Foreclosure on Voter Rights

The Republican party chairman in Macomb County, Michigan, probably should have considered his wording when he admitted in an interview that his organization was actively compiling a list of foreclosed homes in order to void voter registration.

According to the newspaper Michigan Messenger, Chairman James Carabelli reportedly stated, “We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren’t voting from those addresses.”

The Michigan Republican party is requesting that the independent newspaper remove the story because they claim the quotes are “fabricated,” despite the reporter’s assertion that they are legitimate. Regardless of what mere words may mean, actions would indicate that whether or not Carabelli admitted to using foreclosures, it wouldn’t be the first time.

Previous Republican tactics point to a recurring pattern of a strategy called “voter caging,” aimed at denying voting rights to citizens. In the registration process, the voters originally register under their home addresses. However, after foreclosure the addresses are deemed incorrect, challenging the status of the voters as residents. The plan is aimed at weeding out voters that are not deemed “true residents.”

However, many residents remain in their homes months after foreclosure is filed, while some are able to renegotiate and remain in their own homes. It is difficult to overlook the fact that the districts that are being targeted for improper registration are often Democratic-leaning, and in the case of Macomb County, mostly African-American.

However, this is not a new tactic. In fact, the Republican party has employed it for the past 50 years, culminating in the 2004 elections, in which half a million individuals had their voting rights challenged. The first Republican attempt to target purported “voter fraud” was in 1958 in order to exploit Reconstruction-era laws and exclude African-Americans. This tactic has been enabled by Republican-controlled legislatures in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, which passed legislation making it easier for volunteers to have the discretion to challenge, question and deny voting rights.

However, the spread of the myth of widespread voter fraud has caused the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold an Indiana law requiring voters to present a state-issued I.D.—something that blacks, youths and low-income individuals often do not have. A similar I.D. law in Ohio will probably cause chaos on Election Day as residents arrive with I.D.s containing the addresses of foreclosed homes.

In 1981 and 1986, Democrats sued the voter-caging campaigns in New Jersey with a court ruling in their favor. The ruling stipulated that national parties could not enact voter challenges without the approval of the court. However, the ruling opened a loophole. It did not prevent state officials from taking the same measures. Now the Obama campaign, in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee, is filing a lawsuit in the Michigan Federal Court against the Republican National Committee’s planned caging activities. The charges build upon the argument that homeowners in Michigan still have the opportunity to redeem their homes even after sales have gone through.

Under Michigan law, voters can still use their foreclosed addresses up to 60 days within the election. Even so, foreclosure notices are issued up to one year and four months before the resident is required to leave the home. The Democrats are also arguing that foreclosures pertain to ownership, not residence, which is the subject of dispute. In the meantime, the Obama campaign is requesting an injunction from the federal court to block foreclosure filings that can be used in developing cases for voter challenges.

Thus, the already tedious process of registration and voting has become more complicated, inconvenient and disrespectful for some people. For homeowners dealing with foreclosures in a failing economy, their wish to vote for a candidate to change their economic situation may even be void.

In a nation that claims the government works for the people, it does not always seem that way. Upholding the law is one thing, but taking away an inherent right to vote is another.

Patriot Act Sprouts in Sweden

While Sweden’s national television channels stream an unusual amount of terrorism-themed films and series this summer, the Swedish parliament passed a controversial anti-terrorism law—strikingly similar in character to America’s Patriot Act. The law legalizes government wire-tapping of international calls, faxes and emails without a court order. In the post-9/11 era, it is increasingly difficult to overlook the exportation of American laws, the modified concept of “democracy” and even the sanctions on civil liberties.

While most of Europe recedes from its post-World War II alliance with the United States in light of the Bush Administration’s conduct in the Iraq War and the War on Terror, Sweden, a nation famed for its consistent neutrality in most international political matters, is now adopting American policy.

The propositions of the “FRA-law” (the Swedish acronym for the Swedish National Defense Radio Establishment) have made it the most contentious topic in the Swedish media, with almost every popular media outlet expressing its discontent with the law, dually echoing the popular sentiment of the Swedish people.

As politicians gathered in parliament on June 18 for the awaited vote on the law, protestors gathered outside parliament and cities across Sweden handing out George Orwell’s book “1984.” Some protesters held up posters that read “Big Brother is watching you” and “No military in my living room,” which illustrates the common fear that Sweden will become one of the few non-dictatorships to take such serious codified steps toward curbing civil liberties in the name of security. But as the streets of Stockholm filled with the voices and posters of citizens unhappy with the prospects of what many would call a move toward a democratic police state, the law passed within the walls of the parliament building with the narrow margin of 143 to 138.

As the Swedes vehemently protest the enactment of the FRA-law, the legal implications of its ratification, the methodological details and the potential abuses of the law still remain in the shadows. The law seems to play into the concept of inter-governmental “transparency” and secret information sharing with a lack of oversight that is characteristic of the post-9/11 era. FRA General Director Ingvar Åkesson managed to shed some light on the situation, stopping short of calling it a democratic elite party of information sharing. He explained that information passing Sweden’s borders could be sold to other interested democracies.

However, selling such information comes at the cost of other factors, including the loss of foreign investment and domestic jobs. Others claim that such monitoring occurs in other nations without explicit laws to legalize the process and argue that the codification of such procedures would make the law clear for citizens and explicitly legal in practice. The difference then between Sweden and other wiretapping states is that the proposition of legalizing wiretapping has awakened a discussion that clearly shows a dislike for the law, as well as its implications for the Swedish economy—a discussion other nations lacked due to the absence of an open, public debate.

As one of the foremost connected nations in Europe, Sweden is a transit point for much of Finish, Russian and Norwegian Internet traffic. Because of this, the law affects a wider public than merely the Swedish people. As by nature of wiretapping “international” communication that passes through Sweden’s borders is accessed, which is an integral feature that many foreign businesses and investors find unattractive. Furthermore, while the law claims to specifically target communication that crosses Sweden’s borders in order to monitor international communication, when it comes to the Internet, it is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish between communication within Sweden and communication crossing the “borders.”

As telecommunications and Internet providers begin to withdraw from the Swedish market to protect their customers from monitoring, the remaining Swedish providers will be forced to conform to the new law. The cost burden of monitoring calls and sending information to FRA headquarters falls on telecommunications companies, a cost that competing foreign companies stationed outside of Sweden will not have to pay.

The question then becomes how far Swedes are willing to give up their personal and economic freedoms in the context of developing information sharing and security—a process that will likely have more value for other nations than for Swedish security. This is a topic that the United States has grappled with and it is an issue that challenges the very pillars of democracy—civil liberties. In America the debate over the Patriot Act is based on the Constitution, the discussion in Sweden has evolved into a foreign, domestic, economic and civil liberty dispute that involves international businesses and individuals worldwide.

Even though parliament formally made its decision, Swedish citizens remain hostile toward the imposition of the law. Yet the government, which has heretofore brushed off the foreign and domestic uproar as a mere misunderstanding of the law, will now have to face the heat of a dissatisfied, vocal nation and the very real threat of an economic communications infrastructure that faces foreign divestment.

Coulter Crushes Credibility

If conservatives had any fewer brains, they’d be brain dead. With calls for nuking Iran and killing Iraqi civilians to get the job done, Ann Coulter is not exempt. In her address to the UC Irvine community on May 22 in the Student Center, it was difficult to distinguish between criticism and vicious slander. Her constant references to Senator Barack Obama as “Barouk Hussein Obama” could not even be considered comic relief.

However, she did acknowledge that conservatives are severely lacking in the leadership area—but is this because of the lack of qualified candidates for the Republican nomination or because conservatives are less suited for the highest office in the U.S. government, as shown by our Republican president?

Now that the bitter battle between the Democratic nominees is coming to a close, it’s time for the Republicans to discredit their “soft” opponents. Coulter repeatedly hailed the current administration for preventing acts of terror through the War on Terror.

I think her credibility was lost right there. The supposed “success” of the tactics used by the current administration has come at the cost of basic human rights allotted to American citizens at the constitutional level. Furthermore, the administration has humiliated individuals held at Guantanamo Bay without formal charges and due trial, a fact that Coulter denies.

Instead, Coulter compared Guantanamo to a hotel with footbaths and toilets. When she heard of Qurans being flushed down toilets at Guantanamo, she was surprised at the luxury of Guantanamo having toilets rather than latrines.

Coulter accused liberals of adopting a “do-nothing” strategy. “Obama is now proposing he’ll sit down and have talks with Iran and Syria. First of all, we have the ability to talk to Iran. [President George W.] Bush has a telephone,” she said.

Although Coulter missed the point completely, I doubt that Senator John McCain would be able to use one at his age. Since McCain will pursue the same policy as the current administration, he may continue to deepen the problems in the Middle East by promoting unequal settlement rather than reconciliation.

Coulter then compared the terrorists in Iraq to Democrats, “The heart of the insurgency in Iraq is composed of people who hate the great Satan, who overnight in bags and are willing to travel to kill Americans. They’re like Democrats with more gumption,” she said.

Let me remind you that this insurgency is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq by a Republican administration. But the battering of Iraq is not enough for Coulter, just as Obama’s plans for communication with Iran are not the solution in her opinion.

Coulter argued we should learn from history. “We didn’t crush the Germans sufficiently the first time—that was the lesson of history. You don’t want them to like you; you want them to fear you. … Nothing produces gentle behavior like enormous physical pain,” she said.

Indeed, Germany was crushed by the First World War and the Versailles Treaty. This “crushing” made its population susceptible to the extreme ideas of the Nazi leadership.

What about the solutions for “rogue nations,” such as Iran? “If we’re going to nuke Iran first and then chit-chat, then I can applaud that,” she said. Coulter’s claim met with applause from the audience, making any sane audience member question what the rest of the public was cheering for.

This was especially true when she called the drawn-out Iraq War “a little too humanitarian,” saying that overthrowing a dictator (which was not the primary goal of the war) was worth the sacrifice of innocent lives. As she invoked her crushing-Germany analogy again, there was more applause from the audience.

While the content of Coulter’s speech indicated her misunderstanding of global problems and inability to comprehend the meaning of diplomacy, the fact that there was an assembly of individuals applauding her calls for nuclear confrontations and increased violence in the Middle East was a rude awakening—the public’s obvious misunderstanding of current American foreign policy cannot be overlooked.

Congress Reworks Drug Laws

After decades of unequal treatment under an outdated drug law, the U.S. Sentencing Committee has decreased the vast disparity between the sentencing of crack cocaine and powder cocaine possession. However, providing trial attorneys for the 20,000 crack convicts seeking shorter sentences has proven easier for some than others.

The disparity was codified into the Anti-Drug Abuse Act during the 1986 drug war hysteria. The disproportion was derived from the erroneous belief that crack cocaine was more addictive and caused more violent crime than its powder counterpart. The result was a 100-to-1 ratio in sentencing, which was only recently reduced to 20 to1.

The shorter sentences have been criticized by the White House, which claims that the retroactive releases will cause an influx of “violent criminals” onto the streets—despite the fact that a majority of those who are eligible are non-violent. The comments reflect a mistrust of the judicial system by the executive branch, perhaps stemming from the misconception that criminals are simply released from their cells without a review of their cases.

With the intention of incarcerating major drug dealers, crack cocaine is the only drug for which mere possession can amount to a mandatory minimum sentence. However, two-thirds of those incarcerated are considered low-level dealers, while less than two percent are categorized as high-level dealers.

Additionally, 82 percent of the individuals sentenced on crack cocaine charges are African-American. When the law was enacted, powder cocaine was more expensive than crack cocaine; thus, most powder cocaine users were wealthy, white individuals.

Coupled with the negation of many of the myths about crack cocaine, the stark differences in the sentencing statistics of African-American and Caucasian cocaine users may reveal a racial injustice in the sentencing system. According to a recent report sponsored by the Department of Justice, minority youth are six times more likely to be sent to jail for the same crime than their white counterparts.

U.S. District Court Judge David Carter, a UC Irvine lecturer on the legal implications of the drug trade, said, “People have started to recognize the disparity by race, and it’s a difficult thing to explain because the numbers are so disproportionately high.”

While the world attempts to remedy the sharp difference in sentence length, some of those behind bars remain uninformed about the rules.

As Judge Carter explained, “We worry that some of the defendants wouldn’t know enough to apply … [or] wouldn’t have representation,” or wouldn’t be appointed attorneys.

While the right to an attorney is incontestable, some federal judges, who are the only authorities for granting attorneys, are arguing that the retrials should be straightforward. Therefore, some consider the appointment of an attorney to be costly and unnecessary.

The introduction of an attorney can quickly become a high-stakes undertaking, which some judges see as superfluous. However, for poor convicts with little legal education, this decision is a set-back that pits the litigants against skilled prosecutors with long, detailed briefs and a superior knowledge of legal reasoning and procedure.

“I believe that each defendant is entitled to an attorney, but I can’t speak for somebody down in the Fifth Circuit. … I know that [California’s Central District] is taking a very strong position and making sure each one of them is represented,” Judge Carter said.

While the rules have changed to reduce what many interpret as an injustice, the application of the law is now in question. While the legislature stands on the side of the incarcerated abusers of crack cocaine, the responsibility for ensuring that the reduced sentencing is offered equally rests in the hands of the judges.

Despite the fact that the right to an attorney and the right to a fair trial are constitutional, the government’s right to be represented by a counsel as an impartial mediator of justice should be equal to an individual’s right to receive one.

Uzbekistan Uses Location as Leverage

"Saying everything is O.K. in Uzbekistan is like saying it's peaceful in Baghdad," said Vasila Innoyatova, a human rights worker in Tashkent, Uzbekistan

Uzbekistan is attempting to cover for gunning down its own citizens exactly three years ago. The government is now allowing the International Committee of the Red Cross to survey its prisons, and has also released human rights advocates that were previously locked up. Changes also involve revisions of the judicial system; this includes eliminating the death penalty and including habeas corpus. Yet there is still denial of rights, the use of torture, and repression of government dissenters.

But western governments are arguing that Uzbekistan may have the political upper hand. When Washington harshly criticized the nation, the country immediately removed the United States from the military base, which was strategic in terms of the war in Afghanistan. Now, the Uzbeks are allowing limited access to a German base at Termez and NATO is allowed to use a railroad for endeavors in Afghanistan. But possible sanctions from the US are now threatening the agreements. The nation is essentially challenging the influence of the Washington, which feels threatened by the leniency of the West in dealing with Uzbekistan, particularly because of its strategic location. But other problems come up—can the US exercise jurisdiction when many of the offenses that Uzbekistan has been criticized for (indefinite detentions, torture, etc), and what the end result will be of sanctions given Uzbekistan’s ability to close of Western powers from strategic locations near Afghanistan. Wisest would be to use another European power to negotiate with Uzbekistan and intervene, rather than the over-stretched American hegemony with it's tarnished reputation.

Grandpa Wen is Hip

Facebook is now home to a figure nicknamed “Granpa Wen,” the Chinese Premier who has become the symbol of grief and relief as he has traveled to many disaster sights after China’s earthquake on May 12th left so many dead and displaced.

Both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Council Press Office both claim they were unaware of the creation of Wen Jiabao’s page, which now has 14,000 supporters after only two weeks, in contrast to President Bush’s 11,700 and Senator Obama’s whopping 862,000 supporters.

Despite the usual appearance of Wen as being cold and distant, his appearance at the Sichuan province, which was severely affected by the earthquake, a rail road station that was disrupted after a storm in January leaving , among other places, has gained the leader a place in the hearts of the Chinese as well as his own facebook site—a tribute to his popularity among younger generations.

SG Ban Acknowledges Myanmar's "Cooperation"

It was with the main goal of speeding up humanitarian relief in Myanmar that United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon met with Myanmar’s junta leaders. Myanmar’s corruption on various levels escaped critique; discussions of the detainment of a pro-democracy leader, improper voting procedures during the latest election, and human rights abuses were not mentioned. This was a bargaining tactic that the Secretary General was ready to play as he ultimately concluded the talks with dozens of visas for UN relief workers.

It was with the with the two to three million displaced and now homeless individuals in Myanmar that Ban had in mind when he avoided talks on politics that he felt would only make the leader of Myanmar unwilling to communicate or accept aid. While some believe that this was an opportunity to put pressure on the government, others say it was a smart more. The Secretary General also left before the second round of voting on a constituional referendum that would give the military junta further control over he government and its people in order to avoid the image that he was in any way supportive. Although Ban expressed his disappointment at not being able to address other problems, he did ackowledge the “new spirit of cooperation.” It is indeed a rare showing of what is now considered “cooperation,” with at least some humanitarian aid trickling in. In my own opinion, it is absolutely necessary to cater to the needs of people, especially in such a dire situation. The government has been a source of problems for years, but it's time for the international community to be committed to the "now" when the people of Myanmar continue to suffer.

Lenience in Cluster Bomb Treaty

Diplomats from 100 nations assembled in Dublin, Ireland to agree upon the prohibition of clustorbombs and agreed upon the decision to call for the complete destruction of stockpiles within the next eight years. Despite the large number of nations represented at the talks, the six greatest producers and users of cluster bombs were not present; the United States, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan.

Despite the widely understood inhumane consequences of the use of cluster bombs, the remain an integral weapon to the United States. During operations, bombs are released in groups that are supposed to detonate simultaneously over a large area—yet some of the bombs do not detonate and are left for innocent by-passers—sometimes farmers or even curious children that get near enough and cause them to detonate. While the US strongly opposed the treaty, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was strongly supportive and displayed Britain’s willingness to sacrifice its two cluster munitions.

The treaty further defined cluster bombs and set certain specifications on new designs that provided a certain amount of bomblets allotted and the minimum weight—this is in the hopes that new weaponry will detonate properly.

The ban is considerably lenient for political reason—while such treaties often require that signatories not cooperate with non-signatories, NATO felt that this would make peacekeeping operations too complicated. It is a beautiful example of realism at its best, it is evident that nations are really acting in their own interest and sometimes this does not take into consideration civilian lives. It is also an example of the short-comings of international order; some things just can't be done without the super powers.
[treaty text available here]

Candidates Agree On One Thing

All three potential candidates for the presidency have been able to agree on one thing—accusing the Sudanese government of “atrocities against civilians in Darfur.” Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator John McCain signed a statement by the Save Darfur Coalition that was showing the New York Times this week. The ad in the NTY recognizes the ongoing conflict in Sudan as”genocide” and calls for an end to the violence.

Yet the statement is currently merely symbolic, as none of the candidates are yet in the position to make a decision regarding any sort of intervention or aid. The purpose is arguably to pressure the Sudanese government of Omar Hassan el-Bashir to make a visible effort to end the conflict. Yet while much of the violence is generated and perpetuated by the government, mere pressure may make no difference at this point.

So who will take care of this violence? Mr. McCaine with his plan of staying in Iraq for the next 100 years may not have the resources with a perpetuated was to be probing in Africa. I think we can have some hope for Obama, who is hoping to end the disastrous war in Iraq and then put in some time to save Darfur. But the question is exactly why Iraq was put higher on the priority list than Sudan in the first place.

Taiwan and China Agree to Meetings

After almost sixty years, China is still unable to let go of Taiwan despite overwhelming international recognition of Taiwan’s sovereignty. Yet after ongoing clashes, the Chinese government has now opened up talks with Taiwan. Although dialogue is no yet set, the Chinese President Hu Jintao has expressed his interest in holding talks “as early as possible,” a sign that China and Taiwan could at least have a healthier relationship. Many feel that these talks should address the topic of commute between Taiwan and China, in light of current restrictions on travel that require office approval for traveling to Taiwan from China.

In a gesture of good will, President Hu offered Tawian ruling Kuamintang Party Chairan Wu Poh-hsiung the opportunity to attend the upcoming Beijing Olympics, which Wu accepted. This controversial offer now involves a Taiwanese government official attending an event that caused protests around the world in relation to China’s controversial treatment of Taiwan.

The meeting between Hu and Wu comes soon after the May 20th inauguration of Ma Yin-jeou as Taiwan’s new president, who is being more cautious about perusing independence than the previous president, Chen Shui-bian. While he does not seek complete independence, he is pushing for closer economic ties—particularly smart in a time where China’s economy is booming and there is more to be gained than lost.

IAEA/Security Council Still Suspicious of Iran

Despite current charges of non-cooperation, Iran was originally cooperative with the IAEA and weapons inspectors, even past the requirements of the non-proliferation treaty in allowing inspectors to go to military sites and take snap inspections. It is not as though Iran has completely eliminated access to its facilities, but while it allowed short-notice intrusive inspections of the facilities prior to 2006 (which is not required under the NPT) after being reported to the Security Council in 2006 it only cooperates in regards to its obligations.

Yet after harsh sanctions imposed by the Security Council, Iran has less incentive to allow inspectors into the country. "We recommend them not to clandestinely keep passing Iran's nuclear dossier between the IAEA and 5-plus-1 group. This parliament won't allow such deception," said Ali Larjiani, chief Iran negotiator that was recently appointed to be parliament speaker. The 5-plus-1 group is a reference to the Security Council plus Germany, which has taken upon itself the task of punishing Iran from noncompliance. The Security Council generally creates resolutions that can be implemented and deals with issues of global security and pressing regional concerns. Iran, however, feels that the secret information passed between the IAEA and the Security Council lacks substance and that the conjoining of the two organizations is an unfair treatment of Iran.

Iran has been engaged in enriching uranium, a process that can either be used for electricity and general energy or for the production of nuclear weapons. While the international community continues to inspect and research into the possibility of nuclear weapons in Iran, the nation is becoming more hostile to foreign intrusion.


The threat of sanctions in 2008

Sectarian Rivalry in Iraqi Government

While Sunni Muslims previously dominated the government in Iraq in governing over a largely Shiite population, the government is now overwhelmingly Shiite due to the intervention the United States. While the government is perhaps more representative than it was previously, the Shiite government, under the leadership of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki is now refusing to give the Sunni political bloc any of the requested positions in cabinet.

This new polar shift in governing has put the Shiite majority, which was suppressed under the rule of Saddam Hussein, in a very powerful position. A position that the Sunni party Tawafiq claims is now responsible for the killing of thousands of Sunnis in Baghdad.

With the recent refusal of political seats, the Sunni party is now in limbo and reconsidering negotiations, with a possibility of continuing the yearlong boycott. As in any democracy, it can be very useful to have a coalition government of sorts, especially when governing over a people that have previously been susceptible to sectarian violence. While we have previously seen an unfairly Sunni dominated government, the current government is overwhelmingly Shiite and seemingly unwilling to offer seats to a Sunni party. While on governmental problem has been solved, it has created another because of a backlash of historical persecution. The "exportation" of democracy has not been as successful as it would seem. You cannot simply remove a traditionally ruling group from government without ensuring their own representation.

Former Spokesman Accuses Admin of Propaganda

“One of these days, he and I are going to be rocking in chairs in Texas talking about the good old days of his time as the press secretary. And I can assure you, I will feel the same way then that I feel now, that I can say to Scott, job well done.” President Bush

An invitation to the Bush farm is the kindest reward a president can offer a past employee. But this chair-rocking can now be converted into bitter memories, as the very same individual that comment was directed at has decided to reveal his experiences with the government.

Once a spokesman for the Bush administration, Scott McClellan is now dishing out the behind the scenes facts on government propaganda during times of mobilizing the American people for war. In his 341 page book, soon to be released, McClellan claims he will reveal inside details on the inner workings of the government, including foul-play in the case of CIA agent Valerie Plame and her identity leakage to the media.

Critics are beginning to attack the book and it’s credibility before it has been published; CNN contributer Frances Townsend first critized McClellan for not being more vocal about his opinions on policies while working for the administration. He also said the book sounded like it was written by a “left-wing blogger” rather than a former colleague—ouch, as a blogger, I’m hurt. But anything left-wing would be criticized simply because the current administration is right-wing. And any government official would dismiss the book as incredible. It is therefore up to political analysts, and ultimately the readers, to distinguish between truth and lies.
It is a recurring theme that many individuals on the political scene are discrediting McClellan before critiquing the information, just this should make the public suspicious--if politicians are unwilling to address the information provided McClellan and more willing to tear him up, we should be worried.

Missing the Point Again

While Hillary has mistakenly claimed she dodged sniper bullets during a visit to a turbulent part of Europe, Obama claimed that his uncle (veteran of World War II) had liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp during service. What Obama did indeed mean was that his great uncle liberated concentration camps at Buchenwald, as it was the Soviets that liberated Auschwitz in 1945, not the Americans. This was, however, mentioned in the context of aiding veterans. Apparently this mistake is enough to solicit the following comment from Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant; Obama’s comments "raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief." Personally, I see no “judgment” problems, but rather a case of severe pressure on a democratic nominee at the end of a bitter democratic battle—pressure, which the McCain campaign has not needed to withstand.

Flukes aside, Obama meant to address the lack of proper care for veterans, particularly in reference to his great uncle who suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome upon returning from service after World War II. Memorial Day became an opportunity for Obama to share his family’s service in the American military, even if this did mistake one concentration camp for another—point one: the veterans need to be better taken care of, point two: there is a history of honorable service.

American Hegemony Under Amnesty Criticism

In a 300-page critic of human rights violations across the globe (view full report here), the United States gained considerable space, specifically in regards to the detention of suspected terrorists. In a time when the US attempts to assert its hegemony, Amnesty International argues that it is not setting an appropriate example—the indefinite detention of detainees, the use of torture, and the inhumane living conditions in Guantanamo gained the US a lot of attention this year. The report also took note of the abnormally high civilian deaths in both Iraq and Afghanistan and the high level of displacement as a result of the ongoing conflicts. While the US has argued it would close Guantanamo, the findings of Amnesty show that the US has not yet responded to international criticism in regards to human rights abuses, and while the US continues to advocate human rights and liberty abroad, it is unable to set an example domestically.

Along with the US, China and Russia also received strong criticism. China was criticized for media censorship and specifically it’s inappropriate dealings and repression of the Tibetan population that is protesting for its own independence. Additionally, in 2007 a large number of human rights activists were either imprisoned or harassed in China. Russia’s repression of it’s own political dissenters was not overlooked either as Amnesty commented on the regime’s intolerance and dubbing of dissenters as “unpatriotic.”

Overall statistics showed that 81 countries subjected prisoners to torture, 54 countries practiced unfair trials, and 77 countries did not allow proper freedom of expression.

Sarcotoxication Makes the French Swoon

“I'm very worried. Sunday, at the Louvre, I asked a guard where to find the room of Egyptian Sarkozycophages.”

As the French continue to document every fluctuation of his private and public life, an unhealthy obsession with the current French President Nicolas Sarkozy has developed. The condition has been dubbed “obsessive Sarkosis” by practicing psychiatrist Serge Hefez after so many of his patients spoke of Sarkozy during consultations. It is a manifestation of a citizen’s own persona, a reflection of the individual because Sarkozy represents things that many people identify with—narcissism, self-obsession, and a love for the finer things in life.

Yet these are negative enough to deflect the love of his citizens. While the French were initially infatuated with the stylish Sarkozy when he took office, his recent marriage to model/pop star Carla has made the French feel abandoned, neglected. Carla herself is a mirror image of her husband—self-obsessed and chic. The passion that once made him loved has now made him look informal, flaky and in love with a woman other than the general French public. The president is now resorting to toning down the blingage and appearing more formally and less frequently. Translated into politics, the revelation of the president’s private life as he cavorts around the French countryside with his new love is causing a distrust of the head politician and brings up questions of professionalism as the very same person that is featured on the front page of newspapers is also featured in the tabloids.

Everyone's Talkin About It

"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."

Clinton’s refusal to drop out of the race is now bordering on embarrassment. Her excuse? "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California." … Is she equating this fate with that of Obama? Some commentators have labeled the assassination comment as “tasteless” and “ghoulish,” but Clinton aides claim that the point was still legitimate in referring to the lengths of past campaigns and criticized the New York Times article on Saturday “She Said WHAT?” for blowing the comment out of proportion. Clinton also added that her husband did not win the nomination until mid-June. But still, come on now, did she really have to refer to an assassination to make a point? It's the end of the line, she put a good fight, but Obama's chance at winning the race against McCain is being damaged by another Democrat--not a Republican.

Although polls taken of white voters and their preference between Obama or Clinton v. McCain showed that Obama lagged behind Clinton, overall voting polls showed that Obama would tie with McCain. In terms of wrapping up the democratic nomination, Obama currently has 1,974 super-delegates and pledged delegates to Clinton’s 1,799 with a goal of 2,026 to win the nomination. That said, Obama’s chief strategist has predicted that Obama will be nominated as the democratic presidential contestant by the first week of June.

Gujjar Protest for Lower Caste

The caste system of India orders individuals according to social class—and sometimes moving down on the ladder is more beneficial than moving up. For the nomadic shepherds (the Gujjar), being classified lower on the list by the government means additional benefits, yet the government is stalling on classifying this group of people as a lower-caste group, causing riots to break out in Rajasthan. As a result, tourists in the city of Jaipur and Agra are trapped because of blocked roads as part of the protests. Access to the city is also being curbed, as protesters have sabotaged the railroad tracks.

The Gujjar-led protests began a year ago and resulted in the deaths of 20 individuals during the first round of demonstrations. In the past 48 hours an addition 20 individuals have been killed as police have fired into protesting crowds. The protests reveal serious political issues; the refusal of the government to address the caste system and the inability of the government to devise a system in which groups do not strive to be of the lower-caste, but to improve their status. While the world swears that India's economy is booming, no one can overlook the reality that a vast portion of the population is not benefitting from the generation of wealth. Not everyone in India is dancing in Bollywood.

McCain Accuses Obama of Diplomacy...An Insult?

Senator McCain’s policy of no-negotiation, no-communication with Iran is contrasted with Senator Obama’s affinity towards negotiation and communication. McCain has therefore blasted Obama for his willingness to hold talks with Iran, saying, “Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment” and calling his stance on diplomatic communication “serious deficiencies for an American president to posses.”

In contrast, Obama has likened his will to communicate with Iran to Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy’s move to communicate with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and at the same time expressed his opinion that Iran does not currently pose as big of a threat as the Soviet Union did during that period of time. Obama also warned that the Bush-McCain war policy in Iraq would eventually make Iran stronger, not weaker. Earlier, McCain had accused Obama of supporting unconditional talks with Hamas, while Obama says he would be open towards communication if Hamas stops calling for Israel’s destruction.

In terms of foreign policy, the American population will likely have to choose between a candidate that is willing to diplomatically engage in solving conflict through communication, and one that does not believe in diplomacy as a way of solving conflict. The American public will essentially have to decide whether they want a continuation of the Bush administration or a new administration that has the potential to resolve foreign problems comprehensively.

Venezuela Calls U.S. Mishap a “Provocation”

On a counter-narcotics mission, the Navy S-3 Viking was detected by the Venezuelan crossing into Venezuelan airspace. The United States has dismissed this as a mere accident due to “intermittent navigational problems” during a training mission and claimed that there were alleged communication problems during the radio conversation between the crew and Venezuelan officials. The Venezuelan government is inclined to suspect more political reasons and view the incident as a provocation.

Tensions between Venezuela and the United states are long standing and intensifying as only days ago Foreign Minister Maduro accused Colombian troops of crossing the border into Venezuela on Friday until they were asked to leave by Venezuelan troops—the incident occurred again on Monday. Despite claims by the government that the mishap was a result of a navigational error, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister Maduro is calling for a talk with US Ambassador Patrick Duddy in which they will “ask for an explanations,” on more serious terms.

Gay Marriage Legalized-Dissenters Plot and Plan

Straying from its reputation of being cautious and conservative, the predominantly Republican court did something slightly out of character and made history. The California Supreme Court declared any laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation equal to discrimination based on race or gender.

But the issue has a chance of being overturned in a predicted November ballot that would allow voting for amending the state Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriages, and thus annul the court’s decision. It took mere minutes after the decision for the campaigners to become vocal about the November ballot. But even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did not denounce the court ruling, he even went as far as saying he “will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn” the ruling, despite the fact that he had earlier vetoed two bills that would legalize gay marriage.

The question is now whether California voters are willing to vote for such an amendment to the Constitution—in 2000 61% of voters supported Proposition 22, in which California only recognized marriage between a man and a woman. Another issue that is raised is the question of a family and a gay couple’s right to “enjoy dignity equal to that of opposite-sex couples” as Chief Justice Ronald M. George stated and this court ruling may provide precedent for such a plea.

Loses Making Republicans Desperate

A congressional contest in Missisipi resulted in a loss for the Republicans and sent then on a new route to take distance from the current president. The winner, Travis Childers a conservative Democrat had earlier been linked to an Obama add, and Republicans are now desperate to try to link their own congressional candidates to John McCain rather than President Bush. The Republicans currently have much at risk—as much as 20 seats in the House and six in the Senate. While many say that Missisipi was running critiques of Obama, the Republicans are trying to blame the win on an unfair link of the conservative Democrats to Obama as well as a high turn-out in African American votes.

With three consecutive Republican losses, Republicans are foreshadowing that this will hurt McCain’s chances in the upcoming election. Advisors of McCain are now saying that he will attempt to distinguish himself from both the President and the Congress in which he has served since 1983. It is likely that he will instead focus on criticizing the very same Congress and its excessive spending and resort to diverting the attention to environmental solutions.

Kenyan Farmers Return With Minimal Governmental Aid

The Kenyan government is urging hundreds of thousands of farmers to return to their land—from which militias initially drove them. But now there are other worries; all their belongings are gone and the government has left them with only a few blankets, temporary armed escorts, and seeds—but no fertilizer, which has recently tripled in price. The global food crisis has resulted in a 30 percent increase in the cost of corn, and with the high cost of fertilizer, farmers are, on average, only able to use approximately half of the land. In total, at least a third of Kenya’s available farmland remains unused.

There is a conflicting concept in the idea of farmers returning—on the one hand, the community understands that the reconciliation process will take longer than expected, on the other, it is necessary to get these farmers back onto their farms in order to have food for the coming year. In addition, it is now late in the season to plant many of the popular crops, and even so, many have no homes to return to, as they were burned down by the militia and hostile neighbors. Furthermore, those returning with some government aid are being perceived as favored by the government, yet another reason for the attackers to incite more hostility. Despite returning to their homelands and familiar neighborhoods, many farmers are not being greeted as neighbors, but rather, as ethnic rivals.

Pakistan: Instability May Lead to Power Seizure

Barely three months after rival factions formed a coalition to oust President Pervez Musharraf from office, the Pakistan Muslim League-N party has left the cabinet and all federal posts due to disputes over the 60 judges who were fired under the military rule of Musharraf in November. The leader of League-N, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, has declared that his party will stay in Parliament because they “do not want to destabilize the democratic process” despite their protests. Sharif’s party has strong popular support, as many of the Pakistani people have demonstrated their wish for the re-reinstatement of the judges through public protests.

Yet many view this judicial question as rather trivial, given the other political battles that the government is fighting—including battling extremists and boosting the declining economy. Yet the split has helped to outline the corruption of state officials—while some are calling for the restoration of the original judicial line-up, those who support Musharraf are favoring the new judge line-up. And the political break-down is possibly giving leeway for the unpopular president to reassert his power, as he did in November when a court threatened his rule in a case that was to decide the legality of his presidency.

Millions Suffer Under Global Food Crisis

Approximately 100 million people are currently afflicted by the heightening food prices—even those that would have gotten by the crisis six months ago, are now in fear of starvation. The prices are now at their highest levels since 1945 and are causing turmoil throughout the world—mass starvation and rioting are causing global instability. As it stands, at least 25,000 people die per day from hunger, and as prices for basic foods, such as rice, wheat, and corn continue to increase, there seems to be no end in sight.

The increase is being caused by the a combination of factors; an increase in fuel prices, droughts in main food-producing countries, increasing dependency on China and India as food sources (among other things) and the use of some crops to produce biofuels.

As an effort to reach out to developing countries, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has pledged $60 million to the World Food Program in the form of emergency aid. The United States, which accounts for half of the world’s food donations, has promised $200 million. At the moment, $755 million is needed to meet the needs of the WFP. Despite the large amount of foreign aid needed, it remains to be seen how a sustainable difference can be made.

Serbs Choose the West

The idea of “past versus future” has resonated amongst the Serbs, as they recently chose President Boris Tadic’s pro-Western party in parliamentary elections—indicating a wish to move forward, rather than backward. Even nationalistic Serbs that many expected to vote for Kostunica’s radical party, mainly in favor of looking towards Russia as an ally, voted in favor of a pro-western party in order to increase connections with the European Union. Although there is still a chance that the nationalists (at 28% of votes) could cooperate in a coalition with Kostunica’s Democratic Party (at 11%) to form a majority, it is more likely that Tadic’s Western party (39%) will create a minority administration or a coalition with other minor parties.

Since Tadic came into presidential office in January, he has worked with the EU to reduce restrictions on Serbs wishing to travel to EU countries. But the oppositional Kostunica party has labeled Tadic a “traitor” in not holding on to Kosovo more tightly—a condition that Tadic does not feel is worth forfeiting closer ties with the EU. Yet in reference to keeping Kosovo as part of Serbia, Tadic maintains “We will continue to fight that diplomatically.”

Elections in the Midst of a Humanitarian Crisis

An estimated 1.5 million victims of the May 3rd cyclone in Myanmar are being denied relief by the government, which has up till recently been denying any foreign in combating a catastrophe that the government clearly has no resources, or will, to resolve. The problem begins with recognition of the gravity of the situation; the UN is estimating that deaths could range from 64,000 to 220,000, while state-run Myanmar TV is claiming that approximately 28,500 individuals had died and that 33,400 were missing. And while countries and non-state organizations are offering aid, the government is barely letting any of the donations reach the victims of the storm.

While Myanmar is letting humanitarian aid trickle in, the government’s focuses are elsewhere—on a constitutional referendum that would allow the reigning government to lengthen its rule. But many Myanmar residents are saying that the military junta is using propaganda to coax its citizens to vote. Elections are primarily being held in non-affected areas of Myanmar, and refugees from the storm are even being evacuated from shelter areas such as schools in order to use them as polling places.

So what exactly does this important referendum entail? Although it stipulates that it would allow for mulitparty elections and civilian-led government, the military would gain 25 percent of the parliamentary seats, control of vital governmental ministries and the ability to seize control in case of “emergency” situations…such as a massive storm claiming the lives of thousands of its citizens? Hopefully so.

Flaws or Wiseness in European Security?

As German Prime-Minister Angela Merkel presents her proposal for a national security doctrine, the rest of Europe, even her very own coalition partners, are rather reluctant. The fear is that the chancellery would come to resemble the White House: where national security overrides and undermines institutions and individual rights.

Simultaneously, the European Union is whipping out its old 2003 collective security doctrine for some revamping. While the EU was said to be created after the Second World War to prevent European states from fighting each other, the idea of collective security was put on the sidelines during the Cold War, in which the United States dominated the security scene. With that historical background, the EU is trying to distinguish itself from the US, which uses its military might as a representation for power status. Instead, the EU is satisfied with providing money to under-poverished nations, providing soldiers to protect refugees, and overseeing elections.

While the EU attempts to set itself apart from the US, the US is pressing Europe to become ‘stronger.’ In light of the lengthening endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US is in need of a stronger network of nations in Europe to compensate for the reconstruction that is still necessary in those regions.

East v. West: Serbia's Radical Divide

"They are asking us to give up Kosovo. They are asking us to give up what we are. They say it is good for Serbia, but it is a lie."
-Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica

Serbian voters are facing a tough decision in the upcoming presidential elections—the theme: the west versus the east. While Prime Minister Kostunica was the leader in overthrowing the infamous Slobodan Milosovec in 2000, his national rhetoric is now becoming edgier, forcing Serbs to choose between Kostunica, with his pro-east alliances and isolation from the west, and current President Boris Tadic’s wish to have friendly relations with the west and the EU.

Running off the idea of retaining Kosovo within the Serbian state, Kostunica is emphasizing nationalism and opposing the integration of Serbia into the European Union if Kosovo is allowed to legally secede. Using this tactic, Kostunica is appealing to those with strong feelings for the Kosovo, which has historical and emotional value for many in the country. But many feel this strong affinity towards Kosovo could result in isolation and a regression of Serbia into the past in a time where many nations recognize the sovereignty of Kosovo. The Liberal Serbs now fear a coalition developing between Kostunica’s party and the far-right Radical Party—whose founder is presently facing trail in The Hague for war crimes.

Civil-Disobedience in Beirut

Hezbollah has changed its role from purely political in combating Israel occupation, to rather social in arguing for the rights of workers in Beirut. Despite an increase by the Lebanese Cabinet from $200 to $330 a month, workers are still unhappy with the surge in light of the rising food prices. Through an alliance between Labor union members and anti-government Hezbollah supporters, all activity in Beirut was dedicated to avoiding the chaos in the streets. After rising violence, the General Labor Confederation managed to call off and reschedule the strike.

Relating Hezbollah supporters to gangs, Sheikh Mohammed Rashid Qabbani, Lebanon’s highest Sunni spiritual authority said the following “"This strike is turning into a [civil] disobedience and an invasion to the streets of Beirut, carried out by militant gangs.” Lebanon has faced enduring struggles between the Shiite and Sunni factions, manifested in sectarian violence that has now taken on a political undertone.

The country is currently in political limbo after Lebanese President Emil Lahoud resigned from his position without a successor. Instead, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has been leading the country. With the backing of the US, the Prime Minister sets the scene for hostility between the Iran and Syria backed Hezbollah political organization, which is currently manifesting itself in the current wage protests.

Putin Scratches Medvedev’s Back, Medvedev Scratches His.

The annual May 9th Russian military parade held particular symbolic weight this year as it seemed to point to Putin’s revival of the Russian Armed Forces and an increase in general Russian nationalism from his eight years in office as president. This year, however, it was Dmitry Medvedev who took over the office of President, as Putin switched roles to become Prime Minister. While initially Putin intiatilly supported Medvedev while he served as Deputy Prime Minister (not to mention that he served as Putin’s Chief of Staff), Medvedev in turn nominated Putin as Prime Minister.

The Red Square was flooded with people and colors and heavy armor and missiles paraded through the streets of Moscow at a cost that was estimated by the Moscow daily Moskovsi Komsomolets to be able to pay for 25 new nursery schools. Yet despite the fact that the parade was an opportunity to show the presence of the new president, it was Putin who dominated camera time—perhaps a habit from the past three years, or maybe a tribute to the belief that Putin will continue to be the driving force behind government policy.

With over 70%, Medvedev won a clear majority and was inaugurated on Wednesday, but outside monitors have criticized the election as unfair, criticizing the Kremlin of intimidating any opposition. But despite the fact that presidential power in Russia has expanded drastically in recent years under Putin, the new Prime Minister Putin himself recently said, “The Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, is the highest executive authority in the country.” While there may be a new leader, the power shifts with the individual, not with the office.

Malaysia Attempts to Codify Gender Discrimination

Women traveling from Malaysia must now carry documents, approved by their parents or employers, stipulating reasons for travel. In response to the overseas arrest of several women over the years for drug smuggling, the Malaysian government has crafted a rule that applies specifically to women.

This new proposal seems to have taken its inspiration from statistics that say 90% of the 119 Malaysians in prisons worldwide were incarcerated for drug-related crimes. Under the pretext of attending conferences or studying abroad, some women have taken to the drug trade as a source of income. In response, this form of ‘Big Brother’ government oversight will make sure that the government knows where and why females are leaving the country.

The proposal seems to lack criticism or measures for men, who are also susceptible to being duped. Instead, the proposal is being questioned as being indicative of a mistrust of women in making their own decisions. Council Deputy President Farideh Khalid of the National Council for Women’s Organizations was quoted as saying “It is totally ridiculous and it’s a totally regressive proposal with regards to women’s right to movement.”

The government is defending the legislation by calling it an anti-crime measure that starts in the home-land and serves of protect women, but many feel that this form of documentation and approval for adult women will simply be an infringement of rights and not an effective measure against over-seas drug crime.

Cracking Crack Cocaine Laws

Under a new law that amends the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, crack cocaine criminals are to get more lenient sentences. After over twenty years of criticism, the law, which has largely hurt African Americans, is to decrease the disparity between crack cocaine sentencing and powder cocaine sentencing from a 100:1 ratio to a 20:1 ratio. Approximately 20,000 crack convicts nationwide are to be affected by the new change, but not all petitioners have been granted legal council.

While the Central District of California is making sure each individual affected by the change in law knows about their rights, other districts are less generous in affording legal council. District Judges, who are the only authority for granting a defense attorney to convicts, are saying ‘no’ to some or all of their petitioners. They feel that a retrial or reconsideration of the case is so straightforward that legal council for the defense is not required. Instead, convicts with minimal education are left to argue their own cases against prosecution attorney with long and meticulous briefs. While the government automatically has the right to counsel, some convicts are being denied their own right to defenders in cases that can take years off their sentences.

Opposition to the new decrease in sentences for crack cocaine convicts is coming from the Bush Administration, which claims that the law will allow for “violent criminals” to escape onto the streets, while in reality, the law first allows for retrial and new sentencing at the discretion of certified judges—which in most cases can merely shorten, not eliminate sentencing. This comment can indicate nothing other than distrust of the judicial system. These "violent criminals" are indeed not violent at all, they are just victims of a law that has had unfair consequences, a law which many legal experts have been calling racist for years.

Iran Warns Population Against Barbies

In an attempt to curb what is considered a western cultural influence, Prosecutor General Ghorban Ali Dori Najafabadi strongly criticized the Barbie as an immoral western influence on the minds of Iranian children. Although not outlawed, the government is strongly urging Iranians not to invest in the toy. The initial problems with the mini-skirt sporting Barbie began in 2002, when Iran created a new version of Barbie and Ken; Sara and Dara, wearing modest clothing and promoting family ideas. But the new and improved Iranian version has been unable to curb the influx of the original Barbie.

For similar reasons, Saudi Arabia banned the sale of Barbies in the kingdom in 2003. For other Middle Eastern countries, the “Fulla” was crafted as an alternative, instead wearing culturally acceptable clothing and advising culturally acceptable morals specific to the countries it was sold in.

The Barbie, which in past years (even in the United States) has been seen as an influential toy on the development of young girl’s perceptions of the perfect individual as tall, skinny, and pretty, has in Iran become a symbol of Western influence. As Najafabadi explains "Undoubtedly, the personality and identity of the new generation and our children, as a result of unrestricted importation of toys, has been put at risk and caused irreparable damages," as the toy, among others, brings Western culture to a country which struggles to hold on to its own cultural and religious identity during a period of globalization.

Kenyan Leaders Oversimplify Displacement

“We have decided as a government that people should go back where they were evicted from.”

President Mwai Kibaki has apparently “decided” that Kenyans displaced as a result of December’s election mayhem should return to their homes. Yet realizing this statement is for many a matter of life or death. Kenya’s political turbulence in the last few months have given rise to ethnic conflicts similar to those in other African countries and at a time when two estranged political leaders of different tribes are forced to work together, their people are less willing to force friendships.

The rival leaders have agreed to share power: with Odinga taking the new post of Prime Minister and Mwai Kibaki taking the role of president. Yet despite this deal, there are still remaining power struggles, including the question of how to divide Cabinet positions between the two parties. While they peripherally represent collaboration in politics, the two individuals are continuing to fuel ethnic conflicts by being unable to solve them.

Within the last four months, Kenya has lost approximately $1 billion because of the continued violence, largely due to the severe lack of tourism. At present, 157,000 Kenyans remain displaced as a result of the violence; many refuse to return to their homes for fear of continued ethnic violence, others because of the memories of death and dying that the survivors witnessed. In a place where even the police are threatened, peace and calm seem, at best, at a distance.

"It is better that I become a beggar in Nairobi than to go back to my farm and see the people who killed my children.” -Hblitzarun Mwangi, 52, displaced Kenyan

Hmmm "Turkishness" or the "Turkish Nation"? Same Concept

While Turkey gets more creative with its legislation, the European Union is finding new creative ways to exclude Turkey from membership.

With its confusing location, this progressive state finds itself torn between Middle Eastern culture and European influence. Despite desperate attempts to gain membership into the EU, Turkey is falling short with legislation that the EU feels limits free speech—an integral part of democracy. Article 301 of Turkey’s penal code outlaws insults on “Turkishness.” Last Friday, Turkeys Parliamentary justice panel began debating a proposal by the government to soften, although not completely remove, the wording of the controversial article. As it stands, citizens can be prosecuted for saying anything that would be deemed disparaging towards Turkishness. Although the proposal would change the wording to “Turkish nation,” and would require that the justice minister decide punishment, it does not change the nature of the article. While Turkey claims that other European nations have similar legislation, in Turkey, many individuals and non-judicial institutions are taking up the challenge of punishing those they deem as insulting toward their nation.

In a time where the legitimacy of a democracy can either be undermined or reinforced by public opinion, Turkey is excluding itself from the fray by punishing dissenters through legislation. This legistlaiton is deemed crucial by the government at a time when Kurdish resistance is at its peak and unity of Turkey is seen as important to its nationhood. Yet it becomes hard to believe that the legislation is well-intentioned and aimed at the prevention of hate-speech when even bands and their non-political messages are attacked. In 2007, a punk rock band was prosecuted for criticizing a nation-wide high-school exam (a type of SAT) through their song. The band was acquitted but their eligibility for prosecution can indicate nothing other than a sanction of the freedom of speech.

While the EU continually looks for reason to exclude Turkey from membership, Turkey is victimizing itself by failing to curb legislation that is deemed contrary to the idea of democracy and freedom of speech.

Chinese Protest the Protests

As people around the world are uniting and protesting the bearing of the Olympic torch through their respective homelands, China is protesting its reception in certain countries. In France, hostile protests led to the torch taking a shorter route than originally scheduled—in response, thousands of Chinese citizens have mobilized outside of the French supermarket chain, Carrefour, in several cities.

The protesters were armed with images of Mao Zedong and Chinese flags, and even some pictures of Jin Jang, a rather unknown fencing athlete who clung to the torch as he ran through Paris earlier in April, despite determined interference from a Tibet supporter.

While the world protests China’s violation of human rights, the Chinese themselves are retaliating with a protest that advocates a united China, in which Tibet forms a legal part. Chinese media has taken advantage of this countrywide protest to make an international showing of its own citizens’ support for the government in relations to its dealings with Tibet. While the international community continues to support Tibet in its independence movement, segments of the Chinese population are rallying to display their own support for issue that (to them) should be considered a domestic, as opposed to international. While protests continue as the torch makes its way through the world, it is evident that this has become a China vs. the Rest ordeal.

So what is the touchiest change a Tibetan must make according to the Chinese government? Sacrificing the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader for the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama. Assimilation therefore requires more than simply a central political belief, but also a unified religious belief. To that end, the Dalai Lama is currently in exile. Any dissent by Tibetans has been met with harsh government actions—which have been seen as violations of international law. While Chinese protesters assert their right to host the Olympics, they are simultaneously endorsing their government's clear violations of international. If it is a question of a unified China through violent means, then the end certainly doesn't justify the means.

Hillary's Optimistic America vs Obama's Bitter America. Reality?

        As strategic mudslinging continues, candidates are losing the battle to keep their noble image. While Hillary Clinton laughs to keep from crying, Barack Obama attempts at redeeming himself from a flawed image created by a rabid pastor are being undermined by his most recent speech, in which he called blue-collared workers "bitter." The statement was originally made at a meeting with private donors on April 6th in San Francisco as an explanation as to why American workers in Pennsylvania are hesitant to back his campaign, which he reiterated again at a public speech in Indiana only days later when asked a question regarding his statement in San Francisco. In his speech he stated "People are fed up, they're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter and they want to see a change in Washington and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America."

      As the media cracks down on Obama's word-choice in describing the American people, it is becoming evident that this candidate-shredding is taking on a more specific form. While Clinton has stretched the truth about her Bosnia trip, she seems to be quick to turn the tide on Obama as he describes Americans in a truthful, although not positive, way. At a recent speech in response to Obama, Clinton emphasized her humble beginnings--or at least those of her grandfather--as a worker at a lace mill in Pennsylvania. She has also managed to such up to the population by calling Americans "optimistic," as she attempts to contrast what she sees as a condescending Obama with an angelic opposition. This Chicago-born, Yale-trained lawyer doesn't quite fit into the "small town" identity she attempts to give off. Perhaps the reality is that none of the presidential candidates fit into the appealing profiles of humble, average, blue-collar, or small-town individuals.

      John McCain, meanwhile, is laying low as he attempts to scrap up evidence for the forth-coming presidential election, while allowing the democrats to do the damage. While his representative has called Obama "out of trust" with the American population, this military man, with endless vocabulary regarding lengthening the Iraqi liberation war, seems out of touch with the war-fatigued nation.

     Despite the irritation over Obama's word-choice, there is an underlying message--one that goes beyond simply labeling people, but that analyzes why this group of Pennsylvanian people (and likely workers from other states) are not backing Obama's campaign along with its promises. Obama claims that the explanation as to why workers are bitter is the deterioration of the American economy, the loss of health care and pensions, the loss of jobs (often due to outsourcing) and lack of resolution by the past three administrations. The fact is that election after election, administration after administration, little to no change is being made. Instead of airing this criticism of prior administrations and the promise of the Obama campaign, the media has sought to highlight the single word: "bitter." Repeatedly.