America's refugee crisis

A lot has been coming up in the news lately regarding the influx of unaccompanied immigrant children to the United States, and the amount of ignorance and racism surrounding the issue is astounding. People have taken so much time decrying the situation, they make no attempt to go beyond the surface and look at the issues surrounding it. And that's what I hope to do here.

Why are they fleeing? [a.k.a. "Wah wah, they're just coming here because Obama told them they'd have a better life"]
There are countless reasons why someone would flee a violent, unstable country and risk the dangers to get somewhere that they believe would be safe. It has been happening for centuries; this isn't exactly a new phenomenon on the global scale.

In this instance, about a quarter of the children this year are from Honduras, a notoriously violent and unstable country. One child, age 11, describes a community where murders (especially of people he knows) happen on a regular basis, one girl close to his age brutally killed over $5. As Sonia Nazario, writing for the New York Times, says, this "is not an immigration crisis. It is a refugee crisis."

UNHCR, in a report on this crisis, spoke to a number of children fleeing their home countries. They quote a 14-year-old girl from El Salvador, who says:

There are problems in my country. The biggest problem is the gangs. They go into the school and take girls out and kill them . . . I used to see reports on the TV every day about girls being buried in their uniforms with their backpacks and notebooks. I had to go very far to go to school, and I had to walk by myself. There was nowhere else I could go where it would be safer. I lived in a village, and it was even worse in cities.

 The refugee organization also notes that America is not the only country affected by this. According to this same report, Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, Belize, and Nicaragua have reported a 432% increase in the number of asylum applications since 2009 from citizens of Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala (which is where the majority asylum applicants in the US originate as well).

So yes, I suppose one can argue that they are coming here for a better life. For them, however, a better life is simply one where they do not have to live in fear every day of being exploited or murdered by vicious criminals operating with impunity.

Why aren't we turning these kids away or deporting them immediately? [a.k.a. "I am a horrible person"]
Because they are refugees applying for asylum, and there are very strict laws governing that. First off, to repatriate a refugee is a violation of the principle of non-refoulement (enshrined in international law), which forbids returning a refugee to a place where they face threats to their lives or freedoms. Some may claim that these kids may not fit the definition of a true refugee, which is an acceptable argument. However, there must first be an assessment to determine one's claim for asylum. To return someone to their home country without first making such an assessment is still a violation of that principle.

You may be asking, what makes these kids true refugees? According to UNHCR:

A refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries.

 As has been shown above, these children have fled due to the excessive violence in their home countries and the well-founded fear of becoming victims of this violence. Obviously, an individual assessment must be done to determine if this fear is well-founded and if they meet the other requirements for declaring someone a refugee (which in the US system is very strict), but this process takes time, and we need to house these applicants somewhere in the meantime.

In the New York metropolitan area, asylum seekers are detained in the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility in Elizabeth, NJ, where they await their immigration hearings. Occasionally asylum seekers are released into the custody of family members or legal representatives who agree to take responsibility of the person until a final determination is made, which is exactly what the proposal for these children is.

[A sidenote about the Elizabeth Detention Facility and others: the Elizabeth center, while ostensibly controlled by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is in reality owned and operated by Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), a for-profit prison management company, part of the prison-industrial complex. In other locations, asylum seekers are detained in "regular" prisons, alongside actual convicted criminals. This means the United States is treating asylum seekers, who are fleeing persecution in their home countries, like criminals when they have for the most part done nothing wrong except enter the country and SURRENDER THEMSELVES IMMEDIATELY, which is all that is necessary for their cases to begin. Yes, some may enter through illegal means, but if you were someone fleeing persecution and possible death in your home country, wouldn't you use any means necessary to get to a safe location?]

Returning to an earlier point, discussing the US's obligations under international law, I know there are many voices in the United States that say that we should not be beholden to what other countries say, as it degrades our sovereignty. First, the US is not beholden to any international law unless it subscribes to that law. In this instance, the US is a signatory to the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, which means that it must conform with those standards. Furthermore, as Joan Fitzpatrick, a professor of law at the University of Washington, explains, the Refugee Act of 1980 (adopted by the Senate unanimously) codifies the text of the Protocol into US law.

Second, the United States is part of the global community, and one part of that is participating in international law. If we don't want to participate and prefer to return to pre-World War American isolationism, then in addition to withdrawing international law, we should not participate in anything internationally. This means withdrawing from our various military engagements, including dismantling our bases around the world, and withdrawing from our multitude of political and military alliances with a vast number of countries. If this sounds ridiculous, that is because it is. In the 21st century, it is nearly impossible to withdraw from the global community, even in a political sense. If we cannot withdraw, then we must learn how to operate within it.

Why is Obama allowing this to happen?
The short answer is, he's not. This massive influx has been tied to the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (read the full text here), which was actually signed by President Bush in one of his last acts as president. Obama did not create the policy, he is simply enforcing it. His critics further claim that he is being soft on illegal immigration, which is patently false. In fact, Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any president in modern history. In 2012 alone, Obama deported 409,849 people, nearly four times as many as Bush Sr. did in his entire presidency.

Another question needs to be asked: why is this law so important? It is designed to prevent and deter human trafficking, which is a serious global and domestic issue. According to a 2005 State Department report, between 14,500 and 17,500 people are trafficked in the United States each year. Not all trafficking victims in the US are illegal; victims are a mix of US citizens and foreign nationals. Therefore, repealing this law (as many outraged with this influx of child refugees are clamoring for) would not only hurt foreign nationals, legal or illegal, which have come to this country for refuge, but American citizens as well who likewise need protection.

The Polaris Project has a vast FAQ about trafficking in the United States, which is well worth the read.

Why are my taxpayer dollars going toward supporting illegal immigrants?
The first initial distinction that is necessary is that these are not simply illegal immigrants, they are refugees, which fall into a completely different category, as explained at the very beginning. While yes, taxpayer dollars may be used to get refugees set up in their new lives, ultimately they end up paying more in taxes than were initially used to resettle them. As soon as refugees are settled, they are expected to get jobs and start paying taxes (and no, they do not steal jobs from Americans).


I hope here I have been able to make this as comprehensive yet readable as possible, and clear up any concerns about these children entering the country. While yes, the high numbers are shocking, it is indicative of a systematic problem that the US has a moral and legal obligation to help resolve. It is not the threat to Americans that people seem to think it is, but it is something that needs to be addressed before this refugee crisis becomes even worse.

It's official, Hollister discriminates

Jezebel: Surprise, Surprise: Hollister Discriminates Against the Disabled

Not 3 months after I initially posted my own experiences and opinions on Hollister's (and by extension its parent company, Abercrombie & Fitch), a federal judge has ruled that Hollister does indeed discriminate against the disabled. Color me shocked. This, combined with A&F CEO Mike Jeffries' recent inflammatory statements, and they better get themselves a new PR person immediately. I really hope that this will be the beginning of their fast and furious descent into bankruptcy and irrelevancy, but sadly I don't think that will be the case. It's nice to dream, though.

I have no words

Defense News- Rep. Issa: Christianity's Roots Would Justify US Mission in Syria

Oh wait, I forgot. It's evil and wrong when Muslims bring religion into politics, but when Christians do it, it's a moral absolute.

Discrimination in not-so-plain sight

It's been a long time since I've gone into a Hollister store to shop for myself. However, for Christmas my mother bought me a top from there while shopping for my teenage and near-teenage children of my cousins (and boy do I feel old saying that) which was a little too youth-like to wear around the office. So the day after Christmas, Mom and I went to the mall for our annual day-after shopping/returns outing.

At this time, I was just over a week post-op from my hip surgery, and was non-weight bearing on crutches. Being that we always go shopping for awhile, and I was still really tired from the crutches, we grabbed a wheelchair so I could get around the mall more easily. This was my third time using the wheelchair at the mall since my surgery (yeah, I know, I have a shopping problem) and therefore felt pretty accustomed to the difficulty of navigating through stores while in the chair. However, nothing could have prepared me for the total shitstorm that is navigating through Hollister in a wheelchair.

First off, it is crazy even getting into the store. If you've seen one Hollister, you've seen them all- the standard mall entrance for this store is a couple of steps up onto a veranda, then a couple more steps down into the actual store. Stairs not really being conducive to wheelchair-operations, everyone I told this story to has said, "wait, how did you get a wheelchair in there?" They do, in fact, have a handicap-accessible entrance- around the side, masked into the faux-door decor where most people won't even see it.

Once inside, it was a madhouse. The dimly-lit store, difficult enough when you're able-bodied ("wait, what color is that shirt?") is even harder when you're trying to make sure you won't run over something thrown to the floor in a fit of shopping frenzy by a teenager laden down with Christmas money. Also hard? Reaching most of the products from a sitting position. Most of the stuff I looked at was hanging off of racks, since I could not reach a lot of the tables. And if I wanted to look at something hanging on the wall? Forget it! First, I couldn't reach it from a sitting position (which to be fair, I couldn't do at most stores). Second, and most important, the layout of the store made it nearly impossible to navigate between the tables and the wall. Hell, even navigating within the "aisles" was pretty hard. Even if the store hadn't been filled with rowdy teens, it would have been an extremely tight fit.

After all of the battling to even get through the store, it came time for the dressing room. Note to anyone in a wheelchair that wants to try things on at Hollister: even though you want to try something on, Hollister doesn't want you to try it on. The fitting room assistant helped my mom navigate the chair back into the "handicap" area, pushing all of the curtains out of the way to ensure I could get back there and apologizing profusely because of the difficulty. To be clear: she wasn't apologizing because she couldn't navigate the wheelchair (she did a great job with that and was super helpful), she was apologizing because the fitting room "hallway" wasn't designed for a wheelchair. Had the fitting rooms been cordoned off with actual walls instead of curtains, there is no way I would have been able to fit in there.

Given all of the past discrimination suits against Abercrombie & Fitch (Hollister's parent company), I was not surprised in the least. The CEO of the company, Mike Jeffries, said the following in a 2006 interview with Salon:

Candidly, we go after the cool kids. We go after the attractive all-American kid with a great attitude and a lot of friends. A lot of people don’t belong [in our clothes], and they can’t belong. Are we exclusionary? Absolutely. Those companies that are in trouble are trying to target everybody: young, old, fat, skinny. But then you become totally vanilla. You don’t alienate anybody, but you don’t excite anybody, either.

Clearly, A&F has an image to maintain in terms of physical appearance. They want young, attractive, popular kids wearing their clothes- no fatties allowed, thank you very much. (In an anecdotal story related to me by my brother, a high school classmate whose hairstyle and dress were very much "punk" was told not to come into the store, as they likely "didn't have the type of clothes you're looking for.") But does that ideal also mean it only wants able-bodied kids shopping there? One discrimination suit filed against the company by a former employee who wears a prosthetic arm claims that she was demoted to the stockroom from the shop floor for wearing a cardigan to mask the arm (permission for which was granted when she was hired), with managers telling her that it didn't fit the "look."

Between all of the discrimination suits against the parent company in the past, and my own personal experience, I am convinced that they have purposely designed their Hollister fitting rooms to not fit wheelchairs in order to prevent/discourage disabled people from shopping at the store. Even their front facade is unwelcoming, telling those lesser-abled that they're not welcome. Jeffries has already admitted that the company is "absolutely" exclusionary, and a young person in a wheelchair certainly doesn't fit A&F's image of the perfect "all-American kid."

I hate to tell him (no, wait, I'd love to tell him), but there is no typical American kid. We come in all colors, shapes, sizes, and religions, and some of us even have disabilities, some of which might not be apparent to the eye. And while we might not all want to shop at a particular store, we have the right to not face outward hostility because we don't fit some illusion of youth perfection dreamed up by an over-the-hill guy trying so desperately to cling onto his long-past youth.

Belle's got some issues

So a bit divergent from what I usually comment on here....

During a long day of working, I decided to put on my Disney Pandora station (don't judge) and kept hearing songs from Beauty and the Beast. Unfortunately due to my habit of reading everything on the internet, every time I hear songs from this movie or even watch it, I think of a lot of critiques of this and other Disney films in terms of feminism and relationships. In terms of Beauty and the Beast, many people comment that Belle is essentially in an abusive relationship with the Beast- he yells at her a lot, threatens violence, etc. I always try to defend the movie, since it is tied for my favorite Disney film (with Aladdin, of course).

However, I'll look at it from that perspective and try to give an honest critique. Yes, he does exhibit signs of violence and abusive behavior. However, by the end of the film, he changes. In fitting with the critique, it does send a dangerous message to young girls that you can "fix" a man, particularly an abusive man. But, if we're going to critique this film honestly, I think this is the least of the problems.

First things first- Belle has some serious Stockholm syndrome. The Beast takes her prisoner, threatens her with violence, and acts like a general dick towards her. And her response is to fall in love with him, and then once released, try to defend him from the vicious mob on their way to kill him? Girl's got it bad. And by "it," I mean Stockholm syndrome. Honestly, the general feminist critique that Belle is in an abusive relationship really boils down to this: she's in that relationship because she's got some underlying psychological issue after her imprisonment by the Beast.

Second, and most importantly- is no one going to mention the bestiality part?!?! He is, quite literally, a beast when she meets (and falls in love with) him. Yes, at the end he transforms into a human, but it is initially the animal that she falls in love with. Let's hope they didn't consummate their relationship until after the curse was broken.

So, we've got severe psychological issues and the fact that she's fallen in love with an animal, on top of the fact that this being she wants to have a relationship with is abusive towards her. Girl needs some help.

All that being said, this is my favorite Disney movie and if you try to cut it down, I will cut you. And what, would you prefer she be with that giant douche Gaston?



Totally OT PS: Pandora is killing me with all the Glee covers. My rage just boils over, especially listening to Lea Michele's vocal swoops in every effing song.

Rush Limbaugh is a disgusting excuse for a human being

ABC News: Rush Limbaugh Doubles Down On Sandra Fluke, Offering 'As Much Aspirin to Put Between Her Knees As She Wants'

I'm sure there's not a single person in the English-speaking world who's not aware of the horrific comments Rush Limbaugh recently made on his show, calling Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke a slut for trying to testify at a Capitol Hill panel on the birth control mandate that has the GOP in a fit.

One of the most ridiculous comments from Limbaugh: “They’re admitting before congressional committee that they’re having so much sex they can’t afford the birth control pills!”  It is deeply disturbing how Limbaugh, and countless other leaders of the GOP fail to disassociate birth control pills and sex.  Part of Fluke's testimony dealt specifically with that- how a friend of hers who needed the medication to prevent ovarian cysts.  That's just one thing; oral contraceptives also protect against and/or treat Endometriosis, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, menstrual cramps and heavy periods, along with other disorders.  Any knowledgeable woman engaging in sexual intercourse is using condoms or something else that prevents transmission of sexually transmitted diseases, since that is one thing the pill doesn't do.

Limbaugh is just another man in a long line of men trying to control women.  We have access to education and financial freedom, but the control freaks can't allow us to have medical or sexual freedom.  His disgusting and degrading comments on how women should be forced to videotape sex acts since "we are going to pay for your contraceptives" only continues to objectify women.  Do I ask to see sex tapes of a man after he has had a vasectomy, since insurance covered it?  No, nor would I want to.  It is a private medical procedure, which is between him and his doctor.  If the insurance company has a problem with it, they can bring it up privately.  It is not a matter for public record.

I can only hope that the rest of the GOP steps up and condemns this disgusting excuse for a human being for his completely degrading, misogynistic comments on this issue.  Looking at the field of Republican nominees and their own stances on women's health issues, I think I will be hoping in futility.

UPDATE:
I just read the transcript of Limbaugh's show where he made these comments.  He just does not get it.  He tries equating condoms and oral contraceptives, which are not the same thing at all.  The only thing they have in common is that they can prevent pregnancy.  However, condoms prevent transmission of STDs, which oral contraceptives do not.  Oral contraceptives contain hormones and prevent against disorders of the reproductive system, which condoms do not.  So how are they the same thing?  Also, apparently he thinks that you need to take a pill each time you have sex.  Again, a pill is not like a condom.  One pill, once a day. God forbid Limbaugh educate himself on an issue before he opens his mouth.

Also, this: "Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex?"  USE OF ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES SHOULD NOT BE EQUATED WITH SEXUAL ACTIVITY!  I have heard of not having sex.  In fact, I was not having sex for the first four years I was on oral contraceptives.  Why?  Because it is very commonly used to treat medical conditions like the one I and many other women have.

I do love the one part Limbaugh got right.

FLUKE: When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.

RUSH: Prove it! Stop the tape. Prove it! What is "on their faces"? Acne? What is it, acne? Zits? What's on their faces that tells you? Seriously!

Yes!  Acne would prove it, as oral contraceptives are proven to reduce acne and zits!  This is absolutely hilarious, that the only time he hits on the truth is when he is trying to be ridiculous and facetious. 

Corporate interference in healthcare

I seem to be going through the never-ending medical saga.  For the past few years, our insurance plan has required us to order any long-term prescriptions through a mail-order pharmacy, Medco.  This is supposedly supposed to be an easy way for us to get our prescriptions, and also helps save the insurance company money.  Fine, whatever.

But it's not 'fine, whatever.'  Our family's personal experience with Medco has been mediocre, at best.  Since the beginning, there have been issues of generics being changed, prescriptions not getting refilled on time, and other similar things.  Then for awhile it evened out.  Our doctors' offices and Medco finally seemed to be communicating, and our prescriptions were filled regularly and on-time.

A few months ago, I noticed an odd change when I received my birth control pills in the mail.  After my doctor mailed in a refill, I received pills with a completely different dosage than the one I had been receiving.  I was furious, after having dealt with Medco's errors before.  However, it turns out that one was on my doctor (they had the wrong dosage listed on accident), and my doctor's office offered to change the prescription immediately.  I said I would stay on the new dosage unless I found it to have adverse side effects, in which case I would contact them for a new prescription.

Two months later, the adverse side effects are there in full force.  I call my doctor's office and ask them to change it as soon as possible.  They comply.

The following week, I receive a prescription in the mail and I assume it is the one I had switched with my doctor's office.  Nope.  Not only is it the wrong dosage (1.5/30 instead of the 1/20 I requested), but it is a completely different brand than the pill I've been taking for over 2 years.  Needless to say, after having my generics switched around on a monthly basis about a year in (and having my body protest each time), I refused to take them.  Naturally, I assumed this was an error on Medco's part and called them to sort it out.

After an hour on the phone with 2 customer service reps and a pharmacist (who I forgot to ask if she was even licensed in NYS), I have heard the following things from Medco:

1. The prescription for the 1.5/30 was automatically refilled (note: I do not recall authorizing this)
2. My doctor's office sent a prescription in July for 1.5/30 which was unable to be filled; they sent me notification that they would hold this prescription until it was time to be filled (note: I never received a notice, and also, they received 2 prescriptions on the same day in July for 1.5/30 and 1/20.  Wouldn't you think they would clarify which was the correct one?)
3. The generic for Loestrin has been switched from Microgestin (which I've been on for 2 years) to Gildess due to 'corporate interest'.
4. Even though I cannot and will not use either Gildess prescription mailed to me (both 1.5/30 and 1/20) and offered to mail them back, I am still responsible for the co-pays on both.

The first two had fairly brief rebuttals; the second two are a bit more lengthy.  First, to point #3.

As I was reading Gothamist when I got home from work today, I came across an interesting article about a recall on birth control pills.  My curiosity was highly piqued after my saga of the never-ending birth control pills (my mom actually called me today after finally receiving the correct pills: "Good Lord, how many times are you going to get birth control pills this week?!").  I followed up with that article on Jezebel, which linked to the manufacturer Qualitest's recall list.  Guess what?  Gildess Fe 1.3/30 and Gildess Fe 1/20 (both of which were sent to me) ARE ON THE LIST!

So, let's recap: first, Medco changes my generic prescription due to 'corporate interest.'  Second, the corporation's preferred drug of choice is now *gasp* under recall!  Fan-fucking-tastic job, Medco.  You would think an organization that calls itself a pharmacy would put its patients before its pocketbooks.  But no, silly Kim, we live in an overbloated capitalist society where even those who are supposed to be looking out for our best interests sell us out for a quick buck.

The pharmacist I spoke to at Medco said that even my local pharmacy would do something like that.  Possibly, but my local pharmacist would also work with me to make sure I was getting exactly what I wanted and needed.  I've grown up with my local pharmacist's daughter (kindergarten through high school, and our parents still live down the street from each other), so she knows me and will want to make sure that my health is being taken care of.  While the company may try to cut costs, I know she won't let that happen.

Point #4: in what other place in the United States would you be forced to pay for something you have not used, and also returned back to the place you got it from?  I can understand some issues about things being tampered with before they were sent back, but a) I would assume they would automatically destroy whatever comes back for that exact reason, and b) they're blister packs, which would usually be pretty obvious if someone tampered with them.  Medco's tune was very nice at the beginning, but once I started getting angry and upset (they're screwing with my body, and also keeping me on hold for 5 minutes at a time), they shut down.  Now there's a company that can't take criticism.

And even on top of all this personal stuff (oh BTW, they've also been screwing with my mom's blood pressure medication- something you should never ever mess with, especially if you're not a doctor), I found some other very interesting stuff doing research.

In 2003, Medco was brought to court for a bunch of illegal, unethical, and questionable practices by none other than the United States government (this will open a PDF that I highly suggest you read).  They cite numerous things that Medco has allegedly done wrong, such as having non-pharmacists doing things that should only be done by licensed pharmacists, changing prescriptions, falsifying records, and flat-out lying to patients, among other things.  I found numerous citations in the suit that reflect exactly what Medco has been doing to me, 7 years after the case was settled out of court (with Medco paying a hefty settlement: $29 million to 20 state governments and $115 million to the federal government).

Oh, and one more thing: up until recently (and definitely as recently as that 2003 civil case), Medco was actually Merck Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., which was owned by Merck.  One of the largest drug manufacturers in the world.  Now tell me, how is it ethically or legally possible to have a Prescriptions Benefits Management company owned by a drug company?  The case cited evidence of Medco giving preferential treatment to Merck-manufactured drugs, even in spite of doctors' explicit orders for specific medications.

The case goes on and on, and there has been some recent news from other places in the country about Medco's ongoing unethical practices since that time (including a former Medco pharmacist in Florida undergoing a hunger strike  in 2010 in protest).  My own personal case highlights these ongoing practices.

I plan on contacting Medco again on Monday morning, and taking this further if they refuse to at least eliminate the co-pay for my unwanted medications.  From there, it's the HR staff with our health insurance company, and if needed, the Attorney General's office.  Clearly Medco hasn't changed a bit since 2003.  Maybe if enough people get on board they will finally be forced to change their tune.

What the American media ignored

Al Jazeera English: America's own Taliban

This is a great article outing the Christian extremist right, particularly in light of the recent events in Norway (fueled by a Christian extremist).  With the exception of the Westboro Baptist Church, the American media (left or right) does not do much (or any) criticizing of Christian movements or religious institutions in the country.  Granted, a majority of the country is Christian in some form or another, there are so many different forms that when they're broken down, all the views come out drastically different.  However, it is that idea of Christianity being the status quo that I believe shields it from a lot of necessary criticism.


Bill O'Reilly recently made even more headlines by criticizing the media for calling Anders Behring-Breivik, the admitted killer, a Christian.  O'Reilly claims that because he is a Christian and he believes that no Christian could do this, therefore Breivik cannot be a Christian.  However, this is the same man that equates all Muslims as terrorists, although a vast majority of them could say the same things (and in cases, have) about Osama bin Laden and other extremist Islamic terrorists.  What really gets me is O'Reilly's claim that '"No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder,"' apparently having completely forgotten the Crusades and other so-called 'holy wars' committed in the name of God, the domestic Christian terrorist Timothy McVeigh (of the Oklahoma City bombings), or the massacre in Srebrenica, committed by Orthodox Serbs (who are Christian).

Al Jazeera's article goes beyond all of this, and does an interesting comparison of the American Christian extremists to the Taliban.  The article is well-worth the read, making the main point that like the Taliban, these Christian groups are also highly intolerant of anyone except themselves.  More importantly, it draws our attention to the involvement of many high-name Republican politicians in these groups, and the extent to which their intolerance goes.

The western media tends to ignore much of the well-known politicians' religious idiosyncrasies, except of course when they deviate from the WASP mainstream (i.e., freaking out over JFK's Catholicism, freaking out over thinking that Obama is Muslim, freaking out over Mitt Romney's Mormonism).  Despite what Bill O'Reilly says, Christian extremists exist and can also commit terrorist acts of mass murder.  We must be attentive to sympathetic views in those that seek to lead our country, and curb terrorism in all forms without discrimination.

Citing tweets

CNN: Hugh Hefner: Crystal Harris lied about our sex life

I think this is the first time I've seen an article's citations/links consist mostly of tweets.  I guess this is what we're heading towards...

Our priorities are a bit messed up

Ever since I joined Twitter, I find myself getting more and more news from there.  I subscribe to Al Jazeera, the UN, other political organizations and NGOs, and 'randoms' (i.e. people/organizations not associated with news and/or politics).  Needless to say, information travels fast on there.

I first found out about the attacks in Norway via Twitter, with Neil Gaiman commenting that #Oslo and #Norway seemed to not be news in the US.  Curious, I went to CNN to find out more (and I'm still trying to keep up with all the news there).  Both columns on the front page, which I would conflate to the 'above the fold' section of a broadsheet newspaper, were full of stories on the Oslo attacks, with live feeds, videos, iReports, and staff-produced articles.

Today, also on Twitter (because that's what I find myself doing with my near-unemployed life), I find out that Amy Winehouse died.  For New York at least, the trends are all about her and other celebrities that died young, including the disturbing hashtag #27club (apparently lots of celebrities died at 27).  Norway is still trending, but it's 9th on the list of 10 top trends for the region and the only one about yesterday's tragedy.  CNN also is following this.  Their left-side, smaller column is still full of information about Norway.  The large, front-and-center column, however, is all about Amy Winehouse.  The newspulse, which shows the top stories, lists stories about her as being #1 and #3 (moving up from the #4 spot that it was at no less than 10 minutes ago).  The main article is listed as 'Breaking News.'

Time for me to get a little insensitive here (as some people will think).  Amy Winehouse was a world-famous, talented singer with a loooooooooooooong history of drug problems.  Pretty much every story about her career has always talked about her drug problems, and quite honestly, most stories about her weren't about her career (3 guesses what they were actually about).  It is sad that she died; she held a lot of promise.  But considering her lifestyle, it is not exactly 'breaking news' that she died.  Someone who continues to abuse their body like that for years with no signs of wanting help is going to die much sooner rather than later.  This is like being shocked that Steve Irwin was killed by a dangerous animal (although granted, I was shocked it wasn't by crocodile).  When you live a certain lifestyle, the consequences are pretty much set in stone.  You expect these things to happen.

In contrast, there was a real tragedy in Norway.  The death toll from the two attacks already stands at 92, with 85 of them being from an attack at a youth camp.  While details are still coming in, this already stands as a deeply violent and tragic event that may have implications in the current global culture of terror.  The same article states the suspect may be a right-wing Christian fundamentalist fighting against a multicultural society.  Studying this event can help us rethink the concept of terror and terrorism in an ever-changing world, and also, particularly in the US, think about our own country's right-wing violent fundamentalist groups that could pose a serious threat to the nation in coming years.

But no.  What's more important than shaping the global discourse on terrorism is a dead celebrity whose death was wholly expected.  Sad, yes, but nobody can say they were truly surprised by this.  When will we get out of this sick fascination with the famous and their self-destructive tendencies and start paying attention to the things that can actually have a real impact on our own lives?  We need to get our priorities straight, and also learn to leave people alone (because I'm pretty sure there's a lesson to be learned about paparazzi-hounding in the Winehouse story).  It's all tragic and serious, but it's important.  Americans can't be content to ignore the rest of the world, because whether we like it or not, we've already seen the rest of the world is coming to us.

They mean well, but....

Care2: Bigger AT&T = Less Choice, Higher Prices!

Somehow along the way, I got subscribed to updates from a petition site, Care2.  This latest one is against AT&T's acquisition of T-Mobile, which I find silly for a multitude of reasons.  At the very least, T-Mobile phones are now using AT&T cell phone towers (which explains why when I was camping this week all of us on Verizon had crap service but everyone on AT&T and T-Mobile could actually get reception), which is good news for T-Mobile customers.

While the petition states such issues such as AT&T poised to be the largest cell phone company with this acquisition and forcing higher rates of service on (former) T-Mobile customers, the e-mail sheds a bit of a different light such as less competition (implying that AT&T is heading towards monopoly):

A merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would give AT&T control of more American's cell phones than any other company, allowing them to more easily take out the rest of the competition.

Competition between companies creates innovation in new products, better service and lower rates. Without it, American consumers would be at the whim of the corporation in charge.

As consumers, we have to stand up to giants like AT&T. T-Mobile already charges less than AT&T and T-Mobile customers will see a major hike in prices if the merger is allowed to go through.

Yes, these are valid issues in some respect.  However, let me outline the reasons why I don't think there needs to be a petition at all.

1.  "...The FCC is seriously considering allowing AT&T to swallow competitor T-Mobile, and control more Americans' cell phones than any other company."
   Yes, AT&T will most likely gain the largest market share with the acquisition, according to 2010 data.  For the first 3 months of 2010, Verizon held 31.1%, AT&T had 25.2%, and T-Mobile held around 12% of the market share.*  Combining AT&T and T-Mobile with these numbers gives them 37.2% of the market share, a 6% increase over Verizon.
   
   However, a lot has happened in the cell phone world since 2010.  One of the main things that can potentially have an impact on AT&T's market share is the recent (February 10, 2011) release of the iPhone on Verizon.**  Considering AT&T's notoriously horrible service that even this petition cites, this has the great potential to cause many people to migrate services, as many iPhone supporters signed AT&T contracts simply because they were the only carrier that the iPhone was available on.  Soon after the iPhone came out on Verizon, some friends ran a small test of the carriers, looking at 3G and call connection speed.  Verizon won both times.
   
   I feel that The Oatmeal best summed up this in his 'State of the Web' comic from Winter 2010.  (Seriously, go check it out).  With much better service, how many iPhone devotees will continue to stay with AT&T?***
   
2. "A merger between AT&T and T-Mobile would give AT&T control of more American's [sic] cell phones than any other company, allowing them to more easily take out the rest of the competition."
   
   Citing the percentages above, when the next largest company after the merger only controls 6% less of the market share than you do, not including the fact that neither control over (or even close to) 50% of the market share, I think this is a bit of a scare tactic.  After the merger, there will be AT&T, but there will also still be Verizon, Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, Metro PCS, and a number of other companies that still have a solid number of customers.  If Verizon and AT&T merged, that would be a huge issue as they would control nearly 70% of the market share.  However, as both companies are operating strongly I don't see that as even a remote possibility.  The only thing I think anyone would be in danger of is a two-company system in which Verizon and AT&T buy up all the remaining companies and just compete between themselves.
   
   Even on this, another point has to be taken into consideration.  Both AT&T and Verizon have eliminated their unlimited data plans, along with a host of other carriers.  For people not grandfathered in on their contracts with an unlimited plan, I can foresee them moving to one of the other, smaller carriers that still provides that service.  This has the opportunity to create more diverse competition, not less of it.
   
3.  "T-Mobile already charges less than AT&T and T-Mobile customers will see a major hike in prices if the merger is allowed to go through."
   This has the potential to be a valid point.  AT&T, once the acquisition is finalized, will control all contracts and will most likely do away with any low pricing that T-Mobile currently offers.  However, T-Mobile has already stated that even after the acquisition is finalized, their customers will be allowed to finish out their contracts with no price increases.****  As I have stated before, after that, customers that are unsatisfied have the option to switch carriers.  While T-Mobile is relatively inexpensive compared to AT&T, so are other companies.

Yes, there are some potential negatives to come out of this merger.  T-Mobile customers may have a rate increase after their contracts expire, and AT&T's service in most aspects pretty much sucks.  However, the beauty of the free market (which I think will be one of the few times I use that phrase) is that if customers don't like something, they can make a statement with their money.  Don't like AT&T?  Move to one of the countless other mobile phone carriers in the country, and take your money elsewhere.  It may be a pain to search for that perfect cell phone company, but I seriously doubt that this acquisition is the harbinger of doom that the Care2 people seem to be implying it is.

*PPCGeeks: Wireless Market Share by Carrier & Devices; May 7, 2010.
**Fox News: Verizon Finally Unveils iPhone; January 11, 2011.
***Full disclaimer: I am totally devoted to Verizon, having been a customer since approximately middle school.  I have also heard a lot of AT&T customers complain about their service.  It's kind of how I am with Hewlett-Packard vs. Dell (hint: never buy a Dell!).
****T-Mobile: Q&A: More Information About AT&T Acquisition of T-Mobile USA; March 20, 2011.

Pirates are dumb

CNN: Pirates target the Maersk Alabama again

Really, pirates?  Did you not see that bad-ass sniper action that happened when you guys held the Maersk Alabama's captain hostage a couple of years ago?  Because I'm pretty sure the U.S. government would have no problems doing that again.

I may actually start liking the Pope now...

CNN: Pope says condoms may be OK in some circumstances

Seriously breaking news.  According to this CNN article, the Pope has recently stated that condom use may be permissible in cases where they can prevent against sexually transmitted diseases, especially AIDS.  As a Catholic and a human rights advocate, this is seriously the best news I've heard in relation to both [combined] in a long time.  This issue has been one of the most frustrating things in relation to the AIDS crisis in Africa in particular.  The Pope has such a wide-reaching influence even among non-Catholics that the Church's stance on condom use has been very detrimental to efforts to combat the disease.

Of course, this permission does not include anything to deal with preventing pregnancy, which is understandable considering the Church's view on procreation.  However, I feel that this is an important step in the Church towards a human rights-oriented worldview.  For me, my religion and my human rights views are very tightly combined, but the issue of condoms has been a particularly unfortunate point in this.  I'm definitely glad that these can now be more tightly reconciled.

Hopefully with these recent statements work towards containing the AIDS crisis not only in Africa but worldwide can flourish and expand.  This is just great, excellent news and I hope that eventually it becomes official Vatican policy.

The odd, odd world of sports

CNN: Finalist dies at world sauna championships
CNN: Snoring to success in Spain's first national siesta competition

Two equally interesting 'sports'-related stories on CNN.  First, a Russian finalist at the world sauna championships died in early August.  The second discusses the national siesta competition in Spain, which took place in a shopping mall in Spain.

On the first story- WTF?  How is 'sauna' a sport?  In my opinion, it sounds like the dumbest possible event ever.  Let's all sit in a steaming hot room and see who can last the longest!  Except you know why saunas have warning labels on them?  Because you could DIE.  Yeah, I'm gonna go right ahead and risk my life for something that is completely meaningless.  The article said the deceased appeared to be suffering from skin burns.  Kids, let this be a lesson to you- DON'T sit in saunas for extended periods of time.  It's dangerous.

The second story, while at first seems kind of funny, actually goes into the possible extinction of the siesta in Spain.  The contest organizers, it explains, are trying to save the tradition which is being pushed out by the desire to compete better on the global market.  While I first laughed, it is very valid.  Studies (I know they're out there, I just don't have where they are) have shown that napping in the middle of the day actually boosts productivity.  I think the Spanish have always been on to something with the siesta, and it's the rest of the world that's falling behind.  Of course economics could always prove me wrong, but I know at least I get super tired and sleepy around mid-day, which makes me pretty much useless at work after that point.  A siesta would pep me back up and keep me going.

So, in closing, you go, Spain!  Viva la siesta!

(And Finland, knock it off with the sauna crap already)

Supersize nation

MSNBC: Report says school food making kids unfit to serve

There's a group of retired military officers saying that school lunches are making kids obese, and therefore reducing the number of people that would actually be able to pass a military health exam in order to enlist.  The article also mentioned that many service members are now being discharged for weight problems.  Ironically, the military is the same group that helped institute the school lunch program to begin with.

Despite the silliness of the headline (really, most headlines lately are absolutely ridiculous-sounding), they do make a valid point.  Obesity really is detrimental to our national defense. If we end up having a nation of overweight people who either physically can't exercise or are too lazy to exercise, the country as we know it is going to go down the shitter pretty quickly.  Imagine: an overweight police officer trying to chase down some young criminal.  Granted, if they're both overweight I suppose they'd be easily matched, but chances are the young person's going to be smaller, more agile, and quicker than someone with 40 or 50 extra pounds on their frame.  Another scenario: a firefighter wheezing under the weight of his equipment.  These people now would never be allowed in those services, but if our country consists mostly of those who are overweight, those are going to be the only people left to fill those roles.

Between this new report, Michelle Obama's crusade against childhood obesity, and television shows tackling the problems in school lunches, I hope that some effective measures will finally take place.  Thinking back to my school days, many of the lunches were not the most nutritious.  Throughout high school, I ate pizza most days simply because there either were no other options or the options available looked disgusting.  A few times they would offer vegetables, but I couldn't stand eating them.  The corn was way too watery and really funny-tasting.  The beans were simply a rubbery, atrocious mess.  Any meat they offered was processed- chicken patties and those weird ground-up meat concoctions that were molded into the shape of ribs. [1]  I think part of the problem is the standardized lunch system in public schools.  We used one company, Sysco, which sent their food in huge vats.  Clearly, the company's focus seemed to be on mass quantities of food, forsaking the quality of that same food.

The article also discussed healthier options in vending machines, something that I think gets missed a lot.  At my high school, I think the district did a good job restricting options.  We had a milk vending machine (yes, milk) as well as one that I believe sold Nestea and other similar drinks.  If I remember correctly, there was also one that sold chips, which you could also get in the cafeteria itself.  Soda was one thing not sold there. [2]  According to people around school (so, pretty much hearsay as it was in high school), Coca-Cola offered a huge project to the school district that would provide massive renovations and remodeling, plus laptops for every student.  In exchange, the district would put Coca-Cola vending machines in the schools.  In an amazing show of doing the right thing, the district turned it down (Liverpool, however, did take Coca-Cola up on the offer- they have a pretty amazing school now, but at what cost?).  When we've got corporations interfering in schools, there's a huge problem.

Quite honestly, with all the people advocating for healthier school lunches, if anyone can get it done it's the military.  I'm glad they're on board with combating childhood obesity, regardless of the reason.  As defense spending is an exorbitant amount of our national budget, it is clear that the government sets a high importance on the military.  If they say something should be done for their benefit, it will get done.

__________________________________
[1] To tell the truth, those two were actually my favorite lunches (besides West Genny pizza day).  Sad that mystery meat can taste that good.
[2] The sale of soda in schools has been a huge issue in this obesity battle due to the general unhealthiness of soda.

Why women can't win

CNN: California governor candidates spar over 'whore' remark

Honestly, I am absolutely disgusted that this is even an issue.  California's Democratic gubernatorial candidate (and current CA Attorney General) Jerry Brown is in the spotlight for using the word 'whore' in comments about the Republican candidate Meg Whitman.

Of course, the conversation in question was 'private' and the campaign has apologized for the comment.  But that's not really the issue.  The issue is, why is it acceptable to degrade female politicians and candidates simply based on their sex?  Bitch, whore, slut... the list goes on and on of what politicians find appropriate to call their female opponents.  The kicker is that anytime a woman actually speaks out against this, she is automatically labeled a crybaby or complainer, with people telling her to suck it up, that she should grow some thicker skin if she really wants to make it in politics.  It makes me so furious- you never see gender-based attacks against male politicians!

The thing that really gets me is the comments section on the CNN website for this article.  So many commenters see this as a joke, continuing to call Ms. Whitman a whore (which considering her background as former CEO of eBay, I'm pretty sure is false).  I think this is my 'favorite' piece of commentary.  And by 'favorite' I mean 'most despicable':

It's so nice to see that gender-based violence (since not all violence must be physical) is still so easily prevalent in the United States.  God forbid a woman run on the merits of her own beliefs; instead, we are all forced to run on the basis of what's in between our legs.  The Frisky recently had an article about these gender-based attacks, and how they have made it harder for women to be successful in running for office.

Attacks and comments such as these make it very hard for women to be seen as serious, intelligent candidates.*  With women making the majority in all forms of higher education (undergraduate and graduate), it is astonishing that only 16.8% of Congresspersons are women.  Unfortunately, Washington is still very much the good 'ole [white] boys club.  People are making some noise over the fact that we now have three female sitting justices on the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan).  However, that is still 33%, not close to representing the actual gender makeup of this nation.  However, they are doing much better than Congress as a whole, so it is a positive step.**

The American culture on both sides can be partly to blame for this.  The movie Mean Girls makes an excellent point when Tina Fey's character says, "...you all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores.  It just makes it ok for guys to call you sluts and whores."  Women can be so vindictive, catty, and just downright mean to each other that it seriously hinders gaining respect.

Men, too, are part of the problem.  While I realize not all men are misogynists or blatantly sexist, there is still a culture of disrespect when it comes to women.  As men have been the traditional power-holders, they are not used to it when their power is threatened by outsiders.  In regards to women, they react the only way they know how- by degrading them sexually.  In politics, it's an easy cop-out.  When you can't argue against a woman's political viewpoints, argue against her vagina!  It's something easy to point out.

I think both genders need to seriously work at discounting this type of gender bias.  It is unfair to hold women to a completely different standard than men when they are both vying for the same position.  It happens all over in so many fields, but this is so visible.  If we all want to make an impact in changing the discourse around gender, the first area we should start is politics.

*Exception: Sarah Palin.  While I denounce gender-based attacks on her, it doesn't change the fact that she's a fucking idiot.
**Even more awesome?  If someday we had a female Chief Justice!

Unbiased reporting?

CNN: Mortar lands outside kindergarten buildings in Israel

Just one question: where's the story about the countless number of Israeli mortars that have landed not only outside, but inside Palestinian kindergartens, elementary schools, and so on- actually killing students?

(If anyone wants to know more, just ask me for a copy of my paper on the realities of education for Palestinian children in Gaza and the West Bank.  This was a result of careful research- not usually things you'd find in the front pages.)

The Hidden Violence

CNN: Doctors remove nail allegedly hammered into maid by employers

This article brought up a lot of reactions in myself when I read it.  In summary, it discusses the plight of a Sri Lankan maid who underwent surgery to remove 18 nails that had been hammered into her arms, legs, and forehead, allegedly by her Saudi employers.  The woman was a registered domestic employee in Saudi Arabia.

The article reflects (sadly) much of the news I encountered over the summer in the course of my research in Nepal.  About once a week there would be an article in at least one paper, usually on the front page, detailing the plight Nepali workers faced abroad.  What Americans, desperate to protect 'their' jobs from foreigners, may not realize is the actual practice of migration worldwide.  The largest region for employing migrant workers?  The Gulf countries (particularly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait).  The majority of workers come from South Asia.

People in the US argue about laws being too protective of these types of workers (typically portrayed in the US as illegals).  However, would Americans really want to live in a country where this type of abuse is common?  Rarely this summer did I encounter an article about the benefits of Nepalis working abroad.  The vast majority detailed the situation of an individual, abused sometimes to the point of full disability.

Sadly, this abuse is all too common, and people in the Western world know nothing about it.  To the West's credit, news mostly focuses on local and national events, and international events only when it is relevant to the country as a whole.

I will say, there are other international issues that get attention that deal with human rights- Darfur and Burma to name a couple.  However, those are few and far between, and usually brought to the spotlight by celebrity attention.

Where is the attention for these workers, who are forced to leave their countries due to a lack of opportunities in order to provide for their families?  Sadly, this is one important issue that gets left out of a lot of discourse on human rights.

In searching Human Rights Watch's website, if one wants to find articles related to migrant workers, they have to be searched for specifically.  Many of the articles in the 'Workers, Forced Labor & Trafficking' section focus on issues of human trafficking.  Finding articles on abuse and/or exploitation of legal migrant workers requires a dedicated search on the subject.  Casual viewers of the website looking for recent topics of interest will not find this.  It is therefore difficult to bring this issue to light when even human rights workers keep it in the back of the closet.

Sarah Palin says something smart?

CNN: Sarah Palin: Quran burning insensitive and un-American

Unbelievable, I know.  But according to this article on CNN's Belief Blog, Sarah Palin responded to questions of whether or not she would comment on Florida's Terry Jones's plan to burn copies of the Qur'an at his ironically-named "Dove World Outreach Center" via Twitter and Facebook, denouncing the planned actions of Jones.

Of course, she then goes and equates Qur'an-burning with Park51 (again mistakenly calling it a mosque).  Way to go.  However, I think it does speak to the disgustingness of the act that there is such a wide base of criticism against this- Republicans, Democrats, a wide range of religious leaders (Jones's actions have also drawn a response from the Vatican, calling it an "outrageous and grave gesture").  That Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton can agree on something is nothing short of a miracle.  In fact, the only big name I can think of hearing in defense of Jones (although condemning the act itself) is Michael Bloomberg.

It has sprung up a huge debate about First Amendment rights.  The whole issue of Park51 and Jones's Qur'an-burning have the nation teetering on the balance of what is protected free speech.  At what line does sensitivity take over the freedom of speech, assembly, religion?  Palin argues that it is a sensitivity issue when Jones burns copies of the Qur'an, just as it is a sensitivity issue in building the community center (she believes the backers should be sensitive to 9/11 victims and build elsewhere).  Bloomberg argues it is a freedom of speech issue- Jones has the right to burn the Qur'an, no matter how disgusting people may view the actions; the developers of Park51 have the right to build their community center, no matter how many people view their actions as insensitive.

So, where do we draw the line?

Not good.

CNN: Bill aims to strip certain Americans of their citizenship

This is not good.  This is seriously not good.  A new bill introduced in Congress this week, the Terrorist Expatriation Act, moves to strip Americans of their citizenship if they have been "found to have provided material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization -- as designated by the secretary of state -- or participated in actions against the United States."  This comes off the heels of the suspected attempted Times Square bomber, who received American citizenship last year.  While Sen. Joe Lieberman states that this is simply updating the 1940 Immigration and Nationality Act to reflect current circumstances, it really goes farther than that.

Having studied refugee issues for a couple of years now, it allows for an interesting precedent for this issue.  In current U.S. refugee law, any person applying for refugee status that has provided material support to a terrorist organization will be denied refugee status and deported.  However, this law does not take into account whether that material support was willing or not.  There have been numerous cases where people applying for refugee status in the US were forced to provide things to terrorist organizations (usually through extortion, death threats, etc.), yet still fell under the 'material support' clause.

Another issue is the list of organizations that the United States deems terrorist.  This includes the CPN (M) [Communist Party of Nepal- Maoist], who actually seated a prime minister and are a part of the constitution-writing process.  Having studied Nepal for the past semester in depth [read- ad nauseam], a few things are apparent in this (in my opinion) wrongful designation.  First, the Maoists have not done much worse than the government did during the People's War.  Second, Maoists have not done much worse (arguably, they have done better) than all of the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America during the 1980s, which the United States supported.  Yet, because they have 'communist' in their name and have engaged in armed conflict, automatically they are deemed to be terrorists.

Connecting this to the issue of the proposed bill, the issue is that this has the potential to seriously impact Americans working abroad, among other issues.  One of the largest issues is that it prevents aid, development, and other workers from assisting in many legitimate areas (particularly in government), because one of the prominent and legitimate political parties is deemed a terrorist organization by the United States government.  One of my largest concerns about going to Nepal is working on some project that seeks reconciliation among Nepalis, and then getting into trouble back in the US because some of the participants were Maoists.  Apart from my own potential legal troubles, this completely undermines any work that could be done to facilitate transition to a stable, functioning government.  And isn't that what the US always wants abroad?

Long story short, the bill as described spells out bad news.  I can agree with the sentiment of the bill, to protect the nation from treasonous citizens.  However, there needs to be some serious oversight as to what this bill contains, to ensure the protection of those citizens who may be victims of extortion or terror themselves, as well as those working around the world to help create a safer global environment.