Commenting on this will not get you any points. If you have the time, please fill out the survey and submit. Thanks
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Insight to the Cons of the Welfare System
Insight to the Cons of the Welfare System
Welfare is the financial aid the government provides to citizens in need. It includes Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability income, and government checks. It was formed in the 1930's, after the Great Depression, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and then continued by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Since then, the welfare system has been revised; making it so the state government would have to deal with the economic burden instead of the federal government. The government has also passed new eligibility rules, making it so a family would not only have to be low-income, but asset-poor as well (O'Brien, Let the Poor Save for Their Future).
The welfare system is not attacking the root of the problem; poverty. It doesn't allow citizens to have any type of savings in hopes of some day making it on their own. In one case in 1990, a mother on welfare was charged with fraud. She had saved $3000 in the bank, which was considered a breach on the limits of allowable assets (O'Brien, Let the Poor Save for Their Future). How will the people learn to manage a budget by themselves, if the welfare system will not let them start a savings plan? The limitations rule stops the recipients from reaching a point where they can feel comfortable enough to wean off the welfare system.
Another flaw in the system is state governments allowing recipients to side-step the work laws. Some states are by-passing the federal work laws by making welfare systems of their own, like Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont. These states have it set so that certain recipients don't have to meet the working requirements. It also makes it easier for the states to meet the federal government's threshold for welfare and work, and avoiding fines (Lohn, States Side-Step Work-to-Welfare Rules).
Welfare is paid for by the citizens who have a job and go to work on a daily basis. Some people can choose not to work and collect welfare, while the families who do need it struggles to get the approval for one reason or another. A family member may have lost their job but because they own a car their assets are considered too high. In most cases these situations are usually cased by owning a car that is 10 plus years old and all rusted out. The state government needs to make changes and put some time constraints on how long someone can qualify for welfare. There are many family's that continue to have children when they know they cannot support them to increase the amount of welfare the can receive. Welfare puts a burden on the working citizens of the United States because it could raise taxes if the government is running short on funds to support their budget.
Supporters of the welfare system believe that it helps low-income families reach their basic needs and helps them find a place in the workforce. But, there are many people that abuse the welfare system, and the government is not doing enough to stop them from receiving money that others need.
-Paviche
Welfare is the financial aid the government provides to citizens in need. It includes Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, disability income, and government checks. It was formed in the 1930's, after the Great Depression, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and then continued by President Lyndon B. Johnson. Since then, the welfare system has been revised; making it so the state government would have to deal with the economic burden instead of the federal government. The government has also passed new eligibility rules, making it so a family would not only have to be low-income, but asset-poor as well (O'Brien, Let the Poor Save for Their Future).
The welfare system is not attacking the root of the problem; poverty. It doesn't allow citizens to have any type of savings in hopes of some day making it on their own. In one case in 1990, a mother on welfare was charged with fraud. She had saved $3000 in the bank, which was considered a breach on the limits of allowable assets (O'Brien, Let the Poor Save for Their Future). How will the people learn to manage a budget by themselves, if the welfare system will not let them start a savings plan? The limitations rule stops the recipients from reaching a point where they can feel comfortable enough to wean off the welfare system.
Another flaw in the system is state governments allowing recipients to side-step the work laws. Some states are by-passing the federal work laws by making welfare systems of their own, like Minnesota, New Mexico, and Vermont. These states have it set so that certain recipients don't have to meet the working requirements. It also makes it easier for the states to meet the federal government's threshold for welfare and work, and avoiding fines (Lohn, States Side-Step Work-to-Welfare Rules).
Welfare is paid for by the citizens who have a job and go to work on a daily basis. Some people can choose not to work and collect welfare, while the families who do need it struggles to get the approval for one reason or another. A family member may have lost their job but because they own a car their assets are considered too high. In most cases these situations are usually cased by owning a car that is 10 plus years old and all rusted out. The state government needs to make changes and put some time constraints on how long someone can qualify for welfare. There are many family's that continue to have children when they know they cannot support them to increase the amount of welfare the can receive. Welfare puts a burden on the working citizens of the United States because it could raise taxes if the government is running short on funds to support their budget.
Supporters of the welfare system believe that it helps low-income families reach their basic needs and helps them find a place in the workforce. But, there are many people that abuse the welfare system, and the government is not doing enough to stop them from receiving money that others need.
-Paviche
Same ol’ pork barrel Congress
February 24, 2009
Drew Griffin
On the same day the President called on the government to undergo fiscal restraint, Congress unveiled a bill revealing where all those earmarks have been hiding.
The pork-laden omnibus catch-all, held over from last year, contains no less than 8,570 earmarks. The pork projects are still being deciphered by various watchdog groups, and republicans are railing at the fact that the congressional leadership seems to have violated its transparency rules by jamming these all in a last minute bill, but a quick view has me scratching my head in disbelief at both parties.
After two years of criticism aimed at pork barrel spending, the defiant members of Congress are unabashedly asking for more. Republicans and democrats alike are looking for taxpayer dollars for projects no one could call necessary.
Like what?
David Obey, the house appropriations chair, wants to rebuild a Carnegie library building in Medford, Wisconsin, and he wants to reconstruct “Historic Lighthouses” in the Apostle Island National Lakeshore. (Historic lighthouse means no one uses them anymore, they are simply nice looking relics)
Nancy Pelosi wants money for Angels Island State Park for a center to research genealogy.
A Republican, Robert Aderholt of Alabama, wants $47,500 federal taxpayer dollars to build a perimeter fence around the Rountree Airport to keep the animals away. Rountree airport listed a whopping 14 aircraft based there in 2008. There is not a single air taxi or air carrier that uses this dinky little one runway airstrip.
But the request pales in comparison with an old favorite up in Alaska that simply won’t go away. Akutan is a tiny island off Alaska that has a seasonal fish processing factory. The owners of the factory gave money to now disgraced and ousted Senator Ted Stevens. We reported on Stevens’ earmark request last year. This year, Stevens is gone but Akutan airport is back. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski wants you and I to spend $1-point-2 million dollars on the Akutan airport.
Airports are a favorite of money. Another favorite of mine is Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a true pro at earmarking bills. If Senator Byrd wants money for airports in West Virginia, he doesn’t waste time explaining why. His earmark request in the transportation portion of the bill: $4,275,000 dollars. The explainer: “Airport improvement statewide.” Effectively, just give me the money and West Virginia will determine where to spend it.
Last year I interviewed a somber, somewhat dejected republican senate veteran Orrin Hatch. When I asked him about earmarks and federal spending, he simply shook his head saying the arrogance of both sides of the aisle is quite frankly outrageous and depressing. I’d like to know if somewhere in the White House our new President who promised change and hope, isn’t shaking his head too.
So how can you do your own investigative reporting to find your own Senate or Congressional pork? First, open up this House Appropriations committee link.
This site will display the Omnibus bill. Each individual portion of the bill contains a segment labeled “statement”. This is the center of all pork. Scroll down to read them all. Or, if you would like to search for a specific Representative or Senate request, hit control-f, then type in the name of the Senator or Member of Congress you are looking for.
If you opened the “statement” for the “transportation” section of the bill and searched “Murkowski”, you would find the money being requested for Akutan airport by Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
I know…it is not easy…but remember, just a few years ago all we got was a big stack of papers with no names attached. Happy hunting!
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Welfare in America
As the United States economy continues to crumble, people's homes are being foreclosed, and more and more people are booted to the street, forced to search for food. Many people criticize Congress for spending billions of dollars to finance two wars, when we have people within our own country starving to death, not being able to pay rent, and living on the side of the road. So how can we possibly fix both problems, the poor economy and homeless/unemployed rate? According to statistics a year ago (when unemployment rates were lower) the average number of weeks that a person was unemployed and between jobs was 17.5. Also, more than 18.3 percent of the people unemployed had been so for more than 26 weeks, so they lose benefits in most cases. The problem with this is that most states have restrictions on how long people can receive benefits. Nebraska has one of the best programs, allowing benefits for 60 months, BUT only offering $364 per month. This is hardly enough money to allow for absolute necessities, let alone rent, and in most cases, being able to support children. Nebraska also has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country, with just 3.8% in 2005, as compared to larger states like Louisiana with rates near 8%. (Diane, American) Not only would a welfare system help the less fortunate, but it would also help stimulate the economy. It is reported that for every dollar spent by someone on welfare, the gross domestic product is boosted by $2.15. This also helps the economy, more than say stimulus checks to all tax-payers, because people on welfare are more likely to actually spend the money instead of investing or saving it, which would help support businesses and boost the economy. By looking at the linked timeline, we see that cutting welfare benefits in 2001 resulted in 20% of the 37% that lost benefits becoming homeless as a direct result. Looking at the same timeline, in 2005 we see that the United States ranks second to Mexico as the country with most children living in poverty. As if living in poverty wasn't enough, it is common to see homeless people mugged, beaten, and sometimes even killed by criminals. (Proquest) In a land where "all men are created equal" shouldn't we be doing the most we can to provide for these less fortunate people? We could kill two birds with one stone by providing welfare to everyone, and boost the economy with the same money that we give to them. All we need is a good debate in Congress to support America's less fortunate and try to help them live a better life. American Radioworks, Your state of Welfare, American Public Media, 2009 Diane Stafford, Stimulus is missing extended benefits for homeless, McClatchy Newspapers, Feb. 16th 2008. ProQuest, Leading Issues Timeline, Poverty Timeline, 2009 |
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
David Miliband:The army alone cannot defeat this Taliban insurgency
The writer is the British Foreign Secretary David Milliband.
Wednesday, 25 February 2009
Nobody I talked to in Afghanistan last week wants a return to Taliban rule. Afghans cherish the opportunity to live a life of their own choosing and the chance to govern themselves.
But Afghans fear an enduring stalemate. The Taliban are too weak to fight Afghan and coalition forces in a conventional confrontation while Afghan institutions are not yet sufficiently rooted to drive out the Taliban's guerrilla warfare.
It is in this context that we welcome President Obama's decision to deploy a further 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. The threat of terrorist attack on our soil remains real. Al-Qa'ida is still hiding on these borders, co-opting the Taliban and tribesmen. The US commitment, alongside us and 40 other nations, is a signal of their long term determination
Our armed forces, diplomats and aid workers, operating in extraordinarily difficult terrain, continue to make a huge difference. Their unflinching courage and professionalism is a credit to this country. Over the past year in Helmand, they've helped double the number of districts under Afghan government control. Opium cultivation is down, the legal Afghan economy is growing, and many more people have access to basic healthcare and schools.
But as we have long argued, there is no purely military solution to the insurgency. Unless it is aligned with a clear political and economic strategy, military might will only force the Taliban further underground, or encourage them to play a waiting game.
Defeating the insurgency means understanding it, and being clearer about the forms it takes. The insurgency is not drawn from a single organisation, nor is it fighting for a single cause. There are ideological Taliban, ten-dollar-a- day Taliban, fighters from beyond the region, criminals, narco-traffickers, warlords and wannabe power-brokers. And all of them rely on the acquiesence of some ordinary citizens, who despite dreading the Taliban's return, doubt the capacity of the state to protect them, so hedge their bets.
Our strategy is to help the Afghan government divide the insurgency, and co-opt those prepared to renounce al-Qa'ida, give up violence, and accept the Afghan constitution. This means countering insurgents in different ways.
If we want ordinary Afghans to deny the Taliban support and sanctuary, we need to give them confidence in their state. We must build the capacity – especially the national army, the police and the judiciary – and help the government provide for its people.
When it comes to those who have aligned themselves with the Taliban not for safety and lack of choice, but rather for power and influence, we need incentives and sanctions. They need to know that if they renounce violence and accept the rule of law, there are legitimate opportunities for them. And if they do not accept the constitution, they will be pursued relentlessly by military forces.
Then of course there are the more extreme elements of the insurgency; the hard-line ideologues determined to reject the authority of the legitimate state, prepared to fight to the end. There are the small numbers of foreign fighters. For both these groups, the only response is confrontation by the coalition and the Afghan forces. There has, in the last year, been attrition in these groups' ranks on both sides of the border.
On Wednesday I went to the Khyber Pass. The ease with which insurgents can move across the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is a massive problem. American determination to look at Afghanistan and Pakistan together is a great step forward. With intimate connections between the insurgency in Kunar and the militancy in Waziristan, between the criminals, spoilers and terrorists in Lashkar Gah and Quetta, in Peshawar and Nangahar, Afghanistan can never be safe unless the Pakistani militancy is addressed.
Out of the loss of life to terrorism in Pakistan, the danger of spreading talebanisation, the summary executions and the school demolitions, is emerging a growing acceptance within Pakistan's elite that violent extremism is the greatest threat the country faces. We need to support the democratically elected government and its military forces in rooting out the extremism on its soil and developing a joint approach with the Afghan authorities.
Afghanistan is a test of the resolve of Nato and the broader international alliance. More troops will never be enough to enforce stability across the country. But by pressuring those who refuse to cooperate with the Afghan state, and protecting those who do, military force can directly support a political solution.
This is the only way to build a safe and secure Afghanistan. And it is the best way to ensure that the Taliban do not return to power, and that the country cannot, once again, become a haven for those who seek to do us harm.
US Makes Hundreds of Arrests in Crackdown on Mexican Drug Cartel
By Meredith Buel
Washington
25 February 2009
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday announced the arrest of 755 people on narcotics-related charges as part of a major campaign against a notorious drug cartel based in Mexico.
Attorney General Holder told reporters at the Justice Department that a 21 month law enforcement investigation known as "Operation Xcellerator" targeted the infamous Sinaloa cartel, which, he says, ships illegal narcotics from Mexico to the United States and Canada.
In addition to making hundreds of arrests in communities across the United States, federal agents and police confiscated 23 tons of illegal drugs - including marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin.
Holder said Mexican and Canadian officials cooperated with the investigation.
"It is no secret that we are now seeing many more international aspects to cases that were once only domestic ones," said Eric Holder. "As our world grows smaller, the ability of criminals from outside the United States to operate within our borders grows larger. In the face of internationalized crime, there are no more important partners than our law enforcement counterparts abroad."
As part of the investigation, officials confiscated three aircraft, three maritime vessels, nearly 150 vehicles and 169 weapons.
The acting administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, Michele Leonhart, said the Sinaloa cartel is feeling the pressure.
"We know the impact of our enforcement is being felt," said Michele Leonhart. "Since the beginning of 2007, cocaine prices have more than doubled, while purity has dropped by more than a third. With this operation, we have denied the Sinaloa cartel and its networks nearly $1 billion in drug revenue."
Suspects indicted as part of the operation face charges of racketeering, drug smuggling, money laundering and illegal weapons possession.
Drug related violence has escalated along the U.S.-Mexico border since 2006 when Mexican officials launched a campaign involving thousands of soldiers to fight drug gangs.
More than 6,000 people were killed last year in Mexico in violence related to illegal drugs.
Attorney General Holder praised the Mexican government for its efforts to attack the problem.
"The Mexican government has been courageous during the last two years to directly confront the drug trafficking cartels," he said. "And I stand before you today to say that we are ready and willing to continue the fight with our Mexican counterparts against these violent enterprises."
The Sinaloa cartel is also suspected of laundering millions of dollars in criminal proceeds from illegal drug trafficking activities.
Drug Cartel Violence
Video link report by the BBC on Mexico's Drug Cartels.
Click here for the report
Click here for the report
Governor of Mexico's Chihuahua state downplays attack
By Ken Ellingwood
February 24, 2009
Reporting from Mexico City -- The governor of Mexico's most violent state said he was not the target of gunmen who opened fire on his convoy late Sunday night.
Jose Reyes Baeza Terrazas, governor of the northern state of Chihuahua, was uninjured when gunmen in a car fired at guards who were trailing him at some distance.
A bodyguard died in the shootout, which occurred after Baeza's three-car convoy stopped at a signal in the state capital, also called Chihuahua. Two other bodyguards and an assailant were wounded.
Baeza, who was in the lead car, said shots were fired "many meters" behind him and aimed only at the trailing vehicle. He said "four or five" gunmen in a compact car never got close to him or gave chase when he drove off.
"There was never direct aggression against the governor," Baeza told reporters. He declined to suggest a possible motive.
Chihuahua's state attorney general, Patricia Gonzalez, said Monday that the wounded gunman, a 36-year-old ex-soldier, was in custody.
The shooting added to the air of lawlessness in Chihuahua, where heavily armed drug gangs challenge authorities even while they fight one another for control of smuggling routes to the United States.
More than 1,600 people died statewide last year in drug-related violence, the highest toll in 2008 among Mexico's states. This year the number already exceeds 300, according to unofficial Mexican media tallies.
In Ciudad Juarez, the state's deadliest spot, officials said they were taking seriously banners posted Sunday that threatened Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz. They stepped up security but said the threats would not alter Reyes' plans to clean up the corruption-laden police department.
The city's police chief, Roberto Orduña Cruz, quit Friday -- two days after signs threatened that a police officer would be killed every 48 hours if the chief stayed on the job. In the hours before he stepped down, a municipal officer and jail guard were shot dead.
Orduña said he wanted to prevent more attacks against the city's 1,600 officers.
Chihuahua, across the border from Texas and New Mexico, has been hit hardest by violence spiraling nationwide as President Felipe Calderon presses a 2-year-old offensive against drug smugglers.
The country saw more than 6,000 slayings in 2008. The toll so far this year is above 800, according to media tallies.
Ciudad Juarez is the site of a war between a local drug cartel and traffickers from the northwestern state of Sinaloa seeking to move in. The violence has been brutal, including numerous beheadings.
Calderon has sent 3,000 troops to the city as part of a 45,000-soldier deployment to the drug war nationwide.
February 24, 2009
Reporting from Mexico City -- The governor of Mexico's most violent state said he was not the target of gunmen who opened fire on his convoy late Sunday night.
Jose Reyes Baeza Terrazas, governor of the northern state of Chihuahua, was uninjured when gunmen in a car fired at guards who were trailing him at some distance.
A bodyguard died in the shootout, which occurred after Baeza's three-car convoy stopped at a signal in the state capital, also called Chihuahua. Two other bodyguards and an assailant were wounded.
Baeza, who was in the lead car, said shots were fired "many meters" behind him and aimed only at the trailing vehicle. He said "four or five" gunmen in a compact car never got close to him or gave chase when he drove off.
"There was never direct aggression against the governor," Baeza told reporters. He declined to suggest a possible motive.
Chihuahua's state attorney general, Patricia Gonzalez, said Monday that the wounded gunman, a 36-year-old ex-soldier, was in custody.
The shooting added to the air of lawlessness in Chihuahua, where heavily armed drug gangs challenge authorities even while they fight one another for control of smuggling routes to the United States.
More than 1,600 people died statewide last year in drug-related violence, the highest toll in 2008 among Mexico's states. This year the number already exceeds 300, according to unofficial Mexican media tallies.
In Ciudad Juarez, the state's deadliest spot, officials said they were taking seriously banners posted Sunday that threatened Mayor Jose Reyes Ferriz. They stepped up security but said the threats would not alter Reyes' plans to clean up the corruption-laden police department.
The city's police chief, Roberto Orduña Cruz, quit Friday -- two days after signs threatened that a police officer would be killed every 48 hours if the chief stayed on the job. In the hours before he stepped down, a municipal officer and jail guard were shot dead.
Orduña said he wanted to prevent more attacks against the city's 1,600 officers.
Chihuahua, across the border from Texas and New Mexico, has been hit hardest by violence spiraling nationwide as President Felipe Calderon presses a 2-year-old offensive against drug smugglers.
The country saw more than 6,000 slayings in 2008. The toll so far this year is above 800, according to media tallies.
Ciudad Juarez is the site of a war between a local drug cartel and traffickers from the northwestern state of Sinaloa seeking to move in. The violence has been brutal, including numerous beheadings.
Calderon has sent 3,000 troops to the city as part of a 45,000-soldier deployment to the drug war nationwide.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Economic Decline Lifts the Prospects of a Vocal Populist
MEXICO CITY — As the year began, the dominant political figure of Mexico's left appeared to be heading swiftly toward irrelevance.
But Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not dead yet.
Only two years ago, Amlo, as he is known, was the driving force in Mexico's polarized politics. After he narrowly lost the presidency and led months of street protests charging that it had been stolen from him, politics boiled down to one issue: who was for him and who was against.
Last year, his hold on public attention began to falter. The public, the news media and many of his supporters had simply moved on, letting the turmoil of the 2006 election fade into history.
But there are signs that the efforts of Mr. López Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor, to revive his political career may be gaining traction, as a deepening recession creates opportunities for his brand of economic populism. The question now is whether he can capitalize on that momentum to remake and expand the coalition that brought him to within a hair's breadth of the presidency.
At a rally last week in Mexico City's immense central square, the Zócalo, Mr. López Obrador, 55, drew tens of thousands of supporters. Though the crowd paled beside the hundreds of thousands who attended his rallies at the peak of the 2006 presidential campaign, it was significantly larger than that at any of his rallies in the previous year.
Unlike his campaign events, it was conducted without the benefit of his party's machinery, which used to truck in supporters from around the country, demonstrating a substantial base of hard-core support.
Saying that the economy will only get worse, Mr. López Obrador announced a campaign to press the government to cut wasteful spending, lower consumer prices and taxes, and do more for the poor.
"Our movement must continue demanding a change in economic policy, which has demonstrated its failure," he said. "The model must be changed. You cannot put new wine in old bottles."
The words clearly resonated with his poor and working-class base.
"We think he really can change things, so that people have the right to decide," said Aide Florentino, 27, a member of a small garment cooperative in the rural southern part of Mexico City.
"It's not important if López Obrador is the president," said Víctor Baltasar, 49, who traveled to the rally from Guadalajara, where he is a supervisor for the city's train system. "What's important is that things change."
But rising anxiety over the economy may be broadening his appeal. Despite government measures aimed at stimulating the economy and buffering households against the worst effects of the crisis, there is a widespread clamor to do more, from constituencies as varied as business groups and poor peasants and fishermen. That demand could alter the political calculus.
"Mexico is fundamentally a conservative country," said Federico Estévez, a political analyst at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. "But in 2009, the cards are different."
Referring to the left, he said, "I think they're holding a wild card or a couple of aces."
With the next presidential election three years off, Mr. López Obrador's precise ambitions are unclear. He calls his new campaign a social movement and clearly aims to be a force to be reckoned with.
But his relationship with his own party remains fraught. Last year he lost a battle with a rival faction over the presidency of the party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution, or P.R.D., and he no longer holds any official position in the party or in government.
The low point came last fall, when most of the senators from his party broke with him to approve an important energy bill, as his supporters scuffled with police officers in an attempt to block the vote.
To many who had backed his presidential bid, Mr. López Obrador's street-brawling political style had become a liability.
His campaign to overturn the results of the 2006 election, which he lost by only six-tenths of 1 percent of the total vote to Felipe Calderón, consisted of mass rallies and a tent city that shut major avenues in the capital for weeks. Refusing to concede, even after the country's highest electoral court ruled in favor of Mr. Calderón, he held a grand public ceremony in which he had himself sworn in as the "legitimate president" of Mexico, a title he continues to claim.
Such antics have damaged the party's reputation, officials say. Jesús Ortega, the party president, who defeated Mr. López Obrador's choice for the post, said the party's polling showed that two-thirds of Mexicans identified the P.R.D. as disruptive.
Moreover, the polls put the party in third place for midterm elections in July, when voters will elect all 500 members of Mexico's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. The party is currently projected to win 18 percent of the vote, half its showing in 2006.
While Mr. López Obrador's popularity catapulted it in 2006 from the third largest to the second largest party in Congress, the party now stands to lose many of the seats it picked up then.
Mr. Ortega, while shying away from blaming Mr. López Obrador for the decline of the party, made it clear that he wanted to remake its image into that of a party closer to social democratic governing parties in Chile and Brazil, and that street blockades were not in the plans.
"Protests against injustice should not affect citizens' rights," Mr. Ortega said. "We have to learn to fight within the limits of the law."
The party has begun running gauzy television spots asking voters for their forgiveness and declaring its willingness to work with other parties, a pointed contrast with Mr. López Obrador's campaign of permanent harassment.
Publicly at least, Mr. López Obrador and his party say they have worked through their differences. Analysts say neither one can afford a split. "If the left as a whole doesn't recoup before the elections on the basis of economic issues alone," Mr. Estévez said, "then they really have no chance of ever ruling."
Mr. López Obrador needs the structure and resources a large party provides, analysts said. And the party cannot jettison its most charismatic politician.
"The P.R.D. realizes they can't give him up," said Daniel M. Lund, a pollster who has done work for Mr. López Obrador, but not since 2004. "If the P.R.D. breaks with López Obrador, they will go to single digits."
Where that leaves Mr. López Obrador's movement is uncertain. Although 2012 is a long way off, none of the party's current leaders have anywhere near his larger-than-life stature as a potential presidential contender.
What is evident is that while talk of a comeback may be premature, so was writing him off.
"He's a charismatic, intuitive politician," said Joy Langston, an analyst with the CIDE, a Mexico City research institution. "He not only knows how to win over the masses but also to govern in a way that continues his popularity. Amlo will never be completely finished."
*Yoshi*
Economic decline lifts the prospects of vocal populist
Economic Decline Lifts the Prospects of a Vocal Populist
MEXICO CITY — As the year began, the dominant political figure of Mexico's left appeared to be heading swiftly toward irrelevance.
But Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not dead yet.
Only two years ago, Amlo, as he is known, was the driving force in Mexico's polarized politics. After he narrowly lost the presidency and led months of street protests charging that it had been stolen from him, politics boiled down to one issue: who was for him and who was against.
Last year, his hold on public attention began to falter. The public, the news media and many of his supporters had simply moved on, letting the turmoil of the 2006 election fade into history.
But there are signs that the efforts of Mr. López Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor, to revive his political career may be gaining traction, as a deepening recession creates opportunities for his brand of economic populism. The question now is whether he can capitalize on that momentum to remake and expand the coalition that brought him to within a hair's breadth of the presidency.
At a rally last week in Mexico City's immense central square, the Zócalo, Mr. López Obrador, 55, drew tens of thousands of supporters. Though the crowd paled beside the hundreds of thousands who attended his rallies at the peak of the 2006 presidential campaign, it was significantly larger than that at any of his rallies in the previous year.
Unlike his campaign events, it was conducted without the benefit of his party's machinery, which used to truck in supporters from around the country, demonstrating a substantial base of hard-core support.
Saying that the economy will only get worse, Mr. López Obrador announced a campaign to press the government to cut wasteful spending, lower consumer prices and taxes, and do more for the poor.
"Our movement must continue demanding a change in economic policy, which has demonstrated its failure," he said. "The model must be changed. You cannot put new wine in old bottles."
The words clearly resonated with his poor and working-class base.
"We think he really can change things, so that people have the right to decide," said Aide Florentino, 27, a member of a small garment cooperative in the rural southern part of Mexico City.
"It's not important if López Obrador is the president," said Víctor Baltasar, 49, who traveled to the rally from Guadalajara, where he is a supervisor for the city's train system. "What's important is that things change."
But rising anxiety over the economy may be broadening his appeal. Despite government measures aimed at stimulating the economy and buffering households against the worst effects of the crisis, there is a widespread clamor to do more, from constituencies as varied as business groups and poor peasants and fishermen. That demand could alter the political calculus.
"Mexico is fundamentally a conservative country," said Federico Estévez, a political analyst at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. "But in 2009, the cards are different."
Referring to the left, he said, "I think they're holding a wild card or a couple of aces."
With the next presidential election three years off, Mr. López Obrador's precise ambitions are unclear. He calls his new campaign a social movement and clearly aims to be a force to be reckoned with.
But his relationship with his own party remains fraught. Last year he lost a battle with a rival faction over the presidency of the party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution, or P.R.D., and he no longer holds any official position in the party or in government.
The low point came last fall, when most of the senators from his party broke with him to approve an important energy bill, as his supporters scuffled with police officers in an attempt to block the vote.
To many who had backed his presidential bid, Mr. López Obrador's street-brawling political style had become a liability.
His campaign to overturn the results of the 2006 election, which he lost by only six-tenths of 1 percent of the total vote to Felipe Calderón, consisted of mass rallies and a tent city that shut major avenues in the capital for weeks. Refusing to concede, even after the country's highest electoral court ruled in favor of Mr. Calderón, he held a grand public ceremony in which he had himself sworn in as the "legitimate president" of Mexico, a title he continues to claim.
Such antics have damaged the party's reputation, officials say. Jesús Ortega, the party president, who defeated Mr. López Obrador's choice for the post, said the party's polling showed that two-thirds of Mexicans identified the P.R.D. as disruptive.
Moreover, the polls put the party in third place for midterm elections in July, when voters will elect all 500 members of Mexico's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. The party is currently projected to win 18 percent of the vote, half its showing in 2006.
While Mr. López Obrador's popularity catapulted it in 2006 from the third largest to the second largest party in Congress, the party now stands to lose many of the seats it picked up then.
Mr. Ortega, while shying away from blaming Mr. López Obrador for the decline of the party, made it clear that he wanted to remake its image into that of a party closer to social democratic governing parties in Chile and Brazil, and that street blockades were not in the plans.
"Protests against injustice should not affect citizens' rights," Mr. Ortega said. "We have to learn to fight within the limits of the law."
The party has begun running gauzy television spots asking voters for their forgiveness and declaring its willingness to work with other parties, a pointed contrast with Mr. López Obrador's campaign of permanent harassment.
Publicly at least, Mr. López Obrador and his party say they have worked through their differences. Analysts say neither one can afford a split. "If the left as a whole doesn't recoup before the elections on the basis of economic issues alone," Mr. Estévez said, "then they really have no chance of ever ruling."
Mr. López Obrador needs the structure and resources a large party provides, analysts said. And the party cannot jettison its most charismatic politician.
"The P.R.D. realizes they can't give him up," said Daniel M. Lund, a pollster who has done work for Mr. López Obrador, but not since 2004. "If the P.R.D. breaks with López Obrador, they will go to single digits."
Where that leaves Mr. López Obrador's movement is uncertain. Although 2012 is a long way off, none of the party's current leaders have anywhere near his larger-than-life stature as a potential presidential contender.
What is evident is that while talk of a comeback may be premature, so was writing him off.
"He's a charismatic, intuitive politician," said Joy Langston, an analyst with the CIDE, a Mexico City research institution. "He not only knows how to win over the masses but also to govern in a way that continues his popularity. Amlo will never be completely finished."
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/world/americas/04mexico.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
Posted by Lucky Charms
Child Neglect 'Going Unreported'
A quarter of adults in the UK have worried a child they know may be neglected, but over a third did not act on their concerns, a poll suggests.
The charity Action for Children said it commissioned the survey of 1,038 people to show the difficulty of identifying and preventing the neglect of children.
Neglect can include children being unloved, underfed or badly clothed.
The charity said it is the most common abuse, accounting for 45% of those on England's child protection register.
Long-term problems
An Action for Children spokeswoman said neglect can be harder to recognise, and has not been as high profile as other forms of child abuse, even though it is one of the most common ways in which children are mistreated.
She said this is because neglect is often a symptom of other long-term and complex problems in a family rather than an easily recognisable one-off event.
With neglect, it's never a one-off event
Action for Children spokeswoman
As a result, she said, it can be hard for people around the family to know the right time to do something and feel comfortable and supported in acting on their instincts.
The results of the ICM survey of more than 1,000 adults and parents in the UK included:
* 16% of adults said they did not tell anyone because they were frightened of repercussions
* 15% said they did not tell anyone because it was not any of their business
* 11% would tell a neighbour, relative or friend first rather than social services or the Police
* 15% said that a lack of proof prevented them from doing anything
* 23% said they did not think they had enough information about who to ask for help
The charity reported that in 2008 in England alone neglect was the reason why 45% of children were on the child protection register, compared to 15% for physical abuse, 7% for sexual abuse and 25% for emotional abuse.
The Action for Children spokeswoman told the BBC: "Our advice would always be if they have a serious concern, go direct to police or children's services.
"With neglect, it's never a one-off event, it's always a series."
Warning signs
"We would always say if there is enough concern and there is enough proof, they should probably step in and they are well within their rights to."
She said warning signs might include children coming into school who are hungry or with dirty clothes, or if parents are rarely seen at parents' evenings and other points of contact.
She said the charity was now asking the government to raise awareness of what constitutes neglect so people know it when they see it.
If anyone has concerns about a child's welfare they should report their concerns to their local authority
DCSF spokesman
A Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF) spokesman said keeping children safe was their "top priority".
He told the BBC: "We have put in place a much stronger framework for tackling child abuse and neglect so that children and young people are at the centre of everything we do, and everything local services do.
"Following the recent Baby P case, Children's Secretary Ed Balls has asked Lord Laming to produce a progress report on how child protection arrangements are being implemented systematically around the country and to identify any barriers to that."
The spokesman added that child safety was "everyone's responsibility" and that although government and local agencies have an important role, they "cannot protect children alone".
He said: "If anyone has concerns about a child's welfare they should report their concerns to their local authority children's services... If anyone thinks a child is in immediate danger they should call 999."
Find this article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7908928.stm
posted by yoda
Monday, February 23, 2009
Drug wars, recession team up on Mexico
Published: Feb. 23, 2009 at 9:28 AM
VILLA AHUMADA, Mexico, Feb. 23 (UPI) -- The recession and warring Mexican drug cartels are teaming up to create a volatile stew of economic misery in Mexico's border areas, observers say.
Even though Mexican President Felipe Calderon has deployed an unprecedented 46,000 troops and federal police throughout Mexico, the frequency and severity of drug-related violence is increasing in border areas even as plummeting manufacturing demand from the United States has prompted layoffs there, USA Today reported Monday.
As the economy worsens and Mexican manufacturers concentrated near the border lay off more workers, some officials say the United States is in danger of seeing a mass influx of illegal immigrants seeking to escape the poverty and drug-gang violence of the region.
The mix of violence and recession has meant bad business for everybody in Villa Ahumada, Mexico, 80 miles south of El Paso, Texas, residents say. A total of 21 people were killed in the town Feb. 10 after drug gangs abducted several men and then fought a massive running gun battle with the Mexican army.
"Everyone is afraid to stop here now," taco vendor Javier Ramirez told USA Today. "Villa Ahumada, the town with no law. We've become famous."
© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
PRO CHOICE
Should the rights of a pregnant woman come before the rights of her growing fetus? Or should the fetus have more power over its mother? This is one of the main issues on the debated topic of abortion. All women are not suited to be mothers, and should not be forced to do something they don’t want or are not able to do. Often, when a person is forced to do something, they don’t do it well or do it just enough to get by. Raising a child is too important a task to be forced upon someone.
One thing that should be taken into consideration is that being pro choice is not the same thing as being “pro” abortion. “Pro choice” is the more politically correct term. Its accurate meaning is that the woman carrying the child has a choice whether or not to keep the baby. Women should, in fact, be allowed to make the choice to keep their child or not. Girls and women are getting pregnant at earlier ages, and some are not suited for even carrying a child. Younger girls are still in school and would be missing out on receiving an education if they had a child. Small actions make big impacts later on in life, and it is near impossible to obtain a high paying job without basic high school knowledge. If a baby comes too early in a person’s life, their whole future could change.
Abortion was a very hot topic amongst presidential candidates, because it brings up different emotions. Generally, the opinion on abortion comes with a personal feeling and can be upsetting for those who have strong feelings toward a certain side. Also, changing the opinion of someone is hard to do, especially with a topic like abortion. For those out there who are “pro-life” take into consideration this scenario: A young girl by the age of 12 is brutally beaten and raped by her father. This girl ends up getting pregnant, and for the next nine months is constantly reminded of her father and the terrible experience by the growing baby inside her. She is still in elementary school, merely preparing for junior high. This poor girl will have to stay out of school to raise their baby (if she does not give it up or have an abortion). Since it was her father who raped her, the baby may have a genetic disorder due to the same mix of genes between the father and the daughter. Should this girl have to suffer each time she looks at her baby, because it reminds her of the horrid thing her father did to her? According to a study done by MIT, 14,000 women have abortions following rape or incest, because they could not live with the trauma (Alan Guttmacher Institute 2).
Some would argue that this girl could choose whether or not she is suited for a baby. On the other hand, others believe aborting a pregnancy is committing murder. It is true, that the fetus inside the woman is living. However, should a woman be put into situation in which, due to pregnancy complications, she would have to remain impregnated and have the baby regardless of jeopardizing her own life? Would the law force her to take her own life for an unborn fetus? “What we’re seeing is a political trend in which the fetuses are coming first, and the rights of women…are coming last.” (Lynn M. Paltrow 2) In this case, the woman would be hurting herself more than the baby, and it is still uncertain whether or not the baby will even make it without its mother.
A study done by the Guttmacher Institute stated, “more than 30 years of evidence contradicted the notion that legal abortion posed long-term dangers to women’s health, physically or mentally.”(Robin Toner 1) Thus meaning just because a woman has an abortion does not mean there will automatically be health problems. It is not certain that because there is an abortion, the woman is “doomed” for depression. In fact, the woman has an equal chance of being depressed keeping the baby or aborting it. “Abortion opponents have long argued that women often suffer depression and other mental health problems as a result of having abortions; those on the other side of the debate say there is little clinical evidence to back up the claim.” (Salynn Boyles 1) Another choice the woman can make is to keep the baby and put it up for adoption. There are many parents willing to adopt, and they may be more suited for raising a child than the carrier of the child. For those parents who are not able to have children and want them, adoption is the only option “If a child is born and raised in a home that is loving and nurturing, where there is complete truth about who we are, you can’t give a child any greater place from which to fly.” (Amanda Bearse 1).
In summation,the woman then has the choice to keep the baby, put the child up for adoption, or abort. A woman should not have to be forced to do something she doesn’t want to, and should be able to choose how she wants to live her life. Choosing whether or not to keep a baby should be the choice of the woman bearing the child, and the government should not have control over if the woman raises her baby. So, what will be your choice?
-ace
Works Cited
Alan Guttmacher Institute. "MIT pro choice." Pro-Choice. 2008. Planned Parenthood. 20 Feb. 2009.
Bearse, Amanda. "Adoption Quotes." Adoption. 2008. 20 Feb. 2009
Boyles, Salynn. "Abortion and Depression: Is There a Link?" Web MD. 2005. Health News. 20 Feb. 2009.
Toner, Robin. "Abortion Foes See Validation for New Tactic." SIRS. May 2007. Knowledge Source. 20 Feb. 2009 http://sks.sirs.com/cgi-bin/hst-article-display?id=SNE79445-0-6517&artno=0000262422&type=ART&shfilter=U&key=&res=Y&ren=Y&gov=Y&lnk=Y&ic=N
Friday, February 20, 2009
Official: Mexican drug turf wars have led to surge in violence
Official: Mexican drug turf wars have led to surge in violence
By Arthur Brice CNN (CNN) -- No one, especially not one of Mexico's top law enforcement officials, denies that killings by drug cartels have reached record levels. But Monte Alejandro Rubido Garcia, executive secretary for the National System for Public Safety, has an explanation. "Mexico all of a sudden stopped being a drug-transit country and became a drug-consuming country," Rubido told CNN on Thursday. That means gangs that once shipped drugs into the United States are now fighting each other to sell the drugs at home, he said. Their fights center on territory -- who gets to sell what and where. "The only way to settle their differences is through violence," Rubido said. "They're fighting block by block in a very violent way." The result is a brutal onslaught that resulted in about 5,400 deaths last year, more than double the 2,477 tallied in 2007. Many analysts say Mexico is on track to set a record again this year. Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich called the situation in Mexico a "civil war" on a national TV program a few weeks ago. Larry Birns, director of the Washington-based Council on Hemispheric Affairs, terms it "a sickening vertigo into chaos and plunder." The violence also is a result of the Mexican government's stepped-up fight against the drug cartels. President Felipe Calderon's administration has spent more money and confiscated more drugs than any previous one, Rubido said. "Every time the state strikes a blow against them, their reaction is more violence," Rubido said of the drug cartels. A United Nations report released this week notes that the "government of Mexico faces violent opposition by drug cartels to its attempts to fight organized crime and drug trafficking," adding that "drug cartels have responded with unprecedented violence." Much of this violence, Rubido said, is carried out in "high-impact" fashion, aiming to get attention and demoralize the cartels' enemies. For example, decapitations have become common. But decapitation often is not the cause of death. "They're first killed with a shot, then decapitated for maximum visual impact," the law enforcement official said. "They're trying to make the state go into reverse." That will not happen, Rubido vowed. "The only way to fight this is like we're doing in Mexico." He listed three fronts in the conflict: a frontal assault on the gangs; prevention campaigns against drug use; and a common strategy and tactics among Mexico 1,660 police agencies. It's a tough battle, he admits, especially since the use of cocaine in Mexico has doubled in the past four years. Cocaine traffickers, Rubido said, have been looking for new markets and have targeted Europe and Mexico.  Watch how the violence is affecting the United States »The U.N. report released this week notes that "despite concrete measures adopted by the government, drug abuse remains high in Mexico, especially among school-age children and young people." The war on drugs in Mexico is made even more difficult by rampant corruption, the report says. "There is so much money involved in the drug trade, there is so much fear involved in the drug trade, that no inst itution can survive unaffected," said Birns. Says Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington-based policy center: "This has really revealed just how corrupt Mexican officeholders are, how many people in key positions in the anti-drug war have been taking money from narcotraffickers." In one recent instance, Noe Ramirez Mandujano, who was the nation's top anti-drug official from 2006 until August 2008, was arrested on charges that he accepted $450,000 a month in bribes from drug traffickers while in office. There have been other similar arrests of high-ranking officials for taking bribes from drug traffickers. "There's no way the public treasury can pay what the drug traffickers are paying," Hakim said. Rubido acknowledges the situation. "It is a problem, and it is assumed as fact," he said Thursday. But he also sees the arrest of high-ranking officials as proof that anti-corruption efforts are working. Drug lords have two ways to battle anti-crime efforts, he said: bribes and intimidation. That intimidation can often take brutal forms. Last weekend, for example, a police official in Tabasco state who had arrested a trafficker a week earlier was killed. So were his mother, his wife, his children and nieces and nephews. His brother, also a state police officer, was wounded, as were two others. In all, 12 peo ple were shot dead in three homes. Six of them were children. A few days earlier, a retired army general was abducted, tortured and shot 11 times, less than 24 hours after becoming Cancun's top anti-drug official. He, his aide and a driver were all found dead in a truck by the side of a road. Cancun's police chief was arrested a few days later in connection with the slayings. Still, Rubido and others say, most of the deaths involve just drug traffickers, not ordinary citizens. "Ninety percent of the people who died last year in organized crime were involved in crime," Rubido said. "The problem is among criminal gangs." Rubido sees the Mexican government prevailing. "I have a firm conviction that it's a battle we will win," he said. Others are much less certain. "The occasional anti-drug battle is being won, but the war is being lost," said Birns of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs public policy institute. "And there's no prospect the war is going to be won." That pessimism that the current strategy is working has led to calls for a new approach. Last week, the former presidents of Mexico, Colombia and Brazil called for the decriminalization of marijuana for personal use and a change in=2 0strategy on the war on drugs. Ex-presidents Ernesto Zedillo of Mexico, Cesar Gaviria of Colombia and Fernando Henrique Cardoso of Brazil made their announcement at a meeting in Brazil of the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy. "The problem is that current policies are based on prejudices and fears and not on results," Gaviria said at a news conference in which the 17-member commission's recommendations were presented. Robert Pastor, a Latin America national security adviser for President Carter in the late 1970s, calls the problem in Mexico "even worse than Chicago during the Prohibition era." He said a solution similar to what ended that violence is needed now. "What worked in the U.S. was not Eliot Ness," he said, referring to the federal agent famous for fighting gangsters in 1920s and '30s. "It was the repeal of Prohibition." Rubido is diplomatic, saying decriminalizing drugs is a "terribly sensible" approach that has received much thought. But he's not buying it. "This has become a world of globalization," he said. "Globalization has many virtues, but some errors. I can't conceive that one part of the world would decriminalize drugs because it would become a paradise for drug use. It might bring down violence, but there would be social damage." |
 |
| Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/02/19/mexico.drug.war/index.html?iref=newssearch |
? 2008 Cable News Network
Mr. Phil
Mr. Phil
Economic Decline Lifts the Prospects of a Vocal Populist
MEXICO CITY — As the year began, the dominant political figure of Mexico's left appeared to be heading swiftly toward irrelevance.
Enlarge This Image
Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times
Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a former presidential candidate, attracted thousands of supporters to a Mexico City rally Jan. 25.
But Andrés Manuel López Obrador is not dead yet.
Only two years ago, Amlo, as he is known, was the driving force in Mexico's polarized politics. After he narrowly lost the presidency and led months of street protests charging that it had been stolen from him, politics boiled down to one issue: who was for him and who was against.
Last year, his hold on public attention began to falter. The public, the news media and many of his supporters had simply moved on, letting the turmoil of the 2006 election fade into history.
But there are signs that the efforts of Mr. López Obrador, a former Mexico City mayor, to revive his political career may be gaining traction, as a deepening recession creates opportunities for his brand of economic populism. The question now is whether he can capitalize on that momentum to remake and expand the coalition that brought him to within a hair's breadth of the presidency.
At a rally last week in Mexico City's immense central square, the Zócalo, Mr. López Obrador, 55, drew tens of thousands of supporters. Though the crowd paled beside the hundreds of thousands who attended his rallies at the peak of the 2006 presidential campaign, it was significantly larger than that at any of his rallies in the previous year.
Unlike his campaign events, it was conducted without the benefit of his party's machinery, which used to truck in supporters from around the country, demonstrating a substantial base of hard-core support.
Saying that the economy will only get worse, Mr. López Obrador announced a campaign to press the government to cut wasteful spending, lower consumer prices and taxes, and do more for the poor.
"Our movement must continue demanding a change in economic policy, which has demonstrated its failure," he said. "The model must be changed. You cannot put new wine in old bottles."
The words clearly resonated with his poor and working-class base.
"We think he really can change things, so that people have the right to decide," said Aide Florentino, 27, a member of a small garment cooperative in the rural southern part of Mexico City.
"It's not important if López Obrador is the president," said Víctor Baltasar, 49, who traveled to the rally from Guadalajara, where he is a supervisor for the city's train system. "What's important is that things change."
But rising anxiety over the economy may be broadening his appeal. Despite government measures aimed at stimulating the economy and buffering households against the worst effects of the crisis, there is a widespread clamor to do more, from constituencies as varied as business groups and poor peasants and fishermen. That demand could alter the political calculus.
"Mexico is fundamentally a conservative country," said Federico Estévez, a political analyst at the Autonomous Technological Institute of Mexico. "But in 2009, the cards are different."
Referring to the left, he said, "I think they're holding a wild card or a couple of aces."
With the next presidential election three years off, Mr. López Obrador's precise ambitions are unclear. He calls his new campaign a social movement and clearly aims to be a force to be reckoned with.
But his relationship with his own party remains fraught. Last year he lost a battle with a rival faction over the presidency of the party, the Party of the Democratic Revolution, or P.R.D., and he no longer holds any official position in the party or in government.
The low point came last fall, when most of the senators from his party broke with him to approve an important energy bill, as his supporters scuffled with police officers in an attempt to block the vote.
To many who had backed his presidential bid, Mr. López Obrador's street-brawling political style had become a liability.
His campaign to overturn the results of the 2006 election, which he lost by only six-tenths of 1 percent of the total vote to Felipe Calderón, consisted of mass rallies and a tent city that shut major avenues in the capital for weeks. Refusing to concede, even after the country's highest electoral court ruled in favor of Mr. Calderón, he held a grand public ceremony in which he had himself sworn in as the "legitimate president" of Mexico, a title he continues to claim.
Such antics have damaged the party's reputation, officials say. Jesús Ortega, the party president, who defeated Mr. López Obrador's choice for the post, said the party's polling showed that two-thirds of Mexicans identified the P.R.D. as disruptive.
Moreover, the polls put the party in third place for midterm elections in July, when voters will elect all 500 members of Mexico's lower house, the Chamber of Deputies. The party is currently projected to win 18 percent of the vote, half its showing in 2006.
While Mr. López Obrador's popularity catapulted it in 2006 from the third largest to the second largest party in Congress, the party now stands to lose many of the seats it picked up then.
Mr. Ortega, while shying away from blaming Mr. López Obrador for the decline of the party, made it clear that he wanted to remake its image into that of a party closer to social democratic governing parties in Chile and Brazil, and that street blockades were not in the plans.
"Protests against injustice should not affect citizens' rights," Mr. Ortega said. "We have to learn to fight within the limits of the law."
The party has begun running gauzy television spots asking voters for their forgiveness and declaring its willingness to work with other parties, a pointed contrast with Mr. López Obrador's campaign of permanent harassment.
Publicly at least, Mr. López Obrador and his party say they have worked through their differences. Analysts say neither one can afford a split. "If the left as a whole doesn't recoup before the elections on the basis of economic issues alone," Mr. Estévez said, "then they really have no chance of ever ruling."
Mr. López Obrador needs the structure and resources a large party provides, analysts said. And the party cannot jettison its most charismatic politician.
"The P.R.D. realizes they can't give him up," said Daniel M. Lund, a pollster who has done work for Mr. López Obrador, but not since 2004. "If the P.R.D. breaks with López Obrador, they will go to single digits."
Where that leaves Mr. López Obrador's movement is uncertain. Although 2012 is a long way off, none of the party's current leaders have anywhere near his larger-than-life stature as a potential presidential contender.
What is evident is that while talk of a comeback may be premature, so was writing him off.
"He's a charismatic, intuitive politician," said Joy Langston, an analyst with the CIDE, a Mexico City research institution. "He not only knows how to win over the masses but also to govern in a way that continues his popularity. Amlo will never be completely finished."
Thursday, February 19, 2009
PRO-LIFE by MRB
Abortion has been a political issue over the past presidential elections. This has been a huge debate between the Democratic and Republican sides. The question most often asked between the two is, whether or not a fetus in a pregnant woman’s womb is an actual human being. The Republican side argues that a fetus is in fact living inside a woman’s womb, which gives the fetus rights, which would make an abortion murder. The Democratic side argues that a woman has the right to have an abortion, and says that a woman’s rights come before the rights of a fetus.
The debate of whether or not a fetus is a human being should not be that complicated. “To assert that the zygote, embryo, or fetus is a person is to assert that it has these rights, which is to assert that all stages of human life should be equally protected under law” (Clark, 28). This quote should tell you what you need to know. A fetus, according to dictionary.com, is the young of an animal in the womb. In our case that animal being a human being. The definition says it’s the young of a human being, meaning the fetus is a living being.
The Declaration of Independence states, “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…” That famous quote from our Declaration of Independence flat out tells us that “men”, as in our human race, is “endowed” the right to “life.” Killing a fetus, who is part of the human race, even though he or she is not fully developed, should be considered murder. Our Deceleration tells us that the fetus has the right to live even though the document doesn’t specifically say so.
Abortion does not only put harm on the unborn, it causes many problems with the women who choose to abort. Women who abort often have problems with anxiety, depression and suicide. In a recent study it was found “women who aborted their unintended pregnancies were 30 percent more likely to subsequently report all the symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder than those women who had carried their unintended pregnancies to term” (Bachiochi, 23).
Aborting can also harm women’s physical health. A study was found that linked abortion with breast cancer. It was found that pregnancies before age 32, act sort of like a protective mechanism for breast cancer (Bachiochi, 24). So, if you get an abortion before age 32, and your family has a history of women with breast cancer there is a high chance that you will get breast cancer.
Aborting a pregnancy is the wrong way to go. If a woman believes that she is not able to take care of her baby, then there is always adoption. There are many married couples out there that are not capable of having kids. Women can give those people a chance to have the kid they are not able to birth themselves.
Works Cited
Bachiochi, Erika. "How Abortion Hurts Women." Crisis Magazine Vol. 23, No. 6 June 2005: 22-27. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source.
Clark, Thomas W. "Faith in Hiding: Are There Secular Grounds for Banning Abortion?" Humanist Vol. 67, No. 4 July & aug. 2007: 27-31. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Hospitals fail to do routine checks on injured children despite Baby P
Story By David Rose of the Times Online [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5762290.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084]
Posted by LovableLoser
Two thirds of hospitals fail to conduct routine checks on injured children suspected of being at risk, despite warnings after the death of Baby P, The Times has learnt.
A poll of NHS trusts conducted by the Conservative Party suggests that staff at many accident and emergency departments are not able to check whether children are in contact with social services or subject to a child protection plan, even when they have suspicious injuries.
Doctors' failure to detect evidence of non-accidental harm and poor links between health and social services were identified last year as key failings contributing to the death of Baby P in Haringey, North London, in 2007. But few hospitals can check databases of children at risk, while one in ten clinical staff has not had child protection training, the survey suggests.
The Conservatives, who received responses from 120 out of 171 hospital trusts under the Freedom of Information Act, said that problems identified by the independent report into Baby P's death appeared to be systemic.
Only one in seven hospitals claimed to be able to make any sort of online check on whether social services were involved in the care of an injured child, the Tories said. Some trusts said it was not permitted for staff routinely to check whether children were subject to child protection plans.
Last month the Government announced the setting up of a database of 11 million juveniles in England for professionals working with children. The Tories have attacked the £224 million ContactPoint as "another expensive data disaster waiting to happen".
"A far better solution would be to make sure basic checks are maintained in A&E and that other hospitals learn from those that are doing well so that children who are really at risk are identified before it's too late," said Andrew Lansley, the Shadow Health Secretary. "The NHS is doing its best, but many hospitals are getting incoherent messages about what to do to prevent tragedies like the Baby P case from happening again."
John Heyworth, president of the College of Emergency Medicine, said that although A&E departments could be overwhelmed because of staff shortages or a need to see patients within a government four-hour target, trusts had a "major responsibility to find out whether the child is on a protection plan or in a family that is in contact with social services". "Access to and use of databases varies widely across the country," he said. "In some areas links between A&E and social services are sub-optimal while in other areas there are next to no links at all."
Ben Bradshaw, the Health Minister, said that rules on child protection applied to all trusts, including arrangements for checking if a child was subject to a child-protection plan, and staff training. "The Conservatives are confusing the requirement to check if a child is subject to a child protection plan with accessing details of the plan itself," he added. "That is not a requirement and not something we would expect NHS staff to do."
Rosalyn Proops, child protection officer for the Royal College of Paediatrics, said all A&E professionals should have an awareness of child protection and be able to check quickly with social services if they had concerns.
However, there was a danger that routine checks on child-protection status could override clinical judgment about whether injuries were suspicious. "There has never been a system of routine checks on children coming to A&E and any such system would be at best unhelpful and at worst dangerous to the child," she said. "If children were formally screened, it could provide a false sense of security."
The Healthcare Commission, the NHS watchdog, is expected to publish a review of the matter shortly.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Is Organic Better?
Is organic food really better for the health of a human being? To answer this question you must understand what the phrase "organic food" really means. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is the decision maker on the standards of organic versus non-organic foods. It states that "organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation." Food containing 95 percent of organic materials can be labeled with the USDA organic seal. Food containing 70 percent can say they are organic and food containing less than that can say their percentage but cannot claim to be organic.
Although these growth hormones and antibiotics injected into the animals make their meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products non-organic, they have no nutritional effect on the person consuming this food. The USDA claims there to be no sophisticated scientific evidence that demonstrates organic food to be healthier than conventional food. The American Dietetic Association says, "Although organic foods generally are grown with lower levels of pesticides, no scientific evidence shows that these foods are healthier or safer than conventionally grown foods." The Organic Trade Council also agrees stating, "There is no conclusive evidence at this time to suggest that organically produced foods are more nutritious," documents from the council say, "Rather, organic foods and fiber are spared the application of toxic and persistent insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and fertilizers." (Jackson Jr.)
There have been smaller studies provided which show more nutrients are found in organic foods, but the studies tend to be narrow minded; not enough evidence to make sophisticated conclusions.
Promoters of organic consumption rave on the "facts" indicating the higher nutritional value in organic food. As I have said before, no substantial evidence backs this theory up. Another common argument used by these promoters consists of the idea that these hormones injected into the animals end up coming back and affecting the humans who eat or drink the animals' products. There are no facts to support these hallucinations. In a paper written by Ronnie Cummins about how the effects of hormone injections in cows will negatively impact the humans consuming the milk. Cummins argues that cows injected with a certain type of growth hormone known as rBGH provide hazardous milk for consumers. The only problem is Cummins' failure to place certain facts into his article. He states, "rBGH is likely hazardous for human health," but fails to actually show any fact backing this "likeliness" of hazard. Obviously the facts were not too convincing of this supposed "likelihood" in an apparent hazardous hormone. Another blatant fact forgotten was that of how much insulin (cancer promoter) is in organic milk. Cummins just says "milk from injected cows contains significantly higher levels--ranging from 18 percent to 106 percent--of a potent cancer tumor promoter called insulin." He is obviously implying there is some insulin located in organic milk and just leaving that statistic out to try and bamboozle readers with the high value of 106 percent. He is not providing this information for two possible reasons: the amount of insulin is so high anyway that it does not really matter with the rBGH injection because the amount is so high, or the value is so low that 106 percent of that number would still be a ridiculously low amount of insulin.
So, when asked the question, "Is organic food really better for the health of a human being?" You can safely answer no. Not only is there no substantial evidence to back higher nutrition values in organic food, but also the obvious lack of facts to prove the hormones being injected into animals are harming the consumers of the products.
Cummins, Ronnie. "Studies Show Synthetic Hormones Are a Risk for Humans." Sirs Knowledge Source. 24 Jan. 2008. McClatchy-Tribune Information Services. 12 Feb. 2009.
-abright70
Blog
New train fleet 'to boost jobs'
A multi-billion pound order for a new fleet of inter-city trains is to create or safeguard 12,500 jobs, the government has announced.
A group including Japanese firm Hitachi won the £7.5bn order to build and maintain a new "super express" fleet.
The stock will replace high-speed trains 20-30 years old on the Great Western and East Coast main lines.
The government has come under fire because a key UK train manufacturer - Bombardier - was not given the deal.
A new train-making plant will be built at one of the following places - Ashby de la Zouch, Sheffield or Gateshead.
As well as the new factory, there will be new depots in Bristol, Reading, Doncaster, Leeds and west London and upgrades to existing depots throughout Britain.
'Prepared to invest'
The first of the new trains - which are designed to be faster, greener and able to carry 21% more passengers - are scheduled to enter service on the East Coast mainline in 2013, and to be fully operational from 2015.
A typical journey between London and Leeds will shorten by about 10 minutes, between London and Edinburgh by 12 minutes, between London and Bristol by 10 minutes and between London and Cardiff by 15 minutes.
The fleet will link London with Cambridge, Leeds, Hull, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh and connect London with the Thames Valley, Bristol and South Wales.
" What a spark of good news amid all the gloom "
Keith Hazlewood, GMB union
Keith Hazlewood, GMB union
The consortium, called Agility Trains, is made up of John Laing, Hitachi and Barclays.
Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon described the plans as the single biggest investment in inter-city trains for a generation.
He said: "This announcement demonstrates that this government is prepared to invest, even in difficult economic times, by improving our national infrastructure.
"It is good news for the British economy that over 12,500 jobs will be created and safeguarded, good news for the regions that the government is supporting significant inward investment, and good news for passengers that we are taking the steps necessary to improve their rail journeys."
Keith Hazlewood, of the GMB union, said: "What a spark of good news amid all the gloom. GMB steelworkers will look forward to getting their share of these new jobs."
However the decision to go with the Agility Trains consortium was a blow to a rival bidder for the contract, which included Bombardier Transportation.
The firm is the only company in the UK that makes trains, with a factory in Derby employing over 2,000 workers.
But there was some good news for the company as Mr Hoon also announced the Department for Transport was in advanced negotiations to provide 120 new carriages for the Stansted Express service from London Liverpool Street to Stansted Airport, the order for which is expected to go to Bombardier.
" The procurement process for this project has been painfully slow and very expensive "
Theresa Villiers, shadow transport secretary
Theresa Villiers, shadow transport secretary
Colin Foxall, chairman of customer watchdog body Passenger Focus, said the new fleet was "a significant step forward" that is "urgently needed".
The decision was also welcomed by Alec McTavish, director of policy and operations for the Association of Train Operating Companies.
He said: "The fleet will provide long-distance operators with the trains they need to meet the needs of a growing market and passengers with an attractive, cost-effective travel choice."
He added that this "is essential if rail's potential to reduce the UK's carbon footprint and transport congestion is to be realised".
'Triumph of spin'
But although Theresa Villiers, shadow transport secretary, also welcomed the announcement, she said the plans had taken too long to finalise.
"The procurement process for this project has been painfully slow and very expensive, demonstrating that government micromanagement is pushing up costs and slowing up progress on improving our railways.
She added: "And there is still no sign of the 1,300 extra carriages that the government have been promising for years."
The issue of the promised 1,300 extra carriages was also pin-pointed by Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker.
" If Japan can manage to ensure the high-speed fleet that operates on its own railways are manufactured entirely at home, there is no earthly reason why Britain cannot either "
Bob Crow, RMT transport union
Bob Crow, RMT transport union
He said: "The government seems very keen to announce new trains but not so keen on building them... This is a crude attempt by Geoff Hoon to gain political advantage by announcing this straight to the media, rather than before Parliament."
And the substance of the announcement also came under scrutiny from Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT transport union.
He said: "The transport department has not answered the basic question of whether these trains will be manufactured in Britain or simply assembled here.
"We have been campaigning long and hard to protect what is left of Britain's train-making capacity and skills base, and, if the basic manufacture of these sets is to be undertaken elsewhere, today's announcement will have been a triumph of spin over substance.
"We need to know why the order was not placed with Bombardier, which has established train-building capacity and a skilled workforce in Derby."
He added: "If Japan can manage to ensure the high-speed fleet that operates on its own railways are manufactured entirely at home, there is no earthly reason why Britain cannot either."
Print Sponsor
-Muddy Cleats
We must not forget Zimbabwe's cholera victims
At some point in the past three weeks Zimbabwe passed a grim milestone. On one day in January Zimbabwe registered cholera case number 60,001.
A week before Christmas 60,000 was considered the worst-case scenario. Now, humanitarian organizations working in the country fear that the toll could climb to 100,000 or beyond. Whatever the final number, Zimbabwe is now in the grip of the worst cholera outbreak on this continent in 15 years. In six sickening and painful months, Zimbabwe has surpassed Africa’s continent-wide annual average of cases and deaths.
And yet despite the constant media focus and the pledges of solidarity from around the world, efforts made by the humanitarian community to arrest this slide are being undermined because we are rapidly running out of funds.
In a typical case in Kadoma, there is a Red Cross cholera treatment centre. There, a football pitch had been co-opted by tents and aid organizations and is a refuge for 100 people suffering from this awful illness.
A young woman arrived on an oxcart. As her details were recorded, she lay on a tarpaulin, shivering with exhaustion and dehydration.
As the situation unfolded a man approached a Red Cross worker. He explained that his village had lost 10 people in recent days to cholera. He pleaded to arrange some transportation as, just like the girl, all the cases in his village had to be brought in by cart or wheelbarrow. Ten kilometres, he said, is a long distance with that kind of load in this type of heat.
His request was taken to the nurse in charge. “What vehicles?” she asked. “There are not that many unused trucks or cars, and besides, where would we get the money for the fuel?”
The girl outside will be ok. Cholera is not a difficult illness to treat. But then she will go home and there’s no guarantee that the cholera can be kept at bay. We can picture her village. If it is typical of rural Zimbabwe today it will most likely have no running water, no sanitation, no food. She will be encouraged to practice basic hygiene and to drink from clean water sources. She and her family will be visited by Red Cross volunteers and this message will be reiterated.
But what would you do if your only water source was a muddied river, and if you could only carry what you and your family could drink?
In an attempt to escape their desperate situation thousands of Zimbabweans have fled the country. Some have made it to the UK where they have sought asylum only to find themselves faced with a new set of challenges.
An estimated 11,000 Zimbabweans have had their claims for asylum rejected but remain in the UK too frightened to return to Zimbawe. Although the British Government is not forcing them to return home because of the current situation in the country, it has not granted them any type of leave to remain here. This throws them in a limbo – unable to seek employment and barred from accessing benefits or key services.
Many of these vulnerable refugees face isolation and exclusion from any sort of normal life here. Often they are skilled and motivated people who would much rather pay their way and contribute to the society in which they have sought refuge. However they find themselves experiencing humanitarian suffering and hardship as a result of the current policy.
The Red Cross offers help to Zimbabwean people at both ends of the immigration process. In the UK, the British Red Cross helps destitute asylum-seekers who invariably have nowhere else to turn for help; while our current Zimbabwe and the region appeal is supporting the country through its cholera crisis.
But so much more needs to be done. The truth is that Zimbabwe’s economic and infrastructural collapse sits hand-in-hand with this cholera outbreak. None of this is to say that organizations like the Red Cross don’t have a key role to play. The infrastructure issues must be addressed, but they are longer-term concerns.
The Red Cross Red Crescent Movement is doing a lot, and the impact is clear. For starters, we are producing millions of litres of clean water and digging sanitary latrines. We are supporting over-worked and under-resourced clinics with drugs and expertise, and our volunteers are in the remotest villages explaining to people the simple steps they must take to identify and avoid the illness.
And yet, despite the desperate needs, and despite the very real impact that the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement is having across the country, our cholera operation is scarily under-funded. Unless this changes we will be forced to revise our plans. And this is simply untenable. The resources needed for battling cholera on the frontlines must be provided and we urge people to give whatever they can to support our appeal.
In the UK, to ease the deadlock over the status of rejected asylum-seekers, we recommend that the Government should consider giving Zimbabwean asylum seekers whose claims have been rejected leave to remain in the UK allowing them permission to work here and support themselves and their families.
Wherever Zimbabweans may reside, they deserve to be part of a supportive community, to have access to health care and to be empowered to contribute positively to their own future. Whether living in a remote rural community in Zimbabwe, or living in destitution in Peterborough, no one should go through a crisis alone.
Sir Nicholas Young is CEO of the British Red Cross
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)