamas sera vencido” and “si se puede.”
Another chant, although less prevalent, was also audible: “el pueblo callada, jamas sera escuchada,” a silent people will never be heard. The recent rallies have been anomalous because they have been largely composed of undocumented workers who have previously hidden in shadows behind the steering wheels of construction vans, behind 24-hour deli counters, and in anonymous agricultural fields in the South. Together these rallies are the expression of a previously silenced voice.
The 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in this country have faced the same struggle for decades. Immigration bureaucracy and mishandling, as well as racist quota systems and exploitative employers separate parents from children, and bar children from success.
A 9-year-old boy from Guatemala said yesterday that although he had walked for 15 days to cross the border in order to escape economic hardship in his country, he was now not able to return to visit his aging grandparents, who had raised him while his parents worked in the US.
A friend who came to the US legally at age 5, after her mother crossed the border illegally and then gained political asylum, waited for 13 years to receive her green card. It never came. During this time she aced the US school system, but when it came time to apply to colleges her newly illegal status at age 18 prevented her from attaining financial aid.
In this country, some 20,000 people are detained daily to await deportation. Since the protests began, numerous Californians have reported that vans are roaming California and deporting whole families.
But despite this, the American flag flew amidst all of the others and I didn’t speak to a single person who didn’t say that they felt the US would provide them a better future, who didn’t reference the “American Dream.”
Luis Jose Rodriguez said on Democracy Now! Wedneday, “the brown-skinned people have now become the illegals, the undocumented, the ones that nobody wants. And when you think about it, that kind of turns everything on its head, because this land was first brown-skinned. And it’s kind of interesting how the native peoples are now being treated as strangers.”
I believe that this is the civil rights struggle of our time, and as such, it is part of a larger global picture. The US civil rights movement in the 60’s didn’t exist in a vacuum, but in the context of global anti-colonial revolution. During the 1930’s and 40’s, the “Western world” dipped into crisis, and in the aftermath between 1950 and 1970 the majority of African nations revolted against their over-stretched colonizers, and declared themselves independent states. At the same time, African Americans in the US made huge strides towards attaining civil rights and equality.
Yet since the final wave of political decolonization the US has continued colonizing, in a form possibly even more brutal. We call it the free market, or corporate globalization, and around the world US corporations have for years been garnering massive profits at the expense of native peoples.
This is not news, but more recently it seems that internationally, suppressed populations have been mobilizing to express that the world has had enough of Exxon-Mobil, of Occidental, of Hershey’s complicity in cocoa-production slave labor or Taco Bell’s complicity in the exploitation of tomato pickers in Mexico. Last week a state of emergency was declared by indigenous groups in Ecuador in response to its government’s engagement in FTAA talks with the US. Last summer, massive rallies were held against oil exploitation in Bolivia. In Mexico the Zapatista movement is gaining strength, and is demanding that the Mexican land be reclaimed for its people. There is a reason why Hugo Chavez, while in power since 1996, has gained negative political attention in recent years, and it has nothing to do with terrorism or dictatorship.
The immigration legislation would not provoke such a massive response were it not indicative of a larger issue. We can’t rip resources from the people of the world and then sit on the profits, refusing those from whom we took the resources their benefits. We cannot have a global system of free trade unless we also have open immigration. If this is not possible, then maybe we should question the policies that make this racist, exploitative nation into the immigrant’s dream that it is today.

Duke Rape

2006-04-02T20:02:00.000-07:00

“ > This week there has been several protests by students of Duke University and residents of the surrounding area after the reporting of rape on March 13th of two black women by three white students that are a part of the prestigious lacrosse team at Duke. The protest is in response to the handling of the case by the university and the silence among fellow member of the team, who are refusing to come forward.

The two women, who attend a nearby city university, one of which is a mother of a two tear old child, were hired to dance for a private party hosted by the team. From the time they got there the males on the team verbally assaulted them with racial slurs. The women decided to leave, but were swayed to stay after one of the males apologized. The woman was then physically assaulted by three white males in the bathroom in a gang-rape. Though the coach has forfeited this week’s scheduled games as punishment, many feel that it is not enough and that the school should take greater steps.

D.A. Mike Nifong has “ > stated on CBS that, "The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done."

This is does not concur with Joe Alleva, Director of Athletics at Duke University statement that, "I've seen no evidence of any racial problems with the lacrosse team or frankly, any of our teams."

The question then becomes how to interpret this situation beyond the crime in terms of sexism, classism, and racism and how it works within our culture. Though the Director at Duke may have his own personal interest in not admitting to racism that may exist on the team, the fact that any racial slur was said at all or even that fact that a group of white men are accused of raping a black woman, makes the situation a racial issue. Nowadays, racism does not work in the blatant institutionalized ways that it once did, such as legal segregation. It exists in ways that actions create as relationship which established roles.
For example, instead of seeing rape against a woman as just a violent crime, it can be seen as a way to keep women in an inferior role through fear.

This also goes into how sexism works today. The allegations, and protest to them, are seen as a woman’s issue, but it needs to be seen as a man’s issue too. Men must speak up about the violence against women. Woman already recognize there status in society. As a woman I know that I will be sexual harasses several times a week by men, I know there is a strong possibility that I will be sexually assaulted in my lifetime, and I know that my daughters will go through the same experience. Woman do not need to be convinced, we are already there. Men also already recognize the problem, but it is a “woman’s issue” that raging man- hating feminist can’t shut up about.

So, yes, it is moving that that there is a protest against these allegations but it is more telling that the no players have come forward. We need to decontextualize this before we can attack why they have not admitted to knowledge of the crime. My point is that how critical can we really be when our own discourse is innately flawed? We cannot begin to address crime against women against women until we are willing to see men’s involvement in it beyond being the perpetrator. We need to understand that just because it is not socially acceptable to say the word “nigger” does not mean that is not said in every other way through personal interactions. By expanding our definition on the way ignorance and discrimination work, we will be better able to fight them.

At this time, no charges have been filed against anyone on the lacrosse team.

Sources

Rape Allegation against Athletes Is Roiling Duke
By VIV BERNSTEIN and JOE DRAPE
Published: March 29, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/29/sports/29duke.html

Sex Assault, Scandal as Duke University Lacrosse Team Suspended
By Jeff Schwister
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
http://www.thedeadbolt.com/news/032906/dukelacrosse.php

Hundreds attend Duke anti-rape rally
By BriAnne Dopart : The Herald-Sun
http://www.herald-sun.com/durham/4-718579.html

"Hitler" vs. The "Alcoholic Mr. Danger"

2006-04-02T19:49:00.000-07:00

The Venezuelan government is reportedly preparing to launch an international investigation into the Administration's possible complicity or direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

Billionaire philanthropist Jimmy Walter of Reopen911.org and WTC survivor William Rodriguez met last week with Venezuela's President of the Assembly Nicolas Maduro, who stressed that he is ready to create an international committee for the investigation, which “would be structured via Hugo Chavez’s government.” The two Americans have also recently been on Venezuelan television and radio stations to promote the cause and are scheduled to appear on Chavez's weekly radio broadcast "Alo Presidente."

This could be Chavez's most combative and grandest anti-Bushism endeavor to date, as the long-standing antagonism between the two powers has been no secret. Stemming mainly from what Chavez and many others have claimed to a CIA led coup attempt back in early 2002, the shared animosity has been enflamed by both parties frequently since.

Some of the more memorable stabs include: "The 700 Club" Resident Psychopath Televangelist Pat Robertson, called for Chavez's assassination on air last year; Chavez offered to send 1 million barrels of petroleum to the US in the wake of Katrina's destruction/Bush's failed response; and the Venezuelan President selling discount heating oil to poor US communities this past winter, which also was met with opposition.

The mudslinging has frequently devolved into an ad hominem contest between Latin America's "Adolf Hitler" and North America's "Asshole":

1.) "(He's) the world's biggest terrorist" and his administration is "the most perverse, murderous, genocidal, immoral empire (in history)," Chavez said of Bush in his address at the World Social Forum in Caracas several months ago.

2.) "He's a person who was elected legally - just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally . . ." Donald Rumsfeld said of Chavez in early February.

3.) "You're an alcoholic Mr. Danger," Chavez said recently on his radio show in reference to Bush. ("Mr. Danger" is an American character in a novel who steals land from Venezuelan peasants.)

The dozens of one-liners do much for brow-raising and laughs, but they undercut the dour reality of American foreign diplomacy: It is as invisible to this administration as Noam Chomsky is to US mainstream media; it has no visible presence or role. The Bush/Cheney cabal's Manichean-era worldview is simple: Either you're with us or you're against us. It is not surprising, then, that this administration is remarkably inept when it comes to diplomacy. So much so, in fact, that one could suggest that they not even be judged on gradations of competence because they are utterly indifferent to diplomatic relations with foreign powers.

From proclaiming that he "loathes" Kim Jong Il on a "visceral level" and calling him a "pygmy"; to his condescending check-in with Pakistan's President Musharraf to confirm his loyalty and deny the people the type of nuclear deal he had just granted their historical rival India; to figuratively wiping France off the map; to the litany of other hostile "I dare you"s, the Administration has displayed near contempt for the idea of "the art and practice of conducting negotiations with other nations."

With North Korea recently issuing the caveat, "US does not have monopoly of pre-emptive strike," one can only hope that Chavez's prospective international 9/11 investigative committee characterizes the nature (i.e., bringing the guilty to justice) of any blowback resulting from the Administration's unconscionable wretchedness and myopic unilateralism.

Racism, Interference and Funding

2006-04-02T17:38:00.000-07:00

On March 16th the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2006 supplemental appropriations bill requesting an additional $50 million for peacekeeping in Darfur. On Tuesday the Senate Appropriations Committee will review a similar amendment asking for an additional $100 million. This money is going to foster the immediate development of African Union forces in looking toward future United Nations involvement. This funding is in addition to Bush's request for $123 million in peacekeeping aid and $391 million in additional humanitarian aid. Diplomats of the European Union announced last Wednesday their plan to give 50 million euros (about $60 million) to fund the African Union's six month extension. This amount is acknowledged by the European Union to be enough for 2 1/2 to 3 months of African Union involvement in Darfur, involvement which relies entirely on donations from different nations.

United Nations forces are no longer waiting for the okay from the African Union and Sudanese government. Last Friday, the Security Council voted to prolong their mandate until September 24th "with the intention to renew it for further periods." But successful intervention, though it is no longer looking to Sudanese approval, is seemingly less and less likely.

According to the Daily Star, the United Nations has raised $130 million of the $650 million it needs for its forces to establish an organized force in Darfur, which is now estimated to take over peacekeeping work September 30th. As violence ensues, conditions only worsen for humanitarian aid workers and refugees along the western border and in central mountains are being neglected as vehicles delivering aid are continually attacked. In fact, according to Brian Steidle, a former United States Representative to the African Union's Peacekeeping Mission, the United Nations refugee assistance agency is cutting their budget to Darfur by 44% because a lack of security in the current situation prevents them from providing refugees with aid.

But above all, what may prove to be the biggest threat against United Nations involvement is the Sudanese government's discourse against UN involvement. According to the Daily Star article "Hypocritical Arab generosity on Darfur," the Sudanese press continually prints anti-UN propaganda, turning the debate over sources of humanitarian aid largely into an issue of racism. The government has expressed its view on UN involvement in Darfur as "neocolonialist infringement of Sudanese sovereignty," the chief negotiator at numerous Darfur peace talks accusing African governments in support of UN involvement of wanting to establish "masters in the West and slaves in Africa." And it seems that thanks to this type of speaking, their opinion is spreading.

An Arab League Summit in Khartoum on the 29th expressed the impact the Sudanese government has already had on fellow members of the Arab League. According to the Daily Star article, one in three heads of state who are members of the league neglected to attend, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt. A key subject of the meeting: "No UN deployment without Khartoum's approval." The government of Sudan has encouraged members of the Arab League to help strengthen the African Union and reject "attempts to hand over [AU] tasks to international forces." Aid from the Arab League is being discussed at an estimate of %150 million in addition to providing troops, however the money will not, it seems, be provided to the African Union until October first, the first day of the UN's expected consolidated involvement.

Other People's Nukes.

2006-04-02T17:37:00.000-07:00

This was the title of an article in last week’s New York Times Book Review (3/26/06). The book being reviewed was “Spying on the Bomb: American Nuclear Intelligence From Nazi Germany to Iran and North Korea” by Jeffrey T. Richelson. The timely review was written by David Holloway, and in it, Mr. Holloway touched upon the trend that no one in the media seems to be picking up on: the United States has always aggressively kept watch over other countries’ nuclear programs. Holloway briefly lists just a few of the espionage games that resulted from this vigilance:

-“U.S. plans to assassinate the German physicist Werner Heisenberg during World War II.” (Let us pause to reflect the irony of how we would have dealt with Japan trying to assassinate Oppenheimer).

-“Discussions in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations on the possibility of attacking Chinese nuclear installations.”

-“The bureaucratic infighting over estimates on Iraq.”

Over all, the intelligence gathered over the years helped the United States deal politically. It wasn’t until 2003 that “the intelligence assessments serve as justification for the use of military force.” As Holloway rightly puts it, “The information needed for avoiding political surprise is one thing. That needed for preventive war is quite another, if only because of the consequences of making a mistake.”

So now, let’s tie this together. We, a country whom the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists noted in 2005 as having 5,735 active nuclear warheads (out of a total of 10,350 second only to Russia), are very, very, very concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons. Much more so than we were about Israel getting nuclear weapons. Not enough to go to war (though we haven’t discounted that possibility, as Condoleeza Rice noted when in London today with the ever-so-diplomatic “The President of the United States doesn’t take his options off the table”). But piqued enough to go to the United Nations, an organization whom we lied to about another country having nuclear weapons a couple of years ago. The U.S. media is as ruffled as peacock feathers over this one, and it is this bevy of brinksmanship that has led the U.N. nuclear agency chief to issue a much-needed “Settle Down!”

On Friday in Berlin, Mohamed ElBaradei “urged the international community to steer away from threats of sanctions against Iran, saying the country’s nuclear program was not an ‘imminent threat’ and that the time had come to ‘lower the pitch’ of debate.” The IAEA and the United Nations aren’t going to give this one up without a fight, and thus the strong posturing of Nobel Prize-winner ElBaradei has done a world of good:

“I work on facts. We fortunately were proven right in Iraq, we were the only ones that said at the time that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons, and I hope this time people will listen to us.”

There cannot be any more turmoil in the Middle East than there is already; it would not only wreak humanitarian havoc, but economic upheaval as well. As ElBaradei put it, “There is no military solution to this situation. It’s inconceivable. The only durable solution is a negotiated solution.” With this in mind, one hopes that the United Nations can regain some stature amidst corruption charges, and bring together the powers of the world to reconcile what is an extremely deadly confrontation. One only wishes our State Department would meet this agenda halfway.

It's just a little civil war, that's all

2006-04-02T16:38:00.000-07:00

Today I found myself wondering what the history books of the future will look like concerning the War in Iraq. Certainly past presidential scandals have merited a place in history: Thomas Jefferson’s slaves, Nixon’s Watergate scandal, Clinton’s affairs. But what portrait will be painted of George W. Bush’s presidency?

Living in New York City and attending N.Y.U. classes, it’s easy to think that history couldn’t possibly overlook the atrocities caused by the Bush Administration’s decisions concerning the invasion of Iraq. Thinking back to my lower school years in Southern Alabama, history classes never included Middle Eastern countries, rarely involved African countries, and hardly overreached standardized testing requirements. But educating students on U.S. wars was always a crucial counterpoint in my schooling.

The War in Iraq will certainly be a unique topic for historians. The shifting rhetoric of the War holds implications for terms like “terror” and “war”. George Bush has now shown Americans that “war” is a flexible term. You do not need Congress’ approval to declare war, nor do you need to be in accordance with international law to declare war. You can be opposed by nearly every other nation on Earth and still wage war against a country. And most importantly, your original reasons for war can change at any whim. You can bring your country to war under false pretenses and lies by accusing a nation of holding weapons of mass destruction and interpreting this as a threat to national security. If your nation is attacked by an extremist minority group using non-nuclear weapons, you can use this to fuel your nation’s thirst for war by accusing a completely unrelated nation of aiding this terrorist group, which has nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction. And you definitely don’t need proof of any allegations leading to war against a country. All you need is a lot of money, like say $439.3 billion (the Department of Defense budget for 2007 only), an ally with a nice accent, and a very dedicated regime staff to cover all your tracks.

The War in Iraq, as framed by the Bush administration, is a “War on Terror” and a “War of Liberation”, which both terms can be easily disputed, but in no way is it now a “Civil War” that has been exacerbated by the American occupation of the country.

The American Civil War caused nearly 970,000 casualties, which at the time was 3% of the population and there’s no one disputing the fact that this was indeed a civil war. Iraq Body Count approximates the number of civilian casualties, remember this does not include militias, soldiers, or insurgents, somewhere between 33,814 and 37,936. Many people choose to believe this is an underestimate, but given that the population of Iraq is approximately 26,074,906, these numbers reveal that over the past 3 years, nearly 14% of Iraq’s population has died as a result of war. Although it’s hard to say whether these deaths were a result of sectarian violence or occupation violence or the initial ousting of Saddam Hussein’s regime, it is possible to say that the invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces erupted sectarian violence.
Some say the looming civil war is “Bush’s exit plan”. Arun Gupta postulates that:

“With the war stalemated, repeated deployments wearing down morale of U.S.
troops and too few new recruits to maintain force levels, the Bush
administration may be deliberately provoking civil war as its exit strategy. The
goal is not so much to exit Iraq, but leave behind a skeletal military force
that would maintain the network of permanent bases under construction throughout
Iraq while maintaining access to massive oil deposits in the North and South.
Breaking Iraq into a series of mini-states, a strategy being pushed by some
White House allies in the media, is seen as one way to insure these goals.”

Maybe the denial of a civil war is buying time for Bush or maybe he’s covering up his true goals. Either way, it falls in suit with many exaggerations of the Bush administration: underestimates of the death toll, denial of strategic torturing, and the minimal role of U.S. soldiers in killing Iraqi civilians.

Pine Ridge Reservation

2006-04-02T16:31:00.000-07:00

This week, I’d like to focus my blog post on an incredible article I recently read. The article, published earlier today in the San Francisco Chronicle , is about a leader of an Indian tribe in South Dakota’s proposal to build an abortion clinic on the grounds of the reservation.
Cecilia Fire Thunder, the 59-year-old tribe leader (and first female president of the Oglala Sioux Tribe), who is a former nurse and has counseled many rape victims, says that the passage of the near total-abortion ban in South Dakota was an “eye-opener.” Infuriated that the law was so stringent that it does not even grant rape and incest victims access to abortion, Cecilia Fire Thunder, who has a strong partnership with Planned Parenthood through her membership with the South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families, proposed opening an abortion clinic on reservation grounds because the laws of the American government do not apply to Indian Reservations due to tribal sovereignty.
Personally, I think this is a truly amazing loophole that not only sends an incredibly strong and direct message of power and willingness to fight against anti-choice legislation, but also could potentially save many, many lives, and aid greatly in upholding the rights of women in South Dakota. In addition to establishing a clinic on the grounds of the Pine Ridge Reservation, Cecilia Fire Thunder announced her willingness to support the construction of clinics on any other of the seven reservations in South Dakota.
According to an article published in Democracy Now! on March 28, in all of South Dakota, only one clinic exists that will perform abortions and it is located on the far east side of South Dakota. As a result, “Native American women who live in the Western part of South Dakota must either travel more than four hundred miles to Sioux Falls or to an area of Nebraska, which lies almost 300 miles southeast of the Pine Ridge reservation.” The construction of a clinic on the Pine Ridge Reservation would be an unbelievable resource for those who live in the western or central parts of South Dakota.
Apart from serving as an enormous asset to non-Native women living in South Dakota, cited in the DN article but according to another article (which is full of vivid and inspired quotes) published in the Indian Country Today, “American Indian women are sexually assaulted at a rate 3.5 times higher than all other racial groups. That means there are seven rapes per 1,000 American Indian women.” The establishment of a clinic would allow these rape victims immediate service, and thus not only be a benefit to South Dakota, but more specifically to the Native American community. In the same article, Thunder is quoted as asking a poignant and pertinent question: “''When a woman is raped and becomes pregnant she does not have the choice of aborting. How many men at the state house have ever been raped?''
Yes! I see this movement as a much needed radical and progressive step towards getting back the fundamental rights that females should be granted without question. What's more, though, is that I think this action plan is quite reflective of women taking charge of this anti-choice crisis situation, and trying to use the power we do have to counter-act it as much as possible while still working to officially take the law to court and get it overturned.

France Passes CPE--Protests Continue

2006-04-02T15:30:00.000-07:00

In a country with an unemployment rate of 22.2% in the young and an overall unemployment rate of 9.6% something must be done. The country, France, has now passed the CPE or “first employment contact” as its method of fighting this unemployment. French Prime Minister Villepin said that the national statistics agency believes the new plan will create up to 80,000 new jobs.

What Exactly Does the Bill Do?

This bill loosens the French labor laws. In countries like America and Britain employers can often fire a person for no reason at all. On the other hand, in France, workers who have a permanent contract keep their jobs until retirement. To fire someone an employer must give 3 months notice, pay fines and severance pay, and convince a judge that they should be able to dismiss the employee. The new law allows a company to fire any employee under the age of 26 for no reason within the first two years of employment.

Is This a Good Idea?

Presently in France, many young people live with their parents through their twenties working temporary jobs and unpaid internships. They are unable to rent an apartment, buy a house, or secure a loan without steady jobs. The French government says that the new CPE will combat these unemployment rates by making employers more likely to hire young people. It is geared especially toward immigrant youth, a population with an unemployment rate of 50%. Employers do not hire as many people because it is so hard to fire them later. Under this bill employers no longer have to worry about that making them more likely to hire people in the first place. The unions and students that are protesting against this law say it is an attack on job security. They say job security is one of the most important achievements of democracy and infringing on it is an affront to modern values.

What Is Strange About the Way This Bill Was Signed?

President Chirac formally enacted the legislation, but he asked that lawmakers soften the law by reducing the probation of young workers from 2 years to 1 and forcing employers to give a reason for termination. However, companies have the right to employ new staff members under this contract as it stands. Mr. Chirac has asked them not to do so until it has been amended. Mr. Chirac actions have brought about disputes already; an editorial on the front page of Le Monde stated, "He did not come down on either side. He was content to evade the issue." There has also been splits in the ruling party, Union for a Popular Movement. Villepin rival party member and presidential hopeful Nicolas Sarkozy has called for the law to be suspended. Also, Bernard Accoyer, the party’s leader in the lower house, said Tuesday he would ask for meetings with union leaders to discuss changes to the bill.

No End in Sight

Even with the proposed changes to the bill, the opposition shows no signs of backing down. On March 28 between one and three million people demonstrated in France with hundreds of thousands on the streets of Paris. New demonstrations are planned for this Tuesday. These demonstrations will include the national rail company; SNCF; Paris transportation system; RATP; Air France, six of seven civil service unions; media, banking, and telecommunications employees; and the socialist party. In addition, the students who participated in wildcat protest actions last week blocking trains and invading buildings pledged to continue these actions. The unions and students stated they hope the new set of protests will convince the government to withdraw this measure in any form.

Bush, and other "Inadvertent Boons"

2006-04-02T14:19:00.002-07:00

Dear war criminals of the 21st century:

In your search for impunity, never overestimate the power of the Bush Administration.

To title this post, I directly quote Elizabeth Rubin's article in the Times, a comprehensive insight on the ICC, and her brief, optimistic exposé of its Argentine Chief Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo. In the article, Moreno explains that if the U.S. still had respect for the observance of human rights, their vicious anti-ICC and/or U.S. immunity campaigns would be harrowing for the success of the court. But instead, Bush has been what "Moreno gamely regards an inadvertent boon to the court. Bush builds Moreno-Ocampo's legitimacy by being against the court."

This makes sense, considering that the Bush Administration has demonstrated its blatant disregard for human rights. This sea change places the U.S. more frequently siding with China, Zimbabwe and Sudan in the UN, and has been internationally scorned for appalling behavior in the 'war on terror' and actively working to undermine international bodies like the International Criminal Court. Even a 2001 attempt to gain a seat on UN Human Rights Commission failed. And no one really expects them to gain one, even if John Bolton didn't deem the UN doomed and useless.

Inherent in the anti-ICC campaigning has been the primary concern of U.S. citizens, military and/or serviceworkers immunity to the ICC. So in seeking ICC state parties to be additional signatories to bilateral U.S. immunity agreements (BIA's), astronomical amounts of military and other genres of aid have been cut in punishment of states refusing to write the U.S. a blank check. The ICC's 100th ratification was Mexico. In refusing to sign the BIA with the U.S., it will lose military aid and could lose money for anti-drug programs or health clinics.

However, over the past month Condi Rice has been the one to watch, particularly because of the Administration's final realization that creating an unstable and irritable Latin America is possibly not the best idea. Probably with consideration of fiesty, anti-U.S. leaders of oil-rich countries in mind, Rubin's article clearly spells out how the Administration's policy is backfiring:

"Gen. Bantz J. Craddock, head of the Pentagon's Southern Command, testified before Congress this year that the insistence on special bilateral agreements is undermining American military influence. Eleven Latin American countries have not only lost military aid; they no longer receive American training — which means no bonds are established with their American counterparts [...] On a trip to Latin America last month, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that this I.C.C.-immunity policy was damaging America's interests."

More proof is Bush's recent recognition of the Hague to be a necessary alternative to the less-secure Sierra Leone, where former Liberian President Charles Taylor and war criminal was just transferred. Not suprising, though, is that Rice comes out as the primary voice behind his statement:

"[...] Bush said that the United States is working to have Taylor tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands something that would require a U.N. Security Council resolution. Secretary of State "told me that she thought that might happen relatively quickly," Bush said."

So as the Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC) relentlessly reiterates, the ICC is a permanent court, here to stay with or without the U.S. liking it. And with more countries ratified than not, the U.S. is once again slow to catch up to international human rights standards. So U.S. opposition? Ocampo certainly doesn't seemed worried, and neither do the hundreds of NGO's that make up the CICC. Looks like the U.S. can do nothing but help the court, even when it does play dirty.

Contraceptive Coverage

2006-04-02T10:32:00.000-07:00

Last week, I wrote about NARAL Pro-Choice America’s new campaign, “Prevention First: Challenge for Common Ground.” I posited that, in fact, prevention will never be common ground between anti-choice and pro-choice activists because anti-choice ideology is not pro-life, but rather, pro-control over women’s bodies and lives. Lower rates of unplanned pregnancy would be disastrous for the anti-choice camp. Which is why, in spite of the many highly effective, low cost contraception options out there, according to advocates of the Equality in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act, 49% of group health insurance programs don’t cover contraceptives. As a result, women pay 68% more out of pocket health care costs than men. Here we see yet another glaring example of how anti-choice laws hit poor women hardest. The same women who can’t afford contraception also can’t drive six hours to the nearest Planned Parenthood clinic. By no coincidence, women in states where it is difficult to access family planning services are also more likely to be denied prescription coverage. State mandates for insurance companies to cover prescriptions equitably are, next to federal laws that socialize healthcare, the most powerful road to gaining women widespread access.
Montana Attorney General Mike McGrath made such a mandate last week, in spite of objections from anti-choice activists and Blue Cross Blue Shield, one of the nation’s largest insurance companies. McGrath cited past legislation mandating coverage of pregnancy-related costs on the grounds that any refusal to cover health care costs that only effect women constitutes sex-discrimination. The same is true for contraceptives. Blue Cross Blue Shield objected to the mandate, citing increased premium costs, and suggested that, rather than a wide spread mandate, women who want prescription coverage should be able to choose a more expensive plan that covers them. Their spokeswoman failed to explain why the company didn’t suggest the same policy for victims of prostate cancer or users of Viagra. It seems, then that the company’s reticence in enacting gender equitable policies doesn’t have purely economic grounds. It cirtianly isn’t based on medical necessity, unless, of course, they can succeed in convincing us that a man’s flaccid penis is a larger health concern than unwanted pregnancy. Maybe insurance companies are just trying to cut costs and figured that women would be easier targets-- corporations do unethical things all the time. But what, other than blatant anti-womanism, can explain why equitable prescription coverage is controversial? Common ground indeed.
If anti-choice activists were really pro-life, widespread contraceptive coverage would be a major victory for all, and it would have taken place decades ago. That isn’t the case, though, and women who are hit hardest by the financial toll of unwanted pregnancy are left having less and less options to prevent it. If you care about women’s access to contraceptives, click the link below to ask your member of congress to support the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act.
Letter to Congress
EPICC info
Montana Mandate Article

Changing Positions Yet Again in the White House

2006-04-02T07:57:00.000-07:00

A little staff shuffle occurred in the White House this week: Andrew Card resigned as Bush’s Chief of Staff and Josh Bolten has been slated to take his place on April 14th. For the last three years, Bolten has been serving as the administration’s Director of the Office of Management and the Budget. This move—according to NBC’s news ticker in Rockefeller Center on Tuesday, March 28th—is the result of pressure on Bush to diversify his staff.

But, how much diversification can take place when one person just shifts from one influential role to another? Seeing as though the of Chief of Staff is the highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and is the overseer of everything, wouldn’t it make sense for Bush to pick someone he identifies with politically and personally? Considering he has a tendency to create a governmental comfort zone for himself every time he gets the opportunity to appoint someone to a new position (think of John Roberts and Samuel Alito being nominated and accepted as Supreme Court Justices), this change-up sounds about right to me!

Let’s just take a quick look at what Bolten has done as Director of the Office of Management and the Budget. According to ThinkProgress.org, the federal debt ballooned by $1.8 trillion during Bolten’s 34-month tenure. More importantly, though, it’s evident that Bolten doesn’t seem to have any qualms about manipulating the facts in favor of Bush’s administration. For example, at a press briefing in February about the President’s 2007 budget, Bolten revealed a chart that showed the government’s “progress in bringing down the deficit.” The figures were measured as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), which is only one way of showing how money flows in and out of the federal budget. Hence, while the national debt may have decreased in proportion to GDP, other things have undoubtedly contributed to the nation’s $8.365 trillion deficit.

While Bolten’s move to Chief of Staff is not as crucial or controversial as Bush’s recent Supreme Court Justice nominations, it is important to note how close-knit Bush’s administration really is. I mean, he has had multiple positions within George W’s White House staff (before becoming Director of OMB, he was Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, as well as policy director for Bush’s first bid for the presidency in 2000) and even held two White House positions (General Counsel to the U.S. Trade Representative and Deputy Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs) the first time a member of the Bush family was in office.

I’ve always thought the people who run our government should have some sort of expertise in a certain area. Obviously, though, politics takes precedence over knowledge. It doesn’t appear that Bolten has been an expert in the budget or the deficit while serving as Director of OMB, and it certainly doesn’t seem like he could have known all the ins and outs of U.S. trade and legislation while serving such brief stints in these positions under George H. W. Bush. Therefore, I wonder if he can serve to constructively shake up Bush’s White House like he has been unofficially commissioned to do (according, again, to NBC’s news ticker).

Women and economics: A Victorian insight on my 21st Century family

2006-03-31T19:46:00.000-08:00

In 1898 Charlotte Perkins Gilman (the author of "The Yellow Wallpaper") wrote and published "Women and Economics. The Victorian Socialist described economics as a way of life that women must be aware of and participation in. It was not, according to Gilman the money-driven, Bush-toting game that we think of today; though she saw money as the root of woman's "excessively sexualized social role (4)." The reason behind female-female competition was the race for women to score a male for financial security; therefore the male-female relationship was solely based on sexual attraction. Gilman also made the point of saying that in the animal kingdom, only the female human being is economically dependent on the male. So club-goers, when you walk into a club and women in short skirts downing their third vodka-tonic sashay over to the men sitting at the VIP table with $300 bottles of Grey Goose, do Gilman's observations seem archaic? Not at all.

I’m not sure how personal our blogs are supposed to be this personal but I am writing about women and economics this week because I am currently in Florida visiting my grandparents and my cousin, Kelly (who I have looked up to my whole life since I have no older siblings). She lives on the other side of the state with her husband, Lance (who I once thought of as the perfect man) and their daughter, Leah. When they were freshly married and lived within their means, they went out every weekend but didn’t have a child to care for. I would frequent the bars with them both when we all lived in Michigan. However, I am seeing more that her relationship is based more on economic security than love; or if a marriage based on love seems radically ideal, it's not even based on respect. I can barely contain my opinions (and sometimes I can’t) when I watch her do EVERYTHING. She cares for Leah, picks up after the family, makes dinner, grades papers (she’s a teacher) while Lance lies in the sun. He recently started a company with his brother and was supposed to make phone calls to potential clients and yet, here he is, basking his beer belly in the afternoon rays. Granted, he did support my cousin while she was in school, he now relies on her teaching salary to support the family while, so Kelly tells me, he sits at home and plays Playstation. Yesterday, Kelly and I went to Walgreens and she bought a magazine; we get home and he bitches about it but tonight, he is at racetrack! (My family races horses but he goes early so he can bet on every race). I search Kelly’s face incredulously. I want to scream at her for her silence and I want to gouge his eyes out for his audacity. It makes me think we women will never pull ourselves from the mess we've made: we are sexual creatures that exchanges sex for money and while on the street this trade would be called prostitution, in the home, it is called marriage.

I called my mother to tell her of the atrocities I have witnessed, but she is little help. She retorts with a few comments on their "low-economic status." But even with money, her relationship isn’t much better. This dependence extends from the impoverished to the obscenely wealthy (watch the new Bravo reality show "The Desperate Housewives of Orange County for a visual). So, why are women, if we are unhappy in our marriages, unsatisfied with our self-worth, do we not break the cycle and make our own money? Is it laziness? Is it the way we’ve been conditioned?
According to an article released in January of this year, more women are entering the real estate business and earning top-executive positions. However, the survey featured in the article showed that men still made more in revenue than women did across the board. However, women in real estate often objected to commission-based income, opting for a steady salary twice as much as men; the men that accepted the riskier salary had overall larger incomes, more than men and women that chose the fixed wage.
According to a recent study by the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, female participation in the American work force has dropped from its peak of 76.8% in 1999 to 75.1% in 2005. While the Baylor University article that featured this particular study said that women who worked increased 40% from the 1950’s, but the number of women entering has plateaued. In the American world where we’ve witnessed the second wave of feminism, created feminist legislation and pro-advocacy groups for women working, why haven’t more women been enticed to accomplish career-oriented success?

Perhaps it could be the male-dominated work environment. I would imagine that it would be difficult to be one amongst a sea of men; my last two internships have been in female-dominated offices. One woman, Jody Balaun interviewed in the Women’s eNews article, developed her own real-estate firm after she grew tired of the "fraternity-house" custom of her previous place of employment where men would often entertain clients by taking them to strip bars after dinner, a decision she found "divisive." I think that divisive is a perfect word to describe the current working environment, save nursing and teaching. Janis Schiff, a partner at real-estate firm Holland and Knight said this of the 21st century working woman: "It's very easy to attract women to certain male-dominated industries, but the real challenge is to keep them."

I can’t blame my cousin entirely; women face a number of issues that may stunt their excitement to work. Especially since many women that do work are still expected to make an income, take care of the household and the children without the help of her husband. Gilman’s book may be over one hundred years published, but her ideas are still fresh in the lives of American women.

1. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins, Women and Economics, Dover Publications (Boston, 1998)
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/gilman/economics/economics.html
2. "Women Develop New Tracts in Commercial Real Estate" by Sandra Guy. Women’s eNews, 01/09/2006.
http://womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2593/context/archive
3. "Women’s Employment Rate Down, recent study says" by Meredith Amos. The Latriat Online, 03/30/2006.
http://www.baylor.edu/Lariat/news.php?action=story&story=39921

Nuclear Aid or Deception?

2006-03-26T20:59:00.000-08:00

The struggle for representative government is currently embroiling the country of Belarus in violent protest as thousands besiege the streets to show their resistance to the recent presidential elections. Not far away, Iran is warring with the international community over its nuclear program. What do these two countries have in common? The beleaguered International Atomic Energy Agency, commonly referred to as the IAEA. The organization is a branch of the United Nations that seeks to engender cooperation amongst the world powers in regards to peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology. It is a crucial arm of the U.N., and serves as both a watchdog and a forum for nuclear concerns.

The reputation of the agency is under considerable peril, particularly in regards to what the United States and Britain see as inexcusable leniency regarding Iran’s attempts to restart its nuclear program. But a new situation has arisen which could foment a much larger issue with the IAEA. In an article in yesterday’s Guardian, the environmental editor John Vidal writes that a series of soon-to-be published reports challenge the statistics that the U.N. agency has given in calculating the damage of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. The charges are not a matter of slightly differing numbers either.

Thus the battle of information is beginning: The United Nations insists that its figures are correct. The figures include the following:

*[All of the following information is abstracted from Vidal’s report, as no other major news agency has carried this story].

-50 deaths can be directly attributed to the nuclear disaster.
-Approximately 4,000 people may eventually die from side effects of nuclear exposure.

The IAEA spokesman defended these figures by not-so-subtly attacking both the new reports and those who have contributed to them:

"We [The IAEA] have a wide scientific consensus of 100 leading scientists. When we see or hear of very high mortalities we can only lean back and question the legitimacy of the figures. Do they have qualified people? Are they responsible? If they have data that they think are excluded then they should send it."

But the most troubling aspect of this situation is the disparity between the official and new figures of the damage wrought by the apocalyptic catastrophe in 1986. The new estimates include the following:

-500,000 people have already died due to the nuclear disaster.
-Approximately 30,000 people are expected to die from side effects of nuclear exposure.

It is enraging to think that an organization such as the IAEA could have so badly misrepresented the degree of damage caused by this environmental disaster. Perhaps this is why the organization is quick to question the legitimacy of those who are putting these claims forth (the reports are being backed by “researchers commissioned by European parliamentary groups, Greenpeace International and medical foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Scandinavia and elsewhere”).

However, it is a tough situation when the organization that is directly involved in negotiations with Iran is also being accused of such blatant irresponsibility and error. A supporter of the United Nations would be forgiven for jumping up to decry the timing of the report in question, as the Iran nuclear crisis has not yet been fully averted. However, with the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown next month, and the possibility that such technology could be used against us by hostile forces, this report is extremely important towards gaining a higher truth of the destruction caused by these deadly weapons. If the IAEA is not reporting the facts, then it too needs to be put under the mantle of the reform movement within the United Nations. One only hopes that the innocent victims of the Chernobyl disaster are not being used as political pawns to undermine the U.N. organization.

Abortion: Beyond the Moral

2006-03-26T20:50:00.000-08:00

With South Dakota now making laws in order to directly challenge women’s rights; by prohibiting abortions, even in case of incest and rape, we have again come to the abortion issues. The law is made in order to directly challenge the Supreme Court decisions. This bill has rekindled the debate with a reality that abortion rights might be reviewed differently with the change in Supreme Court Justices.

One side of the abortion argument is that a child has the right to live, mostly resting on a religious discourse of how God did not intend for mothers to kill their babies and it is murder to have an abortion. The other side claims that a woman has the right to choose if she becomes a parent, and that it the system of a patriarchal society, which chains women to the home.

Here we are again back to the moral issue. Murder versus hegemony, God versus rights, and good versus choice. I am not justifying either position, but the argument has become stagnant, with morals blinding whether people see the consequences of keeping or overturning the right to an abortion.

The court relies on the principle of stare decisis (precedent), so that the courts decision is more based on law then on the sway of public opinion. To overturn Roe v. Wade would upset the entire way the court functions, devaluing stare decisis, and therefore making the court ineffective as the third branch of our government. This is not a new argument for why not to overturn Roe v. Wade, but I am bringing up because most people do not take into account that for the court to overturn Roe, the court would also be overturning other case law precedent the Roe was based on.

Most pro-choice defenders use the extreme example of incest and rape in order to support their position. Relying on moral issues to carry their argument, it should be said that there are a number of women who choose to have an abortion because it quite simply is not the time in their life whether they want to have a child. This is a real argument, which is often overshadowed by the moral crusaders on each side. Part of the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Roe v. Wade for giving women the right to choose is because in order for a women to truly have the same access to employment and equal economic status as males they need to have the choice of not having children. Due to our societal structure men have that choice, giving them the freedom to move up the economic latter easily.

That being said, abortion is not a decision that is taken lightly and the emotional trauma that these women go through is never a part of the debate. Advocates rely on their moral rampage and lose the humanity of the issue. As I have said, these are real decision that impact real people lives. The complexity of how that works, both on the legal level and emotional need to be examined when talking about this topic. If we are not ready or willing to discuss the real implications of our morals, then maybe it is time we exit the debate.

SD Abortion Bill Takes an Aim on Roe by Evelyn Nieves
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/22/AR2006022202424.html

How Abortion Bans Might Help the Debate by Jim Sollisch
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0327/p09s02-coop.html

Justices tackle late-term abortion issue By Bill Mears
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/21/scotus.latetermabortion/index.html

2006-03-26T20:16:00.000-08:00

The next few weeks will be a very crucial time for President Bush. As public opinion for both Mr. Bush and the War in Iraq takes a sharp decline, every little move will be hanging in the balance. Even Republicans are teetering on the brink, issuing public statements against the war and vying for the retraction of troops from Iraq. Bush’s solution of unwavering optimism is becoming translucent. Overwhelming news reports hinting at a civil war tinted the 3-year mark of the beginning of the War in Iraq, heightening the pressure on public opinion.

Bush’s recent press conference on the war revealed his attitude toward Iraq’s interim Prime Minister Mr. Allawi’s comments on Bush’s underestimation of civil war. Bush cites that although violence has surged, three things indicate that there is no civil war.
· Key religious figures speaking out
· The Iraqi Army hasn’t broken into sectarian groups
· Political leaders want to move forward toward unity

Okay, so what about the 30 decapitated bodies in the mass graves? And what about the abused prisoners? And what about the supposed raid of U.S. troops on unarmed worshippers in a mosque? And what of the mortar bombs?

Another highlight of the press conference is when Bush urged people not to listen to the media:

“Thirdly, in spite of the bad news on television -- and there is bad news. You
brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday
-- is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I'm not suggesting
you shouldn't talk about it. I'm certainly not being -- please don't take that
as criticism. But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemies capability to
affect the debate, and they know that. They're capable of blowing up innocent
life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in
Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried
about whether or not we can win.”

But the more Bush steps it up in Iraq, the more trouble he may have with foreign allies. North Korea is clamoring for the attention that Iraq is receiving, threatening uranium enrichment if it doesn’t get economic and energy assistance. Meanwhile, the foreign press who are anti-Bush had a hay-day on the 3-year anniversary of the beginning of the War in Iraq. The badly bruised UAE had this to say:

“The more Bush still thinks that the decision to go to war was correct despite
the fact that its justifications have fallen apart after the fabrications about
weapons of mass destruction became apparent... He is also still repeating that
the US has become safer without Saddam Hussein and that more than 25 million
Iraqis were not living in freedom, as if the world is stupid and short-sighted
enough to believe that”

The unpopularity of the war combined with the failure of the Dubai port deal is not making a very friendly face for the U.S. abroad. Saudi Arabia’s Arab News described the Dubai fiasco as “blatantly racist…If the Americans don’t trust Dubai, then clearly they do not trust any Arab”.

How is Bush going to get himself out of this mess, better yet how will he get our troops out of the mess he has made.

Women of Africa: Let's Not Talk About Sex

2006-03-26T15:56:00.000-08:00

I recently saw a documentary on HBO entitled Pandemic: Facing AIDS that followed a few different couples, separated by distance and stages of their disease, who shared the AIDS virus. The most haunting clip chronicled one day in an HIV-testing facility located in Uganda. One particular couple and their child had all tested positive. As the doctor delivered the news, the couple remained calm. The man stared for a moment before asking questions on how to prevent further exposure, though nothing much could be done. Antiretroviral drugs are scarce in the impoverished country and heath care workers are scarce. The woman, however, lowered her gaze to the baby bouncing in her lap. In accordance to African custom, she didn’t say anything.

A new article printed by Women’s eNews addressed the rising AIDS/HIV pandemic on the African continent. Rachel Sheirer reported that Ugandan women frequently trade sex for education. In a country where women are not allowed to own private property and poverty affects the majority of the people, women often have no other currency than sex. Uganda has been a model in the fight against AIDS; from 1992 to 2002 the county’s afflicted population was reduced from 15% to 6%. Uganda’s means for success has been widely debated, though the “ABC” campaign has contributed to the decline. Launched in the early 90’s, the campaign encouraged citizens to “Abstain, Be faithful, or if you can’t, use Condoms.” Yet, its success seen in Uganda is not consistent in other countries and the campaign attracts criticism from Christian groups that want to promote the “AB” in the ABC equation. Nana Poku, the former director of the United Nations Commission on HIV/AIDS and Governance in Africa recently said that Uganda’s success lacks sufficient research on whether the ABC campaign worked there. Poku calls for the focus to be directed towards prevention.

However, Uganda’s first lady and a fervent Christian, Janet Museveni, and the Bush Administration have raised their voice about abstinence in Africa. Considering that a large sum of money that goes toward the fight against AIDS comes from America, their voice seems to drown out those groups that favor prevention through protection. Many AIDS-prevention groups have responded that this message is not conducive to the lives of its people. Women are not protected by marital rape laws and cannot insist on using a condom because of they fear accusations of infidelity. Unmarried women, including young girls, are often castrated by their respective societies in they come forward. In the high-profile case of former South-Africa vice-president, Jacob Zuma is accused of raping a 31-year old woman who knew the vice-president through her father. While Zuma has showed up to each day of the trial, the victim has attracted a large audience of protestors that call to “burn the bitch” and contest to Zuma’s innocence. (Just as a side note, Zuma’s alleged victim was HIV-positive, and although Zuma knew this, the sex was unprotected. A little fishy?) However, South Africa’s One in Nine campaign workers have also been protesting outside of the courtroom expressing their concern for their country’s rape victims. Only one out of every nine rapes are reported (thus the title of their campaign) and the publicity of this case has many disheartened by the response of their nation.

The debate between prevention through abstinence or protection has opposing sides, yet both groups agree that the fledging heath care system is another major defect in AIDS prevention. Education in Uganda costs money and many of the country’s citizens cannot afford it. Therefore, women, such as the aforementioned girl in Sheirer’s article, prostitute themselves for an education. Many school campaigns warn their female students against “sugar daddies,” but a large majority of their students graduate because of these men that pay. The tragedy is that African women are rarely left with few options. Women cannot participate as full citizens, which cripples the collective fight against AIDS. African leaders agree that there is a need for health care workers; yet, women cannot obtain the education they need without first becoming hookers. Poku says that the focus needs to be on prevention, but men who are employed as truck drivers are infamously targeted for the spread of AIDS because of their affairs with women enroute. Many of these women are prostitutes that charge a higher fee for the option of unprotected sex. Certain truck stops allure reoccurring customers for the girls and they may engage in unprotected sex for the same price as sex with a condom. These same men will come home, have sex with their wives, and pass it along to them. While the wives may object, their dissatisfaction will never be announced because their voices are systematically silenced.

The HBO cameras followed the Ugandan couple home the day after learning that they, and their child, had contracted AIDS. This time, the wife spoke. In a whispering voice, she lowered her head to her child as if speaking directly to it. “It is his [her husband] fault that we are positive. And now, there is nothing that can be done.”

1. "Straight-Laced Hem in Straight Talk for Uganda Teens" by Rachel Sheirer. Womens eNews, 03/26/2006.
2. "Pan-Africa: Somber Outlook on AIDS" by Moyiga Nduru. Inter Press Service, AllAfrica.com, 03/24/2006.
3. "South Africa Rape Trial Dashes Hope for Change" by Anna Koblank. Womens eNews, 03/24/2006.
4. "Kenya: Where Call Girls Stalk Truck Drivers" by Peter Kimani. The Nation, 03/09/2006.

New York Times Motives

2006-03-26T15:53:00.000-08:00

Last Thursday I received an e-mail from The Save Darfur Coalition that encouraged public objection to an advertising section in Sunday's issue of the New York Times. (This e-mail isn't available on their website, www.SaveDarfur.org, so a copy of the e-mail will follow this blog) The Times accepted, according to the e-mail, "nearly one million dollars from the Sudanese government to run a special eight-page advertising section" and published the spread on Sunday, which described the "peaceful, prosperous and democratic future" of Sudan. The e-mail from the Save Darfur Coalition provided a link that allowed its list-serve members to write letters to the editor of the Times encouraging him to donate the money received from the Sudanese government's spread to humanitarian aid efforts in Darfur.

The most surprising aspect of the Coalition's initial e-mail was it's portrayal of the New York Times. "Since the genocide in Darfur began," the e-mail stated, "the New York Times has spent more time and money reporting the story than any other American news organization." This statement, if accurate, is staggering. My previous blogs have focused on how little the Times has written about Darfur, and it was my belief that the many less "objective" news organizations would have a more solid account of the crisis.

The e-mail from the Save Darfur Coalition described in particular the workings of one New York Times columnist, Nicholas Kristof. Kristof is an op-ed columnist for the Times whose pieces, which often are accounts of his experiences traveling throughout the Darfur region of Sudan, are published in Tuesday and Sunday issues. It is obvious after reading only one of his articles on Darfur that Kristof is trying to raise awareness and some type of concentrated, devoted concern in American people on the crisis. In his article "The Silence of Bystanders," Kristof writes, "Eli Wiesel once said, referring to victims of genocide: 'Let us remember: what hurts the victim most is not the cruelty of the oppressor but the silence of the bystander.' And it's our own silence that I find inexplicable." Every one of Kristof's articles relating to the crisis in Darfur spends sentences explaining the situation, including providing descriptions of basic terms to the crisis like "Janjaweed." Each article also ends with a plea for Americans to take action. He emphasizes that helping Darfur is in the hands of everyday citizens, who must make Bush aware that we as a country believe that something must be done. It seems that his articles are not a progression but instead a repetition of the same; gory details, followed by background information and "only you can prevent forest fires" statements. It seems that Kristof, underneath his hopes of influencing the public in a positive manner, has little hope that the public's knowledge of the situation has changed any in the past three years. Not that it has, but when one is provided with less than 1000 words twice a week, this repetition seems to be quite a waste.

Though I was unable to find any writings by Kristof in this Sunday's issue of the Times, his articles can be found online and are an average of 750 words, which is less than a quarter of a New York Times page. Though I could not find anything written by Kristof, I was able to fall upon four full pages of a Macy's advertisement in the front section of the paper alone. To me, this is an obvious statement of Times priorities and proof of the negative results of the reliance American print media on advertising as their major source of income. The day that the Sudanese propaganda was published is without doubt the most important day of the week for newspaper sales, and while an eight-page spread in the Times is difficult to miss, a 750-word op-ed article on page A-14 could go by unnoticed.

I also find it very disturbing that Kristof's column is considered an op-ed. By definition, this type of writing is "an expression of opinion." In my personal opinion, his endless descriptions of children dead or dying from starvation and gunshot wounds, families who have lost their homes and individuals who have lost their families, can't be understood as "opinion."

In Kristof's article, "Africa's Brutal Lebenstraum" published March 14th, he writes, "The Sudanese authorities may not have the money to feed their people, but they are spending lavishly on arming proxy forces to invade Chad, in hopes of destabilizing tribes and installing a pro-Sudanese pawn as the leader of Chad." And it seems as well that they have the money to get Kristof's own boss to print an eight-page spread describing the happy nature of Sudan, which one can only assume is an attempt to gain support in the United States for the Sudanese government.

From "David Rubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition"
Sent Thursday, March 23, 2006 2:29 pm
Subject Tell the NY Times not to take blood money!

Dear Emily ,
For two years, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has courageously traveled where few other reporters have gone to describe the brutal genocide in Darfur.
Through Kristof's reporting - and that of others at the Times - we have read of the tremendous suffering that has befallen the innocent people of Darfur - at the hands of their very own government.
Yet last Sunday, the New York Times accepted nearly one million dollars from the Sudanese government to run a special eight-page advertising section! The insert, placed in New York-area papers, consisted of pretty words about Sudan's "peaceful, prosperous and democratic future." This propaganda was written on behalf of a government the Times reports has sponsored a mass effort to kill, rape, and force people from their homes.
The New York Times needs to hear from you telling them it was wrong to accept this ad!
Click here now to write a letter to the editor of the New York Times. Demand the Times contribute the ad proceeds to humanitarian relief efforts in Darfur.
(Please note that the Save Darfur Coalition is not involved in humanitarian relief efforts, and we are not in any way asking for financial support from the Times.)
We encourage free speech and hope the Times continues to report on all perspectives, including those of Sudan's rulers. Since the genocide in Darfur began, the New York Times has spent more time and money reporting the story than any other American news organization.

In fact, on the day the Times ran the Sudanese advertisement, the paper also ran an editorial condemning Sudanese-government-sponsored militias responsible for murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people and displacing millions more.
It is unconscionable that the Times' sales department accepted nearly one million dollars from the murderous Sudanese government to run an advertisement filled with rosy images of an investment haven.
The New York Times is free to choose its business partners and this was a paid advertisement the Times could have chosen to reject! The New York Times should not profit with blood-stained money that would be better spent on health clinics than on advertising. Neither should they turn a profit on the propaganda of those they themselves believe guilty of mass murder.
Click here now to write a letter to the editor of the New York Times and demand they donate the tainted proceeds of the ad to relief work in Darfur!
Thank you,
David Rubenstein
Save Darfur Coalition
________________________________________
To unsubscribe from the Save Darfur Coalition email list, visit this link.
http://www.savedarfur.org

"Freedom Fries" A Real Fight for Freedom in France

2006-03-26T13:04:00.000-08:00

What Exactly are they Fighting Over?

In France a new law is in front of the Constitutional Council; if the law is approved it will go into effect next month. The law establishes the CPE(First Job Contract) that allows employers to hire anyone under 26 for a two year trial period during which they can be fired without being given a reason.

Why Does the Government Want This Law?

If you have had a job you probably know that in America it is legal for an employer to fire an employee for any reason that is not already illegal, but in France labor laws are stricter. Layoffs are costly making employers hesitant to hire new employees that they may no longer need in the future. The government believes that making the labor laws more flexible will cut unemployment.

What Do the Students and Unions Say?

The students and unions lobbing against this say that the law is attacking job security. They say that they do not want to become “the Kleenex Generation” being thrown away at will. In most contracts in France the trial period is one to six months, but this law would allow companies to hire people for two years and then fire them. Even if the law manages to create jobs they will not have any security. Currently in France many young people work odd jobs and temporary jobs, the last thing they need is to add another form of temporary job to their options. The government needs to find a way to promote jobs with security.

Currently 68 of French citizens would like this law overturned.

The History of Protest in France

France has a history of violent riots and protests, such as, the riots last year over racism. There is deep mistrust of government ingrained in the culture.

What is Happening Right Now?

Students currently occupy several of the universities and secondary schools in France. On Tuesday, tens of thousands of students marched on French cities resulting in violence in Paris where windows and rear view mirrors were smashed out of cars.

Students and Union Officials Refuse to Compromise

The major unions and student organizations have refused to attend government talks unless the law is withdrawn. A deadline has been set giving the government until Monday to withdraw the new law.

The Government has Offered to Amend the Law

The government has refused to cancel the law but stated that changes are possible. The government has offered to shorten the trial period to one year and requiring companies to tell employees why they are being fired. However, the employees will not have any legal recourse. This is just proof that the law cannot be amended to an acceptable version. While this offer is better than the current law it does not combat the problems with it. This law needs to be withdrawn, the students and union organizers should be consulted, and a new plan should be made.

What are Activists Doing About This Attack?

A one-day national strike containing 200 demonstrations nationwide has been called for Tuesday. The strike will affect hospitals, post offices, schools (that have not already been shut down), public transportation, airplanes, and trains. Students have also stated that they plan to transportation on Thursday and another strike on April 4. Unions have said if they do not get a response to this strike they will continue to fight. These people are fighting for rights previously guaranteed them by their government. They are fighting to keep these rights and to say “This is our country we deserve a say in it.”

Is Common Ground Possible?: the Role of Pregnancy Prevention in the Choice vs. Life Debate

2006-03-26T09:37:00.000-08:00

NARAL Pro-Choice America ran an ad in USA Today earlier this month stating, “Prevention First: Challenge for Common Ground,” a strategy that, if the debate over reproductive rights were really as simple as choice vs. life, would indeed bring people to common ground. However, while some anti-choice activists have offered hesitant support for the move towards prevention, its supporters are overwhelmingly from the pro-choice camp. Why, if anti-choice activists’ primary concern is to prevent abortion, don’t they spend even a fraction of the resources they dedicate to legislating what already pregnant women do with their bodies on pregnancy prevention?
Karen Pearl of NARAL Pro-Choice America and pro-choice congress members submit four proposals that would directly decrease demand for abortions to Congress. First, the “Real Education About Life Act” would establish a bi-partisan, scientifically based federal sex education program that would replace today’s “abstinence only” programs which systematically lie to students, leave them totally unprepared, and, according to non-partisan research, increase rates of unsafe sex. Second, the “Access to Legal Pharmaceuticals Act” would guarantee that pharmacies fill legal prescriptions regardless of pharmacist opinions, a measure that would be redundant if good customer service applied to women’s health. Third, the “Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies Act” would ensure that rape victims have access to emergency contraception in the emergency room, a measure that would prevent most of the 25000 pregnancies that result from rape annually. Last, the “Equity in Prescription Insurance Contraceptive Coverage Act” would make the kind of discrimination in coverage that denies women affordable access to contraceptives illegal.
It’s no surprise that guaranteeing women access to education and contraception would drastically decrease demand for abortions, and that the same initiatives in education and family planning that allow women to choose not to have children at a given time better serve women who desire motherhood. Support for equitable healthcare for all women, affordable access to prescription drugs, as well as general access to housing, jobs, and education, would benefit women, children, and communities. The reproductive rights debate isn’t just about whether women have access to abortions, it’s about ensuring choice and equity on the many levels that effect women’s reproductive lives. Why, then, do anti-choice activists do all they can to prohibit choice in one area of a multi-layered issue? Because they’re not fighting for children’s welfare, or for life, they’re fighting for control over women’s lives and bodies. Otherwise, what exactly would be controversial about the four prevention initiatives listed above? Finding common ground would be easy if we were talking about the same issues, and if anti-choice activists were really pro-life, but that’s not the case. Pro-choice activists with a holistic understanding of what both women and families need and deserve are more pro-life than any shortsighted anti-choice activist (for a prime example of such backward thinking, see the link below to the “No Room for Contraception” webpage which presents thrilling arguments on, among other things, why contraceptive use has lead to increased rates of homosexuality).
NARAL article
No Room For Contraception Article
Planned Parenthood Article

Where's the Federal Aid?

2006-03-26T08:24:00.000-08:00

An article in the Washington Post this week revealed that Bush has been channeling federal money to cronies who hold similarly conservative views on some of the most controversial issues making news during his administration. Now, I don’t find this to be breaking news or even an important development in the goings-on of the Bush administration—especially seeing as though Americans have been aware of this problem in the for quite some time. But, I would say that this aspect of our government is substantial in framing some of our most talked-about domestic issues.

As the article points out, in the past, conservatives have watched “taxpayer funds [go] to abortion rights groups such as Planned Parenthood to promote birth control, and groups closely aligned with the AFL-CIO got Labor Department grants to run worker-training programs.” Now, however, they are pleased that “[m]illions of taxpayer funds have flowed to groups that support President Bush’s agenda on abortion and other social issues.”

What’s really disturbing (as if that’s not enough to make your insides churn with disgust) is that so many important programs and organizations across the country need extensive financial assistance, and Bush doesn’t even seem to notice. He is obviously more interested in keeping his political ties than helping the people and programs that need it the most.

Take New Orleans, for example. The city’s financial status is obviously dismal. According to an article in the Times-Picayune this week, the city’s “financial situation remains dire, but its economy is doing better than expected and city government won’t run out of money for at least another two months, and well beyond that if it is able to obtain more federal money or more loans from private sources.” Two months? That doesn’t sound very reassuring to me!

The city already faces a deficit of between $100 million and $150 million. With more loans being sought after from private and governmental sources (including numerous ones recently approved by the Louisiana Department of the Treasury), some officials fear that borrowing so much money will force these hurricane-ravaged areas into even worse fiscal distress. And, even with all the scandals that ensued after the hurricanes, does it seem like the federal government is doing everything it can to help the most desperate area of our country?

If, in fact, the city does run out of money, who will be affected the most? The article states that police, firefighters, and medical personnel will have to be laid off, in addition to countless other city workers—many of whom, I’m sure, are facing their own financial problems caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and their aftermath (meaning countless governmental blunders at the local, state, and federal levels). Have we seen much compassion from President Bush and his administration regarding these people and their situations? Not particularly.

The only example of compassion from an appointed official I could find came in the about-face done by Bush’s Gulf Coast rebuilding coordinator, Donald E. Powell. His initial housing recovery plan “excluded thousands of homeowners, many of them poor, who lived in the flood plain but did not have flood insurance when Hurricane Katrina hit.” After speaking to local residents, however, he had a so-called change of heart and decided that these residents needed just as much help, if not more, than everyone else affected by the storms. If more government officials would take the initiative to talk to people, maybe those that need the most aid would actually get it.

Policing Katrina

2006-03-19T21:11:00.000-08:00

As on March 19th 2006 New Orleans cops were cleared of charges of looting a Wal-mart after Hurricane Katrina hit six months ago. Investigations were conducted after an MSNBC released a video showing officers leaving the store with shopping carts filled with products. It was stated by Police Chief Defillo that the officers had permission to take the items as necessities.

Many residents of New Orleans claimed that the police only let them into the Wal-mart after they themselves had taken all that they had wanted. One woman said that she and her husband only came out with ice and the police had encouraged them to go back and take more (personal interview).

This is not appalling within itself, but only when you hear others stories. There are those who are citizens of New Orleans and who are in jail until this day on charges of looting. Some were arrested for sleeping in their cars after their homes were destroyed, others for being on their own property. New Orleans Parish has been so backed up since the hurricane hit that many of these people have not even been arraigned, which is suppose to happen within 72 hours, and has not happens in months. Even less have had any contact with their lawyers. New Orleans has only six public defenders for a system thousands who need representation. There are others who were in the system before the storm, for violations such as not paying their parking tickets, who have spent months in prison under these conditions. Most have not even been read their rights.

New Orleans is turning into a city where even law is a disaster, with constitutional right being stomped on and police brutality on rampage. In a city council meeting on March 16th, 2006, there were testimonials from resident that were beaten and arrested by the police on made-up charges, others behind bars for weeks with out being charged at all, not being read their rights, and charge bargaining. There were testimonials of police shooting people in the head, slamming people head between car doors, and destroying property. Many have been told by the police that they never should have come back. The point is that people in New Orleans are being put in a state of fear that not only are being punished for simply trying to survive after the storms but also put in the position where they fear to question it because it might mean their property, well-being, and even their life. These accounts all had accounts of racism, and classism, which was conducted on many official levels.

Even the charge of looting is complicated. Looting is no different from stealing, other than it happens in a time of war or a riot. It is also a federal offense, which carries a 15-year sentence. This means that people who stole food, which is realistic and necessary in a time of crisis, are subject to spend a huge portion of their lives behind bars. At the same time, officers who are suppose to uphold the law, can get excused for the same behavior because they need the “necessities.” The police officers that faced these charges were suspended for ten days for allowing civilians to “ransack” the store. It seems that those who cannot get “official” permission, the citizens of New Orleans who lost their homes, can “officially” suffer for being victims of a natural disaster, as well as choosing to live in thier own city.

Personal Interview March 17, 2004 Resident in New Orleans

COPS
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603190451mar19,1,7098537.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

PRISON CONDITIONS
http://criticalresistance.org/katrina/

Lost in Translation: Adult Wars, Child Soldiers

2006-03-19T20:35:00.000-08:00

Bringing International Law Down to Cultural Reality

In a historic day for the International Criminal Court, Congolese rebel leader Thomas Lubanga was arrested Friday and is being detained in the Hague. Increasing pressure for a swift trial is coming from all sides towards Argentine Prosecutor Ocampo, especially in light of Milosevic’s death. After all, Mr. Lubanga is just the kind of person the ICC is after:

“For several years, Lubanga was a feared warlord [Â…].Often flamboyant, he danced on tabletops during news conferences and was protected by twitchy children carrying Kalashnikovs, some as young as 10.”

As this Washington Post article mentions, something Lubanga will be preparing to answer for is his recruitment and use of children. But in peeling away layers of the situation, it is quickly shown that the issues crime of recruiting child soldiers isn’t always seen as a crime. The DRC, like Uganda, presents an awful and ugly truth to countries (and courts) promoting universal criminal justice: sometimes a child’s or family’s only means of survival is no different from what has been deemed crimes against humanity.

Take Uganda, for example. Uganda, along with Myanmar (Burma) and Colombia, shares the proud title of comprising a majority of the estimated 300,000 child soldiers worldwide. Yet children are often willingly given to militias in exchange for security, money, or simply because, well, at least they’ll be fed by the warlords. Particularly regions in Africa and Southeast Asia have come to accept the use of child soldiers as simply the next generation of freedom fighters, and children are encouraged to take the AK-47 over schooling (if there is any), and avenge the deaths of perhaps countless relatives who went before them.

Uganda has had an ongoing civil war for two decades, with as many as 1.5 million displaced in northern Uganda, according to UNICEF. The Lord’s Resistance Army, or LRA is held responsible for the violence and for the abduction of children from towns in the north to serve both as soldiers and as sex slaves. Drugged and rapidly obsessed with “the gun”, boys and girls become the easy targets in bloody power struggles.

So will the ICC be the answer for these exploited children? What is clear is that Uganda’s situation has the potential to be a much-needed precedent for the ICC. Already, the atmosphere of chaos has changed notably since the ICC began its investigations, at least in mentality, simply because of the idea of an international court monitoring the conflict. But while arrest warrants have been issued for Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Koney (who has been described as “rooted in a grotesquely distorted view of the Old Testament”) continues to perpetuate havoc without apprehension. Much like Lubanga in the Congo, he is a key player in the larger picture of Uganda’s violence and is the court’s main LRA target.

Désiré Assogbavi of the Coalition for the International Criminal Court expresses grave concern over the lack of cooperation from member states, or those that have already ratified the Rome Statute of the ICC. Citing Uganda’s lack of political incentive (considering the contrast from Sudan, boasting China and Russia’s interests in oil and weapon contracts, respectively), Assogbavi notes the CICC has become “increasingly disappointed” in the cooperation of member states to arrest those whom the ICC have issued warrants for in Uganda. With no force of its own, the ICC relies on countries to assist detention of those accused.

The frustration then comes full circle, as Assogbavi describes his struggle in explaining the situation to partner NGO’s in Uganda, anxiously awaiting to spread the news of Koney’s arrest to the locals affected by the conflict. Instead, Assogbavi reports, he has to prepare them no to be surprised if before Koney, someone lower on the chain of command in the LRA is arrested and tried in the Hague, and not for the laundry list of crimes Koney is expected to be accused of, but of crimes pertaining directly to child soldiers. So not only may the ICC have to fry the small fish first due to lack of state cooperation, but many may not be fully convinced their crime was a crime at all. Simply further proof that international legal standards will need to be met halfway, from the ground up, in order to incite the dramatic social change which so many expect of the ICC.

Protests in Paris and such

2006-03-19T20:12:00.000-08:00

I was in Paris, France this week, and although I was more out of touch with domestic news than usual, I found myself literally in the midst, right smack dab in the middle, of a series of gigantic protests and marches. So, although most of my posts thus far have been dedicated to reproductive rights issues, I thought I’d devote this blog entry to some of the labor struggles going on in France right now.
Protest marches stretched across more than 150 cities across France, inspiring incredibly impressive turnouts: there were over 500,000 people rallying. The marches, largely made up of students, young people, and union workers, were in response to the passage of the CPE, or First Job Contract: a conservative law that grants employers the ability to fire employees under the age of 26 with little or no warning or reason within a two year period of hiring them.
While the French government believes that this law will actually help solve the unemployment problem in France (France has one of the highest rates of unemployment in Europe), the young people who are being most directly affected by the passage of this law feel instead that it is a detrimental decision that will result a new generation of unskilled workers that are merely disposable sources for labor rather than citizens fully ready to enter into life-long careers.
The law is scheduled to take effect in the middle of April, and as a response, the protesters are now threatening a general strike beginning tomorrow night if the law is not revoked within the next day.
Witnessing these labor protests that have been happening over the last week, and reading about the marches going on across the world marking the anniversary of the beginning of the Iraq war (although these marches are being criticized by some news media as being much smaller than expected and not as sharply focused as desired, I think the sheer fact that people in so many countries all around the world are still in active opposition to a war started three years ago is a statement in and of itself) has felt quite inspiring. It is a good sign that, despite the fact that the Bush Administration is stronger than ever, and isn’t showing any signs of backing out of its decision to go to war, that those who feel that the war is wrong are not completely demoralized, even after years of marching and protesting to no avail. In terms of the protests in France, I think the turnout is unbelievably strong, and that if in fact those who are fighting against the CPE go through with a general strike, there is a serious chance that the law may in fact be revoked.
Although I do not condone violent protesting (in France, there were several cases of violence on the parts of both the protestors and the riot police), I feel that the magnitude of the protests there really shows the power of the people at work, which, in a time when it seems like governments are making all the decisions for us, is both refreshing and encouraging.

Budget Blunders

2006-03-19T19:54:00.000-08:00

The nation’s budget has been of utmost concern on Capitol Hill this week. With the Senate’s approval of a $2.8 trillion budget for the year 2007 and the House of Representative’s vote to spend over $90 billion on war and hurricane recovery, many articles have been circulating in the mainstream press questioning the greatly-increased national debt (by $781 billion, to be exact) and illustrating the all-too-common bickering matches between Republicans and Democrats.

Most of Friday’s stories—such as the articles in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times—point out that the majority of the money will go to programs in six general areas:

• the war in Iraq,
• hurricane relief,
• education,
• healthcare,
• transportation,
• and home-heating assistance.

The problem, however, lies in the fact that adequate budget cuts and/or increases in taxes haven’t been made to accommodate all of this extra spending.

One Washington Post editorial in today’s paper provided a different approach to analyzing the government’s budget decisions. Addressing the fact that the Bush administration refuses to talk about its fiscal misconstructions, the article cites an “alternative budget” proposed by the Republican Study Committee (a conservative group within the House of Representatives). The study shows that achieving a budgetary balance by the year 2011 would require major cuts and taxations. The brunt of the suffering would need to be incurred by some of Bush’s supposedly most prized domestic programs, such as

• unemployment benefits,
• heating assistance,
• family planning,
• subsidized loans for grad students,
• and the federal highway system

Other areas that would also end up being impacted include

• governmentally-funded businesses, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities,
• funding for low-income schools,
• peacekeeping programs,
• healthcare subsidies for children and parents,
• and Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

By cutting funding from all these programs, the committee estimates that $700 billion could be saved over the next five years. These measurements, however, don’t even take into account inflation or war spending (which, by the way, was left out of the administration’s 2007 budget plans altogether), making its budget-cut-impact estimates a little on the conservative side.

The most sincere part of the Post’s editorial comes in the last paragraph, which I believe is worth quoting almost entirely:

These budget cuts would be shortsighted and mean-spirited; they would transform the role of the federal government. We find much of this unthinkable, and we believe most Americans would, too. That’s why Mr. Bush doesn’t talk about the real-life consequences of his tax cuts, and the real-life people who will suffer from them after he leaves office. So we thank the Republican Study Committee for producing this document.

Although this article is an editorial, I commend the Washington Post for giving ink to this side of the story. As far as I can see, no other mainstream papers offered such outright criticism of the government’s budget plans. Rather, they stuck to the vague and convoluted he-said-she-said aspect of the story, making it almost impossible to see the long-term consequences of the president’s budgetary plans.

Baby Talk

2006-03-19T19:14:00.000-08:00

The ongoing debate of abortion has forever pushed both sides of the black/white spectrum wayward; as of now, the heat is directed toward South Dakotar. The "choosers" are protesting tourism in South Dakota, the state’s second largest source of income (think Mt. Rushmore). The tourism department has received an influx of calls from both sides: lifers praise Rounds' courage and harried pro-choicers have sworn off the state. Quick review, effective July 1st, abortion will be illegal in the state of South Dakota except if the woman’s life is in danger. Governor Mike Rounds is especially sympathetic to the mother’s life in his quote after he signed the legislation.

The main source of pro-choice disdain is the infiltration of women's rights by male dictators, but a recent news article addresses the male voice. I am prepared to ask a question that most feminists would not utter when it comes to the abortion debate but: what about men?

In the early 90’s, two major custody battles took place where the biological parents fought for their child in the care of adoptive parents. In one instance, “Baby Jessica" of Ann Arbor, Michigan was forced to return to her biological parents at almost 2 ½ years old. However, Jeremiah Clayton Jones of Arizona is fighting for the custody of his child before the adoption process begins. Jeremiah cannot claim paternal rights for his own child because he failed to register as a legal father before the deadline in Florida. Under Florida law, where Jeremiah’s ex lives, an unmarried father doesn’t have the right to stop an outside person adopting the child unless he files as the father with the state before the adoption petition. However, the paternal right is not static, as the time allotted for men to register varies from state to state. Jeremiah is biologically part of that child’s life, and if he wishes to adopt him, why not? I respect that he wants to step up to the plate. However, I can’t help but ask, if Jeremiah were to ask for his paternal rights and petition for an abortion, what then? When is the father allowed to be a father?

In light of the recent history made in South Dakota, where do we draw the line for what men can decide for woman? The case of Jeremiah Jones is sensitive: he wants to claim his paternal rights now, but will he easily dismiss them? Jeremiah’s paternal right shows that the path of a child is a complicated issue, one that is not solely represented by the voice of the mother.

Unwed mothers have had a long history of bashing the non-existent father; but where can a man step up to the plate and say that he wants part in the child's life? A man should not be able to make the decision of abortion, for the issue lies within a woman’s body. However, once a child is born, the only man that should be able to take part in the decision of the child’s life is the father. As we well know, our world is not black and white, and with these issues there is bound to be interference and mess. In the case of incest or rape, “fathers” should not be able to be a part of their child’s life. In South Dakota, a female victim may have to face the reality of her attacker… as will her child.

Best Interests, for the Good of the Country

2006-03-19T15:29:00.000-08:00

The Sudan GovernmentÂs website has many typos, faulty links, and outdated news. But what is far worse is its pigeonholed portrayal of the current situation in Darfur.

Its most recent article, "Cabinet Commends Outcome Of African Mini-Summit On Darfu" (I'm assuming they mean Darfur), explains the outcome of a meeting attended by the presidents of many African countries in terms of "the summit's" opinions. According to the article, the summit "recommended setting up of a committee to assemble the rebel forces and other militia in certain areas, and to disarm these forces to pave the way for repatriation of refugees and displaced people." The website does not mention the Janjaweed by name, only as "other militia," and blames the violence instead on the rebel forces. In fact, in the more than ninety pages of news articles on the website that date back to April 18th, 2004, there is not one reference to the Janjaweed militia. The rebel forces, the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army, are considered by the majority of mainstream media to account for a very small percentage of civilian deaths, while the Government-backed Janjaweed is understood to be the source of the majority of the violence.

Instead of allowing for a transition from an African Union to United Nations-led operation, the Sudanese Government suggests instead a transferal from the African troops' current focus on ceasefire monitoring to a focus on peace-keeping forces. In an in-depth report released by the African Union's Peace and Security Council March 10th, Lam Akol, the Sudanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, said that United Nations interference in the Darfur crisis would "reflect badly on the desire of Africans to resolve their own problems" and "would only signify a failure by the African Union to resolve the conflict." It is obvious that rather than seeking out the most reliable humanitarian aid, a country in which almost two million of its inhabitants have been forced out of their homes should be focusing on their reputation as a self-sufficient country. And it seems to me that after almost two years of A. U. forces in Darfur, their mission has already failed.

Still, the Sudanese Government claims to have confidence in the African Union's abilities. And their confidence may be enough to prevent the United Nations from intervening. Last Friday in Addis Ababa, an accord was made in which Sudan agreed to prolong A. U. involvement in Darfur until September(whereas previously their involvement was due to end with the end of the month), when the United Nations forces will move in. But four days later, the Vice-president of Sudan, Ali Osman Mohammed Taha, announced that Sudan will reject the proposed United Nations involvement.

A Human Rights Watch article, "African Union: Support U.N. Protection Force for Darfur," stated that according to A.U. officials, there are "two principal reasons for handing over peacekeeping in Darfur to the United Nations: the increasing complexity of the mission as security worsens, and the need for a stable budget." And while the Sudanese Government claims it is "willing to contribute in raising required funding" for the A. U., it seems very unlikely that they will do anything to strengthen the countries' security.

Recent Surges in Recent Surges

2006-03-19T13:12:00.000-08:00

In keeping with my post from a few days ago, this stuff is worth mentioning.

On Friday William Rivers Pitt noted in a t r u t h o u t editorial a great example of the Administration's propaganda tactics, courtesy of DemocraticUnderground.

The original March 4th article illustrates the propaganda technique of selective reiteration. In response to a reader's comment that there always appears to be news of a "recent surge in violence," a DU administrator perused the online press media world and found that every few weeks a news report comes out of Iraq noting this "recent" trend that's lasted for 3 years.

Another rising trend is the "threat" of IED (Improvised Explosive Devices) in Iraq. According to Bush et al., the Shi'a militia is procuring IEDs with the help of Iran - not surprisingly. As he addressed the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies last Monday, Bush once again reprised his role as a cheerleader while at Phillips Andover Academy, spouting the same preemptive war trumpery that we heard in the run-up to "The Long War." (Incidentally, at a press conference the very next day Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace was asked about the latest Iran connection, "Do you have proof that they are, indeed, behind this, the government of Iran?" Gen. Pace glanced at Rumsfeld for help it seemed, received none, then replied, "I do not, sir." Rumsfeld also admitted later that they had no evidence.)

John Brown touched all the bases in a recent article for Common Dreams. Here's the gist of what he had to say regarding the "recent surge" in the phrase "IED" being used repetitiously:

As columnist Robert Scheer points out, Bush repeated "IED" 26 times in his speech. His detailed treatment of the topic was at the heart of his remarks.

What's the reason behind the administration's new proclamations about the IED threat?

The answer is not far to seek: The White House, desperate to gain support for the Iraq war, is now providing yet another justification for its Middle East misadventure. Bush is again trying to convince us that we should fight in Iraq, since all his other explanations have failed to persuade an increasingly skeptical public that our military presence in that distant part of the world is necessary.

So, for Bush, the urgent need to abolish IED is a recycled version of why we are in Iraq, which initially -- we hate to remember -- was to get rid of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), which turned out to be non-existent.

That said, whether or not this screaming parallel has any traction will be a test of worth for the MSM, which is in dire need of a heart transplant. The catastrophic consequences of their silence on glaring contradictions between the Administration's claims vis-a-vis reality are on display for the entire world. Clearly, disseminating disinformation and misinformation is nothing new to the Bush/Cheney cabal.

During a "conversation" on social security in Greece, New York last May, Bush delivered this revealing gem: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

I think we all can agree with him on that one.

Freedom of Speech and Student Rights

2006-03-19T13:01:00.000-08:00

The Action

A group of antiwar students held a picket outside a speech being given by President Clinton on the Pace University campus in Pleasantville, NY. After resistance from Pace officials all of their flyers and banners were confiscated and the students were allowed to go into the event. Inside two students, Brian Kelly and Lauren Giaccone stood up and called Clinton a “War Criminal.”

Why Call Clinton a “War Criminal”

Brian and Lauren have stated that they do not support Democrats or republicans; their action was in protest of the growing militarism of American presidents. The students referenced “Clinton’s inaction during the Rwandan genocide, the bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, the increased ethnic cleansing in Bosnia as a result of U.S. action and the renewed sanctions and bombings against Iraq which murdered countless people.”

Questioned by the Secret Service

The two students were then forcibly removed from the auditorium by police and interrogated by Police and Secret Service officers in a back room without any Pace officials. The students were detained for 40 minutes while they were questioned about their political affiliations and the campus group S.D.S.. When the students could not recall all of the details of the event, one police officer threatened to send them to a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation that would take at least 72 hours. The secret service officers then attempted to get the students to waive their doctor- patient confidentiality. When the students refused to give out their personal information, such as, their social security number the officers threatened saying “We can keep you here for 3 days.” When Pace decided not to press charges the students were searched and photographed by the officers.

The Other Activists with Brian and Lauren

The two students refused to give the names of the activists that they came with, but the other activists were waiting in the lobby for them. The police collected the I.D.’s of the other students and questioned them about a letter that the Pace Chapter of S.D.S. sent to Pace President Caputo denouncing the university’s invitation of president Clinton. The police then escorted the students in a van to their cars and searched their cars without their consent.

At the Next Meeting of S.D.S./C.A.N.

When several members of the S.D.S. and C.A.N. chapters were meeting in the Pace Student Union they were approached by the Dean of students and a Pace security officer. The Dean of students stated that they were violating policy by holding meetings on campus of an “unrecognized organization.”

Charges Against the Students

Upon arriving home, Brian and Lauren found envelopes from Pace University stating that disciplinary actions were being taken against them for:

1. Failure to register a rally
2. Violation of distribution and solicitation policy
3. Reservation of university space by an unrecognized organization

All charges carry punishments from verbal warnings up to expulsion.

Fighting For Student Rights

“Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The university has violated the civil rights of these two students. They have attacked their freedom of press, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. The students are challenging President Caputo on the university’s attacks on civil liberties and are demanding a formal apology to the groups and students.

The State of the Case

The student groups S.D.S. and C.A.N. held a rally to support Brian and Lauren during President Caputo’s State of the University Address. Near the end of the rally, students entered the speech surrounding President Caputo when he attempted to end the question and answer session and forced him to answer questions about the repression of students’ rights. They have a meeting next week with the President to talk about the civil rights issues.

The Brian and Lauren have also been to their disciplinary hearing where they have been given verbal warnings and have been told that Pace expects them to abide by their rules in the future.

S.D.S. and C.A.N. at Pace intend to continue to fight to change the anti free speech policies at Pace university.

Reclaiming Memmory and the War on Choice

2006-03-19T10:50:00.000-08:00

Recent regresions in women’s reproductive rights in this country are angering, frightening, and baffeling on many levels—what puzzles me most, though, is not the anti-choice crusaders who have suceeded in chipping away at or all together denying our rights, but progressive, aware, pro-woman citizens who have let it happen. Although the majority of americans are pro-choice, the sense of immediacy that brought millions of pro-woman citizens to activism in the predlude to the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling has been lost. In a little over thirty years, americans learned to take women’s access to reproductive choices for granted. The country’s pervasive historical amnesia bids citizens to forget what women’s, men’s, and chirldren’s lives were like before legal access to family planning. As a result, reproductive rights have been pushed into the political and theoretical arena, and bandied about by it’s actors (mostly men)—dangerous, because it’s much easier for anti-choice activists to wage war on a theory than a concrete, fundamental human right. History teaches us that once anything becomes an abstraction—civil rights, reproductive rights, freedom, etc., it becomes easily manipulatable. Rhetoric, the language of politics deals in abstraction, not in human life or experience. Clearly, the pro-choice movement’s reliance on rhetoric—catch phrases, and theoretical counter arguments to anti-choice moralism and psudo-science—isn’t working.
Today’s pro-choice activists can learn from our mothers, we have to focus on the importance of safe, legal access to reproductive choices in the lives of women, not in the political, religious, or theoretical realms. Few people my age remember the photograph of Gerri Twerdy Santoro published by Ms. Magazine in April 1973. In the photo, Santoro lies dead in a pool of blood. Santoro, a mother of two who was seperated from her abusive husband, was impregnated by her boyfriend. Afraid that her husband would murder her upon finding out that she had been with another man, Santoro decided to have an abortion. Santoro’s pregnancy preceeded the Roe v. Wade ruling that would have months later given her access to safe, legal care, and so, her boyfriend, with a medical book and borrowed surgical equipment, attempted to abort her third term pregnancy. As many illegal abortions continue to end, Santoro’s went wrong. In fear, her boyfriend fled their hotel room. Gerri Santoro died a slow, painful death as she lay alone in an ananomous hotel room. She was later found, and the picture that gave a face to the millions of women who had died because they were denied safe access to reproductive choices was released. We have allowed anti-choice activists to hijack our collective memmory, the time has come to reclaim it. In order to regain effecacy, pro-choice advocates need to bring the choice discussion back to where it began—women’s basic rights. The days of women bleeding to death alone in hotel rooms, the reemersion of “coat hanger” abortions, and of chirldren being born into a world that can’t care for them, are back (and never left in many parts of the country and the world). How much closer to home do these experiences have to get before we wake up?

The Emporer Has No Clothes . . . and Doesn't Care

2006-03-14T14:56:00.000-08:00

Yesterday the Independent "revealed" Rumsfeld as a giant profiteer in the avian bird flu scandal (and it is a scandal), as he chaired Gilead Sciences from 1997 until he left his post for a top spot in the Bush administration and still holds considerable shares in the firm.

The company is responsible for creating Tamiflu, the drug that the Administration hails as the panacea for the bird flu - although it in no way, shape, or form cures the virus but only decreases the amount of days one is sick, which actually can contribute to mutations of much more lethal forms.

It is hard to exaggerate how long overdue the whole story is, given that some pieces of this puzzle (e.g., Rumsfeld's connection to Gilead) have collected dust for years and should have garnered national attention last fall during the Administration’s avian bird flu propaganda drive.

Think back to September '05. This was a time when the Administration couldn't avoid a major scandal for its life (which is rather routine, I suppose). The Katrina response debacle dominated MSM for the entire month and was joined in October by even more chicanery: the Rove/Libby/Cheney C.I.A. leak, Harriet "You're cool" Miers, Delay’s duplicity, and impending indictments pertaining to the Armstrong Williams fiasco. The hawks needed cover from the booming negative attention and they found a great red herring (no pun intended) in the avian bird flu, a topic sure to capture and retain the engrossment of all those who fear plague.

However, topic avoidance was not the only underlying reason for casting the avian bird flu story as a potential end game for civilization.

During his White House Press Conference in early October, Bush issued seemingly random, but doubtless planned, bird flu-related caveats, the most notable of which entailed a greater role of U.S. Military in the event of a pandemic. From there, the bird flu scare took flight (OK, pun intended) and every major TV news network and press outlet blithely propagated tales of the apocalyptic bird flu. They gobbled up the bait as usual and for the umpteenth time served as handmaidens of this Administration, which once again used them as a means of deploying a classic propaganda tactic - literally straight out of Goebbels's diary - in cultivating fear among the citizenry to garner support for the State's political agenda.

According to its Web site, from Oct. 1-27, the New York Times reported on some variation of the avian bird flu a total of 21 days, sometimes including three or four stories a day. USA Today reported in a very memorable story on Oct. 8 that “in a best case scenario, about 200,000 people might die.” That's nothing if not comforting. And these are merely two small slices of a rotten pie.

International reports/warnings go back years, yet U.S. media was just catching on? NO. Their newfound obsession was symptomatic of MSM's reflexive adherence to the party line.

Bush conveyed his intentions quite clearly during that same Press Conference in early October, framing the issue as such: "If we had an outbreak somewhere in the United States, do we not then quarantine that part of the country? And how do you, then, enforce a quarantine? And who best to be able to effect a quarantine? One option is the use of the military that's able to plan and move.”

That idea is just as absurd and dangerous now as it was then. We should shutter at the very prospect of our own military being used against us (especially by THIS Administration). We have to remember that Bush can't take a shit without having MP's hold the toilet at gunpoint. It's his answer for everything. Protests? Military. Spread democracy? Military. Hurricane? Military.

Administration hawks would wet their pants cry-laughing like little school-girls if they got Congress to approve of such a proposition - not merely out of glee, but also out of sheer disbelief that they've finally reached the point where the people have watched them cross the line so many times that we no longer see it anymore (one would hope that isn't already the case).

What should be of concern to the American public is that our fawning ignorance would grant them a new level of tyranny in their own back yard. We must read between the lines. In the event that avian bird flu arrives, Bush intends to completely nullify the Federal Posse Comitatus Act and thereby invoke martial law on U.S. soil so as to initiate mass quarantines. That annulment also means states' deferring civilian control to Bush and universal passes for military personnel to break any law in the name of "patriotism." Sound familiar? (Think post-9/11 round-ups, only more openly and widely and not just via racial profiling.)

This Administration has shown brazen disdain for democracy, and we'd be fooling ourselves if we laughed at the very real possiblity that their ultimate dream is to establish a theocratic police state in America.

To be sure, the threat of the avian bird flu is real, but we would be doing ourselves a great disservice in forgetting that the Bush/Cheney cabal ignored and downplayed the severity of the issue until they realized it could be exploited for their political and financial benefit.

A Portable Reality

2006-03-05T21:31:00.000-08:00

“But the U.S. officials apparently insisted that they were not dogs, but skilled security ‘officials’ and no one should call them dogs,” Communist Party of India-Marxist MP Nilotpal Basu said
, going on to note that Bush Administration officials directly instructed that these dogs were not to be referred to as “animals,” but rather they should be addressed by their ranks such as sergeant, major, and so on, and “the hotel staff had to accept it.”

These 65 highly trained patriotic military personnel were just part of a “three-ring security cordon” that consisted of some 5,000 people including snipers, commandos and U.S. marines who shut down a major hotel as a means of establishing an operations base during Bush’s visit to New Delhi this past week.

(A side-note: U.S. military scientists are developing brain implants that turn sharks into spies.)

Bush travels not just with a small army but with his own portable reality, one that lovingly embraces ignorance and arrogance (among other things). For Bush et al to comply with any set of rules not of their own design would signify compliance or acquiescence, things that, in their eyes, would ebb their preeminence.

Concepts that do not comport with their unique ideology are of no value, as there are only two sides in this world: Good and Evil. If an idea doesn’t ring true with their worldview then it is perceived as other worldly and therefore evil. Theirs is a Manichean-era reality where issues are presented in a “black and white” means.

And so it is of no surprise that Bush would go to bat for a nuclear cooperation pact with India and prepare to sell them advanced war planes and other high-tech arms while simultaneously denouncing Iran and North Korea for precisely the same activities. The blatant double-standard simply does not compute, because, after all, India is one of the good guys, not like those evil-doers. International Law is no match for Bush Law.

It will be interesting to see how Bush plans to argue this deal before Congress, considering that his ostensible impetus for the next chapter in “The Long War” is that Iran is planning to develop nuclear weapons. Unlike India, Pakistan, or Israel, it actually signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and has not necessarily violated the treaty, which entitles is to develop nuclear energy.

If Iran is guilty of anything in this regard, it’s anti-Americanism and that it surreptitiously conducts some of its nuclear energy programs . . . just like India will be permitted to do if this new deal is approved. Under the conditions of the deal, it will have to allow for inspections for only 14 of its 22 reactors. Other than that, there isn’t much transparency. The military can legally retain the comfort of secretly operated nuclear energy programs and the control of “fast breed reactors” necessary for producing plutonium for bombs.

In effect, the Bush/Cheney cabal has opened the gates for a new nuclear arms race. Yet, after all they’ve “accomplished,” why should we be shocked?

Wait a Minute Mr. Postman! : A new law seeks to protect mail order brides

2006-03-05T21:14:00.000-08:00

"'Her life is centered around her family, her husband and children... These women would rather compliment her man than compete with him. Single Latin women are renowned for their warmth, friendliness and feminine nature. They are not uncomfortable in the presence of a 'strong man'." (1)

If you Google the term "mail order bride," you will be barraged with hundreds of thousands of different websites that promise single, subservient women ready for marriage. Mail order brides have been available for several decades; however, their popularity has skyrocketed with the convenience of the internet that has facilitated picture catalogues of potential brides that man can choose from. Marriage agencies, or "bride brokers," primarily market to American men that seek an unobtrusive, foreign wife, largely available from the most popular countries, Russia, Ukraine and the Philippines.

However, the onslaught of marriages is not solely dependent on the participating male; many websites will solicit the dream of security and the ideal American man to woman that struggle in their countries oppressive environments. Women that occupy the aforementioned countries live as second class citizens (no surprise there) but their struggle is magnified by the tenth degree because of the tolerance these countries exude. In Russia, for example, while women are encouraged to work, they make 43% of the male's minimum wage salary (2) . Also, the encouragement for Russian women to marry early (especially with the shortened male life span and the economic stress of her parents) is inherent in her culture. Through a mail-order, a woman is able to obtain her goal and secure a husband easily. The reality of her situation is further justified by the idealism foreign women have of American men. However, many of these women are not aware of their potential husbands' criminal backgrounds, which leaves much room for violence.

In an industry that is not efficiently regulated, more and more problems have surfaced in the recent past concerning immigrant brides and international marriage agencies. Check out this report released by Equality Now for a great example of how much these agencies care, not only for their women, but for their clients (3)!

However, as of March 6, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, will be in effect. On Monday, the U.S. government will be required to ask American men seeking visas for a prospective bride to disclose any criminal convictions of domestic violence, sexual assault or child abuse. Immigration officials will refuse anyone seeking to sponsor a second fiancée or stop any petitions for a third fiancée visa over a two-year period. As for the marriage brokers, they will be required to search state and federal sexual predator databases for all their male clients and provide any findings, even their marriage history, information on children under 18 and criminal records to prospective brides before making an introduction. They must also obtain written consent from a woman before providing her contact information to any man. (4). To see exactly what the law states in a concise manner, go to Wikipedia. Before this law was passed, marriage brokers were only required to provide immigration and rights information to women in their native language!

Even though our country has taken steps to recognize the problems mail-order brides face, much has to be done to ensure these women will not be harmed once they reach their destinations. The state and federal government must take action to guarantee the law will be fully represented if brought to trial. Most importantly, to appreciate the extent of the law, the victims of any violent crime must be willing to come forward. Women must feel safe to open up about their history of abuse and the remedy for their security, I have no suggestion.

1. "New Law Puts Brakes on International Bride Brokers," By Juliette Terzioff. 03/05/2006
2. "Commercial Use of the Internet for Sexual Exploitation,"By Donna M. Hughes. 02/2000
3. "The Willingness of "Mail Order Bride Companies" to Provide Services to Violent Men." Released by Equality Now. Accessed at website, 03/2006.

2006-03-05T21:06:00.000-08:00

I would like to begin this week’s post by sharing an AP article) I recently discovered. This article is about a pregnant 22-year-old woman (a single mother of two children) who was arrested for allegedly shooting herself in the abdomen to terminate her full-term pregnancy. If convicted, she will face up to ten years in prison in addition to a $100,000 fine. I’d just like to express my fear and upset upon reading this story about a woman so desperate that she induced her own abortion with a bullet. And during the past week, in addition to this story, there has been a sharp increase (http://www.alternet.org/story/31199/) in instances of women attempting to perform at-home and do-it-yourself abortions. These stories are perhaps the most dramatic and terrifying and compelling examples of how women are being affected by unjust, sexist and dangerous policy that is resulting in dozens of women severely injuring and in some cases even killing themselves due to heavily restricted abortion access, lack of education and birth-control options for women (another pressing problem related to reproductive rights, emergency contraception, I will discuss in a few sentences), and in some states, parental consent laws. The fight for reproductive rights and liberties is getting dire and desperate, and our fears are transcending the realm of the hypothetical and jumping head-on into the real of reality and every day life. It is undeniable: this is getting serious.
Another disturbing article I found was actually written by an out-and-out pro-choicer, and yet in light of current events, has taken on an eerily anti-choice demeanor. It is not in response to any particular event, but in response to the grander question of the ethicality of abortion. This article, referenced in accordance with an on-going debate between the author, William Saletan, and columnist for the Nation, Katha Pollitt, on Salon.com’s “Broadsheet” section, is dangerously reminiscent of an anti-choice point of view, as he challenges pro-choicers to “declare war on abortion.” http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/02/01/pollitt_and_saletan/index.html This notion is especially disturbing: that someone who deems himself a pro-choice supporter would essentially punish and condemn a woman’s decision to have an abortion. Although his intention was to prove a point about the importance of prevention of unwanted pregnancies by increasing budget for comprehensive health education and access to birth control and emergency contraception, it still seems like a counter-productive move to me.
And while I’m on the subject of Emergency Contraception, I think it is important to bring up an article published in the New York Times yesterday (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/business/04walmart.html) regarding Wal-Mart’s previous refusal to stock and sell Plan B, otherwise known as the morning after pill. Well, they finally gave in and agreed to stock the product, which sounds like a step in the right direction, Although, the establishment reserved the rights of their individual pharmacists to decide whether or not they will fill prescriptions for the drug upon request. This is absolutely outrageous: any random person working a Wal-Mart pharmacy counter has more authority over a woman’s reproductive rights than she does. And what’s more, the pill is most effective if taken up to 72 hours after the intercourse, which means if a woman tries to fill her prescription and there is only one pharmacist on duty at a given Wal-Mart, and that pharmacist refuses to fill her prescription, and there are no other pharmacies in the area, she is essentially out of luck.
So now, not only are women in danger of having their right to an abortion completely taken away, but now there won’t even be preventative options available to avoid abortions from being necessary if an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy occurs.

Putting Diets on Diet

2006-03-05T20:58:00.000-08:00

I am fed up with only food companies being blamed fort the health problems in this country. Though they are partly responsible, Americans need to take a closer look at how we lose weight in this country. Trading thinness for unhealthy habits in not a fair swap, despite current implementation.

Fast food, sugary drinks, and poor eating habits have come under attack as the cause for the rise in American obesity. Now soda is being weeded out as the new evil that is not only being deemed as unhealthy, but blamed as one of the leaded causes of the rise of obesity, particularly with children.

Soft drink companies are combating the claims through their own studies and by enriching their products with vitamins. But, like McDonalds, I do not think many people need much convincing that it is not healthy (this is not to say that we will still not consume it like a parched souls to water).

Food companies are constantly coming under criticism for spoon-feeding us ”> sugar instead of making food more nutritional. We as well-informed consumer, whether through the new or common sense, hold no illusions about the products being sold to us. Health problems are through the roof with an increase of ”>diabetes and heart attacks among, affecting younger people everyday. But in our society where thin is in, these worlds of junk food for the soul and skinniness must coincide.

So the solution is diets, diets, and diets. Nowadays, everyone is attempting to lose weight through dieting and food that has been processed until there is not one innocent carb left. Diet plans such as Atkins and Jenny Craig are a booming industry, selling heart attacks and food that taste like cardboard in order to get people to their ideal size.

We are so consumed with losing weight that we have forgot to be healthy. There is no doctor that will tell you that being overweight is good for your body. There is also no doctor who will tell you that only eating cottage cheese for a week in order to lose weight is healthy.

The fact of the matter is that we live in such a superficial society, that we have trade thinness for wellbeing. Just because you are skinny does not mean you will not develop diabetes or die from a heart attack. No one will ever be able to defeat the old as time law that it is a healthy balanced diet and regular exercise that keep a person in good physical shape. Period.

So instead of trying to put ourselves on impossible or disgusting diets (cottage cheese just is not that good and I like real butter on my toast), what needs to go on a diet is out own self-inflicted nonsense and laziness. We have lost a value in eating that has caused a vicious cycle of unhealthy foods, and then unhealthy diets to lose the weight that you gain from them. We are losing, but it is certainly not the weight. The only ones who are making a profit are the companies, whether it is the ones selling you the sugary snack or the ones selling you the non-fat cheese.

Media Coverage and Sudanese Government Delegations

2006-03-05T20:11:00.000-08:00

This week has been quite a big week with regards to coverage of the Darfur crisis in the mainstream media. The New York Times produced three articles this week discussing Darfur, each of them of significant length and two of them were in section A! The article served an important role, I believe, by letting Times readers know that the problem has not gone away. In fact, some journalists are coming to notice that it is getting worse. In previous weeks the Times would only mention Darfur in a paragraph summing up the biggest problems all over the world or an editorial piece hidden toward the back, but coverage of Bush's meeting with Kofi Annan seems to have made an impact.
The front page article of Tuesday's Times, Refugee Crisis Grows as Darfur War Crosses a Border, discusses the growing problems in Chad as a result of their relationship with Sudan. Chad, which is currently holding most of the Sudanese refugee camps, is now suffering attacks from both the Janjaweed and citizens of Chad who wish to overthrow Idriss Deby, the current president. These presumably new acts of violence are further stressing an unstable relationship between the two countries' governments and threatening the humanitarian aid upon which so many refugees are entirely dependant.
Several refugees were interviewed for the article, providing journalists with "grim tales of slaughter, rape and plunder." One such tale was of two sisters, one thirteen and one sixteen, who were shot by janjaweed, one in the chest and the other in the arm, while looking for firewood. A panel discussion on January 17th at NYU's School of Law "Women Dying in Darfur: Confronting War Crimes Against Women" recognized firewood searching as the activity that resulted in the most rapes and murders. And because of the increasing number of displaced in camps for a prolonged period of time, those in need of firewood must set out farther and farther from the camps. Most male refugees will not replace the women sent out for firewood because the task is stigmatized as part of the woman's role in society, and while women are most likely be raped or beaten, men are more often killed.
Another Times article this week, Peacekeepers and Diplomats, Seeking to End Darfur's Violence, Hit Roadblock was written the day the "deadline" for the United States to create a resolution on United Nations involvement in Sudan passed (the goal was the end of February). In addition to this failure, the Sudanese government recently sent delegations to several countries asking for agreement that the African Union should continue involvement in Darfur, "portraying a United Nations entry as a precursor to a Western takeover of the country." The United Nations must now wait for a formal request for their involvement from the African Union, a request which will hopefully be made at hte next AU meeting, which was postponed from last Friday to March 10th. This type of action in Darfur has recently been resisted by China (who has oil interests in Sudan), Qatar (the Security Council's Arab Representative) and Russia. In the weeks to come one can only hope that other countries will recognize that the Sudanese government is not considering the best interests of their citizens and a government backing the source of what many are calling a "genocide" should not be able to decide what forces come in against that source.

Can't Live With 'Em...

2006-03-05T19:57:00.000-08:00

The United States has a real mess on its hands with the current United Nations imbroglio. This past month, the U.S. played president in the rotating chair of the Security Council. That this is news to everyone is not surprising; the papers are only now reporting this, and it’s within articles covering the failures that have occurred within the past month. No need to herald your acceptance of the yoke of responsibility when you drop it soon after.

The uncompromising stance that the Administration and Ambassador John Bolton have taken against the proposed Human Rights Council has continued, and the rhetoric has left the United States isolated within the Security Council.The response to this has been that of diplomatic furor. Within three days of each other, two key members of the United Nations wrote editorial letters in the New York Times (Yvonne Terlingen and Jan Eliasson), and the executive director of the Human Rights Watch exclaimed that “It’s an open question whether Bolton’s throwing all the cards up in the air is meant to improve the council or to prove that the U.N. can’t reform itself and therefore should be abandoned.”

The lack of trust towards United States diplomacy is particularly harmful when there are problems at the feet of the U.N. like the recent developments within Sudan.

The refugee crisis resulting from the ongoing genocide in Darfur has now spilt over into neighboring Chad. At present count, “more than 200,000 people have been killed and up to 2 million displaced by government-backed Arab militias." Yet the Sudanese government has turned down a key offer from the U.N. that proposed a 20,000 troop dispersal in the region to protect civilians. Bush and Bolton had both backed the plan, with the President suggesting that “the number of peacekeepers on the ground should be doubled” with some support from N.A.T.O. However, the United States’ current occupation of Middle Eastern lands has the Sudanese government suspicious. U.N. special envoy Jan Pronk reported that amid an “atmosphere of fear and conspiracy”, the government of Sudan is voicing concern over “re-colonization, invasion…They speak about Iraq and Afghanistan …and they speak about a conspiracy against the Arab and Islamic world.” . The prickly relations between the hostile Sudanese government and the international community were not improved by Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir’s warning that “Darfur will be a graveyard for any foreign troops venturing to enter.”

Though certainly it is unfair to say that the United States’ foreign policy has had a profoundly ill effect on international relations with the Arab world, this particular case gives credence to the idea that the United States cannot reap the rewards of going-it-alone and still plunge itself into the murky waters of diplomacy. The United Nations is now in an unenviable position of needing the United States’ backing for imperative projects, while being constrained by the U.S.’s own agendas and its low regard among the Third World.

TWU's Fight for a "just" Contract

2006-03-05T19:18:00.000-08:00

It seems funny to argue that a business with a surplus of $1.04 billion in a state with a surplus of $2 billion that there is not enough money to run, but that is exactly what the MTA in New York City is doing. One of the main arguments against the requests of the transit union has been the “projected deficit” of the MTA, but the MTA seems to have plenty of money.

The New York City Transit Workers Union (TWU) voted down the contract proposed by the MTA by a vote of 11,227 to 11,234 against, a seven vote differential. Now the MTA has asked a state labor panel to settle the dispute in binding arbitration. The TWU rejected this proposal on February 27.

One solution union members have begun to look at is a revote on the contract that was voted down. The workers have begun to circulate a petition for the revote, which now has about 1,500 signatures from Brooklyn alone.

One reason that people believe that this contract will now be ratified is because two locals of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) representing bus workers in both Queens and Staten Island has accepted similar contracts. Members of the union believe that the ratification of these contracts is showing workers that they cannot do better.

Toussaint has said that the union opposes arbitration because it denies union members the right to vote. Union members would prefer a bad contract that they voted on, not a contract they have no say in.

In addition, the old contract saved many of the conductor’s jobs in its wording.

The original deal also includes an almost 11 percent wage increase over 3 years.

However, it seems strange that the union has not been able to get a better deal from the MTA. The last transit strike in 1980, which lasted 11 days, resulted in almost 21% raises in a two-year period. This is far superior to the 10.5% increase over three years offered in 2005.

What can TWU members do about this? It states in the TWU Local 100 bylaws that members have more power than Toussaint or the executive board at mass membership meetings. This gives an opening for the Rank-and-file of the union to make a move. In order to do this the rank and file needs a plan going in.

I think that first the union members need to realize the power they have they shut down the city for 3 days, they are 33,700 strong, they went out saying no give-backs, and if they set their minds to it I think that they can come out of this with no give backs.

To come out of this with no givebacks may mean another strike, it may mean just the threat of another strike, or it may just take recognizing their own power and playing that against the power of the MTA. The union can do it and groups like Transit Workers for a Just Contract are trying to do it. Now they just need to organize for it.

Wait a Minute, Mr. Postman! : A new law seeks to protect mail order brides

2006-03-05T18:59:00.000-08:00

"'Her life is centered around her family, her husband and children... These women would rather compliment her man than compete with him. Single Latin women are renowned for their warmth, friendliness and feminine nature. They are not uncomfortable in the presence of a 'strong man'." (1)

If you Google the term "mail order bride," you will be barraged with hundreds of thousands of different websites that promise single, subservient women ready for marriage. Mail order brides have been available for several decades; however, their popularity has skyrocketed with the convenience of the internet that has facilitated picture catalogues of potential brides that man can choose from. Marriage agencies, or "bride brokers," primarily market to American men that seek an unobtrusive, foreign wife, largely available from the most popular countries, Russia, Ukraine and the Philippines.

However, the onslaught of marriages is not solely dependent on the participating male; many websites will solicit the dream of security and the ideal American man to woman that struggle in their countries oppressive environments. Women that occupy the aforementioned countries live as second class citizens (no surprise there) but their struggle is magnified by the tenth degree because of the tolerance these countries exude. In Russia, for example, while women are encouraged to work, they make 43% of the male's minimum wage salary (2) . Also, the encouragement for Russian women to marry early (especially with the shortened male life span and the economic stress of her parents) is inherent in her culture. Through a mail-order, a woman is able to obtain her goal and secure a husband easily. The reality of her situation is further justified by the idealism foreign women have of American men. However, many of these women are not aware of their potential husbands' criminal backgrounds, which leaves much room for violence.

In an industry that is not efficiently regulated, more and more problems have surfaced in the recent past concerning immigrant brides and international marriage agencies. Check out this report released by Equality Now for a great example of how much these agencies care, not only for their women, but for their clients (3)!

However, as of March 6, the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, will be in effect. On Monday, the U.S. government will be required to ask American men seeking visas for a prospective bride to disclose any criminal convictions of domestic violence, sexual assault or child abuse. Immigration officials will refuse anyone seeking to sponsor a second fiancée or stop any petitions for a third fiancée visa over a two-year period. As for the marriage brokers, they will be required to search state and federal sexual predator databases for all their male clients and provide any findings, even their marriage history, information on children under 18 and criminal records to prospective brides before making an introduction. They must also obtain written consent from a woman before providing her contact information to any man (4). To see exactly what the law states in a concise manner, go to Wikipedia. Before this law was passed, marriage brokers were only required to provide immigration and rights information to women in their native language!

Even though our country has taken steps to recognize the problems mail-order brides face, much has to be done to ensure these women will not be harmed once they reach their destinations. The state and federal government must take action to guarantee the law will be fully represented if brought to trial. Most importantly, to appreciate the extent of the law, the victims of any violent crime must be willing to come forward. Women must feel safe to open up about their history of abuse and the remedy for their security, I have no suggestion.

1. "New Law Puts Brakes on International Bride Brokers," By Juliette Terzioff. 03/05/2006
2. "Commercial Use of the Internet for Sexual Exploitation,"By Donna M. Hughes. 02/2000
3. "The Willingness of "Mail Order Bride Companies" to Provide Services to Violent Men." Released by Equality Now. Accessed at website, 03/2006.

Where's the Money Going?

2006-03-05T18:16:00.000-08:00

It appears that Bush’s foreign and domestic budget plans aren’t very popular and/or feasible. This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) published its Preliminary Analysis of the President’s Budget Request for 2007. In looking at Bush’s proposals, the CBO has come to the conclusion that the president’s spending habits will add a total of $35 billion to the United States’ $318 billion deficit. Whereas the administration’s ten-year projections have the country’s deficit leveling out at 1 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) by 2010 (it is currently at 2.8 percent), the CBO believes Bush has underestimated expenditures (namely, in funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) and overestimated revenues from domestic programs such as the privatization of Social Security.

The New York Times makes sense of the jargon-filled analysis in a concise, poorly-placed article on March 4th. Despite the fact that the Bush administration envisions decreasing the deficit to historical lows, “the government would still be borrowing money each year” and the deficit would ultimately increase “by more than $1.2 trillion over the next decade.”

It is interesting to note where Bush plans to save dollars. As the Times reporter points out, “Mr. Bush’s 2007 budget would cut $2.1 billion next year from education, which had been one of the president’s areas for increased spending.” Other domestic programs that will suffer include:

· Community development block grants;
· Low-income housing; and
· Child-support enforcement.

One area of expenditure that wasn’t mentioned in the budget report is military spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, I don’t know if military outlays are usually included in budget projections, but I would think that since these wars are such a defining aspect of the United States’ current policies and require such a sizeable amount of money, this part of Bush’s budget should be incorporated in the report.

Maybe military expenditures in the Middle East were excluded because he doesn’t want people to know exactly where this money is going. I came across a Reuters article in the New Zealand Herald entitled US pumps cash into prisons as Iraq crumbles. I did a quick Lexis Nexis search to see if anything similar came up in any major American newspapers, and I found nothing of the sort. The Herald article, in fact, brings up some interesting points that I feel are necessary to quote in full:

Experts on Iraq reconstruction said it was notable that the only new rebuilding money was for prisons after the public relations disaster caused by the eruption of the scandal at Abu Ghraib prison where US forces abused Iraqi inmates.

“For a country like the United States that is promoting the advancement of freedom, building jails is not necessarily your best image,” said Rick Barton of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

The initial goal of the American rebuilding programme was to improve the lives of Iraqis by fixing the country’s dilapidated infrastructure and polish the United States’ image at the same time.

The Bush administration has always been good about keeping detrimental details out of the public eye, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the president’s war budget is being kept under wraps as much as possible. Obviously, the prison scandals have been hard-hitting for the military, so—as the article states—it doesn’t look good when the government puts its reconstruction dollars into prisons. It’s not clear how much of the war’s budget is going into this kind of “reconstruction,” but I’m sure Bush wouldn’t want people to know that anyway. He definitely doesn’t want people asking this question, so I would gather that’s why no mainstream American news outlets published this Reuter’s story and why the president left this aspect of the budget out of his proposal altogether.

Recent Violence in Iraq

2006-03-05T17:02:00.000-08:00

Many Americans agree that invading Iraq based on the assumption that the nation owned weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's ties to Al qaeda points to gross intelligence failures in the government.

Now Americans should be realizing that a significant part of the insurgency violence is due to the United States occupation and unsuccessful reconstruction of Iraq, but blame for the recent violence is suddenly being shifted to long held resentment between Sunni and Shiite groups. Just when members of Congress were pushing for removal of the troops in Iraq, or at least for a proposed time table of removal, civil unrest brings the threat of a much longer occupation. But this time, it's not the Bush administration's ill prepared post-war actions, it's the "unleashing of the sectarian passions among Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq" to blame for all the violence.

But is there really a new increase in violence?

Friday, General George Casey, commander of Multinational Force Iraq, said "A final analysis shows that overall violence did not increase significantly due to the bombing (of the Golden Mosque), and the Iraqi security forces generally performed well in response", according to a United Press International. Yet this is not the picture that has been painted. The BBC News has described the situation as "an upsurge in violence since the destruction of the Shia shrine at Samarra" and "every day is now punctuated by reports of violence from around Iraq". The Associated Press describes it as "a week of bitter clashes that killed hundreds, most of them civilians" But, many of the fear-mongering articles about the civil war have misquoted the general, as linked by Kevin Drum.

Haven't civilians been dying every week since the war has begun? Check out these statistics.

You could say that General Casey is just bolstering morale and is exaggerating the situation positively to use as positive propaganda for the continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq. And maybe the media has exaggerated the situation because bad news.

But something makes me think this terror of an Iraqi civil war is purposefully overshadowing articles like Glen Zorpette's New York Times op-ed title Save Iraq one Switch At a Time which states:

It was hardly surprising to me when the United States special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction told Congress how dismally efforts to repair the country's electrical grid are going. Iraq is now producing only about 4,000 megawatts of electricity, as opposed to 4,500 before the war, despite huge increases in demand because of the widespread availability of household appliances since the Baathist regime fell. Baghdad, which had consistent power under Saddam Hussein, now gets only about four to six hours of electricity a day. (Other areas of the country that were slighted under the dictatorship have seen improvements in service.)

Or the Knight Ridder's article by Warren P. Strobel which states "U.S. intelligence agencies repeatedly warned the White House beginning more that two years ago that the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots" and that "insurgency was fueled by the presence of U.S. troops."
And in a sensitive time where Bush is determined not to align with Danish cartoon sentiment, and when threats ensue of a revival of the photo scandal of Iraqi detainees being tortured by U.S. soldiers, this is a good move.

The "Pro-life" Movement to Make Abortion Inevitable

2006-03-03T09:56:00.000-08:00

Almost half of the nation’s 6 million annual pregnancies are unplanned, resulting in 1.4 million unwanted pregnancies and 1.3 million abortions. Given these figures, one would think that anti-abortion activists would spend a fraction of the energy and resources they dedicate to harassing women outside health clinics and passing choice-restricting laws to improving access to contraceptives which directly decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies and resulting abortions. No such luck. The actions taken by anti-abortion activists to restrict access to contraception have, more than any other factor, increased demand for abortions. What is to be understood from this seemingly counter-productive strategy? Are these activists not “pro-life,” but rather anti-choice and anti-sex? Are they not “pro-child,” but, anti-woman?
One key tool in fighting unwanted pregnancies is emergency contraception, (a.k.a. Plan B), a medically safe and effective means of preventing pregnancy using higher doses of the hormones used in the common birth control pill. Women’s health advocates estimate that improved access to emergency contraception would dramatically decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies and demand for abortions, and yet, the religious right has succeeded, so far, in restricting women’s access to it. They have done so by misrepresenting science, a process Susan Wood, former assistant commissioner for women’s health at the Food and Drug Administration, describes in her op-ed “When Politics Defeats Science.” Through deliberate misrepresentation of scientific fact, anti-choice activists have encouraged confusion between emergency contraception, which prevents pregnancy, and RU-486 (labeled the “abortion pill”), which terminates it. As Wood putts it, “the only connection this pill has with abortion is that it has the potential to prevent the need for one.” In complete denial of this medical fact, the FDA refused requests from physicians and women’s health advocates to make emergency contraception available over the counter.
After numerous alerts to the irregularities of the FDA’s decision making process which resulted in a denial of requests to make emergency contraception available over the counter, the U.S. Governmental Accountability Office looked into the ethicality of their deliberation process. Last November, they released a report entitled “Decision Process to Deny Initial Application for Over-the-Counter Marketing for Emergency Contraception Drug Plan B Was Unusual.” In the report, they found that the application for the switch to over the counter availability of emergency contraception was the only such application out of 67 the past ten years to be denied. By no coincidence, it was also the only one directly pertaining to women’s health.
In lieu of widespread over the counter access, recognizing the necessity of fast access to a pill that is most effective when taken 72 hours after intercourse, eight states allow pharmacists to disburse emergency contraception without an official prescription. They are the minority, though, and the study by the Guttmacher Institute detailing state policies determining women’s access to emergency contraception shows the dissonance between medically and socially sound policy recommendations and state laws. Only seven states require hospital emergency rooms to provide emergency contraception on request to rape victims. No surprise, South Dakota isn’t one of them, which means that now, given that the likelihood of pregnancy after unprotected sex is around 86%, victims of unprotected rape in the state are likely to have to carry their perpetrator’s child. Very nice, I’m sure Jesus would be pleased.

U.S. Government Accountability Office Report
Guttmacher Institute Study
When Politics Defeates Science Op-Ed

Tits and Ass : A Strong Look at the "Strong Female"

2006-02-27T19:17:00.000-08:00

We have officially entered a new era of female empowerment. After years of prudish suppression, we have found comfort in the predatory sexuality we've adopted. However, we now face a new struggle: what is our sexual identity? Women disguise their sexual expeditions as payback to the games some men play and yet, they fall short; we initiate the degradation rather than avenge it. So I have to ask: to undress or not to undress? When will women realize that we do not need to strip to attract the attention we want and deserve? When will we discover our potential to eradicate a male-dominated world to achieve the same goals as men without sexual deviance? How long must we play the male game before we devise our own strategy? When young girls idolize Paris Hilton and search for role models in the pages of US Weekly, it appears that the trend of self-imposed female degradation will be harder to leave behind than a burnt bra.

It will be difficult to leave behind a trend while men are still dictating legislation on women's issues. A new unconstitutional bill is circulating the news wire that plans to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision [1]. The signing of this bill rests on the smug shoulders of South Dakota governor Mike Rounds, who stated that he intends to sign the new bill in a "direct frontal assault on Roe v. Wade” [2] The bill will make ALL abortion illegal in the state, including pregnancy caused by rape or incest. Only if the mother's life is in danger will abortion be permitted. According to ABC News, seven other states are now considering the same bill. However, the debate does not leave the confines of South Dakota, but will travel to our nation's capital. Following the succession of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner, who was the swing vote on the abortion issue, the freshly-appointed Alito and Roberts, both conservative, could prove to put up a damn good fight [3]. From my very own Michigan, Mr. J. Grant Swank, Jr. from MichNews.com, an online conservative periodical, printed their opinion about the debate, expressing severe disdain for "so-called" women's rights [4]. If the title of the article isn't creepy enough, please read the article, in full, here.

However, perhaps Swank has reason to be skeptical of women's rights. How can men understand the brevity of women's issues if we don't understand the ramifications of our own actions? For example, the reality TV show craze acts as a magnet for every vapid cheerleader willing to take her clothes off in an alcohol-induced stupor. For MTV's "The Real World", a teen-geared reality show that dares to ask what will happen if you put seven half-wits in a house together, the cameras' attention transforms each woman into an amateur stripper. Sexuality has lost it's meaning of expression as much as it means objectification. It seems that in an era of Howard Stern, it is the woman that are doing the objectifying. According to Ariel Levy's new book, "Female Chauvinist Pigs," she calls the new found sexual empowerment "limiting" and a severe backlash of what women set out to do [5].

Must a women's actions always be directed for the male sensory? The new Real World casts, post-Las Vegas orgy, has been devoid of at least one intelligent female that is meant to contribute beyond her physical appearance. Considering that the demographic MTV reaches is largely female, what does this say about what females are trying to look for in themselves? Getting naked is one theme that is not new for the Playboy genre but one that many women feel is played out. On this month's Vanity Fair cover, Scarlett Johansson and Keira Knightly pose naked alongside fashion designer, not to mention fully-clothed, Tom Ford. The photo has spurred some attention from female writers, including AP National writer Jocelyn Noveck [6]. Please take a look at this eloquent article that addresses these very questions. However, the cataclysmic teenage sexual freedom is not limited to the young demographic. A new reality TV show, "Number One Single," on the E! channel follows songstress Lisa Loeb. Ms. Loeb's talent is upstaged by a hunt for a male counterpart that makes her look desperate rather than a woman in control of her destiny. In one episode, Ms. Loeb enters a photo shoot for the female grappling Isaac Mizrahi (at the recent Golden Globes he fondled Scarlett Johannson's left breast and peered down Teri Hatcher's dress). Ms. Loeb tells Mizrahi that she is not comfortable posing in her undergarments for the shoot (not like last time when he photoged Loeb in her cartoon-adorned underwear) because she was wearing a thong. The grown man (who claims his creepy molestation is not perverted because he is gay) pouted and expressed disdain and disappointment. Ms. Loeb left to change and reappeared in her zip up, knee high boots and her thong! When did it become ok for a woman to compromise her comfort zone for what a man expects of her?

In light of the abortion debate, we are addressing a larger issue that penetrates our pop culture and social expectations. I want to express that I do not call to women to resist taking off their clothes completely. We've come to far to lace up our bodices and no woman should act prudish on fears of name-calling. However, I do call to arms that women consider why they are stripping. Are you stripping yourself of your inhibitions? Your daily life, your work, your obligations to hop in the sack with your significant other? Or are you stripping because you think that is what will win a male's attention or affection? Either way, consider what you are compromising the next time Girls Gone Wild offers you Mardi Gras beads.

1. “Man at Center of Abortion Debate.” ABC News on Demand, courtesy of AOL. 2. “Abortion foes rally to S.D. ban.” By Chet Brokaw, Associated Press. 02/25/2006.
3. "South Dakota Lawmakers Vote to Ban Abortion." By Darrell Preston. Bloomberg. 02/24/2006
4. "Anti-Abortion: SD sets free the unborn." By J. Grant Skank, Jr. MichNews.com. 02/27/2006
5. Female Chauvinist Pigs. Levy, Ariel. Simon and Schuster, New York. 2005.
6. "Two naked actresses draw magazine buzz." By Jocelyn Noveck. AP National Writer. 02/22/2006

Something to Think About

2006-02-26T23:33:00.000-08:00

I thought this development might serve as an interesting addendum to my post, though its relevance isn't necessarily limited to the Administration's attacks on our civil liberties.

Published first by the Indo-Asian News Service at ~ 5PM EST on Sunday, this piece was luckily picked up by Common Dreams NewsCenter shortly thereafter.

Bush, who's scheduled for a 3-day trip to India this week, may run into a cultural phenomenon he's never been capable of processing: mass protesting. In this case, though, it's not just dissent that he faces. In fact, believe it or not, a public court there Sunday held US President George Bush (leader of the free world) guilty of "perpetrating terrorism in the name of fighting terrorism and killing people including women and children."

There's no punchline here.

Bush faces "charges from war mongering to mass killings to violations of all international charters and aggression against sovereign countries."

Possible outcomes? Who knows.

I guess we can only . . . wait.

just to add...

2006-02-26T21:09:00.000-08:00

two of my links didn't work on my blog "AU, UN, US...", so here they are:
"Annan and Bolton Disagree on Draft for New Rights Group"

"discussions continue to emphasize doing what we can, excluding involvement of our own troops, until UN forces arrive" should link to New York Times article, "Bush Sees Need to Expand Role of Nato in Sudan"

The Bush/Cheney Cabal: Ministry of Peace, Plenty, Truth, and Love

2006-02-26T20:56:00.001-08:00

Five months ago, President Bush wrapped up a trip through Latin America with a speech in Panama City, where he espoused American democracy, defended his “War on Terror,” and proclaimed unequivocally “We do not torture” barely one week after the Washington Post announced
to the world that America had been, well, torturing terrorism suspects in secret Eastern European prisons (or “black sites”) set up by the CIA.

It was the caliber of doublespeak that would have made Orwell proud (or extremely pissed off). Consider the nakedness of Bush’s contradiction: Less than 2 hours away lay the former site of the US Military’s School of the Americas, an “educational” institution where, as Naomi Klein’s story in The Nation noted, students were instructed in “early morning capture to minimize shock, immediate hooding and blindfolding, forced nudity, sensory deprivation, sensory overload, sleep and food ‘manipulation,’ humiliation, extreme temperatures, isolation, stress positions—and worse.” (This institution, responsible for training soldiers for death squad missions, so-called “extraordinary rendition,” and the like, still exists, by the way.)

It is no great revelation that the Bush/Cheney cabal shirks its constitutional duty to uphold the sanctity of the civil liberties of the citizenry. One look at their track record and (if permitted) their future plans would show that they are in fact diametrically opposed to such concern for the welfare and rights of the people.

It is understandable, I guess, that movers and shakers like Alberto Gonzales, Mike Chertoff, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al shouldn’t be expected to adhere to yesteryear’s trivial constitutional mandates, like the right to a fair trial, right to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, and blah blah blah. WAKE UP, people. This is the age of terrifying terror where terrorists lurk in the shadows to commit terrible acts of terrorism!

Why hold their feet to the fire? You can’t expect to make an omelet without breaking a few eggs, that is, without damaging thousands of lives like that of Maher Arar, the first person to mount a civil suit against the US government policy of extraordinary rendition. Arar’s case was thrown out
1 ½ weeks ago by a federal judge in Brooklyn “because it was a question of national security and foreign relations.” No shit.

Wait . . . maybe I’m being too narrow-minded. Maybe it isn’t “racial profiling”; it’s “aggressive enforcement.” We don’t “exterminate”; we “pacify.” They’re not “protesters”; they’re “disruptors.”

Our rights to unabridged free speech and peaceful assembly no longer exist as they were originally conceived. To paraphrase Pres. Bush’s statement during his State of the Union Address, there is a distinct difference between constructive criticism and defeatism, and this polity (founded on entertaining different perspectives) must not entertain different perspectives. (Again, no great revelation) Reading between the lines, one understands that “constructive criticism” equals speech that comports with Bush regime ideology, and “defeatism” equals dissenting opinions. Those who wish to publicly protest this president are herded into “free speech zones” far from the focal point of their objections so as not to give the impression that they are, well, protesting. Never before—save for the second half of Adams’ administration, when the Federalist Reign of Terror kicked in high gear—has the American public witnessed a president who is more blatantly antagonistic toward the democratic ideals of this country. Centuries ago, the church reacted to any form of heresy or dissent by promptly excommunicating its proponents. Are we that far from such extremism?

We’ll find out this coming week when the House passes, I mean, votes on the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. Section 605 is especially ominous, as it states, “There is hereby created and established a permanent police force, to be known as the 'United States Secret Service Uniformed Division.’”

This new federal police force is empowered to “make arrests without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence, or for any felony cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such felony."

Among their jurisdictions is "an event designated under section 3056(e) of title 18 as a special event of national significance" (SENS). Could they be any more intentionally vague? Do I detect doublespeak? Once a SENS designation is placed on an event by Bush, this police squad is allowed to arrest and detain at their discretion.

So this is what we may face (among other things) , a 21st century SS, a modern-day Gestapo.

If only we had some kind of Government Civil Liberties Board or something, than we may have a chance. Oh wait, we do have a White House civil liberties board! When does it form, you ask? It did . . . over a year ago, and it has never met once.

AU, UN, US...

2006-02-26T20:56:00.000-08:00

An article in Friday’s issue of the New York Times, http://www.blogger.com/> Annan and Bolton Disagree on Draft for New Rights Group gave a frightening portrayal of the quivering stability of the United Nations. The current Human Rights Council is undergoing significant changes in order to ensure that countries that consistently violate human rights will not be able to participate in the Commission (as currently Cuba and Sudan and Zimbabwe are all members). “Replacing it has been seen as a test of whether the United Nations can meet demands for fundamental change in the organization” the Time’s article’s writer, Warren Hoge, recognizes. As United Nations involvement in Darfur seems to be recognized as the strongest and most significant aspect to peacekeeping forces, let’s hope the UN can pass the test.
And while the United States is putting the Darfur genocidal load on the back of the United Nations, (http://www.blogger.com/>discussions continue to emphasise doing what we can, excluding involvement of our own troops, until UN forces arrive), the United Nations, in turn, is depending on forces they seem very unlikely to get. A report posted on the thirteenth in the United Nations website reported Kofi Annan to have stated following his meeting with President Bush “that he would ask countries with highly trained and well-equipped troops to take part in a proposed peacekeeping force that may take over from the African Union’s mission in the Darfur region.” And while it has been made clear to the world “that American combat troops would not be sent there, and other nations have offered similar cautions” (states the February 18th Times article), it seems the United Nations is still grasping some sort of hope that numerous countries will offer up their troops to the cause. It seems, in fact, that the UN doesn’t hold as high hope in its own strength as the United States does. In the UN website’s February 22nd article on Darfur, “The UN wants to ensure that the AU can stay as long as possible in Darfur, hopefully to the end of the year”, which would in turn provide the UN with an extended period of time to get together the troops needed for a significant force against the Janjaweed militia. But the African Union is far from capable of successfully handling the work laid out for them, possessing only 7,000 troops, many of whom are attacked constantly by Janjaweed forces. The African Union website is alone a representation of the weakness the African Union embodies; many of the links bring you to a green box with the words “Will be available soon!!” sprawled across the screen. The most updated information the website provides on the African Union’s involvement Darfur is a statement from October 4, 2005.
It seems that to have a meeting in which the truth is stated regarding what different countries are willing to do for Darfur is currently impossible. Until then, it seems that the United States will continue to work to strengthen the African Union until the United Nations is prepared for their operations, while the United Nations is in turn working to prolong the African Union’s duration of aid and the African Union is hoping to as soon as possible put into effect a transition of their own aid to that of the United Nations.

South Dakota vs. Reproductive Rights

2006-02-26T20:44:00.001-08:00

I will apologize in advance for this blog entry. I suspect that it is going to be more reminiscent of an enraged rant than an actual cohesive piece of writing. There’s a lot to discuss in terms of current events related to reproductive rights, women’s health, and the constant struggle to make sure that the Roe V. Wade is upheld.
I will begin this post by asking, what the hell, South Dakota? A few days ago, South Dakota law makers approved a nearly full-on ban on abortion, which is a significant step closer to the possibility of the Roe v. Wade decision being overturned, a terrifying prospect for the women’s rights and reproductive rights movement. According to a very informative article (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/24/national/a223241S92.DTL&hw=abortion&sn=002&sc=939)
published in the San Francisco Chronicle (Associated Press), if in fact this bill goes into affect, there will be no exceptions made for victims of rape or incest, meaning that “If a rape victim becomes pregnant and bears a child, the rapist could have the same parental rights as the mother…”
Regardless of whether you believe in abortion or not, or even a woman’s right to chose what she does with her own body, this prospect alone is horrifying. The notion that something produced purely out of an act like rape or incest, both essentially violent and hateful, is protected, and what’s more, that the perpetrator can be present in the victim’s life, is absolutely appalling to me. What’s more, if a doctor performs an abortion, he or she, under this new policy, can be imprisoned for up to five years.
I feel compelled to share an outrageous quote here, published in a New York Times article: (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/26/weekinreview/26davey.html)
“‘It's the right thing,’ said Leslee Unruh, leader of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse. ‘It's like Martin Luther King's approach — it's never the wrong time to do what's right. South Dakota is in a unique position to do something for the 800 children aborted every year.’”
Likening the abortion ban to the work of Martin Luther King? Does anyone else feel like we’re living in an alternate universe, here?
The House of Representatives passed this bill 50-18, and the Senate approved it 23-12. If all goes according to plan, this bill could be in effect by July.
Luckily, Planned Parenthood (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/) is planning a lawsuit over the measure in South Dakota, where it is the only clinic offering abortions, and performs roughly 800 each year.
I feel that supporting this bill is not going to prevent abortions, but instead put women at greater risk, as many are going to be forced back into the alley.
And even though Planned Parenthood pledges to fight this South Dakota law, apparently there are other states that are toying with similar measures, which is going to further aggravate a brutal nation-wide fight over reproductive rights and significantly up the risk of major human rights being revoked on a federal level.

Money Trails

2006-02-26T20:36:00.000-08:00

My introduction to the intricate, carefully-planned, and downright deceitful connections that intertwine politics, big business, and the news came last semester when I took a class called “Mass Persuasion and Propaganda.” The professor, Mark Crispin Miller, spared no details in illustrating how public information is all too often perversely linked to controversial money trails. I quickly realized that so many highly-publicized issues—from the Iran-Contra scandal during Reagan’s administration (addressed thoroughly in chapter 10 of John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton’s Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry) to the Halliburton matters that have plagued Bush and Cheney since they got into office and continue to raise questions to this day—have both overt and clandestine associations with various pocketbooks. Most importantly, though, most people have no idea how deep and influential these connections are, even when this part of the story does make the news.

One headlining story that caught my eye this week is the controversy over Bush’s deal with Dubai Ports World, the company that is owned and operated out of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. If the contract goes through, DP World would have managerial authority over terminal operations at six ports in the United States. The loudest argument against giving this company control over a number of important U.S. ports is that, according to the FBI, the hijackers who carried out the September 11th terrorist attacks were financially based out of the UAE. (Click here to see the FBI’s full report on the money flow from the UAE to the hijackers in the United States.)

There is more to this deal, however, than merely forging new kinds of relationships with Middle Eastern countries. As several online news reports—ranging from mainstream newspapers to blogs—have noted, there is, in fact, a money trail that seems to be fueling Bush’s desire to make this deal a reality. (What a shocker!)

A San Francisco Chronicle article by reporter David Sirota acknowledges that “[t]he Bush administration is unquestionably the most corporate-controlled administration in recent history, which means the White House doesn’t sound the alarm unless corporate America is sounding the alarm.” Foreign investment is one of the most important components of Bush’s federal budget (scroll down to “Business and Treason as Usual for the Empire”), and free trade—as Sirota notes, “allowing corporations to move capital wherever they please, without regard to the labor, human rights, environmental and—yes—security consequences of those moves”—is a huge factor in keeping beneficial monetary ties with other countries. It should be no surprise, then, that Bush fears a pullout from the deal might convince the UAE to withdraw its financial support of the administration’s War on Terror. In addition, John Snow (a member of Bush’s cabinet) and David Sanborn (head of the United States Maritime Administration) have both participated in business dealings of sorts with DP World.

With all this alternative information, it’s no wonder further investigation is being sought before the deal goes through. Considering the money trail is so unspecified and that we don’t know who else has questionable connections with DP World and/or the UAE, I’d say more information on the whole situation is necessary—although we know Bush isn’t one to release facts and figures when they don’t agree with his policies…