Dec 11, 2009

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

December 11, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-nine percent (39%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -12 (see trends).

Just 36% now believe that the president is doing a good or an excellent job handling the economy while 45% rate his performance in this area as poor. Seventy-one percent (71%) of Democrats say he’s doing a good or excellent job on the economy while 74% of Republicans say poor. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 52% give the President poor marks when it comes to the economy.

On national security matters, 39% rate the president’s performance as good or excellent while 36% say poor. Most voters nationwide lack confidence that NATO will do its part to help in Afghanistan.

In recent days, Rasmussen Reports has released updated polls on the 2010 Senate races in Colorado, Illinois, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Arkansas. Overall, the results confirm the conventional wisdom that the mid-term election season is off to a tough start for the Democrats. However, there is a long way to go until November.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

These figures have been remarkably stable and the approval totals have stayed in a narrow range between 46% and 50% every day but one for more than two months. An analysis by Pollster.com partner Charles Franklin “found that despite identically sized three-day samples, the Rasmussen daily tracking poll is less variable than Gallup.” During Election 2008, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll was the least volatile of all those tracking the race.

(More Below)

Forty-three percent (43%) favor urgent action on global warming while 43% say not so fast.

Seventy-six percent (76%) prefer a free market economy over a government-managed approach. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters believe there are too many restrictions on the market in the U.S. today.

Scott Rasmussen has recently had several columns published in the Wall Street Journal addressing how President Obama is losing independent voters , health care reform, the President's approval ratings, and how Obama won the White House by campaigning like Ronald Reagan. If you'd like Scott Rasmussen to speak at your meeting, retreat, or conference, contact Premiere Speakers Bureau. You can also learn about Scott's favorite place on earth or his time working with hockey legend Gordie Howe.

It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama's numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That's because some of the President's most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote. It is also important to check the details of question wording when comparing approval ratings from different firms.

(More Below)

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

Pollster.com founder Mark Blumenthal noted that “independent analyses from the National Council on Public Polls, the American Association for Public Opinion Research, the Pew Research Center, the Wall Street Journal and FiveThirtyEight.com have all shown that the horse-race numbers produced by automated telephone surveys did at least as well as those from conventional live-interviewer surveys in predicting election outcomes.”

In the 2009 New Jersey Governor’s race, automated polls tended to be more accurate than operator-assisted polling techniques. On reviewing the state polling results from 2009, Mickey Kaus offered this assessment, “If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious N.Y. Times, go with Rasmussen!”

During Election 2008, Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight.com said that the Rasmussen tracking poll “would probably be the one I'd want with me on a desert island."

A Fordham University professor rated the national pollsters on their record in Election 2008. We also have provided a summary of our results for your review. In 2008, Obama won 53%-46% and our final poll showed Obama winning 52% to 46%. While we were pleased with the final result, Rasmussen Reports was especially pleased with the stability of our results. On every single day for the last six weeks of the campaign, our daily tracking showed Obama with a stable and solid lead attracting more than 50% of the vote.

In 2004 George W. Bush received 50.7% of the vote while John Kerry earned 48.3%. Rasmussen Reports was the only firm to project both candidates’ totals within half a percentage point by projecting that Bush would win 50.2% to 48.5%. (see our 2004 results).

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters--is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large (see methodology). Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. While partisan affiliation is generally quite stable over time, there are a fair number of people who waver between allegiance to a particular party or independent status. Over the past five years, the number of Democrats in the country has increased while the number of Republicans has decreased.

Our baseline targets are established based upon separate survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews) and targets are updated monthly. Currently, the baseline targets for the adult population are 37.1% Democrats, 32.4% Republicans, and 30.5% unaffiliated. Likely voter samples typically show a slightly smaller advantage for the Democrats.

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning. Other stats on Obama are updated daily on the Rasmussen Reports Obama By the Numbers page. We also invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Is Democracy a Dirty Word?

Cover of "The Limits of Power: The End of...Cover via Amazon

by Tara McKelvey

Last fall, Joshua Marks, a program officer from the National Endowment for Democracy, met with a group of community activists in a classroom in Abeche, a city in eastern Chad. Many of the activists had received small grants, ranging from roughly $200 to $5,000, to help in their efforts to foster civil liberties, political rights, and transparency in government. Yet democracy was not what they wanted to talk about on that day. "The main concern at the meeting," Marks says, "was 'How are we going to feed ourselves?'"

The local population had doubled over a three-year period, from 60,000 people to 120,000 people, as refugees from Darfur poured over the border in search of a peaceful haven. Many of the residents were going hungry, and the area was distressingly short on firewood, cooking oil, and maize. The activists in the classroom were anxious, even fearful. Marks decided it was not the right moment to steer the conversation back to good governance. Instead he spoke with the residents openly, allowing for an environment in which democracy would "grow organically." "I realized that if I'm going to be honest about my work, I have to recognize what they are saying," Marks says.

His experience reflects the larger conundrum of dozens of nongovernmental organizations and American nonprofits that help people around the world work toward free elections and representative governance. As Marks has discovered, developing a country's infrastructure and improving food security often take precedence over long-term goals of democracy-building.

In recent years, humanitarian aid has not been seen as closely linked with fostering democracy. Under the banner of "democracy promotion," former President George W. Bush marched toward war in Iraq and Afghanistan and portrayed elections as the only way of evaluating a country's progress. Now, perhaps unsurprisingly, under President Barack Obama "there's been a notable downplaying of democracy as a foreign-policy priority," says Michael Allen, who edits the newsletter Democracy Digest and also works for the National Endowment for Democracy.

The Obama administration is focusing on international efforts such as agricultural programs, women's rights, and economic development rather than on elections. It has also taken a more holistic approach to foreign policy, choosing to engage with nondemocratic regimes abroad in the hopes of finding some common ground. Democracy-promoting organizations such as the National Democratic Institute, the International Republican Institute, the Eurasia Foundation, and Freedom House are listening carefully -- "Kremlin style," as one expert puts it -- to the statements of Obama and his Cabinet members for signs that the administration considers democracy a priority. Most aren't liking what they've heard so far. When asked about Obama's approach to democracy promotion, many activists in the field sound like hurt and angry ex-boyfriends. "It's too early to talk about important changes in the Obama administration," one analyst says defensively.

"There is concern among activists that perhaps the administration sends the wrong signals to authoritarian regimes when it downplays democracy so much that it may be seen as neglected," Allen says.

In April, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressed members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, saying, "The foreign policy of the United States is built on the three D's: defense, diplomacy, and development." To the dismay of democracy promoters, that other "D" -- democracy -- was not included. And when Obama referenced American foreign policy in his Inaugural Address, he said, "To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

"He did not say, 'to any democracy,'" says Steven Simon, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and co-author of The Next Attack. "A lot of people have written in the margins, 'Include here, democracy promotion,' and none of that stuff has ended up on the teleprompter."

From a monetary perspective, at least, democracy-promoting NGOs have nothing to complain about. The Obama administration requested a 9 percent increase in funding for democracy-related projects, asking for a total of $2.81 billion in the State and Foreign Operations budget for fiscal year 2010. Yet advocates worry that specific democracy issues -- such as freedom of the press and freedom of assembly -- may wither for lack of attention, and funding could drop in the years to come.

"I just think Obama's too smart to put democracy at the top of the foreign-policy agenda," Simon says. "It's too demanding. In the Arab world, it's been rendered toxic by the Bush administration."

democracy has a very straightforward definition: a government by the people, along with a respect for human-rights and justice. The definition of democracy promotion, however, is nothing if not contentious. Activists in the field have long debated how much emphasis should be placed on elections and how much should be placed on issues such as women's rights and judicial independence. Traditionally, the tendency on the right has been to put more stock in the elections, which are a shaky measurement of a nation's level of democracy because results can be fraudulent (case in point: Afghanistan). People also can, and do, elect tyrants. In contrast, experts on the left have argued that a more reliable metric can be found by examining a nation's civic institutions and its system of justice.

Obama's scaled-back approach to democracy promotion has cost him little or no political capital among Democrats, who feel burned by Bush's disastrous approach and are significantly less likely than Republicans to support democracy promotion. A 2007 Pew survey shows that 54 percent of Democrats believe it should be featured in U.S. foreign policy, compared to 74 percent of Republicans. Opinion polls show that across the board conservatives are more likely than liberals to say that the United States should help establish democracies in other countries.

Americans at both ends of the ideological spectrum acknowledge that everyone in the world wants to live in a free society. The rift is over how -- or whether -- we should help them. Historically, American efforts to promote democracy abroad have been tied in with our economic or strategic interests. "To insist that the liberation of others has never been more than an ancillary motive of U.S. policy is not cynicism," says Andrew J. Bacevich, a Boston University professor and author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. "It is a prerequisite to self-understanding."

Decades ago, President Ronald Reagan made ridding the world of communism a core mission of the United States. He placed democracy promotion high on the foreign-policy agenda and helped establish the National Endowment for Democracy. Meanwhile, he maintained friendly relations with pro-American autocracies because he believed that they, unlike communist dictatorships, could someday make the transition to democracy.

In the years since, both Democrats and Republicans have spoken about democracy promotion with exuberance, often turning to the military for help in achieving their goals. In 1989, President George H.W. Bush sent 22,500 U.S. troops to Panama to oust Manuel Noriega and, Bush declared, to defend democracy. At times, President Bill Clinton approached the issue in the same way. He announced in the 1992 presidential campaign that he believed in "an American foreign policy of engagement for democracy," and while he was in office he worked to expand the worldwide base of liberal democracies through a policy known as "enlargement."

Clinton put stock in various areas of democracy promotion, such as helping to develop independent legal programs in other countries, rather than mainly focusing on elections as Republican presidents had done. "It became not just a moral thing but a commonsense thing because it was going to promote global prosperity," explains Simon, who served as one of Clinton's counterterrorism aides. Like Reagan, however, Clinton was also willing to use force: The U.S. effort in Haiti to reinstate President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was known as Operation Uphold Democracy.

George W. Bush took military-enforced "democracy" to a new level. After failing to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush declared it was our national obligation to help Iraq become a democracy. "Our struggle is similar to the Cold War," he said in a 2002 graduation speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. "America confronted imperial communism in many different ways -- diplomatic, economic, and military. Yet moral clarity was essential to our victory in the Cold War. When leaders like John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan refused to gloss over the brutality of tyrants, they gave hope to prisoners and dissidents and exiles, and rallied free nations to a great cause."

Bush added that "America cannot impose this vision." But under his so-called Freedom Agenda, the United States sought to establish democracy at gunpoint and trampled on the rights of prisoners and terrorism suspects. Bush's language had "a self-righteous and theological flavor," as James Traub writes in his book The Freedom Agenda. According to Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, Bush's top commander in Iraq at the time, Bush said during the Fallujah battle in April 2004, "If somebody tries to stop the march to democracy, we will seek them out and kill them! ... Our will is being tested, but we are resolute. We have a better way. Stay strong! Stay the course!"

***

In Obama's speeches that mention democracy, he is careful to set himself apart from Bush's vision. In a Sept. 23 address to the United Nations, Obama said, "Democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and -- in its past traditions -- America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy. But that does not weaken our commitment; it only reinforces it."

Most of the people who work in the field of democracy promotion in Washington agree with Obama's positions. But they have made clear that one of the hallmarks of Bush's approach -- the promotion of free elections -- is not the most important way to foster democracy in other countries. In fact, they are quick to point out that free elections are often illusory because autocratic leaders rig the vote count.

Instead, democracy advocates argue, the U.S. government should help provide assistance for other forms of democracy-building, such as resources for women's groups, public-health initiatives, agricultural projects, and other ways to help strengthen a nation so that democracy may someday take root. Indeed, this is basically what Obama wants to do.

However, the people who work in democracy assistance would like Obama to restore the role of democracy promotion as a central part of the foreign policy -- minus the hysteria and warfare of the Bush administration. For the past three years, democracy has been on the decline in dozens of countries, according to Freedom House. In countries like Russia, Uzbekistan, Egypt, and Venezuela, "representatives of democracy assistance NGOs have been harassed, offices closed, and staff expelled," according to a report by the National Endowment for Democracy. The situation is worse for people who are living in other countries and have received U.S. grants for democracy promotion, since some of them "have been threatened, assaulted, prosecuted, imprisoned, and even killed." Democracy activists in Islamabad, Cairo, Addis Adaba, and in other cities around the world are justly concerned about whether they will continue to have the support of the United States as they push for reform.

While the budget for democracy promotion has increased overall, funding for important regional projects, such as independent civil-society groups in the Middle East and North Africa, has been reduced by 29 percent. In Egypt, where bloggers and journalists have been arrested, imprisoned, and even raped, U.S. funding for democracy programs has been cut by approximately 50 percent, to roughly $22 million. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has imposed restrictions on American funds for democracy groups. Only those organizations that have been approved by the Egyptian government are eligible for the money, providing Mubarak with "a local veto over U.S. aid," according to a June 6 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. Bush pushed back against these restrictions, but Mubarak demanded they be reinstated earlier this year, and U.S. State Department officials accepted the change.

Several U.S. Embassy officials "have sought to distance themselves from civil society and human rights leaders who were not favored by the host government," according to a July 2009 report by Freedom House. Without the explicit support of the United States, these local leaders could be jailed, beaten, or worse. A Kabul-born psychologist who lives in Washington says that if Americans do not support the Afghan women who took to the streets earlier this year in order to secure rights, whether through government grants or public statements of solidarity, then "they will be lost."

The Obama administration has made a deliberate decision to focus on the overall relationship that the United States has with countries like Egypt, placing an emphasis on areas such as trade and terrorism and downplaying troublesome issues like democracy. "Look, I think it's an issue," says Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "I think we should not allow the country in question to dictate how we spend our taxpayer dollars, but it shows that the Obama administration wants to see a relationship in its entirety. They're making these kinds of compromises."

Obama's more culturally sensitive approach to democracy promotion is clearly better than the cowboy stance that was favored by Bush. Some advocates defend Obama, explaining he has not turned his back on democracy promotion, just adopted a subtler way of discussing it. Administration officials understand that simply granting people the right to vote does not guarantee a free society, and they seem to believe that it is better to eschew symbols in favor of carrying out pragmatic work on the ground. And yet the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction, say other democracy advocates. Obama has become so restrained that he has allowed autocrats like Mubarak to get away with extraordinary demands on the awarding of U.S. aid, sending a signal to leaders of repressive nations that democracy abroad is not a fundamental concern of his administration.

Democracy promotion is an art, not a science. There is no empirical data that shows that authoritarian regimes respond to U.S. pro-democracy programs by scaling back repressive policies or that humanitarian missions are less effective at helping a country make progress toward democracy. As Michael McFaul, who is currently serving on the National Security Council, points out, "If the domestic conditions aren't ripe, there will be no democratic breakthrough, no matter how crafted the technical assistance or how strategically invested the small grants." That does not mean that U.S. democracy assistance is worthless -- just that the metrics for it are a bit fuzzy.

People like Marks who are experienced in on-the-ground democracy promotion know that sometimes it's better to take the long view. Over the past five years, Marks has visited Chad, Congo, and other countries in Africa and watched people take incremental steps toward more democratic societies. On one of his visits to Congo, as he recalls, he saw a clunky old car, a Peugeot that was built in the 1960s, on a highway, not far from the capital city of Kinshasa. A stick of wood was propping up the hood of the car, bags and people were piled inside, and it could "hardly putter along."

Still, the Peugeot moved, and watching it rumble down the highway captured the experience of democracy promotion in Congo as well as in other places around the world. "You could sort of throw your hands up, or you could look further down the road and say, 'It's gotten this far. Let's see how much more it can do.'"


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dec 10, 2009

Trafficking and Forced Prostitution of Palestinian Women and Girls: Forms of Modern Day Slavery

Author/Editor(s): SAWA – All the Women Together Today and Tomorrow

For far too long, the issue of women’s trafficking and prostitution has remained a hushed and taboo topic in the occupied Palestinian territory. Limited information exists on this human rights abuse, and when addressed, it appears sporadically in local newspapers reporting, for instance, on families selling their daughters.

Trafficking and Forced Prostitution of Palestinian Women and Girls: Forms of Modern Day Slavery is the first, in-depth study of its kind within the region that digs deeper to unravel the layers of this type of abuse. Written and researched by the not-for-profit organization SAWA – All the Women Together Today and Tomorrow with UNIFEM’s support, the briefing paper analyses six case studies — two on fathers selling their daughters, three on traffickers and one on a woman working in prostitution. Further, the study features inputs and testimonies from key informants, such as hotel owners, police officers, trafficked women and taxi-drivers, collated during the first half of 2008, and focuses on possible trafficking routes.

Ultimately, this briefing paper assesses and measures the extent of women trafficking in the Palestinian region in order to call on civil society organizations and Palestinian governmental institutions to take urgent and concrete actions against this human rights violation.

Order Printed/Published Version

Unit Price: free of charge
Shipping Fee: if any, to be determined by office filling the order
Languages Available | Arabic | English

Bibliographic Information

Product Type: Case Study
Publishers: SAWA – All the Women Together Today and Tomorrow, UNIFEM
UNIFEM Office Involved in Publication: UNIFEM Project Office in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Publication Year: 2008
Number of pages: 26
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dec 9, 2009

Government to settle suit over Indian land trusts

Black and White Image, Lower Antelope Canyon, ...Image by Alex E. Proimos via Flickr

ACCOUNTING MISMANAGED
$1.4 billion in payments to end 13-year-old battle

By David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

The Obama administration said Tuesday it would pay $1.4 billion to a group of American Indians who said the government mismanaged a century-old system of Indian land trusts.

The settlement, which would end one of the epic lawsuits of modern Washington, would be divided among more than 300,000 people, the descendants of Indians to whom the government assigned plots of tribal land under an 1887 law. Many of the plots are controlled by hundreds or even thousands of heirs, and a federal system designed to track claims and distribute revenue generated by the parcels has broken down.

The administration said it would spend $2 billion in addition to the payouts to try to buy back sole ownership of the many plots, one tiny fraction at a time.

The deal, announced by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., would end a lawsuit that has lasted 13 years, coloring the relationship between federal and tribal governments with a bitter reminder of the Indian wars. Officials said they intended the settlement to create trust between Washington and "Indian country."

"We are here today to right a past wrong," Salazar said. Of the plaintiffs the government had battled so long, he said: "They [brought] a national injustice to the attention of our country."

This suit might be best known as the case that took the Interior Department off e-mail: In 2001, U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth determined that the Indian trust accounts were vulnerable to hackers and issued an order that caused the department to sever connections to the Internet.

But its origins go back to the administration of President Grover Cleveland, when Congress passed a law allotting individual tribe members parcels of 40 to 160 acres, to be held in trust by the government for 25 years. In most cases, the land never left government hands.

Today, the Interior Department manages more than 100,000 parcels, totaling more than 56 million acres. When these lands are used for grazing, mining or drilling for oil or natural gas, the revenue is supposed to be split among its owners. But the system quickly devolved into an accounting mess. The number of owners multiplied, since many Indians died without wills and their children inherited equal ownership fractions. The parcels are split 4 million ways.

To make things worse, government records for tracking them were kept in poorly maintained warehouses, where some were destroyed by fires, floods or insects. Owners complained that they were being paid irregularly, improperly or not at all.

In 1996, they filed suit. Since then, officials said, the case has encompassed dozens of hearings, 192 days of trial proceedings and multiple appeals to higher courts. And two different judges: In 2006, an appeals court removed Lamberth from the case after finding that he appeared to be biased against the Interior Department.

The settlement announced Tuesday must be voted on by Congress and approved by the new judge, James Robertson. At a ceremony honoring Robertson on Tuesday, Lamberth praised his handling of the case and said this was "a great day for Americans and for all Native Americans."

Under its terms, officials said, most Indian shareholders would get a check for $1,000. Some could get more, however, if the judge decides they lost more money because of federal mismanagement. Some of the $1.4 billion will also be used to pay attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs had asked for many more billions. But Elouise Cobell, the lead plaintiff and a resident of the Blackfeet reservation in Montana, said her side did not want the case to drag on further.

"This is significantly less than the full accounting to which individual Indians are entitled," Cobell said at the news conference. "We are compelled to settle now by the sobering realization that our class grows smaller" as older members have died, she said.

In addition, the settlement would use $2 billion to begin buying back 37,000 of the most heavily subdivided parcels of land, so that the federal government would be the sole owner.

David Hayes, a deputy secretary of the Interior, said that the newly bought land would be owned by the federal government but that individual tribes would be able to decide what to do with it. Hayes said the government did not want to give up the land, fearing it might allow non-Indians to buy parcels on reservations.

An official for the National Congress of American Indians said the divided ownership has made it difficult for tribal governments to build schools or health clinics because it was difficult to convince a majority of the owners to agree.

"We had kids going to school in double-wide trailer houses, that were running from double-wide to double-wide when it was 40 below zero," said Richard Monette, the former chairman of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa, whose reservation is in North Dakota. "We got money for a school, but we didn't have a place to put it" because the land was shared among so many owners, he said.

Staff writer Carol Leonnig contributed to this report.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sarkozy delivers a mixed message to France's Muslim immigrants

This image shows Nicolas Sarkozy who is presid...Image via Wikipedia

Call for tolerance comes with a caution on displays of religion

By Edward Cody
Wednesday, December 9, 2009

PARIS -- Faced with swelling unease over the place of Muslim immigrants in France, President Nicolas Sarkozy called Tuesday for tolerance among native French people but warned that arriving Muslims must embrace Europe's historical values and avoid "ostentation or provocation" in the practice of their religion.

Sarkozy's appeal, in a statement published by Le Monde newspaper, reflected concern that a government-sponsored debate on France's "national identity," sharpened by a recent referendum banning minarets in neighboring Switzerland, seemed to be contributing to expressions of anti-Muslim sentiment and generating resentment among Muslim citizens and immigrants.

"I address my Muslim countrymen to say I will do everything to make them feel they are citizens like any other, enjoying the same rights as all the others to live their faith and practice their religion with the same liberty and dignity," he said. "I will combat any form of discrimination.

"But I also want to tell them," he continued, "that in our country, where Christian civilization has left such a deep trace, where republican values are an integral part of our national identity, everything that could be taken as a challenge to this heritage and its values would condemn to failure the necessary inauguration of a French Islam."

Sarkozy said he understood the fears of many native French at the growing visibility of Muslims. France has Europe's largest Muslim population, estimated at well over 5 million. That, he said, is what led him to propose the national-identity debate managed by Eric Besson, the minister of immigration, integration and national identity.

"This muffled threat felt by so many people in our old European nations, rightly or wrongly, weighs on their identity," Sarkozy added. "We must all speak about this together, out of fear that, if it is kept hidden, this sentiment could end up nourishing a terrible rancor."

Dismissing criticisms from leftist figures and some members of his own government, Sarkozy said the Swiss decision Nov. 29 to ban construction of minarets arose from a democratic vote and, instead of outrage, should inspire reflection on the resentment felt by Swiss people and many other Europeans, "including the French people."

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had said he was "a little scandalized" by the Swiss vote and suggested it "means a religion is being oppressed." Intellectuals in the Paris chattering class took their criticism further, suggesting the Swiss vote betrayed bigotry and isolationism.

But Xavier Bertrand, head of Sarkozy's political coalition, the Union for a Popular Movement, seemed to indicate that a referendum like the one in Switzerland would be a good idea for France. In an appearance before reporters, he questioned whether French Muslims "necessarily need" minarets for their mosques.

Bertrand's stand, and Sarkozy's entry into the controversy Tuesday, were seen against the background of regional assembly elections in March, in which the governing coalition is seeking to make inroads into provincial Socialist Party strongholds. The extreme-right National Front, which could drain votes from Sarkozy's party, openly applauded the Swiss decision and said minarets -- towers beside mosques from which the faithful are called to prayer -- should also be banned here.

Along the same lines, members of parliament from Sarkozy's coalition introduced a bill this month giving mayors the authority to ban foreign flags at city hall marriages, aiming at Algerian, Moroccan or Tunisian flags that often accompany the weddings of immigrants' children. Similarly, a mayor from the government majority complained recently that, in his city hall, weddings more often are accompanied by Arab-style ululating than polite applause.

While urging Muslims to avoid ostentation and provocation, Sarkozy avoided specific comment on another test soon to be posed for his government, this one over whether Muslim women should be allowed to wear veils that cover their entire faces. Although only a small number do so, a parliamentary commission has held three months of hearings and is expected to issue a report next month proposing legal restrictions.

The president has said publicly that "the burqa has no place in France," placing his opposition in the context of women's rights. But since then, a number of political leaders have suggested that the French constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion, would make legislating on the question difficult no matter what the angle of attack.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Dec 8, 2009

Growing Up Female - NYRB

by Cathleen Schine

When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present -- by Gail Collins -- Little, Brown, 471 pp., $27.99

In When Everything Changed, Gail Collins picks up the saga of women and their role in the culture, economy, and political life of the United States where she left off in America's Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines (2003). That exhilarating earlier volume began with the Mayflower and ended in the Seventies. Lively, always entertaining, and frequently enlightening, When Everything Changed is a worthy sequel. Its subtitle is "The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present," and amazing it is. In half a century, Collins shows us, everything really has changed. And yet...

Cover of Cover via Amazon

And yet, the basic conflict between motherhood and career, like some sort of blotchy chronic dermatitis, keeps erupting in new unexpected patches. It is a sign of just how intelligent and generous a writer Collins is that by the end of her book, the feminist dilemma seems less an incurable virus than a challenge, one that has already been met with so much energy, stubborn courage, and radical hope, not to mention desperation, drama, and, sometimes, in retrospect, downright silliness, that we feel we are all on a human adventure, and all on it together.

The former editorial page editor for The New York Times and now a columnist there, Collins is a serious and accomplished journalist who here regards the journalistic reports of her predecessors with wit, fascination, and skepticism. Some of the most enjoyable moments in the book come when Collins quotes newspapers like her own. In 1960, she notes, women had held the right to vote for forty years, and it was estimated that there would be more women voting for president than men. Indeed, women had even participated in the presidential nominating conventions the summer before the election. How did the press cover this infusion of female civic participation? With a quick nod to a rather insignificant news item, Collins puts it all in context:



The meal begins with "Swan Canterbury," which consists of fresh pineapple on a bed of laurel leaves surrounded by swans' heads in meringue,' the New York Times reported in a story headlined "GOP Women Facing a Calorie-Packed Week."

A skillfully constructed tale, When Everything Changed is not only a history of women; it is also, necessarily, a story of historical perception. So much of American women's fate has been tangled up in the culture's vision of a woman's "role" that Collins is able to set the historical events and often nearsighted contemporary accounts side by side with great effect, sometimes comic, sometimes enraging.

She begins in the suburbs of the Sixties, a place that in the popular imagination of 2009 has taken on almost mythical status, like the dark forest of fairy tales, a place of little boxes housing quietly despairing adulterers in gray flannel suits and quietly despairing dipsomaniac housewives. The era's own suburban myth was, of course, quite different:

By 1960 the United States was no longer a farming country—only 30 percent of families lived in rural areas. The nation was booming, and its prosperity reached farther down into the working class than ever before. Sixty percent of families lived in a home they owned, and 75 percent had a car. A quarter of all families were living in the suburbs, the much-exalted fulfillment of the American dream—to own a nice house on a plot of land, with healthy children going to good schools and destined for even higher levels of prosperity.

That prosperity looks quite modest from today's suburban vantage point of a seven-thousand-square-foot McMansion:

In the beginning, the newly constructed dream houses were, by our current standards, very small. (In the famous Levittown development on Long Island, the basic house was a 750-square-foot, four-room Cape Cod with one bath and two bedrooms.)

But after squeezing in with their in-laws during the Depression or the war, the suburbs must have beckoned like a little bit of heaven.

For women, World War II had offered an opportunity, and often the necessity, to get out of the house to work. Just as postwar prosperity eliminated the need for many women to work outside the home, the new suburban life also removed the opportunity. "The early suburbs," Collins writes, "were singularly unfriendly to the concept of a two-income family." Day care was nonexistent. The mother or grandmother or aunt who might once have acted as a babysitter did not live nearby—they were back on the farm or in the cities the young suburbanites had fled. "Besides," Collins notes, "many of the young couples setting up housekeeping were escaping hard times, and a stay-at-home wife was a kind of trophy—a sign that the family had made it to middle-class success and stability."

If many women welcomed the role of full-time housekeeper and homemaker, it did not reflect, Collins points out, a "lack of enterprise" on their parts. Even with the economic boom that made staying home possible, the jobs available to women were limited in both kind and potential. And at least as housewives they were in charge. For black women, in particular, the chance to stay home and take care of their own children instead of someone else's was welcome, as Ebony pointed out in an article titled "Good-bye Mammy, Hello Mom." Automatic washers and driers, frozen dinners, A Campbell Cookbook: Cooking with Soup, vacuum cleaners, refrigerators, steam irons, wash-and-wear, and, of course, Jell-O: for women who just a generation before might not have had running water, all these time-saving products ought to have saved time.

"Yet," Collins notes, "the housewives did not seem to be working any less.... A methodical study by the sociologist Joann Vanek that used pretty much all the data available concluded that in the 1960s, the full-time homemaker spent fifty-five hours a week on her domestic chores," which is a little more than was spent in the 1920s by all those women feeding each shirt into a clothes wringer.

Like the new highways that added more and more lanes, which simply filled with more and more cars, the empty hours became glutted with new chores. "In the 1950s the average household laundry soared from thirty-nine pounds to sixty-five pounds a week." Women "took up gourmet cooking or interior decorating." Collins interviews one woman who made her own diapers, another who vacuumed the entire house every day. It was a world of proto–Martha Stewart perfection and consumption encouraged by advertisers and the magazines they supported. Even the hallowed halls of Harvard paid tribute to the happy housewife: "The (male) president of all-female Radcliffe celebrated the beginning of every school year by telling freshmen that their college education would 'prepare them to be splendid wives and mothers and their reward might be to marry Harvard men.'"

Of course, like any popular social trend celebrated in newspapers and magazines, this land of aproned domestic juggernauts was not an entirely accurate picture. Collins points out that even though the stay-at-home wife was the ideal, some 40 percent of married women with school-age children did in fact have jobs. According to other magazines, those not devoted to women and the appliances and soaps they might buy, "the prototypical suburban husband...was going off to work at a white-collar job that often entailed a great deal of psychological stress. And where did his salary go? To pay for more work-saving appliances for his nonworking wife!" At the same time, Redbook ran an article in 1960 called "Why Young Mothers Feel Trapped."

Anyone who has read a Trollope novel knows that women did not have to wait until 1960 to feel trapped. But

it surprised the nation—or at least the media—that the women who had acquired better homes and more conveniences than any previous generation should seem to be particularly miserable. "She is dissatisfied with a lot that women of other lands can only dream of," said Newsweek.

And then came Betty Friedan. Her book, Collins writes, hit in 1963 "like an earthquake." The shameful, confusing malaise felt by many women after the war now had a legitimate source, and the source had a name: The Feminine Mystique. Friedan busted the myth of the happy housewife so thoroughly that it took decades before women who were happy housewives dared to say anything about it. Women, Friedan said, "were being duped into believing homemaking was their natural destiny." The dueling desires of motherhood and selfhood were articulated at last, and the feminist movement turned from the clear-cut demands of suffragism and equal pay to the less-defined realm of empowerment.

Collins follows the progress of the idea of feminism and the politically active women's groups who drove it forward not only through influential and well-known feminists like Friedan, but also through the stories of aging but indomitable suffragettes like Alice Paul, and women unintentionally caught up in the argument like Lois Rabinowitz, who was fined for wearing pants to traffic court in 1960.

One of the things that is startlingly clear from the first chapter is how much women's history has been bound up, sometimes literally, in women's clothes, used symbolically by both sides: Hemlines, silk stockings (a sign of vanity in one era, of propriety in another), Bella Abzug and her hats (her mother told her they were "a surefire sign that she was not a secretary"), Gloria Steinem and her sunglasses, the hideous Eighties power suits with their floppy bows, the post-feminist stiletto heel. Decisions on how to dress were sometimes strategic, sometimes controversial, always significant. Collins quotes Muriel Fox, one of the founders of the National Organization for Women, saying, "I have pictures of the early NOW meetings. We wore hats." During the heyday of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), Collins writes, an earlier custom of wearing one's Sunday best to sit-ins in order to be taken seriously had given way to jeans, a more practical outfit for being thrown in jail and a statement of solidarity with the working class. But, Collins notes,

Marian Wright Edelman said she would never forget "the disappointed looks" of rural black Mississippians "who heard there was a Black lady lawyer in town...and who came to look for and at me. When they saw me in blue jeans and an old sweatshirt, they were crestfallen. I never wore jeans in public again in Mississippi."

Collins, whose prose is vigorous and direct, has an unflaggingly intelligent conversational style that gives this book a personal and authoritative tone all at once. Whether she writes about fashion or the great political and social events of the day, she observes the telling details that an academic writing in greater depth or a polemicist offering stronger theoretical arguments might pass over. With deadpan comic restraint Collins provides that unexpected detail or statement or observation that can put an entire episode into its legitimately absurd perspective. The Miss America pageant that inspired a radical feminist protest (organized by Robin Morgan and including a guerrilla sheep and the promise of bra-burning)? "It was the one program that President Nixon said he let his daughters, Julie and Trisha, stay up late to watch." In 1984, when the honorific "Ms." was considered by the late William Safire in The New York Times ? "To our ear," he wrote in his "On Language" column, "it still sounds too contrived for newswriting." To other ears at the Times as well apparently. In the same year, Collins says, the Times reported in a story about Gloria Steinem's fiftieth birthday party that the dinner's proceeds "will go to the Ms. Foundation...which publishes Ms. Magazine, where Miss Steinem works as an editor."

Sometimes the absurdity Collins reveals is less humorous than it is grotesque. Viola Liuzzo, a white mother of five who drove from Detroit to Selma in 1965 to join the civil rights protests, was shot and killed by the Ku Klux Klan while giving a fellow marcher, a black man, a ride home. "FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, briefing the attorney general on Liuzzo's death, told him 'that she was sitting very, very close to the Negro in the car; that it had the appearances of a necking party."

Collins writes extensively about the crucial and leading role of women in the civil rights movement. Women like Unita Blackwell, a sharecropper from Mississippi, were instrumental in local voter registration drives, while SNCC was based on the ideas of Ella Baker. Yet the official positions of power within the movement were held exclusively by men. Women were marginalized at the same time that the male leaders of the movement relied on the unthreatening decorum and perceived powerlessness of a lady for gaining white good will. Collins points out that almost all the victims of racism taken up as symbols of the cause were women: "When the Montgomery bus driver told [Rosa Parks] to give up her seat to a white man or be arrested, the petite, middle-aged seamstress calmly replied, 'You may do that.'" She also notes that ladies like the "Women's Political Caucus, a quiet organization of Montgomery's middle-class black teachers and social workers," were often far more radical than their male counterparts: "While the ministers pressed the bus company for a more orderly system of dividing the seats between the races and more courteous drivers, the women wanted total integration."

A tale of women in the last fifty years is necessarily a tale of reform movements, and Collins takes us from the civil rights movement to the antiwar movement, a time when radical women were often relegated to making sandwiches for the men. At a 1968 New Politics conference in Chicago, when some of the women attending wanted to introduce a resolution on women's rights, the men in charge refused. One of the women was literally patted on the head by the chairman. "'Cool down, little girl,' he said. 'We have more important things to do here than talk about women's problems.'" When a woman spoke at the Washington antiwar rally during Richard Nixon's inauguration, some of the men in the crowd called out, "Take it off!" and "Take her off the stage and fuck her!" The free love movement, too, with its flower power and hippy communes, kept one traditional structure firmly in place—women performed the domestic duties.

Women who wanted to work were supposed to be single. This attitude informed even supposedly freethinking books like Helen Gurley-Brown's Sex and the Single Girl. The message of that volume is that single girls should busy themselves seducing their bosses while they bide their time and hone their seductive skills until Mr. Right finally shows up.

One group that was forced to remain single in order to continue at their jobs was stewardesses. Stewardesses were a joke to many of us coming of age in the liberated Sixties. They were no joke in the women's movement that liberated us, however. It should not be a surprise that members of one of the few professions that welcomed women, exclusively, would fight for women's rights. And they did. Amelia Earhart notwithstanding, women were effectively barred from becoming pilots by the Commerce Department. They became stewardesses instead, a job that began with nurses and soon changed to attractive servers. For small-town girls it beckoned as a glamorous career, a way to travel, to see the world.

The pay, however, was low, and the job itself turned out to be far from glamorous. As late as the Sixties, "one regular run, the 'Executive Flight' from New York to Chicago, actually barred female passengers. The men got extralarge steaks, drinks, and cigars—which the stewardesses were supposed to bend over and light." The women were monitored by "counselors" who weighed them and took their measurements regularly to make sure they kept their figures. "Besides limits in weight and height, stewardesses were required, according to one promotion, to have hands that were 'soft and white'—a hint as to how welcome African-American women were at the time." When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission convened, the flight attendants' union was the very first in line. In a House subcommittee hearing in 1965,

Representative James Scheuer of New York jovially asked the flight attendants to "stand up, so we can see the dimensions of the problem." The airline industry continued to argue with a straight face that businessmen would be discouraged from flying if the women handing them their coffee and checking their seat belts were not young and attractive.

To which Martha Griffiths, one of the few women representatives in Congress, replied, "What are you running, an airline or a whorehouse?"

Flight attendants were also among the first women to turn to the courts for equal rights. In addition to the requirements of appearance, stewardesses were not allowed to marry. Supervisors scanned wedding announcements looking for transgressors. When Eulalie Cooper was fired by Delta after six years for being secretly married,

a Louisiana judge agreed with the airline that serving food and ensuring safety on an airplane was a job that young single women were uniquely qualified to do, and therefore fell under the [Equal Employment Opportunity] law's exemption for "bona fide occupational qualifications."...

And yet with all of Collins's examples of laws and ideas that have contributed to keeping women in their place, When Everything Changed is not simply a book about what the world of men has done to hold women back; nor is it a book about the worthy and courageous things women have somehow pulled off in a man's world, though it certainly pays tribute to feminist heroes, both famous and uncelebrated. This is instead a narrative that has not yet reached its conclusion. The book recognizes and records an ongoing story that ought to be obvious but has so often been obscured in the last fifty years of change, upheaval, and polemics: simply that in the process of both shaping it or being shaped by it, women live in the world, and there's just no getting around it.

This is an account of women crying out for change and coming to terms with the consequences of that change, and it is not always a pretty sight. Collins reminds us of the absurdity, the excess, on both sides. Some aspects of the women's movement have come to seem almost as quaint as the early demonstrators in white gloves—the consciousness-raising groups, the calls to sexual warfare, the "freedom" names like Warrior and Sarahchild that women adopted to escape the taint of patriarchy. But Collins never loses sight of their importance as part of this modern epic. She shows women, like men, adapting as best they can. Some of those adaptations seem preposterous now, but without them, we could not have evolved to where we are.

And where exactly is that? There are now more working mothers than ever before. Women are in positions of power the most radical of activists could only dream of in 1960. Last February, The New York Times reported that with the loss to the recession of jobs in traditionally male fields like construction, working women were about to outnumber working men for the first time in American history. And yet...

Eleanor Roosevelt was able to talk wartime shipbuilders into creating innovative and comprehensive on-site day care for the children of thousands of working mothers. Her success in promoting the private sector's responsibility for day care has never been repeated. Sufficient government-run day care is not available for most working mothers, either. At the same time, few employers are willing to create schedules friendly to working mothers. The "image" of women, too, has changed and changed back and twisted itself pretzel-like until we have drunken high school girls exposing themselves to the cameras of Girls Gone Wild in the name of freedom and liberation.

Collins ends her book with a look at three very current characters, three powerful mothers who have had to deal with the contradictions of careers and parenting, making it up as they went along: Hillary Clinton, who waited until she was in her thirties to get pregnant, facing her generation's now familiar difficulties of fertility and child care; Michelle Obama, who has been able to recreate an earlier era of extended family members helping out by bringing her mother with the First Family to the White House; and Sarah Palin, who throws her various children over her shoulder and brings them along on the plane at taxpayers' expense. None of these tough, successful women has discovered the perfect road.

Even so, we've obviously come a long way, baby, as the saying goes, and the effect of much of the earlier sections of the book is one of an uncomfortable jolt to memory, a snort of laughter and a grimace, which all add up to a mixed feeling of shame at our early follies and of smug satisfaction at how far we sophisticated Americans have come. If the book is less satisfying as it approaches the present day, perhaps it is because, without the perspective of time, we can't predict exactly which of our notions and behavior will reveal themselves as ridiculous in twenty or thirty years' time. The last few chapters of this "Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present" is intelligent and thorough, but it is also a little too close for either comfort or discomfort. It is what we know, it's home, and home never really feels like it's part of the journey at all.

What we do know for certain is that the difficulties of growing up female have not been weeded out—they continue to blossom, unexpected, inevitable, invasive plants—and if we're lucky, Gail Collins will continue to comb through them, careful and hopeful, smelling the roses along with whatever else she digs up.


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

DocuTicker GreyGuide on Think Tanks

WASHINGTON, D.C. - JANUARY 20:  WASHINGTON, D....Image by Getty Images via Daylife

What is a think tank? According to the Lehman Social Sciences Library at Columbia University:
The term 'think tanks' is an imprecise phrase used to describe a wide range of non-profit research organizations which engage in public policy analysis and research, and often advocate solutions. Some are strictly nonpartisan, researching policy issues without regard to political outcomes, while others see one of their main functions as that of providing intellectual support to politicians or parties. They are as ubiquitous in the American political scene as interest groups, media consultants, 'spin doctors,' and the political parties themselves.
You'll find a related bibliography and a selected list of think tanks and policy centers at the link above.

We regularly mine a wide range of think tanks as a source of full-text reports for DocuTicker. Some diverse examples:

  • The Brookings Institution:
    The Brookings Institution is a nonprofit public policy organization based in Washington, DC. Our mission is to conduct high-quality, independent research and, based on that research, to provide innovative, practical recommendations that advance three broad goals:

    • Strengthen American democracy

    • Foster the economic and social welfare, security and opportunity of all Americans

    • Secure a more open, safe, prosperous and cooperative international system.
    Founded in 1916, Brookings is one of the oldest public policy institutes. Its political leanings are generally regarded as centrist.

  • The RAND Corporation:
    For more than 60 years, the RAND Corporation has pursued its nonprofit mission by conducting research on important and complicated problems. Initially, RAND (the name of which was derived from a contraction of the term research and development) focused on issues of national security. Eventually, RAND expanded its intellectual reserves to offer insight into other areas, such as business, education, health, law, and science. No other institution tackles tough policy problems across so broad a spectrum.
    RAND is a 'Federally Funded Research & Development Center,' or FFRDC. According to the 'Congressional Research Service (PDF; 249 KB), 'The FFRDC is a hybrid organization designed to meet a federal need through the use of private organizations.'


  • The Fraser Institute:
    We are an independent international research and educational organization with offices in Canada and the United States and active research ties with similar independent organizations in more than 70 countries around the world.

    In raising the level of understanding about the effects of economics and public policy, the Institute's ideas contribute directly to improving the quality of life for people of all ages and income levels. People should have choices as opposed to government telling them what to do.
    Generally regarded as conservative/libertarian, the Fraser Institute has been around since 1974. One of its more interesting projects is keeping track of
    waiting times at Canadian hospitals
    .


  • Chatham House (Royal Institute of International Affairs)
    Research is core to all Chatham House activities. We undertake independent and rigorous analysis with the aim of setting the agenda and shaping policy by encouraging new ideas and forward thinking in international affairs.

    Research is structured around three areas:

    • Energy, Environment and Resource Governance, incorporating work on energy, environment and development policy and food supply;

    • International Economics; and

    • Regional and Security Studies, which includes work on Africa, the Americas, Asia, Europe, International Law, International Security, the Middle East and North Africa and Russia and Eurasia.
    Chatham House, whose origins date back to the 1920s, is regarded as one of Europe's leading foreign policy think tanks. The venerable Chatham House Rule is designed to foster openness and protect confidentiality:
    When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.
We also keep track of a number of think thanks with a narrow focus, such as:


How can you locate think thanks that perform research in your particular area of interest? One way is to search Google -- "think tank" and education, or "think tank" and poverty. Or you can browse various lists of policy institutes, such as:

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Burma's Political Prisoners

The FCO is running a campaign, in association with the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (Burma), Human Rights Watch and Burma Campaign UK to highlight the plight of Burma's over 2100 prisoners of conscience.

TOKYO - MAY 24:  People of Myanmar living in J...Image by Getty Images via Daylife


Between now and the elections the junta plan for next year, the campaign will highlight the story of one Burmese political prisoner a week, aiming to give these student and civil society leaders, lawyers, union activists, ethnic and religious figures a public personality in their own right, to make these very brave people more than a number. We start be highlighting five of the most high profile of these prisoners.

Free Burma protester (Getty images)It's a sobering thought that there are so many prisoners of conscience in Burma that it would take over forty years to profile them all. And numbers do not remain static. The regime continue to imprison anyone who might speak against them, however mildly, and very few genuine political prisoners are released - the long sentences of 65 - 100 years ensure this.

Click here for the full list or subscribe via RSS

One of the most emblematic young monks. Played a leadership role in the Saffron Revolution in 2007 when monks overturned their rice bowls to excommunicate the regime.

Sentenced to 63 years in prison, 10 years hard labour. In a remote prison, in poor health and denied family visits. He says: “it matters little if my life or lives of my colleagues should be sacrificed on this journey. Others will fill our sandals”

An NLD member and a dedicated Labour Activist. Recognised by international human rights awards from Canada and the Czech Republic for her work in bringing forced labour to the attention of the ILO. Aged 38.

Imprisoned for 8 years and six months in a jail 700 miles from her home in Rangoon. Recently placed in solitary confinement for three days for singing an independence anthem.

In frail health, her heart problem has seriously worsened in prison. In 2007 she said. “We held demonstrations for all the people, including those who beat us. [They] are also facing difficult daily lives.”

Leader of the 88 Generation Students Group. Worked for the NLD election campaigning in 1990.

Took part in the Saffron Revolution in 2007. Sentenced to 65 years with hard labour, the court refused her family permission to attend and subsequently handed down prison sentences to her lawyers for representing her.

On sentencing Mie Mie declared “We will never be frightened!” She has a degree in Zoology and is married with two children aged 17 and 12.

Her health is deteriorating in prison in Irrawaddy, a long way from her family in Rangoon.

Comedian, film actor and director from an intellectual and political family.

Zarganar is a nickname meaning “Tweezers.” A qualified dentist, he was involved in the 8888 uprising and Saffron Revolution in 2007.

Aged 48 and in deteriorating health, he was sentenced to 35 years for his involvement in cyclone relief efforts. He is incarcerated in tiny cell in a prison many miles from his family who have been denied visiting rights - even after making the trip.

He has spoken of previous prison terms - of being kept with dogs,of seeing monks with gunshot wounds and broken bones and of young lives destroyed.

Talented artist, poet and satirist.

Co-founder and spokesperson of the 88 Generation of Students Group. Sentenced with other 88 Generation Group members to over 65 years in prison. He is 46 and in failing health. He has been held in solitary confinement and is suspected to have been tortured.

At his trial he declared: “You can sentence us to a thousand years in prison for our political activities, but we will continue to defend ourselves in accordance with the law. Nobody can hide from justice.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sex Trafficking of American Indians in Minnesota

The Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center (MIWRC) of Minneapolis, MN has released its ground breaking report on the scope of sex trafficking of American Indians in Minnesota entitled Shattered Hearts: the commercial sexual exploitation of American Indian women and girls in Minnesota. This report is believed to be the first of its kind in the country to analyze the victimization rate for Native females in our state.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]