We the people of Earth will never win an argument with each other about whose imaginary friend is better.
Spain's National Intelligence Centre (CNI), which published a report in July, warning of tens of millions of dollars coming to Spain from Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to support Muslims, and calling for close monitoring of these funds. The CNI's report hinted that the money would be used to promote Islamic courts, remove girls from schools, and encourage forced marriages. The Spanish government's response was to call for all donations from the Gulf Arab states to be channeled through a government- controlled "Islamic Commission of Spain". The CNI pointed to the Kuwaiti government's funding of the construction of mosques in Catalonia, from which Islamic preachers are "spreading a religious interpretation that opposes the integration of Muslims into Spanish society and promotes separation and hate towards non-Muslim groups. Qatari donations are made through the Islamic League for Dialogue and Coexistence in Spain, a group the CNI says is "linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria".
The Moroccan government is aggressively implementing "a strategy of great magnitude" to exert control over the religious and cultural beliefs and practices of the nearly one million Moroccan immigrants who reside in Spain.
The strategy involves establishing a parallel Muslim society in Spain by discouraging Moroccans from integrating into their host country, and by encouraging them instead to live an Islamic lifestyle isolated from Spanish society.
Rabat is also financing the construction of hundreds of mosques in Spain whose imams are directly appointed by the Moroccan government. Moreover, the North African country is attempting to impose Muslim religious instruction in Spanish public schools, and is pressuring Moroccan families to remove their children from those schools that fail to comply
According to Noureddine Ziani, a Barcelona-based Moroccan imam: “It is absolutely necessary to accept Islamic values as European values and that from now on, Europeans should replace the term "Judeo-Christian" with term "Islamo-Christian" when describing Western Civilization.
Social Justice: Current Affairs, Business, Politics, and all the reasons in the world to Thrive on Creative Discontent!
Saturday, September 10, 2011
FDR stated that, “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” And a “Do Nothing Congress?”(LBJ)
The American Jobs Act, if enacted, would be a very different kind of stimulus than the slow-burn one implemented back in 2009. Early forecasts suggest it could deliver the kind of swift, sharp shock the U.S. economy needs.
Economists at consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers estimate the combination of tax incentives and infrastructure spending would create at least 1.3 million jobs in 2012, boosting that year's economic growth by 1.3 percentage points. For 2013, they forecast the creation of an added 800,000 jobs, bringing the total to 2.1 million. All else equal, that's enough to shave more than a percentage point off the U.S. unemployment rate, which now stands at 9.1 percent.
The economists note that their estimate could actually be on the low side, because it doesn't account for the potential effect of the payroll-tax credit included in the package. It's hard to know how many businesses are in a position to take advantage of the credit, but experience suggests it will lead to increased hiring.
President Obama has put in the hands of Congress a plan that probably represents the country's best shot at fending off recession and reinvigorating the recovery. Whatever legislators decide, they will own the result.
Economists at consultancy Macroeconomic Advisers estimate the combination of tax incentives and infrastructure spending would create at least 1.3 million jobs in 2012, boosting that year's economic growth by 1.3 percentage points. For 2013, they forecast the creation of an added 800,000 jobs, bringing the total to 2.1 million. All else equal, that's enough to shave more than a percentage point off the U.S. unemployment rate, which now stands at 9.1 percent.
The economists note that their estimate could actually be on the low side, because it doesn't account for the potential effect of the payroll-tax credit included in the package. It's hard to know how many businesses are in a position to take advantage of the credit, but experience suggests it will lead to increased hiring.
President Obama has put in the hands of Congress a plan that probably represents the country's best shot at fending off recession and reinvigorating the recovery. Whatever legislators decide, they will own the result.
Ponzi Perry
Social Security is a government-run insurance program that provides the typical retiree with single-digit returns on contributions deducted from their paychecks over the course of their working lives. The program has operated for 76 years amid praise from presidents of both parties. In 1983, even as staunch a critic of big government as President Ronald Reagan vowed: “The Social Security system must be preserved.”
In December 2010, 54 million Americans received either retirement or disability payments under the Social Security program.
Poverty among elderly Americans was endemic before the program was created in 1935. The first benefit checks weren’t issued until 1940, and as late as 1959 more than 35 percent of the elderly were living below the poverty line, according to the Social Security Administration. In 2009, the most recent Census Bureau data available shows, the figure was 8.9 percent.
To presidential hopeful Texas Governor Rick Perry, however, the country’s most expensive entitlement program is a financial con that would have made Charles Ponzi blush. “It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there,” Perry said during a Sept. 7 debate of the Republican presidential candidates, reprising a theme from his 2010 book “Fed Up.”
Experts on both Ponzi schemes and Social Security say Perry is wrong. “Ponzi schemes are, by definition, fraud,” said Mitchell Zuckoff, author of “Ponzi’s Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend.”
“Social Security is above board,” he added. “We can argue about whether it’s a good system. But you can’t call it a fraud.”
The Social Security and Medicare Trustees project a deficit this year of $46 billion and continuing annual shortfalls until the $2.5 trillion fund is exhausted in 2036. Beyond that point, the program is expected to have sufficient funds from continuing infusions of payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of promised benefits.
Perry’s aversion to the program is nothing new. In his 2010 book “Fed Up,” he lambastes Social Security as a “crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal” and likens it to “a bad disease.”
Democrats crowed over a statement they regarded as political gold. “Ponzi Perry just lost the general election,” former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm tweeted during the debate.
In December 2010, 54 million Americans received either retirement or disability payments under the Social Security program.
Poverty among elderly Americans was endemic before the program was created in 1935. The first benefit checks weren’t issued until 1940, and as late as 1959 more than 35 percent of the elderly were living below the poverty line, according to the Social Security Administration. In 2009, the most recent Census Bureau data available shows, the figure was 8.9 percent.
To presidential hopeful Texas Governor Rick Perry, however, the country’s most expensive entitlement program is a financial con that would have made Charles Ponzi blush. “It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there,” Perry said during a Sept. 7 debate of the Republican presidential candidates, reprising a theme from his 2010 book “Fed Up.”
Experts on both Ponzi schemes and Social Security say Perry is wrong. “Ponzi schemes are, by definition, fraud,” said Mitchell Zuckoff, author of “Ponzi’s Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend.”
“Social Security is above board,” he added. “We can argue about whether it’s a good system. But you can’t call it a fraud.”
The Social Security and Medicare Trustees project a deficit this year of $46 billion and continuing annual shortfalls until the $2.5 trillion fund is exhausted in 2036. Beyond that point, the program is expected to have sufficient funds from continuing infusions of payroll taxes to pay about 75 percent of promised benefits.
Perry’s aversion to the program is nothing new. In his 2010 book “Fed Up,” he lambastes Social Security as a “crumbling monument to the failure of the New Deal” and likens it to “a bad disease.”
Democrats crowed over a statement they regarded as political gold. “Ponzi Perry just lost the general election,” former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm tweeted during the debate.
Friday, September 9, 2011
UAE: Sheikh arrested in India for taking a Child Bride
The Hyderabad Police today arrested a UAE Sheikh for allegdly marrying a 12 year-old girl in vicinity of the Old City. According to the sources a team of Santoshnagar Police headed by Inspector Sudarshan Reddy raided a house in the Moinbagh area in Santoshnagar, and took 47 year old Sheikh Hilal Sayeed Mahammed Hilal an UAE National hailing from Sharjah into custody for allegedly marrying a minor girl who is identified as Sana Sultana.
The sources further told that on a tip-off information the police raided the residence of Sana Sultana but by the time police raided the house UAE shaikh Sayeed Mohammed had got married. The police brought the UAE national to the police station and sent the girl to the Government Maternity Hospital for the Age Determination Test.
The Police further told that after the report of the test a case would be booked against Sayeed. The investigation is on.
The sources further told that on a tip-off information the police raided the residence of Sana Sultana but by the time police raided the house UAE shaikh Sayeed Mohammed had got married. The police brought the UAE national to the police station and sent the girl to the Government Maternity Hospital for the Age Determination Test.
The Police further told that after the report of the test a case would be booked against Sayeed. The investigation is on.
UAE: Rape someone leave your business card....
“In the UAE rape is not a crime unless it is witnessed by four adult male Muslim witnesses. Alicia wasn't told this. She certainly wasn't told that if she reported the brutal rape to the police that she ran the risk of being jailed for 12 months.”
A Brisbane woman jailed for adultery in Dubai after she complained of being drugged and raped by four co-workers .
Alicia Gali's lawyer Michelle James, a principal at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said Australian embassy staff failed to warn the 29-year-old that a complaint of rape in the United Arab Emirates could lead to her being jailed.
Ms Gali was charged with adultery and sentenced to 11 months in prison, serving eight, after bringing the incident to the attention of the UAE police
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/she-wasnt-warned-rape-victim-to-sue-government-20110607-1fqcz.html#ixzz1XWju4tAB
A Brisbane woman jailed for adultery in Dubai after she complained of being drugged and raped by four co-workers .
Alicia Gali's lawyer Michelle James, a principal at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, said Australian embassy staff failed to warn the 29-year-old that a complaint of rape in the United Arab Emirates could lead to her being jailed.
Ms Gali was charged with adultery and sentenced to 11 months in prison, serving eight, after bringing the incident to the attention of the UAE police
Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/she-wasnt-warned-rape-victim-to-sue-government-20110607-1fqcz.html#ixzz1XWju4tAB
Bachmann & Perry Dominionists?
First the American Constitution is clear…..church and state are separate.
Second 24% of Americans are not Christian, 25% are Catholic and 51% Protestant (10 denominations).
So to think that a Christian movement will dominate the USA = unlikely. And given there are 4 billion non-Christians worldwide the Global domination is unlikely.
But somehow in the midst of an economic crisis, horrible job market, no social safety net; the Republican front-runners are both making religion central to their platform.
I would really like to leave religion to families, government to government, and business to business, military to military, and weather to weatherpersons.
Nonetheless let’s explore what some of this might mean:
Bachmann is close to Truth in Action Ministries; last year, she appeared in one of its documentaries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. In it, she espoused the idea, common in Reconstructionist circles, that the government has no right to collect taxes in excess of 10 percent, the amount that believers are called to tithe to the church. On her state-senate-campaign website, she recommended a book co-authored by Grant titled Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which, as Lizza reported, depicted the civil war as a battle between the devout Christian South and the Godless North, and lauded slavery as a benevolent institution. “The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith,” the book said.
One could go on and on listing the Dominionist influences on Bachmann’s thinking. She often cites Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the anti-abortion movement, who held seminars on Rushdoony’s work and helped disseminate his ideas to a larger evangelical audience. John Eidsmoe, an Oral Roberts University professor who, she’s said, “had a great influence on me,” is a Christian Reconstructionist. She often praises the Christian nationalist historian David Barton, who is intimately associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement; an article about slavery on the website of his organization, Wallbuilders, defends the institution’s biblical basis, with extensive citations of Rushdoony. (“God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved,” it says.)
In elaborating Bachmann’s Dominionist history, though, it’s important to point out that she is not unique. Perry tends to be regarded as marginally more reasonable than Bachmann, but he is as closely associated with Dominionism as she is, though his links are to a different strain of the ideology.
The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies. Certainly, there are overlaps between the traditions—Oral Roberts, where Bachmann studied with Eidsmoe, was a Pentecostal school. But it’s only recently that one group of Pentecostals, the New Apostolic Reformation, has created its own distinct Dominionist movement. And members see Perry as their ticket to power.
“The New Apostles talk about taking dominion over American society in pastoral terms,” wrote Wilder in the Texas Observer. “They refer to the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society: family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business. These are the nerve centers of society that God (or his people) must control.” He quotes a sermon from Tom Schlueter, New Apostolic pastor close to Perry. “We’re going to infiltrate [the government], not run from it. I know why God’s doing what he’s doing ... He’s just simply saying, ‘Tom I’ve given you authority in a governmental authority, and I need you to infiltrate the governmental mountain.”
According to Wilder, members of the New Apostolic Reformation see Perry as their vehicle to claim the “mountain” of government. Some have told Perry that Texas is a “prophet state,” destined, with his leadership, to bring America back to God. The movement was deeply involved in The Response, the massive prayer rally that Perry hosted in Houston earlier this month. “Eight members of The Response ‘leadership team’ are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement,” wrote Wilder. “The long list of The Response’s official endorses—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.”
We have not seen this sort of thing at the highest levels of the Republican Party before. Those of us who wrote about the Christian fundamentalist influence on the Bush administration were alarmed that one of his advisers, Marvin Olasky, was associated with Christian Reconstructionism. It seemed unthinkable, at the time, that an American president was taking advice from even a single person whose ideas were so inimical to democracy. Few of us imagined that someone who actually championed such ideas would have a shot at the White House. It turns out we weren’t paranoid enough. If Bush eroded the separation of church and state, the GOP is now poised to nominate someone who will mount an all-out assault on it.
We need to take their beliefs seriously, because they certainly do.
Second 24% of Americans are not Christian, 25% are Catholic and 51% Protestant (10 denominations).
So to think that a Christian movement will dominate the USA = unlikely. And given there are 4 billion non-Christians worldwide the Global domination is unlikely.
But somehow in the midst of an economic crisis, horrible job market, no social safety net; the Republican front-runners are both making religion central to their platform.
I would really like to leave religion to families, government to government, and business to business, military to military, and weather to weatherpersons.
Nonetheless let’s explore what some of this might mean:
Bachmann is close to Truth in Action Ministries; last year, she appeared in one of its documentaries, Socialism: A Clear and Present Danger. In it, she espoused the idea, common in Reconstructionist circles, that the government has no right to collect taxes in excess of 10 percent, the amount that believers are called to tithe to the church. On her state-senate-campaign website, she recommended a book co-authored by Grant titled Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which, as Lizza reported, depicted the civil war as a battle between the devout Christian South and the Godless North, and lauded slavery as a benevolent institution. “The unity and companionship that existed between the races in the South prior to the war was the fruit of a common faith,” the book said.
One could go on and on listing the Dominionist influences on Bachmann’s thinking. She often cites Francis Schaeffer, the godfather of the anti-abortion movement, who held seminars on Rushdoony’s work and helped disseminate his ideas to a larger evangelical audience. John Eidsmoe, an Oral Roberts University professor who, she’s said, “had a great influence on me,” is a Christian Reconstructionist. She often praises the Christian nationalist historian David Barton, who is intimately associated with the Christian Reconstructionist movement; an article about slavery on the website of his organization, Wallbuilders, defends the institution’s biblical basis, with extensive citations of Rushdoony. (“God's laws concerning slavery provided parameters for treatment of slaves, which were for the benefit of all involved,” it says.)
In elaborating Bachmann’s Dominionist history, though, it’s important to point out that she is not unique. Perry tends to be regarded as marginally more reasonable than Bachmann, but he is as closely associated with Dominionism as she is, though his links are to a different strain of the ideology.
The Christian Reconstructionists tend to be skeptical of Pentecostalism, with its magic, prophesies, speaking in tongues, and wild ecstasies. Certainly, there are overlaps between the traditions—Oral Roberts, where Bachmann studied with Eidsmoe, was a Pentecostal school. But it’s only recently that one group of Pentecostals, the New Apostolic Reformation, has created its own distinct Dominionist movement. And members see Perry as their ticket to power.
“The New Apostles talk about taking dominion over American society in pastoral terms,” wrote Wilder in the Texas Observer. “They refer to the ‘Seven Mountains’ of society: family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business. These are the nerve centers of society that God (or his people) must control.” He quotes a sermon from Tom Schlueter, New Apostolic pastor close to Perry. “We’re going to infiltrate [the government], not run from it. I know why God’s doing what he’s doing ... He’s just simply saying, ‘Tom I’ve given you authority in a governmental authority, and I need you to infiltrate the governmental mountain.”
According to Wilder, members of the New Apostolic Reformation see Perry as their vehicle to claim the “mountain” of government. Some have told Perry that Texas is a “prophet state,” destined, with his leadership, to bring America back to God. The movement was deeply involved in The Response, the massive prayer rally that Perry hosted in Houston earlier this month. “Eight members of The Response ‘leadership team’ are affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation movement,” wrote Wilder. “The long list of The Response’s official endorses—posted on the event’s website—reads like a Who’s Who of the apostolic-prophetic crowd, including movement founder C. Peter Wagner.”
We have not seen this sort of thing at the highest levels of the Republican Party before. Those of us who wrote about the Christian fundamentalist influence on the Bush administration were alarmed that one of his advisers, Marvin Olasky, was associated with Christian Reconstructionism. It seemed unthinkable, at the time, that an American president was taking advice from even a single person whose ideas were so inimical to democracy. Few of us imagined that someone who actually championed such ideas would have a shot at the White House. It turns out we weren’t paranoid enough. If Bush eroded the separation of church and state, the GOP is now poised to nominate someone who will mount an all-out assault on it.
We need to take their beliefs seriously, because they certainly do.
Where is Barry Goldwater when you need him???
President George Washington
In this enlightened age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States
President John Adams
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
Alexander Hamilton
When Alexander Hamilton was asked why the U.S. Constitution made no mention of God, he said the country did not require 'foreign aid'
Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution fashioned in 1787 is a secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or a supreme being anywhere in the document.
President James Madison
Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States
President Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
President Theodore Roosevelt
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
President John F. Kennedy
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute –
Martin Luther King Jr.
(The 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting state-supported prayer in public schools was) "sound and good, reaffirming something basic in the Nation’s life: separation of church and state."
Senator Barry Goldwater
"Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
"By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our two hundred plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. . . ."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I do not make decisions [as governor] based on what have I learned through my Bible studies, what have I learned in my religious classes in school. I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, and I think that's what . . . the law is."
Europe's bloody theocratic wars
This brings us, finally, to the serious discussions that dominionists and their enablers, like Miller, are trying to prevent. The first of those is about the very nature of American democracy. For nearly 200 years, Europe was torn apart by a series of religious wars and their bloody aftermath - the major reason that the United States was founded as a secular republic. We're potentially on the verge of forgetting all that history and suffering through it again, just as we're now suffering through forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression. Those centuries of war began with the German Peasants' War of 1524-26, in which more than 100,000 died; continued through the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War on the European continent; and lasted until the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). This was the bloody European history of religious intolerance and strife that many, if not most, American colonialists were fleeing from when they came to the New World.
It was also this bloody history that gave rise to the development of classical liberalism, affirming the individual right to religious liberty and replacing the top-down theocratic justification of the state with Locke's concept of the bottom-up social contract, based on the consent of the governed. The ideas that Locke perfected took generations to develop. Religious tolerance, for example, began as simply a matter of pragmatism: unless people stopped killing each other for differing religious beliefs, war in Europe would never end.
But gradually, the idea took hold that tolerance was a positive good, and key to this new perspective was the recognition that torturing someone to change their beliefs could not produce the desired result of a genuine heartfelt conversion. Thus, the moral rejection of torture - another feature of classical liberalism - had its roots in the evolution of the idea of religious liberty. The idea of utterly forgetting the prolonged bloody history that the United States was born out of is no laughing matter.
The same could be said of the myth that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, with laws based on the Bible. Of course most Americans were Christians at the time, but the leading intellects were decidedly less so, much more influenced by Enlightenment thought. There were many, such as Jefferson, who were better described as Deists, who believed that God had created a rational universe, but did not intervene supernaturally thereafter. They deliberately used terms like "the Creator" and "Nature's God" to affirm their distinctive, non-Christian view.
Moreover, God was not mentioned at all in the Constitution, and religion was only mentioned to exclude its influence, stating that no religious test should be required for office. Finally, US law was based on British common law, not the Bible. The Supreme Court itself is a common law court, following common law precedents and practices. And British common law traces back to Roman law, which first came to England centuries before Rome adopted the Christian religion.
Of course the intolerant religious right wants us to forget this. How else could they ever gain power, except through massive forgetting of who and what the United States really is? Not to mention who and what they are: the most fundamental enemies of the United States, who would, if they could, return us to the centuries of blood before the US was born, the nightmare out of which the United States awakened.
The Golden Rule:
"Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the interests of each, subversive of human rights and potentially persecuting in character; to oppose union, lawfully and honorably, is not only the citizen’s duty but the essence of the Golden Rule – to treat others as one wishes to be treated." From "Statement of Principles," Liberty magazine, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
In this enlightened age and in this land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest offices that are known in the United States
President John Adams
"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion."
Alexander Hamilton
When Alexander Hamilton was asked why the U.S. Constitution made no mention of God, he said the country did not require 'foreign aid'
Benjamin Franklin
The Constitution fashioned in 1787 is a secular document. There is no mention of God, Jesus Christ, or a supreme being anywhere in the document.
President James Madison
Strongly guarded . . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States
President Ulysses S. Grant
"Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate."
President Theodore Roosevelt
"I hold that in this country there must be complete severance of Church and State; that public moneys shall not be used for the purpose of advancing any particular creed; and therefore that the public schools shall be nonsectarian and no public moneys appropriated for sectarian schools."
President John F. Kennedy
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute –
Martin Luther King Jr.
(The 1962 U.S. Supreme Court decision prohibiting state-supported prayer in public schools was) "sound and good, reaffirming something basic in the Nation’s life: separation of church and state."
Senator Barry Goldwater
"Can any of us refute the wisdom of Madison and the other framers? Can anyone look at the carnage in Iran, the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or the bombs bursting in Lebanon and yet question the dangers of injecting religious issues into the affairs of state?"
"By maintaining the separation of church and state, the United States has avoided the intolerance which has so divided the rest of the world with religious wars. Throughout our two hundred plus years, public policy debate has focused on political and economic issues, on which there can be compromise. . . ."
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
"I do not make decisions [as governor] based on what have I learned through my Bible studies, what have I learned in my religious classes in school. I'm a big believer in separation of church and state, and I think that's what . . . the law is."
Europe's bloody theocratic wars
This brings us, finally, to the serious discussions that dominionists and their enablers, like Miller, are trying to prevent. The first of those is about the very nature of American democracy. For nearly 200 years, Europe was torn apart by a series of religious wars and their bloody aftermath - the major reason that the United States was founded as a secular republic. We're potentially on the verge of forgetting all that history and suffering through it again, just as we're now suffering through forgetting the lessons of the Great Depression. Those centuries of war began with the German Peasants' War of 1524-26, in which more than 100,000 died; continued through the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended the Thirty Years War on the European continent; and lasted until the end of the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714). This was the bloody European history of religious intolerance and strife that many, if not most, American colonialists were fleeing from when they came to the New World.
It was also this bloody history that gave rise to the development of classical liberalism, affirming the individual right to religious liberty and replacing the top-down theocratic justification of the state with Locke's concept of the bottom-up social contract, based on the consent of the governed. The ideas that Locke perfected took generations to develop. Religious tolerance, for example, began as simply a matter of pragmatism: unless people stopped killing each other for differing religious beliefs, war in Europe would never end.
But gradually, the idea took hold that tolerance was a positive good, and key to this new perspective was the recognition that torturing someone to change their beliefs could not produce the desired result of a genuine heartfelt conversion. Thus, the moral rejection of torture - another feature of classical liberalism - had its roots in the evolution of the idea of religious liberty. The idea of utterly forgetting the prolonged bloody history that the United States was born out of is no laughing matter.
The same could be said of the myth that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, with laws based on the Bible. Of course most Americans were Christians at the time, but the leading intellects were decidedly less so, much more influenced by Enlightenment thought. There were many, such as Jefferson, who were better described as Deists, who believed that God had created a rational universe, but did not intervene supernaturally thereafter. They deliberately used terms like "the Creator" and "Nature's God" to affirm their distinctive, non-Christian view.
Moreover, God was not mentioned at all in the Constitution, and religion was only mentioned to exclude its influence, stating that no religious test should be required for office. Finally, US law was based on British common law, not the Bible. The Supreme Court itself is a common law court, following common law precedents and practices. And British common law traces back to Roman law, which first came to England centuries before Rome adopted the Christian religion.
Of course the intolerant religious right wants us to forget this. How else could they ever gain power, except through massive forgetting of who and what the United States really is? Not to mention who and what they are: the most fundamental enemies of the United States, who would, if they could, return us to the centuries of blood before the US was born, the nightmare out of which the United States awakened.
The Golden Rule:
"Attempts to unite church and state are opposed to the interests of each, subversive of human rights and potentially persecuting in character; to oppose union, lawfully and honorably, is not only the citizen’s duty but the essence of the Golden Rule – to treat others as one wishes to be treated." From "Statement of Principles," Liberty magazine, a publication of the Seventh-day Adventist Church
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Term Limits based on Results!!! Unemployment above 7% game-over Congress/Executive
“The question is whether, in the face of an ongoing national crisis, we can stop the political circus and actually do something to help the economy,” Obama told the lawmakers yesterday.
Job growth stalled last month and the unemployment rate has hovered at or above 9 percent for more than two years.
I think we should pass a new law....any time unemployment rises above 7% no member of Congress or the Executive can run for re-election...guess how quickly your Congressman, Senator and President would focus on solving and not blabbering about employment issues!!!
America wake up; take charge of your government. Stop the apathy; they won't solve the problem until you make it their problem.
Job growth stalled last month and the unemployment rate has hovered at or above 9 percent for more than two years.
I think we should pass a new law....any time unemployment rises above 7% no member of Congress or the Executive can run for re-election...guess how quickly your Congressman, Senator and President would focus on solving and not blabbering about employment issues!!!
America wake up; take charge of your government. Stop the apathy; they won't solve the problem until you make it their problem.
If you have nothing to (hide) transparency is your friend!
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement action against Shanghai-based Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. for failing to produce documents related to an investigation of its former auditing client Longtop Financial Technologies Limited.
D&T Shanghai hasn’t provided any documents to the SEC, which issued subpoenas to the firm on May 27, the agency said in a statement today, citing a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington. As a result, the SEC has been unable to access “critical” information in its probe of possible fraud at Longtop, the statement said.
Longtop, based in Hong Kong, said in May that D&T Shanghai quit because of errors in the company’s financial records. The SEC also began an investigation. In July, the SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board met with counterparts in China to discuss cross-border oversight.
Today’s action “essentially is a battle between the SEC and Chinese regulators forcing D&T Shanghai to assert Chinese law as an explanation for why it cannot produce records,” Jacob Frenkel, a former SEC lawyer now with Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker PA in Potomac, Maryland, said in an interview. “Auditing firms know that the SEC has the right to subpoena and review and consider audit work papers. This is about bringing to a head the dispute over access to information relating to audits of Chinese companies.”
In order to compete fairly we must have transparency; otherwise we'll all be guilty of doping our domestic businesses to the detriment of the competion.
D&T Shanghai hasn’t provided any documents to the SEC, which issued subpoenas to the firm on May 27, the agency said in a statement today, citing a filing in U.S. District Court in Washington. As a result, the SEC has been unable to access “critical” information in its probe of possible fraud at Longtop, the statement said.
Longtop, based in Hong Kong, said in May that D&T Shanghai quit because of errors in the company’s financial records. The SEC also began an investigation. In July, the SEC and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board met with counterparts in China to discuss cross-border oversight.
Today’s action “essentially is a battle between the SEC and Chinese regulators forcing D&T Shanghai to assert Chinese law as an explanation for why it cannot produce records,” Jacob Frenkel, a former SEC lawyer now with Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker PA in Potomac, Maryland, said in an interview. “Auditing firms know that the SEC has the right to subpoena and review and consider audit work papers. This is about bringing to a head the dispute over access to information relating to audits of Chinese companies.”
In order to compete fairly we must have transparency; otherwise we'll all be guilty of doping our domestic businesses to the detriment of the competion.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A New "and Imporved" Deal for America
On the Eve of the President's Speech on Jobs for America let's consider the costs of the previous Administration (that was George.W.) ... $1.2 Trillion on Wars, $2.5 Trillion on Banks and Oil rising from $25 a barrel to $90 Barrel (or per gallon running from $1.8 to $3.8)!!!
With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately.
Subprime bailout $2.5 trillion. Don’t consider reputation damage to the USA and of course the S&P downgrade increasing America’s borrowing cost.
Now let’s consider what is rumoured to be President Obama’s big spending plan on creating jobs for Americans…..$300 billion. Hardly a reckless proposal…and guess what it creates jobs in America v fighting wars overseas that never needed to be fought… what a concept! It’s almost like he’s acting like someone who was elected to serve the public interest.
From the end of World War II through the mid 1970s, the real wages of American workers nearly doubled, moving up in tandem with the growth in productivity. The United States benefited from an implicit social contract: By working hard and contributing to productivity, profits, and economic growth, workers and their families could expect improved living standards, greater job security, and a secure and dignified retirement. This social contract broke down after 1980, as employees lost their bargaining power. Since then, productivity has grown more than 70 percent while real compensation of nonmanagerial workers has remained flat. Wages for the lowest-paid workers have collapsed even more than for average workers.
The postwar social contract was grounded in New Deal legislation that established a minimum wage, other wage and hour regulations, and labor laws that allowed workers to build the bargaining power needed to enforce wage-determination norms and principles in negotiating with large corporations. The undermining of this system of regulations, and of union bargaining power, accounts for significant portions of the wage lag.
Despite the convention of a poverty “line,” the working poor and the near-poor have much in common. After periodically raising the minimum wage from 1938 through the 1960s as prices rose, Congress and several presidents have allowed the real value of the minimum wage to fall about 25 percent since the late 1960s.
The system of collective bargaining that grew out of the New Deal’s National Labor Relations Act and the influence of the War Labor Board during World War II likewise get insufficient credit for their role in creating and sustaining the link between productivity and wages. The War Labor Board used wage comparisons to instill the principle of “equal pay for equal work” within industries and occupations. It encouraged negotiations for health insurance, pensions, and other benefits that eventually became sine qua non for a “good job.” By the mid-1970s, union members were about 20 percent more likely to be covered by these benefits than nonunion workers.
In the late 1940s, the United Auto Workers and General Motors negotiated contracts that explicitly linked wage increases to productivity growth (the “annual improvement factor”) and to increases in the cost of living. These private-sector wage norms reinforced the underlying social contract. From the mid-1940s through the 1970s, unions led the process of improving wages by producing union wage premiums ranging from 10 percent to 25 percent, with the biggest effects for less-skilled jobs and less-educated workers. Union-negotiated wages and benefits spilled over to affect nonunion workers and managers across the economy.
Unions have declined for several mutually reinforcing reasons: deregulation, industrial change, globalization, and increased employer resistance (often abetted by lax government enforcement of the right to organize). As the union percent of the workforce declined, first slowly in the 1970s and then precipitously after 1980, so, too, did their ability to enforce the social contract and to bargain for the wages and benefits that rose with productivity. The union wage premium has diminished, and unions have had to fight defensive battles to slow the decline in health care and pension coverage, and to shift the costs and risks of these benefit plans from employers to workers.
The weakening of unions leaves more power in the hands of corporations to determine wages. Three aspects of corporate strategies and policies have particularly affected lower-wage workers.
First, corporations that previously paid relatively high wages for all employees because of either the presence or the threat of unions began to narrow their focus to their “core competencies,” outsourcing noncore work that could be purchased at lower wages. This started with outsourcing janitorial and clerical work and then advanced to production, information technology, and other professional services. By outsourcing or offshoring some of this work, companies not only lowered their wage bill; they also further reduced the bargaining power of the workers who feared their jobs might be the next to go.
Second, internal equity norms broke down. Instead of maintaining consistent differentials between top-level executives and other managers and employees, compensation experts began differentiating between top executives, other high talented employees, and everyone else in the firm. Wages of top executives soared to as high as 400-to-1, a differential that would have been unthinkable when unions were stronger.
Third, intensified price competition was experienced in deregulated industries like airlines and trucking, manufacturing industries exposed to global competition, and even domestic industries where large firms such as Wal-Mart dominate. All these factors exerted significant downward pressure on wages. The opening of a Wal-Mart store reduces the wages of retail workers in the area by about 3 percent. A few years ago, food retailers in southern California took a four month strike to cut their fringe-benefit costs in anticipation of a new Wal-Mart in their region. Since 2000, major airlines have responded to the entry of newer, lower-cost competition by cutting $15 billion out of workers’ paychecks, not counting the additional financial losses to be endured by employees whose pensions were terminated and turned over to the government.
From the end of the recession in 1991, it took five years of declining unemployment before wages of lower-level employees began to grow. This ended with the recession that followed the dot-com bust. It has taken four years into the latest recovery before lower- and average-wage workers have started to see modest improvements in real wages. Given the Federal Reserve’s focus on inflation targeting and the unpredictability of world events, it’s likely that economic downturns will be as much a part of the future as they have been a part of the past.
Steady progress requires engaging government, business, and labor efforts to build a new social contract tailored to today’s economy and workforce. The greater instability of today’s job market requires more social protections, not fewer. As in the 1930s, government can take the first step by restoring a floor on minimum wages and family incomes.
A resurgence in unions is also essential, and not just in the model of the 1930s. Unions will need to draw on new sources of power—as some are doing by building coalitions with other community groups advocating for worker’s rights and living wages; negotiating for training, development funds, and job ladders (as is happening in some parts of the health-care and hospitality industries); and building networks that provide benefits, job referrals, and wage information to workers and contractors not attached to a single firm (as is being done by a new media workers’ union in New York).
Unions need to continue to lead the way in building productive labor-management partnerships that create value and then share the gains, as they have done over the years with progressive employers in health care, communications, manufacturing, utilities, and other industries. As was the case in the ‘30s, labor law needs to be fixed and updated so that it will once again protect workers’ right to organize, and so that it can open the way for these innovative strategies to spread across the economy.
Finally, building a new and sustainable social contract requires American firms to adopt strategies capable of generating good profits while also sustaining good jobs at fair wages and meeting labor and employment-law standards. This will require a government strategy and a set of policy initiatives as bold and creative as the New Deal, using both carrots and sticks. Tax incentives for research and development and human-capital investments, government contracts, and all other public supports should be made contingent on firms complying with labor laws. At the heart of a new social contract that fights poverty and raises wages is a national strategy to reconnect rising productivity, rising wages, and norms of fairness inside the corporation.
For US Corporations: Part of USA hegemony in the world is that we are the market of choice. We will not be that if purchasing power drops and our cities crumble.
For Employees: Twitter…organize..wake up from the bag of corn chips and fight.
For Government: Last I looked people voted you in not PACs, Super-PAC or Steroid PACs… how about a government of and for the people?
With enactment of the sixth FY2011 Continuing Resolution through March 18, 2011, (H.J.Res.48/P.L. 112-6) Congress has approved a total of $1.283 trillion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks: Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) Afghanistan and other counter terror operations; Operation Noble Eagle (ONE), providing enhanced security at military bases; and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This estimate assumes that the current CR level continues through the rest of the year and that agencies allocate reductions proportionately.
Subprime bailout $2.5 trillion. Don’t consider reputation damage to the USA and of course the S&P downgrade increasing America’s borrowing cost.
Now let’s consider what is rumoured to be President Obama’s big spending plan on creating jobs for Americans…..$300 billion. Hardly a reckless proposal…and guess what it creates jobs in America v fighting wars overseas that never needed to be fought… what a concept! It’s almost like he’s acting like someone who was elected to serve the public interest.
From the end of World War II through the mid 1970s, the real wages of American workers nearly doubled, moving up in tandem with the growth in productivity. The United States benefited from an implicit social contract: By working hard and contributing to productivity, profits, and economic growth, workers and their families could expect improved living standards, greater job security, and a secure and dignified retirement. This social contract broke down after 1980, as employees lost their bargaining power. Since then, productivity has grown more than 70 percent while real compensation of nonmanagerial workers has remained flat. Wages for the lowest-paid workers have collapsed even more than for average workers.
The postwar social contract was grounded in New Deal legislation that established a minimum wage, other wage and hour regulations, and labor laws that allowed workers to build the bargaining power needed to enforce wage-determination norms and principles in negotiating with large corporations. The undermining of this system of regulations, and of union bargaining power, accounts for significant portions of the wage lag.
Despite the convention of a poverty “line,” the working poor and the near-poor have much in common. After periodically raising the minimum wage from 1938 through the 1960s as prices rose, Congress and several presidents have allowed the real value of the minimum wage to fall about 25 percent since the late 1960s.
The system of collective bargaining that grew out of the New Deal’s National Labor Relations Act and the influence of the War Labor Board during World War II likewise get insufficient credit for their role in creating and sustaining the link between productivity and wages. The War Labor Board used wage comparisons to instill the principle of “equal pay for equal work” within industries and occupations. It encouraged negotiations for health insurance, pensions, and other benefits that eventually became sine qua non for a “good job.” By the mid-1970s, union members were about 20 percent more likely to be covered by these benefits than nonunion workers.
In the late 1940s, the United Auto Workers and General Motors negotiated contracts that explicitly linked wage increases to productivity growth (the “annual improvement factor”) and to increases in the cost of living. These private-sector wage norms reinforced the underlying social contract. From the mid-1940s through the 1970s, unions led the process of improving wages by producing union wage premiums ranging from 10 percent to 25 percent, with the biggest effects for less-skilled jobs and less-educated workers. Union-negotiated wages and benefits spilled over to affect nonunion workers and managers across the economy.
Unions have declined for several mutually reinforcing reasons: deregulation, industrial change, globalization, and increased employer resistance (often abetted by lax government enforcement of the right to organize). As the union percent of the workforce declined, first slowly in the 1970s and then precipitously after 1980, so, too, did their ability to enforce the social contract and to bargain for the wages and benefits that rose with productivity. The union wage premium has diminished, and unions have had to fight defensive battles to slow the decline in health care and pension coverage, and to shift the costs and risks of these benefit plans from employers to workers.
The weakening of unions leaves more power in the hands of corporations to determine wages. Three aspects of corporate strategies and policies have particularly affected lower-wage workers.
First, corporations that previously paid relatively high wages for all employees because of either the presence or the threat of unions began to narrow their focus to their “core competencies,” outsourcing noncore work that could be purchased at lower wages. This started with outsourcing janitorial and clerical work and then advanced to production, information technology, and other professional services. By outsourcing or offshoring some of this work, companies not only lowered their wage bill; they also further reduced the bargaining power of the workers who feared their jobs might be the next to go.
Second, internal equity norms broke down. Instead of maintaining consistent differentials between top-level executives and other managers and employees, compensation experts began differentiating between top executives, other high talented employees, and everyone else in the firm. Wages of top executives soared to as high as 400-to-1, a differential that would have been unthinkable when unions were stronger.
Third, intensified price competition was experienced in deregulated industries like airlines and trucking, manufacturing industries exposed to global competition, and even domestic industries where large firms such as Wal-Mart dominate. All these factors exerted significant downward pressure on wages. The opening of a Wal-Mart store reduces the wages of retail workers in the area by about 3 percent. A few years ago, food retailers in southern California took a four month strike to cut their fringe-benefit costs in anticipation of a new Wal-Mart in their region. Since 2000, major airlines have responded to the entry of newer, lower-cost competition by cutting $15 billion out of workers’ paychecks, not counting the additional financial losses to be endured by employees whose pensions were terminated and turned over to the government.
From the end of the recession in 1991, it took five years of declining unemployment before wages of lower-level employees began to grow. This ended with the recession that followed the dot-com bust. It has taken four years into the latest recovery before lower- and average-wage workers have started to see modest improvements in real wages. Given the Federal Reserve’s focus on inflation targeting and the unpredictability of world events, it’s likely that economic downturns will be as much a part of the future as they have been a part of the past.
Steady progress requires engaging government, business, and labor efforts to build a new social contract tailored to today’s economy and workforce. The greater instability of today’s job market requires more social protections, not fewer. As in the 1930s, government can take the first step by restoring a floor on minimum wages and family incomes.
A resurgence in unions is also essential, and not just in the model of the 1930s. Unions will need to draw on new sources of power—as some are doing by building coalitions with other community groups advocating for worker’s rights and living wages; negotiating for training, development funds, and job ladders (as is happening in some parts of the health-care and hospitality industries); and building networks that provide benefits, job referrals, and wage information to workers and contractors not attached to a single firm (as is being done by a new media workers’ union in New York).
Unions need to continue to lead the way in building productive labor-management partnerships that create value and then share the gains, as they have done over the years with progressive employers in health care, communications, manufacturing, utilities, and other industries. As was the case in the ‘30s, labor law needs to be fixed and updated so that it will once again protect workers’ right to organize, and so that it can open the way for these innovative strategies to spread across the economy.
Finally, building a new and sustainable social contract requires American firms to adopt strategies capable of generating good profits while also sustaining good jobs at fair wages and meeting labor and employment-law standards. This will require a government strategy and a set of policy initiatives as bold and creative as the New Deal, using both carrots and sticks. Tax incentives for research and development and human-capital investments, government contracts, and all other public supports should be made contingent on firms complying with labor laws. At the heart of a new social contract that fights poverty and raises wages is a national strategy to reconnect rising productivity, rising wages, and norms of fairness inside the corporation.
For US Corporations: Part of USA hegemony in the world is that we are the market of choice. We will not be that if purchasing power drops and our cities crumble.
For Employees: Twitter…organize..wake up from the bag of corn chips and fight.
For Government: Last I looked people voted you in not PACs, Super-PAC or Steroid PACs… how about a government of and for the people?
Tuesday, September 6, 2011
UAE Single (unmarried) Pregnant Female = jail time = It's a crime to be a mother!
If you're not married and get pregnant in the UAE, you'll be in a bit of trouble.
A girlfriend/boyfriend defacto relationship in the UAE is illegal.
There are many cases of unmarried mothers in UAE ending up in jail (with their baby) after delivery, followed by deportation on completion of their sentence, because giving birth out of wedlock is a crime in the UAE.
Rather than end up in that situation, you can either leave the country and go to your home country, or get a wedding organised in a hurry.
Government hospitals in Dubai will probably give you a hard time if you go for maternity care without a marriage certificate and possibly notify the police. You'll definitely have a problem if you try and give birth while still unmarried.
The American hospital and Welcare hospital will be more helpful during ante-natal care but you'll still be in trouble if you end up giving birth there as a single mother.
A girlfriend/boyfriend defacto relationship in the UAE is illegal.
There are many cases of unmarried mothers in UAE ending up in jail (with their baby) after delivery, followed by deportation on completion of their sentence, because giving birth out of wedlock is a crime in the UAE.
Rather than end up in that situation, you can either leave the country and go to your home country, or get a wedding organised in a hurry.
Government hospitals in Dubai will probably give you a hard time if you go for maternity care without a marriage certificate and possibly notify the police. You'll definitely have a problem if you try and give birth while still unmarried.
The American hospital and Welcare hospital will be more helpful during ante-natal care but you'll still be in trouble if you end up giving birth there as a single mother.
UAE Human Trafficking; Sexual Exploitation of Women
Human Rights Watch has praised a decision by the Philippines government that could ban domestic workers to three Gulf countries (UAE, Kuwait, & Qatar) and urged other labour exporting countries to follow suit.
The US-based watchdog said it remained concerned about the treatment of domestic workers in the GCC states and called for other governments to step up measures to better protect their nationals working abroad.
“Treatment of migrant domestic workers is a problem throughout the Gulf… It’s very encouraging that the Philippines would be considering such a move, it is steps like this that are essential in order to improve the situation for domestic workers generally,” Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division, told Arabian Business.
“Other labour sending countries should be taking the same kinds of measures or certainly conducting the same kinds of investigations, and having the same kind of vigilance on the ground through the embassies and consulates as the Philippines does,” he added.
The United Arab Emirates [UAE] is one of the biggest destinations for men and women, predominantly from South and Southeast Asia, trafficked for the purposes of labor and commercial-sexual exploitation. Migrant workers, who comprise more than 90 percent of the UAE's private sector workforce, are recruited from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, China, and the Philippines. Women from some of these countries travel willingly to work as domestic servants or administrative staff, but most are subjected to conditions indicative of forced labor, including unlawful withholding of passports, restrictions on movement, non-payment of wages, threats, or physical or sexual abuse.
Legally, once a foreign female domestic worker enters her employer's house, she is totally under his/her control, since the employer is usually her visa sponsor. Even today, United Arab Emirates labour laws do not recognize domestics as part of the labour force. The employer bears total responsibility for his/her domestic workers and has total control over them.
The immigration regulations governing the status of domestic workers and the social practices towards foreign female domestic worker in the United Arab Emirates enslave them to their employers until the duration of their contract ends.
A significant portion of the foreign female workers in UAE as well as in other Arab countries are forced to offer sex to the employer, as well as many of them are even sold to the private brothels or sex rackets by the recruiting agents or pimps.
The US-based watchdog said it remained concerned about the treatment of domestic workers in the GCC states and called for other governments to step up measures to better protect their nationals working abroad.
“Treatment of migrant domestic workers is a problem throughout the Gulf… It’s very encouraging that the Philippines would be considering such a move, it is steps like this that are essential in order to improve the situation for domestic workers generally,” Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa division, told Arabian Business.
“Other labour sending countries should be taking the same kinds of measures or certainly conducting the same kinds of investigations, and having the same kind of vigilance on the ground through the embassies and consulates as the Philippines does,” he added.
The United Arab Emirates [UAE] is one of the biggest destinations for men and women, predominantly from South and Southeast Asia, trafficked for the purposes of labor and commercial-sexual exploitation. Migrant workers, who comprise more than 90 percent of the UAE's private sector workforce, are recruited from India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, China, and the Philippines. Women from some of these countries travel willingly to work as domestic servants or administrative staff, but most are subjected to conditions indicative of forced labor, including unlawful withholding of passports, restrictions on movement, non-payment of wages, threats, or physical or sexual abuse.
Legally, once a foreign female domestic worker enters her employer's house, she is totally under his/her control, since the employer is usually her visa sponsor. Even today, United Arab Emirates labour laws do not recognize domestics as part of the labour force. The employer bears total responsibility for his/her domestic workers and has total control over them.
The immigration regulations governing the status of domestic workers and the social practices towards foreign female domestic worker in the United Arab Emirates enslave them to their employers until the duration of their contract ends.
A significant portion of the foreign female workers in UAE as well as in other Arab countries are forced to offer sex to the employer, as well as many of them are even sold to the private brothels or sex rackets by the recruiting agents or pimps.
Monday, September 5, 2011
UAE Rule of Law Farce!!!
Rule of law in the UAE has always been a painful topic, and if anything has been eroded rather than bolstered over the course of 2010-11.
So much of what Abu Dhabi and Dubai are trying to do with their economies is underpinned by having a sound international reputation, and the current abuse or absence of rule of law will very soon catch the state's leaders out. This will likely lead to a rapid deterioration in the country's economic prospects, especially in terms of attracting foreign direct investment, tourism, and joint venture partners. Ultimately, therefore, all UAE citizens and expatriate "stakeholders" will lose out unless the situation is soon redressed.
So what has been going on? There have been several disturbing, high profile cases, including the March imprisonment for three months of an Indian couple for ‘exchanging racy text messages’, and the April imprisonment of a British couple in Dubai for allegedly kissing and touching each other in a public place. While the severity of the latter "crime" is perhaps a necessary conversation that needs to be held in what is supposed to be a tourist-friendly city, what worries me is that the prosecution was built on a sole witness (a two year old infant) who did not appear in court. Another worrying and rather disgusting case was that of an 18 year old Emirati woman in Abu Dhabi who had tried to press charges against five Emirati men and one Iraqi man for gang-raping her. Forensic evidence supported the charge of gang rape, but the girl chose to drop all charges when she was threatened with two years imprisonment and lashing for having illegal, pre-marital sex.
Another illustrative case is that of an Emirati man originally imprisoned for one year after failing to pay debts. He is now poised to have his sentence extended by five years for "insulting the president" in December after the prison’s water supply was cut. His insult was apparently overheard by one prison guard – again, a sole witness. Some may argue, in an ironic fashion one hopes, that the rule of law was perfectly upheld in this case, given that insulting the UAE's president (de facto the hereditary ruler of Abu Dhabi) is indeed a crime carrying a five year sentence. But with even the US ambassador recorded in recent Wikileak cables describing him as 'a distant and uncharismatic personage', does a progressive Gulf state like the UAE really need to hang on to such archaic laws?
There have of course been many other worrying cases over the past year, but by far the kingpin was the one that it involved a senior member of the ruling family and, some would say, smacked of political interference in the judicial process, it has to my mind cast a shadow over the UAE. Although muttered about, and discussed on (blocked) Internet forums from time to time, it remains a serious taboo. Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan - a younger half brother of both the emirate's ruler and crown prince - was caught on several videos apparently torturing Asian employees in rather creative ways. It became a subject of great embarrassment for Abu Dhabi, as many of the videos were posted on Youtube.com and on a (swiftly blocked) website, www.uaetorture.com.
In one case the victim is beaten, whipped, electrocuted, and run over by a 4x4 vehicle. In the video Issa is being assisted by a man wearing a uniform who was, according to early media reports of the video, a private security guard. But the uniform is undoubtedly that of a regular Abu Dhabi police officer, and a police vehicle is also in view at one point. The misunderstanding was seemingly the result of an Abu Dhabi official informing the media that the assistant was not a policeman.
When ABC News and CNN covered the story in the US it prompted the Abu Dhabi authorities to respond, stating that they had reviewed the video and acknowledged Issa's involvement. They stated that "the incidents depicted in the video were not part of a pattern of behaviour" and that "all rules, policies, and procedures had been followed correctly by the police department." Issa’s lawyer: "the story that we think ABC is being told is grossly misleading; it is in large measure demonstrably untrue, and it is defamatory to Sheikh Issa." The UAE Minstry for the Interior stated that all of the parties involved, presumably referring to the victims, had "settled the matter privately", as permitted under Abu Dhabi law.
This response, which promised no accountability for Issa or those other responsible, provoked criticism from Human Rights Watch, which stated that "‘if this is their complete reply, then sadly it’s a scam and a sham… it is the state that is torturing… if the government does not investigate and prosecute these officers, and those commanding the officers." Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the ruler of Abu Dhabi requesting that he form an independent body to probe both the torture and "the failure of the Ministry for Interior to bring those responsible to justice." The co-chairman of the US Congress Human Rights Commission was similarly critical of the inaction: "granted that they're strategically located in a key part of the world, but it's hard to imagine that we're going to keep going on as if it were business as usual when this kind of stuff happens… my guess is that this is just the tip of the iceberg."
The strength of this international reaction, coupled with the US temporarily suspending negotiations on a potential US-UAE nuclear technology deal, was seemingly sufficient to force the Abu Dhabi authorities to revisit the Issa torture case. Issa was placed under house arrest until his trial took place in December 2009. Half of the trial (including the prosecution's witness statements), conducted by an expatriate judge, was held in secret, with The National newspaper beginning its coverage of the trial at only the halfway point - only covering the defence's statements. Presumably in an effort to ready the UAE's population for the inevitable verdict. Issa was duly released in January 2010 and - despite being filmed operating a machine gun, an electric cattle prod, driving a vehicle, and stuffing sand down a man's throat - it was claimed he was put into an induced coma by dishonest employees, who were convicted in absentia for extortion and manipulation.
The 2009 Freedom House report on the UAE stated that "the judiciary is not independent, with court rulings subject to review by the political leadership… although the constitution bans torture, there is compelling evidence that members of the royal family and the country’s police have used torture against political rivals and business associates."
So much of what Abu Dhabi and Dubai are trying to do with their economies is underpinned by having a sound international reputation, and the current abuse or absence of rule of law will very soon catch the state's leaders out. This will likely lead to a rapid deterioration in the country's economic prospects, especially in terms of attracting foreign direct investment, tourism, and joint venture partners. Ultimately, therefore, all UAE citizens and expatriate "stakeholders" will lose out unless the situation is soon redressed.
So what has been going on? There have been several disturbing, high profile cases, including the March imprisonment for three months of an Indian couple for ‘exchanging racy text messages’, and the April imprisonment of a British couple in Dubai for allegedly kissing and touching each other in a public place. While the severity of the latter "crime" is perhaps a necessary conversation that needs to be held in what is supposed to be a tourist-friendly city, what worries me is that the prosecution was built on a sole witness (a two year old infant) who did not appear in court. Another worrying and rather disgusting case was that of an 18 year old Emirati woman in Abu Dhabi who had tried to press charges against five Emirati men and one Iraqi man for gang-raping her. Forensic evidence supported the charge of gang rape, but the girl chose to drop all charges when she was threatened with two years imprisonment and lashing for having illegal, pre-marital sex.
Another illustrative case is that of an Emirati man originally imprisoned for one year after failing to pay debts. He is now poised to have his sentence extended by five years for "insulting the president" in December after the prison’s water supply was cut. His insult was apparently overheard by one prison guard – again, a sole witness. Some may argue, in an ironic fashion one hopes, that the rule of law was perfectly upheld in this case, given that insulting the UAE's president (de facto the hereditary ruler of Abu Dhabi) is indeed a crime carrying a five year sentence. But with even the US ambassador recorded in recent Wikileak cables describing him as 'a distant and uncharismatic personage', does a progressive Gulf state like the UAE really need to hang on to such archaic laws?
There have of course been many other worrying cases over the past year, but by far the kingpin was the one that it involved a senior member of the ruling family and, some would say, smacked of political interference in the judicial process, it has to my mind cast a shadow over the UAE. Although muttered about, and discussed on (blocked) Internet forums from time to time, it remains a serious taboo. Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Issa bin Zayed Al-Nahyan - a younger half brother of both the emirate's ruler and crown prince - was caught on several videos apparently torturing Asian employees in rather creative ways. It became a subject of great embarrassment for Abu Dhabi, as many of the videos were posted on Youtube.com and on a (swiftly blocked) website, www.uaetorture.com.
In one case the victim is beaten, whipped, electrocuted, and run over by a 4x4 vehicle. In the video Issa is being assisted by a man wearing a uniform who was, according to early media reports of the video, a private security guard. But the uniform is undoubtedly that of a regular Abu Dhabi police officer, and a police vehicle is also in view at one point. The misunderstanding was seemingly the result of an Abu Dhabi official informing the media that the assistant was not a policeman.
When ABC News and CNN covered the story in the US it prompted the Abu Dhabi authorities to respond, stating that they had reviewed the video and acknowledged Issa's involvement. They stated that "the incidents depicted in the video were not part of a pattern of behaviour" and that "all rules, policies, and procedures had been followed correctly by the police department." Issa’s lawyer: "the story that we think ABC is being told is grossly misleading; it is in large measure demonstrably untrue, and it is defamatory to Sheikh Issa." The UAE Minstry for the Interior stated that all of the parties involved, presumably referring to the victims, had "settled the matter privately", as permitted under Abu Dhabi law.
This response, which promised no accountability for Issa or those other responsible, provoked criticism from Human Rights Watch, which stated that "‘if this is their complete reply, then sadly it’s a scam and a sham… it is the state that is torturing… if the government does not investigate and prosecute these officers, and those commanding the officers." Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the ruler of Abu Dhabi requesting that he form an independent body to probe both the torture and "the failure of the Ministry for Interior to bring those responsible to justice." The co-chairman of the US Congress Human Rights Commission was similarly critical of the inaction: "granted that they're strategically located in a key part of the world, but it's hard to imagine that we're going to keep going on as if it were business as usual when this kind of stuff happens… my guess is that this is just the tip of the iceberg."
The strength of this international reaction, coupled with the US temporarily suspending negotiations on a potential US-UAE nuclear technology deal, was seemingly sufficient to force the Abu Dhabi authorities to revisit the Issa torture case. Issa was placed under house arrest until his trial took place in December 2009. Half of the trial (including the prosecution's witness statements), conducted by an expatriate judge, was held in secret, with The National newspaper beginning its coverage of the trial at only the halfway point - only covering the defence's statements. Presumably in an effort to ready the UAE's population for the inevitable verdict. Issa was duly released in January 2010 and - despite being filmed operating a machine gun, an electric cattle prod, driving a vehicle, and stuffing sand down a man's throat - it was claimed he was put into an induced coma by dishonest employees, who were convicted in absentia for extortion and manipulation.
The 2009 Freedom House report on the UAE stated that "the judiciary is not independent, with court rulings subject to review by the political leadership… although the constitution bans torture, there is compelling evidence that members of the royal family and the country’s police have used torture against political rivals and business associates."
Let’s face it…if you are the average American on Labor Day you are $#*&!.
The distribution of wealth in the USA is comparable to most dictatorships = 0.1% of the wealthiest equals the rest of us = 99.9%!!!
Much like our constitution calls for a separation of church (religion) and state = we need to evolve this concept to a separation of corporation and state. Our political system and sadly judicial system have become an instrument of corporatism and not “of and by the people”.
There are two futures for the USA.
a) Recognizing that greed has no natural limit. It will exploit and be as depraved as you let it = the course we seem to be on… = and lead natural to an American Spring in the distant future or
b) We can have a resurgence of the Citizen some could call this the worker but I prefer to think of it as the sentient being that has an inalienable right to develop and not be exploited. The Citizen has a right to social justice.
If we choose ‘b’, then the US and the World become a better place. The wealth gets distributed; exploitation drops and police states disappear (or at least are in the minority).
Labor Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the first Monday in September (September 5 in 2011) that celebrates the economic and social contributions of workers.
Social justice is essential to universal and lasting peace. What is social justice?
1) economic growth is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity, social progress and the eradication of poverty, confirming the need for strong social policies, justice and democratic institutions;
2) now more than ever, standard-setting, technical cooperation and research resources in all its areas of competence, in particular employment, vocational training and working conditions, to ensure that, in the context of a globalization strategy for economic and social development, economic and social policies are mutually reinforcing components in order to create broad-based sustainable development;
3) special attention to the problems of persons with special social needs, particularly the unemployed and migrant workers, and mobilize and encourage international, regional and national efforts aimed at resolving their problems, and promote effective policies aimed at job creation;
4) maintain the link between social progress and economic growth, the guarantee of fundamental principles and rights at work is of particular significance in that it enables the persons concerned, to claim freely and on the basis of equality of opportunity, their fair share of the wealth which they have helped to generate, and to achieve fully their human potential;
5) mandated international organization and competent body to set and deal with international labor standards, and enjoy universal support and acknowledgement in promoting Fundamental Rights at Work as the expression of its constitutional principles;
6) growing economic interdependence, to reaffirm the immutable nature of the fundamental principles and rights and to promote their universal application;
Today most US unions are aligned with one of two larger umbrella organizations: the AFL-CIO created in 1955 and the Change to Win Federation, which split from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Both advocate policies and legislation on behalf of workers in the United States and Canada, and take an active role in politics. The AFL-CIO is especially concerned with global trade issues.
American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9% — levels not seen since 1932. Unions allege that employer-incited opposition has contributed to this decline in membership.
Unions are currently advocating new federal legislation that would allow workers to elect union representation by simply signing a support card. The current process established by federal law requires at least 30% of employees to sign cards for the union, then wait 45 to 90 days for a federal official to conduct a secret ballot election in which a simple majority of the employees must vote for the union in order to obligate the employer to bargain. Unions report that, under the present system, many employers use the 45 to 90 day period to conduct anti-union campaigns. Some opponents of this legislation fear that removing secret balloting from the process will lead to the intimidation and coercion of workers on behalf of the unions.
During the 2008 elections, the Employee Free Choice Act had widespread support of many legislators in the House and Senate, and of the President. Since then, support for the "card check" provisions of the EFCA subsided substantially.
So when your potential future political leaders tell you that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme…..worry!!!
Much like our constitution calls for a separation of church (religion) and state = we need to evolve this concept to a separation of corporation and state. Our political system and sadly judicial system have become an instrument of corporatism and not “of and by the people”.
There are two futures for the USA.
a) Recognizing that greed has no natural limit. It will exploit and be as depraved as you let it = the course we seem to be on… = and lead natural to an American Spring in the distant future or
b) We can have a resurgence of the Citizen some could call this the worker but I prefer to think of it as the sentient being that has an inalienable right to develop and not be exploited. The Citizen has a right to social justice.
If we choose ‘b’, then the US and the World become a better place. The wealth gets distributed; exploitation drops and police states disappear (or at least are in the minority).
Labor Day is a United States federal holiday observed on the first Monday in September (September 5 in 2011) that celebrates the economic and social contributions of workers.
Social justice is essential to universal and lasting peace. What is social justice?
1) economic growth is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity, social progress and the eradication of poverty, confirming the need for strong social policies, justice and democratic institutions;
2) now more than ever, standard-setting, technical cooperation and research resources in all its areas of competence, in particular employment, vocational training and working conditions, to ensure that, in the context of a globalization strategy for economic and social development, economic and social policies are mutually reinforcing components in order to create broad-based sustainable development;
3) special attention to the problems of persons with special social needs, particularly the unemployed and migrant workers, and mobilize and encourage international, regional and national efforts aimed at resolving their problems, and promote effective policies aimed at job creation;
4) maintain the link between social progress and economic growth, the guarantee of fundamental principles and rights at work is of particular significance in that it enables the persons concerned, to claim freely and on the basis of equality of opportunity, their fair share of the wealth which they have helped to generate, and to achieve fully their human potential;
5) mandated international organization and competent body to set and deal with international labor standards, and enjoy universal support and acknowledgement in promoting Fundamental Rights at Work as the expression of its constitutional principles;
6) growing economic interdependence, to reaffirm the immutable nature of the fundamental principles and rights and to promote their universal application;
Today most US unions are aligned with one of two larger umbrella organizations: the AFL-CIO created in 1955 and the Change to Win Federation, which split from the AFL-CIO in 2005. Both advocate policies and legislation on behalf of workers in the United States and Canada, and take an active role in politics. The AFL-CIO is especially concerned with global trade issues.
American union membership in the private sector has in recent years fallen under 9% — levels not seen since 1932. Unions allege that employer-incited opposition has contributed to this decline in membership.
Unions are currently advocating new federal legislation that would allow workers to elect union representation by simply signing a support card. The current process established by federal law requires at least 30% of employees to sign cards for the union, then wait 45 to 90 days for a federal official to conduct a secret ballot election in which a simple majority of the employees must vote for the union in order to obligate the employer to bargain. Unions report that, under the present system, many employers use the 45 to 90 day period to conduct anti-union campaigns. Some opponents of this legislation fear that removing secret balloting from the process will lead to the intimidation and coercion of workers on behalf of the unions.
During the 2008 elections, the Employee Free Choice Act had widespread support of many legislators in the House and Senate, and of the President. Since then, support for the "card check" provisions of the EFCA subsided substantially.
So when your potential future political leaders tell you that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme…..worry!!!
Sunday, September 4, 2011
UAE: Women's Rights...you must be smoking camel $8!$$ again!
Female domestic workers in the UAE suffer unpaid wages, food deprivation, long working hours, forced confinement, and physical or sexual abuse.
The Indonesian embassy registered a 24 percent increase in domestic worker exploitation incidents in Abu Dhabi.
Reports have emerged of a Sri Lanken maid whose employers hammered 23 nails into her body as punishment for not doing enough work.
In another three reports a maid killed herself by jumping off a balcony after being raped. The second maid killed herself by swallowing bleach on finding she was pregnant. The third maid attempted to kill herself by taking a massive drug overdose after being gang-raped.
Makeshift shelters in Abu Dhabi and Dubai housed more than 300 runaway Filipina domestic workers.
Despite the existence of shelters and hotlines to help protect women, domestic violence remains a pervasive problem. The penal code gives men the legal right to discipline their wives and children, including through the use of physical violence. In October 2010 the Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld a husband's right to "chastise" his wife and children with physical abuse.
In January 2011, a UAE court charged 23-year-old British woman and her fiance with having illegal sex and drinking outside permitted premises after the woman reported to police that a hotel employee had raped her. In June the Abu Dhabi criminal court sentenced an 18-year-old Emirati woman to a year in prison for illicit sex after she complained that six men gang-raped her a month earlier.
According to a survey conducted of 980 UAE residents, 55 percent of the female respondents said they would not report a sexual assault for fear of arrest, and 49 percent would not do so because society would judge them harshly.
The Indonesian embassy registered a 24 percent increase in domestic worker exploitation incidents in Abu Dhabi.
Reports have emerged of a Sri Lanken maid whose employers hammered 23 nails into her body as punishment for not doing enough work.
In another three reports a maid killed herself by jumping off a balcony after being raped. The second maid killed herself by swallowing bleach on finding she was pregnant. The third maid attempted to kill herself by taking a massive drug overdose after being gang-raped.
Makeshift shelters in Abu Dhabi and Dubai housed more than 300 runaway Filipina domestic workers.
Despite the existence of shelters and hotlines to help protect women, domestic violence remains a pervasive problem. The penal code gives men the legal right to discipline their wives and children, including through the use of physical violence. In October 2010 the Federal Supreme Court issued a ruling that upheld a husband's right to "chastise" his wife and children with physical abuse.
In January 2011, a UAE court charged 23-year-old British woman and her fiance with having illegal sex and drinking outside permitted premises after the woman reported to police that a hotel employee had raped her. In June the Abu Dhabi criminal court sentenced an 18-year-old Emirati woman to a year in prison for illicit sex after she complained that six men gang-raped her a month earlier.
According to a survey conducted of 980 UAE residents, 55 percent of the female respondents said they would not report a sexual assault for fear of arrest, and 49 percent would not do so because society would judge them harshly.
There must be a sensible balance between Socialism and Capitalism...and its not playing cards!
Each day, about 2,800 workers punch their time-cards in and out of Hindustan Cables Ltd.’s factories in India. They get paid, receive the occasional raise and eat in subsidized canteens, even though they produce nothing.
The state-owned company, based in Kolkata, hasn’t made any cable since 2004 and has lost $549 million after cellular technology made its telephone wiring obsolete. Labor laws which the World Bank says are among the most restrictive anywhere and tortuous bankruptcy procedures, a legacy of India’s Soviet-era plan economy, mean the government can’t fire idle employees or sell assets such as machinery or land.
While tolerance of unprofitable companies sits at odds with India’s status as the world’s second-fastest growing major economy, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government, rocked by a spate of corruption scandals, may be wary of changing rules that keep many in jobs. About a third of India’s 249 state-owned firms that make everything from condoms to steel are losing money -- $3.4 billion in the most recent financial year -- just as the government misses a goal of raising $8.7 billion this year selling stakes in companies such as Oil & Natural Gas Corp., the nation’s biggest explorer.
“It is utterly crazy and everyone knows it’s crazy but there is nothing the government can do because of the labor laws,” said M. Govinda Rao, one of four members of India’s Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, a panel which produces periodic reports for Singh’s administration. “The government is literally throwing money away.”
Kishore Rungta, chairman and managing director of Hindustan Cables, declined to comment.
The state-owned company, based in Kolkata, hasn’t made any cable since 2004 and has lost $549 million after cellular technology made its telephone wiring obsolete. Labor laws which the World Bank says are among the most restrictive anywhere and tortuous bankruptcy procedures, a legacy of India’s Soviet-era plan economy, mean the government can’t fire idle employees or sell assets such as machinery or land.
While tolerance of unprofitable companies sits at odds with India’s status as the world’s second-fastest growing major economy, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government, rocked by a spate of corruption scandals, may be wary of changing rules that keep many in jobs. About a third of India’s 249 state-owned firms that make everything from condoms to steel are losing money -- $3.4 billion in the most recent financial year -- just as the government misses a goal of raising $8.7 billion this year selling stakes in companies such as Oil & Natural Gas Corp., the nation’s biggest explorer.
“It is utterly crazy and everyone knows it’s crazy but there is nothing the government can do because of the labor laws,” said M. Govinda Rao, one of four members of India’s Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, a panel which produces periodic reports for Singh’s administration. “The government is literally throwing money away.”
Kishore Rungta, chairman and managing director of Hindustan Cables, declined to comment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)