Back again! Continuing the saga of human rights coverage for my Ethics and Human Rights course, and trying to remain objective.
Also, I apologize in advance for all the links.
So! Recent events in Uganda regarding gay rights:
A few weeks ago, a Ugandan man living in the United States named Joseph Bokombe was arrested by U.S. immigration officials because of an expired visa. Bokombe, a gay man, obviously feared returning home and elected to stay in the United States past the expiration date of his cultural exchange visa. If he is deported, it is likely he will share the same fate as David Kato (whose story I detailed in my other human rights post). In fact, he probably won't even make it past the airport - he will be immediately detained, and then eventually murdered.
Members of his community banded together and have been collecting petitions in order to secure his continued residence in the United States, and they will eventually submit them to a judge. If you would like to sign the petition, it can be found here.
Even more recent are the renewed cries to pass the 2009 Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill before the end of the Parliament session in May, which have been defended by the anti-gay Ugandan preacher Rev. Martin Ssempa. A strong New York Times article (which is well quoted here for people without an account) details how citizens have been coerced or bribed into supporting this movement. The delay already placed on the bill is mostly due to Western criticism and anger, which presents an opportunity, should the West decide to take it. Again, there is another petition available, and it takes only a second to fill out.
Perhaps the most shocking (to me anyway) recent act coming from the Ugandan elite is a letter, published by the Ugandan Ambassador to the President of the European Parliament, which states that David Kato should share responsibility for his brutal murder. You can read the letter here, but it is simultaneously infuriating and depressing. So, you know, only visit if you're already dead inside.
0 Comments
I have already discussed the sudden and brutal attack on our nation's unions and teachers. Before, it was a moral argument held up by strong beliefs in the rights of our working citizens. Now, however, it is personal.
I recently discovered that in my home state of Ohio, Governor Kasich has proposed a budget he calls the "Robin Hood Bill". It is, in fact, a total mockery of any sort of values the mythic Robin Hood possessed. While Robin Hood stole money from greedy nobleman (who had, in truth, stolen their riches from the poor), Governor Kasich is advocating taking money away from our public schools in order to share it around, communist style. In fact, our school (which is funded 95% by our community tax dollars) will lose $54 million dollars over the next ten years! That's nearly 20% of our budget. That's nearly 40 teachers lost, every year.
Our high school is the best public school in the state of Ohio. There's a reason for that, mainly a strong blend of academic success, athletic ability, and excellent musicianship. If the Governor's bill passes, our school will quickly become mediocre. I don't want that for my community (or my sister, who is still attending high school). So, I have written a letter to the Representatives of my state, and posted it on facebook. Maybe I'll post it here as well. We'll see if anything comes of it.
I encourage those of you from Ohio to do the same! And even if you aren't from the greatest state in the USA, make sure to pay attention to what is happening to your old high schools - your experiences during high school make up a large part of who you are today, and you don't want the most positive aspects of your primary education forcibly removed by the crusade to end debt in the most damaging way possible!
EDIT: This quote brought to you by my music instructor, Mr. Kline:
"Remember when teachers, public employees, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither."
I recently discovered that in my home state of Ohio, Governor Kasich has proposed a budget he calls the "Robin Hood Bill". It is, in fact, a total mockery of any sort of values the mythic Robin Hood possessed. While Robin Hood stole money from greedy nobleman (who had, in truth, stolen their riches from the poor), Governor Kasich is advocating taking money away from our public schools in order to share it around, communist style. In fact, our school (which is funded 95% by our community tax dollars) will lose $54 million dollars over the next ten years! That's nearly 20% of our budget. That's nearly 40 teachers lost, every year.
Our high school is the best public school in the state of Ohio. There's a reason for that, mainly a strong blend of academic success, athletic ability, and excellent musicianship. If the Governor's bill passes, our school will quickly become mediocre. I don't want that for my community (or my sister, who is still attending high school). So, I have written a letter to the Representatives of my state, and posted it on facebook. Maybe I'll post it here as well. We'll see if anything comes of it.
I encourage those of you from Ohio to do the same! And even if you aren't from the greatest state in the USA, make sure to pay attention to what is happening to your old high schools - your experiences during high school make up a large part of who you are today, and you don't want the most positive aspects of your primary education forcibly removed by the crusade to end debt in the most damaging way possible!
EDIT: This quote brought to you by my music instructor, Mr. Kline:
"Remember when teachers, public employees, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in TARP money, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?
Yeah, me neither."
I have recently been finding that the United States Government just does what it wants.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of big government and the increased protectionthat it brings, but the issue of big/small government and state power is not really relevant here.
I'm talking about blatantly unconstitutional overstepping of clear legal bounds, made by the President, by Congress, and also by State Legislatures. Here's a list:
- Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio strip workers of their rights
- Congress' attempts to repeal healthcare laws deny equal protection
- Obama's decision to intervene in Libya without asking Congress
- Congress forces an animal off the endangered species list
- Congressmen vote before being sworn in - one even chaired the Rules Committee without being a member
- The Patriot Act exists
Although it is sometimes difficult to decide whether or not these things are "necessary" or "should" occur, the fact of the matter is that they are all illegal. And frankly, I'm a little tired of the government not following protocol.
Have any other blatant violations of precedent or the Constitution? Submit them! I'll add them in, and you'll look like a legal superhero (which is bound to help you out with the ladies).
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of big government and the increased protectionthat it brings, but the issue of big/small government and state power is not really relevant here.
I'm talking about blatantly unconstitutional overstepping of clear legal bounds, made by the President, by Congress, and also by State Legislatures. Here's a list:
- Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio strip workers of their rights
- Congress' attempts to repeal healthcare laws deny equal protection
- Obama's decision to intervene in Libya without asking Congress
- Congress forces an animal off the endangered species list
- Congressmen vote before being sworn in - one even chaired the Rules Committee without being a member
- The Patriot Act exists
Although it is sometimes difficult to decide whether or not these things are "necessary" or "should" occur, the fact of the matter is that they are all illegal. And frankly, I'm a little tired of the government not following protocol.
Have any other blatant violations of precedent or the Constitution? Submit them! I'll add them in, and you'll look like a legal superhero (which is bound to help you out with the ladies).
The following post is in Arabic!
My next post was supposed to be Arabic-related, but I reacted so strongly to these videos that I had to share them. I would always love comments on these posts, if anyone has opinions!
The Iowan House of Representatives has recently been debating adding an amendment to the Iowan Constitution ending civil unions (same-sex marriages). To discuss the issue, there was a public hearing at the Iowan House in which members of the community, representatives, and officials could speak either for or against the restriction.
First, I saw this young man present his case:
Ah, that was nice. It's like a breath of fresh air, restoring my faith in humanity. He appealed to reason, gave personal evidence, and threw in some pro-Iowan down-home sentiment. Anyone notice the restructured MLK quote at the very end? Content of my character, very nice.
So, feeling reassured in the logic and pathos of the boy's argument, I clicked upon the opposition. I was just trying to be informed of a potential argument supporting the resolution. Well, this is what I got:
Wow. I don't believe one iota of his "argument" came from anywhere besides the Bible. I was practically shaking while watching it. His accent, his quotes, his "reasoning" - all of it grated on my common sense, my notions of equality, my knowledge and belief of the separation of church (or Bible-thumping extremists) and state.
Thankully, the bill died in the legislature. Let's hope people continue to use their heads and their hearts to uphold civil rights. As long as they aren't using this guy, there's hope for humanity.
As a note: I am usually against reading youtube comments, as they are more likely to give ulcers than anything else, but I would like to briefly clarify a few things.
1) The American constitution was not founded on Christian morals. The founding fathers were dieists, and were actually more appreciative of religions like Islam than Christianity.
2) The separation of Church and State was created in order to limit the scope of the Church's influence in order to protect liberties like, oh, I don't know, marriage.
The Iowan House of Representatives has recently been debating adding an amendment to the Iowan Constitution ending civil unions (same-sex marriages). To discuss the issue, there was a public hearing at the Iowan House in which members of the community, representatives, and officials could speak either for or against the restriction.
First, I saw this young man present his case:
Ah, that was nice. It's like a breath of fresh air, restoring my faith in humanity. He appealed to reason, gave personal evidence, and threw in some pro-Iowan down-home sentiment. Anyone notice the restructured MLK quote at the very end? Content of my character, very nice.
So, feeling reassured in the logic and pathos of the boy's argument, I clicked upon the opposition. I was just trying to be informed of a potential argument supporting the resolution. Well, this is what I got:
Wow. I don't believe one iota of his "argument" came from anywhere besides the Bible. I was practically shaking while watching it. His accent, his quotes, his "reasoning" - all of it grated on my common sense, my notions of equality, my knowledge and belief of the separation of church (or Bible-thumping extremists) and state.
Thankully, the bill died in the legislature. Let's hope people continue to use their heads and their hearts to uphold civil rights. As long as they aren't using this guy, there's hope for humanity.
As a note: I am usually against reading youtube comments, as they are more likely to give ulcers than anything else, but I would like to briefly clarify a few things.
1) The American constitution was not founded on Christian morals. The founding fathers were dieists, and were actually more appreciative of religions like Islam than Christianity.
2) The separation of Church and State was created in order to limit the scope of the Church's influence in order to protect liberties like, oh, I don't know, marriage.
From here on out the blog gets bilingual :)
For my Arabic class we have to blog briefly about various topics discussed in class and in the textbook. There won't be that many posts in Arabic, and they won't contain anything really essential, as I am less than fluent, but if you would like to read them in English I can provide it. (Or just use google translate because I am lazy.)
Anyway, this is just a notice of wonky new alphabets on the horizon.
For my Arabic class we have to blog briefly about various topics discussed in class and in the textbook. There won't be that many posts in Arabic, and they won't contain anything really essential, as I am less than fluent, but if you would like to read them in English I can provide it. (Or just use google translate because I am lazy.)
Anyway, this is just a notice of wonky new alphabets on the horizon.
Elephants are amazing creatures. They are one of my favorite animals, and I can't wait until they make lap versions of them, like they've done with Giraffes (http://www.petitelapgiraffe.com/). Honestly, it's one thing to jokingly say that elephants never forget, but it's another to really understand the intricacies of their society and their cognitive capabilities.
Elephants live in a structured society headed by a matriarch and made up of tight-knit family groups. Of course, the family unit isn't everything - elephants interact with other families and sub-populations. Elephant brains are extremely large and are highly developed emotionally, able to feel grief, altruism, joy, compassion, and self-awareness. In addition, they are one of the few animals to exhibit mothering and allomothering (in which males also care for children). Elephants can also communicate with something similar to a language. Their infamous trumpeting is more akin to a cry of excitement (or rage, or fear), but the sub-sonic rumblings they emit can communicate various messages for distances of over 6 miles! They can discuss directions to a nearby watering hole, inform others of the weather, or to find potential mates.
They sound pretty much like humans, don't they? That's why they really get angry when those pink fleshy things murder their relatives. And, just like we can't tell elephants apart, we fleshy things all look the same.
So, if elephants, who grieve deeply and can recognize the bones and bodies of their dead brethren, decide to exact revenge, they do so seemingly indiscriminately. While the loss of potentially innocent human life and valuable crop land is a tragedy in these rampages, we could do well to learn from them.
It's simple cause and effect.
A: We are killing elephants
B: Elephants get upset and angry
C: Elephants attack us and destroy the food supply of many African farmers
D: Solution?
According to CEO of GoDaddy.com, Bob Parsons, the solution is kill more elephants.
Somehow, that doesn't sound like an effective end to the problem...
Instead of building more effective defenses against elephants, or perhaps (getting crazy here, I know) stopping the murder of an endangered species much stronger than ourselves, Bob Parsons has argued that his solution is exactly what Africa needs. I'm not sure how you all feel about this, but I would like to hear your comments! How do you think we can keep crops that Africans desperately need safe without needlessly killing magnificent, highly intelligentpeople elephants?
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/04/01/godaddy.peta.protest/index.html?hpt=T2
Also, years and years of the Discovery Channel as a child :)
Elephants live in a structured society headed by a matriarch and made up of tight-knit family groups. Of course, the family unit isn't everything - elephants interact with other families and sub-populations. Elephant brains are extremely large and are highly developed emotionally, able to feel grief, altruism, joy, compassion, and self-awareness. In addition, they are one of the few animals to exhibit mothering and allomothering (in which males also care for children). Elephants can also communicate with something similar to a language. Their infamous trumpeting is more akin to a cry of excitement (or rage, or fear), but the sub-sonic rumblings they emit can communicate various messages for distances of over 6 miles! They can discuss directions to a nearby watering hole, inform others of the weather, or to find potential mates.
They sound pretty much like humans, don't they? That's why they really get angry when those pink fleshy things murder their relatives. And, just like we can't tell elephants apart, we fleshy things all look the same.
So, if elephants, who grieve deeply and can recognize the bones and bodies of their dead brethren, decide to exact revenge, they do so seemingly indiscriminately. While the loss of potentially innocent human life and valuable crop land is a tragedy in these rampages, we could do well to learn from them.
It's simple cause and effect.
A: We are killing elephants
B: Elephants get upset and angry
C: Elephants attack us and destroy the food supply of many African farmers
D: Solution?
According to CEO of GoDaddy.com, Bob Parsons, the solution is kill more elephants.
Somehow, that doesn't sound like an effective end to the problem...
Instead of building more effective defenses against elephants, or perhaps (getting crazy here, I know) stopping the murder of an endangered species much stronger than ourselves, Bob Parsons has argued that his solution is exactly what Africa needs. I'm not sure how you all feel about this, but I would like to hear your comments! How do you think we can keep crops that Africans desperately need safe without needlessly killing magnificent, highly intelligent
Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/BUSINESS/04/01/godaddy.peta.protest/index.html?hpt=T2
Also, years and years of the Discovery Channel as a child :)
At University I'm taking an Ethics and Human Rights class, and all the students are supposed to dutifully follow a human rights issue over the course of the semester.
So, naturally, I'm starting now.
I think part of my hesitation stemmed from the daunting number of possibilities, but in the end I settled on LBGT rights in Uganda. Hopefully, these posts will be more serious than my usual fare, and include more fact than (incredulous) analysis.
I was particularly moved by news of gay-activist David Kato's death in January of this year. It's difficult, when the struggle people face deals with resources, or money, or politics, to give up the ancient tribal notion of security and give in to sympathy (to paraphrase Richard Rorty). The security problem with sexuality is more elusive to my logical mind, but I suppose that isn't the point here.
Uganda has a history of anti-gay sentiment and legislation, and in 2009 the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced by MP David Bahati. It criminalized same-sex relationships and punished repeat offenders and HIV-positive people engaging in same-sex activities with death (termed "aggravated homosexuality"). In addition, those citizens who knew of any homosexual activity were required to report it or face years of jail time. The government has likened homosexuality to prostitution, and is interested in doling out life sentences for the "crime". Very recently, Uganda's minister of ethics and integrity stated, "Homosexuals can forget about human rights".
Where did this sentiment come from? As Carl Stychin mentions in his essay on Same-Sex Sexualities and Globalization of Human Rights, many Africans feel that homosexuality is a horrid Western import. They feel that same-sex sexuality is not held by any "authentic" Africans. This was only exacerbated by the influx of American evangelicals, all giving talks about the "evil institution" of homosexuality, how to turn gays straight, and the impending death of the sanctity of marriage. While these preachers maintain they had no intention of inciting the kind of bills or violence we now see, I'm not really sure what they thought would happen.
This sort of growing anti-gay fervor has been battled by the native (and authentic!) population of gay activists involved in the group Sexual Minorities Uganda, founded in 2004. They have worked to increase awareness, fight against legislation, and work for inclusion.
However, this hasn't been a fight without loss and setbacks. David Kato, considered a founder of the gay-rights movement in Uganda, was "outed" nationally by a tabloid titled "Rolling Stone" (not affiliated with the American version), which called for his execution. Kato was beaten to death in January; a great loss for the community.
Nevertheless, the fight continues on, and Kato's death has prompted Western countries such as the United States to threaten to withhold aid if Uganda doesn't alter its stance on homosexuality. We have yet to see any legislative results, but I will be following the story in Uganda more closely, and will hopefully have more progress to report soon.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/uganda-gay-rights-activist-murder
So, naturally, I'm starting now.
I think part of my hesitation stemmed from the daunting number of possibilities, but in the end I settled on LBGT rights in Uganda. Hopefully, these posts will be more serious than my usual fare, and include more fact than (incredulous) analysis.
I was particularly moved by news of gay-activist David Kato's death in January of this year. It's difficult, when the struggle people face deals with resources, or money, or politics, to give up the ancient tribal notion of security and give in to sympathy (to paraphrase Richard Rorty). The security problem with sexuality is more elusive to my logical mind, but I suppose that isn't the point here.
Uganda has a history of anti-gay sentiment and legislation, and in 2009 the Anti-Homosexuality Bill was introduced by MP David Bahati. It criminalized same-sex relationships and punished repeat offenders and HIV-positive people engaging in same-sex activities with death (termed "aggravated homosexuality"). In addition, those citizens who knew of any homosexual activity were required to report it or face years of jail time. The government has likened homosexuality to prostitution, and is interested in doling out life sentences for the "crime". Very recently, Uganda's minister of ethics and integrity stated, "Homosexuals can forget about human rights".
Where did this sentiment come from? As Carl Stychin mentions in his essay on Same-Sex Sexualities and Globalization of Human Rights, many Africans feel that homosexuality is a horrid Western import. They feel that same-sex sexuality is not held by any "authentic" Africans. This was only exacerbated by the influx of American evangelicals, all giving talks about the "evil institution" of homosexuality, how to turn gays straight, and the impending death of the sanctity of marriage. While these preachers maintain they had no intention of inciting the kind of bills or violence we now see, I'm not really sure what they thought would happen.
This sort of growing anti-gay fervor has been battled by the native (and authentic!) population of gay activists involved in the group Sexual Minorities Uganda, founded in 2004. They have worked to increase awareness, fight against legislation, and work for inclusion.
However, this hasn't been a fight without loss and setbacks. David Kato, considered a founder of the gay-rights movement in Uganda, was "outed" nationally by a tabloid titled "Rolling Stone" (not affiliated with the American version), which called for his execution. Kato was beaten to death in January; a great loss for the community.
Nevertheless, the fight continues on, and Kato's death has prompted Western countries such as the United States to threaten to withhold aid if Uganda doesn't alter its stance on homosexuality. We have yet to see any legislative results, but I will be following the story in Uganda more closely, and will hopefully have more progress to report soon.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/27/uganda-gay-rights-activist-murder
It's been two weeks. I'm sorry. I'm also supposed to be following human rights issues, but this particular struggle has left me depressed, upset, feeling lost...I don't know. There's this swirling in my gut that flares up every time I think about it.
You know, in 1980, in a speech against Communism, President Reagan stated "[Our moral values] remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."
Reagan said that. Reagan!
And now we have legislation passed that effectively castrates unions and places an even higher burden on our already underpaid, underappreciated civil servants. It was bad enough that Governor Walker threatened to fire 1,500 government workers, exploited a loophole, and had the senate vote without any of the democrats present. What's worse is that across the nation, other Republicans are saying they stand strong beside him. Why? The Unions agreed to lower wages, fewer benefits - all concessions made for Walker's budget crusade - why did Walker insist on debilitating them in a completely different bill?
Fox News may pretend that teachers live in the lap of luxury, but everyone who has ever been to school should know better. Teachers get up early, teach all day, deal with troublesome and misbehaved children, coach sports, oversee clubs, go home, grade papers, formulate lesson plans, and painstakingly go over homework. Anyone who pretends teachers peace out at 2:30 and do nothing at night, on the weekends, or during the summer is simply delusional.
This whole debacle perfectly demonstrates one reason why we can't fix the school system. Teachers have an extremely important job; they educate the next generation of Americans. We need them to be passionate, excited, and good at their jobs. What we should be doing is paying them on a level that approaches doctors and treating their profession as an honorable, desirable career. There's a brain-drain occurring within our own country. Just think about it - the smartest kids don't go into education, that would be a "waste" of their abilities. They become doctors, lawyers, businessmen. The way to fix this certainly isn't reduction of pay, benefits, and collective bargaining rights! We can't continue to devalue one of the most important jobs for the future of America, otherwise we'll all end up like Texas.
You know, in 1980, in a speech against Communism, President Reagan stated "[Our moral values] remind us that where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."
Reagan said that. Reagan!
And now we have legislation passed that effectively castrates unions and places an even higher burden on our already underpaid, underappreciated civil servants. It was bad enough that Governor Walker threatened to fire 1,500 government workers, exploited a loophole, and had the senate vote without any of the democrats present. What's worse is that across the nation, other Republicans are saying they stand strong beside him. Why? The Unions agreed to lower wages, fewer benefits - all concessions made for Walker's budget crusade - why did Walker insist on debilitating them in a completely different bill?
Fox News may pretend that teachers live in the lap of luxury, but everyone who has ever been to school should know better. Teachers get up early, teach all day, deal with troublesome and misbehaved children, coach sports, oversee clubs, go home, grade papers, formulate lesson plans, and painstakingly go over homework. Anyone who pretends teachers peace out at 2:30 and do nothing at night, on the weekends, or during the summer is simply delusional.
This whole debacle perfectly demonstrates one reason why we can't fix the school system. Teachers have an extremely important job; they educate the next generation of Americans. We need them to be passionate, excited, and good at their jobs. What we should be doing is paying them on a level that approaches doctors and treating their profession as an honorable, desirable career. There's a brain-drain occurring within our own country. Just think about it - the smartest kids don't go into education, that would be a "waste" of their abilities. They become doctors, lawyers, businessmen. The way to fix this certainly isn't reduction of pay, benefits, and collective bargaining rights! We can't continue to devalue one of the most important jobs for the future of America, otherwise we'll all end up like Texas.
