Monday, June 23, 2008

Political Commentary

"Don't Poke the Bear in the Cage, John"
Elliot Jacobsen

The Associated Press reported this tonight:

“Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030…"

This comes after months and months of propaganda circulating about the nuclear aspirations of Iran. George Bush is slowly building a case with the support of John McCain to support a “hypothetical” invasion of Iran. They defend their upcoming increased pressure by telling the American people they are using “every avenue” of diplomacy.

We all know this is a blatant lie.

George Bush and John McCain have a quite dubious record of accomplishment being anything but diplomatic. The war in Iraq handled poorly, poorly pitched, and the fact it still rages at this hour should be the first warning sign of certain failure of Bush and McCain’s “Cowboy Diplomacy.” This call for 45 nuclear reactors is one more in the many foreign policy failures we have made these past 8 years.

Let us elaborate on the connection here.

Bush’s policy in Iran is that they as a country may not have any nuclear aspirations at all. They may not enrich uranium. They simply need to delete the word nuclear from their collective lexicon. George Bush has been selling the war to Americans as some sort of doomsday event if Iran does harness nuclear energy. We all must remember this speech:



I really do not understand this sort of rhetoric. On one hand, these people speak on diplomacy but on the next breath, speak of a World War III fear tactic. Now with 45 proposed additional power plants that John McCain would like to add to our already 101 currently active nuclear plants, we are telling Iran that we can do whatever we want in nuclear research and the Iranians cannot do anything.

This self-important status has plagued our nation for many years. The unwillingness to see that not every nation is out to get us will cause grief that is even more considerable in the future. Why should we not allow Iran to enrich uranium?

We will have to have it under a strict inspection process from U.N. Weapons inspectors. Iran would be under the biggest microscope the world as ever seen with not any the United States watching them but the World Community.

This would do wonders for us. We would break out of the reputation the Bush Administration created. The World thinks of us an isolationist and warmongers. It would increase willingness to help us both in the ending and with drawl of troops in Iraq.

It would help in this ongoing forgotten war waged in Afghanistan as we could refocus our full effort with a rejuvenated coalition of nations committed to destroying Al-Qaeda and bringing Osama Bin Laden to justice.

I may not be the most knowledgeable political mind there is. That honor in my opinion went to the great late Tim Russert. However, with the rising hostilities between Iran and the United States about the “Nuclear” issue…why would John McCain poke the big bears in the cage and say, “We can build reactors but you can’t? Nah, nah, nah.”

Posted by UWJHR at 10:01 AM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Political Commentary

“What My Father Told Me”
Elliot Jacobsen

This was originally intended to be an article about my merits for supporting Senator Barack Obama…

Not too long ago, I found out that the economic stimulus package, that was supposed to do so much for so many people, will not reach many of those who are in desperate need. My father, who was due to get a check worth $1,200, will not receive it because he owes student loans from over 20 years ago.

The IRS is not only withholding his income tax check but keeping money the Bush administration promised to help stimulate the economy and relieve my family’s financial woes. My parents need that money. They were hoping to move out from their broken-down two bedroom apartment which is located in a horrible part of town.

They wanted to move into a safer, nicer neighborhood that didn't require a nightly 911 call because gunshots were being fired a block away.

Now, my parents are confined to the same building where rent is continuously on the rise on par with a spike in crime.


My father can't even clear his debt by declaring bankruptcy. His loan is so high with interest that he could probably work the rest of his life and never be able to pay it off. This is especially tragic considering that he served proudly in the U.S. Army and is a Vietnam Veteran. The sacrifices he made for our country are still being paid today; my father just finished one battle with prostate cancer that was caused by chemicals he was exposed to in Vietnam. Not once has the Government ever stepped in to help.


My father is voting for Barack Obama because he realizes that George Bush's presidency has failed our nation in nearly every aspect. He realizes that John McCain voted along with George Bush 90 % of the time during Bush's term and also voted along with Bush policies up to 95% from last year.

My father realizes that as Americans, we simply cannot give tax breaks to oil companies that willfully raise the price of gas daily.

He also realizes that you cannot give billions of dollars in tax breaks to corporations who ship our jobs overseas while hardworking American citizens fall into financial ruin. My father realizes that our servicemen and women need to pull out of Iraq this next year and not in 2013, as John McCain stated in dire contrast that, "Bringing the troops home is not too important."

How can America not pass a bill that puts statues of limitations on student loans? How can we not have better funding for the VA and better assistance when a veteran absolutely needs it?

How can the Government refuse to tax the same corporations who gleefully rape our pocketbooks?

How would you, as an American, even consider voting for a John McCain presidency, a certain third Bush term, and promote the assured economic stagnation, loss of our soldiers’ lives, and self-destruction of the greatest country on earth?

My father is an American hero just like you, John McCain, and if you would have told my father that it wasn't important to bring him back home from a useless war, then I could promise you - he would have punched you in face.

Posted by UWJHR at 3:41 PM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Monday, June 16, 2008

Article #6 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Iraq and Justice”
Ben Schock

On March 19, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq in order to bring peace and according to President Bush “restore control of that country to its own people.” It has been nearly five years since the US military entered Iraq, and there are still approximately 140,000 US soldiers currently stationed there. Since the invasion, roughly 151,000 Iraqis have died; 9 in every 10 of these are due to US military operations.

As well, the number of US troop deaths has almost reached 4,000. The amount of money spent each month in Iraq is equally unfathomable - about $8 billion.

No, this is not another antiwar slam, or political stance, I simply want you to stop and think about our country’s role as a military power and its effects on the world. The topic is justice, and when applying that to the war in Iraq, one must wonder what sort of “justice” we’re bringing to Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

No weapons of mass destruction were found; the dictator Saddam Hussein fled, was found, captured, and hung publicly; and yet the US military is still there. Understandably, the US military is there to keep peace and retain order, but there have been few talks about restricting military presence in Iraq or helping to create political order from the US standpoint.

Many say that we’re bringing “justice” to Iraq, but if that is the case, shouldn’t we then look to other poverty- and war-stricken countries of the world and bring justice as well? Many say that the US plays Big Brother to the rest of the world, due to its military strength, corporate power, and an intricate political system.

However, many of the past US military invasions have been out of concern for American prosperity: Vietnam, Korea, and the first occupation of Iraq in the early 90s (which lasted less than a year). These are all examples of military “justice” extended by the United States.

In Iraq today, the occupation of thousands of troops is yet another extension of what the United States believes to be justice. This justice, which freed the Iraqis from a dictatorial rule, shall supposedly provide a new future for those living in this country and become an example of American influence and political support.
Posted by UWJHR at 4:06 PM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , ,

Article #5 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right


"Human Rights Starts at Home"
Nick Wong

Being in Guatemala for the past six weeks, it has become apparent to me that “Human Rights” and “Justice” are two phrases in desperate need of a common union. Clear effects of the 36-year war are prevalent as indigenous populations continue to fill the lower brackets of the social ladder. Big business and foreign investors feast off the lifeline of the country.

Former officers of the genocide still become elected into political positions. There are a plethora of causes to be fought for here - a myriad of problems needing resolution - but what often gets lost in these larger mind-boggling injustices are the smaller day-to-day struggles of life.

Every day the country breathes survival. Young children scramble at the sight of shoes needing to be shined or try to sell lottery tickets to people who are too smart to buy them. Others market souvenirs to travelers who hope a culture can be commodified into an item able to be packaged, shipped, and placed on their wall back at home.

And finally there are those who simply show bodily deformations in hopes that a passerby will maybe throw them a few cents to absolve the guilt of not looking into their eyes. This crippled third-world economy is not due to individual laziness or an act of spontaneity, but rather due to the steadily deteriorating social infrastructure caused by global networks that benefit places like the United States.

Trade agreements like CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) set up unbalanced stipulations that prevent development and exploit countries like Guatemala. International banking systems like the IMF (International Monetary Fund) offer short-term loans with hefty interest rates in exchange for rights to property and land, eliminating prospects of self-sustainability.

These large networks are a new form of colonialism, a subversive system of share-cropping, indebting countries to the whim of the powerful. And it isn’t as if all Guatemalans are living in poverty. In almost every capitalist society, the United States included, there is an ever present gap between the have and the have-nots. Those who allow these agreements or have already established wealth, benefit from these relationships just as those in the States do. It is just the proportion that differs.

The majority of people in the States can reap the benefits of these international economic relationships, at least more so than those in Guatemala. Here, kids sacrificing their childhood to help their family are a prevalent reality, rather than an overlooked occurrence like it is in the States.

These tragic scenes I witness everyday are the costs to supplement a US lifestyle that pacifies people with comforts and inconsequential gadgets that update themselves every three months. Hence we get distracted when hearing about the exploitation. This isn’t necessarily about Guatemala specifically or to say that their problems are more tragic than others.

It is instead to say that we are all implicated whether we acknowledge it or not. So if we want to start bringing together “Human Rights” and “Justice,” start by looking inside ourselves and how we live our lives.
Posted by UWJHR at 3:57 PM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Article #4 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Of Pharmaceuticals and Patents”
Nari Corley-Wheeler

Intellectual property rights are assigned to original creations with implications that can alter the quality of one’s life and choices. In terms of pharmaceutical companies, intellectual property rights are applied in the form of patents. According to the US Food and Drug Administration, patents are protections placed on new products entering the market which prohibit the release of generic drugs by granting the original producers sole selling rights while the patent is active.

Once the patents expire, which take on average twenty years, generic drug manufacturers can apply to the FDA for entry into the market. Large pharmaceutical companies instantly have easier access to the brand name drug makers.

As former acquisitions, entry in the New York Stock Exchange and mergence’s with other companies has allowed major pharmaceuticals to profit enough to afford the costly research companies that discover the drugs first. These pharmaceutical companies require patents in order to turn a profit, as the patents work to simultaneously increase market drug prices and eliminate generic drugs from competition.

The difference between generic and brand name drugs is simply this: patents ensure that the company purchasing the developed drug can – in a sense – reimburse the research, development, marketing, and promotional costs involved in creating a new drug.

Generic drugs are not obligated to the costs of development like their brand name counterparts, allowing them to be cheap but delayed upon entering the market. Otherwise brand name and generic drugs are identical without the patents; marked by the same active ingredients, meeting the same FDA guidelines, containing equal dosage and strengths, these drugs are identical sans their price tag.

The market-driven world we live in enables pharmaceutical companies, researchers, and manufacturers to forget that the drugs being created are for the service and benefit of the consumer. Hindering the generic drugs from entering the market because research and pharmaceutical companies need to cover their expenses seems like a reasonable excuse, but in actuality is a strategy for large companies to spin higher profits.

Pharmaceutical companies profit considerably without patents, interestingly because at any given time any one of the 300 million American consumers could become ill and require medication. With a huge consumer base to rely upon, pharmaceutical companies will never lack for business.

Heeding to the patent-protected pharmaceutical companies remain innumerable American households buried in financial debt continually paying off the fees to purchase heart disease medication, insulin treatment, or critical life-saving prescription medication. Intellectual property rights have become a source of woes hurting individuals that cannot afford the unsubsidized costs of their medication that insurance cannot consistently cover.

High costs for prescription medicine bores numerous implications now and, in the future, exponentially more as the American demographics shift. Concerns regarding baby boomers approaching their 60s and 70s will arise as increased demand for heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, and Alzheimer’s medication will soar.

Additionally, the rates of surgical procedures – nearly 50 million annually – is only climbing due to increased demands for cosmetic, gastric by-pass, heart disease, and cancer-related surgeries. Post-surgery prescription medication like painkillers, blood thinning medication, and cancer-related medication bear high costs.

HIV/AIDS patients are paying tens of thousands of dollars each year for prescription drug cocktails and additional anti-depressants and anti-psychotics to manage psychological impairments.

Admitting generic drugs to the market upon manufacturing is one of the most immediate ways to relieve patients of the incremental costs associated with prescription medication. Allowing brand name drugs to dominate the pharmaceutical market forces growing numbers of consumers to bury themselves in financial debt and to remain extremely dependent on the prescribed drug available regardless its price.
Posted by UWJHR at 3:53 PM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Article #3 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

"Not Without Dignity"
by Jacob Galfano

In a nation with a history of commercializing its justice system, it should surprise nobody that one of America’s newer social norms is privatized inmate labor. Over the past few decades, more industries in the private sector are benefiting from inmate labor programs.

In November 2007, voters in Washington State continued the trend, overwhelmingly approving a constitutional amendment that allows its inmate labor programs to be contracted to private companies that “operate in a correctional facility.”

The vote – shunned by local mainstream media – reflects the intersection of mob mentality and state complicity, where free enterprise continues to rule. The initiative’s supporters and op­ponents appear to fall on either side of an argument focused on the economy, and together conclude that “offenders should work to reduce their burden on taxpayers by paying room and board, crime victim’s compensa­tion, court costs and… child support,” but that “should not be to the detriment of law-abiding citizens competing for jobs or local businesses competing in the marketplace.”

Although narrow, this dichotomy reveals the broader challenge of policy change, in which innumer­able stakeholders are affected – which includes prisoners them­selves. Statistics show that some prison labor programs reduce recidivism (the rate at which prisoners return to prison after their release), and prisoners prefer to work than to not.

Frank Hinojosa spent 10 years in the federal prison system, and credits the opportunity to train as an electrician for his rehabilita­tion: “They asked me to clean tables, and I refused. I knew I did not ever want to go back there, so I promised myself to learn a trade. I started studying, and saw the potential in getting certified. It was an accomplishment; now I have a career.”

University of Washington Professor of Law Steve Calandrillo agrees: “I think it’s important that sanctions attempt to deter so­cially undesirable actions and rehabilitate offenders to the extent possible. We need to ensure that we provide opportunities like job training in order to allow for their reintegration into society. Otherwise we risk further alienating individuals and increasing the chance of recidivism.”

But is there a difference between consent to predetermined choices and empowerment? How many stories like Frank’s really exist?

A growing restorative justice movement suggests that treating human beings as human capital is dangerously disenfranchising, especially when most of those involved in inmate labor programs have no hope for rehabilitation. Paul Wright of Prison Legal News elaborates: “In our reporting, we find it a lie that labor pro­grams are concerned with rehabilitation. The reality is that all of the work programs are in medium to maximum security prisons, where many of the inmates participating in them are already serv­ing life terms.”

“But restorative justice as a movement has little traction if the defendant is convicted for a drug or other public-order offense for which the ‘victim’ is the state. What is there to restore?”
Perhaps redefining what it means to be a victim is necessary for the movement to overcome the daunting challenge of find­ing its niche within a criminal justice system reinforced by centuries of retributive law and litigation. But it works collaboratively, and uses non-conventional tools like theatre, dancing, literature, and dialog to counter the ubiquitous prison policy of suppressing voice and creativity.

In Seattle, Pat Graney’s Keeping the Faith project helps incarcerated women and girls reclaim their identities. “This is one of the first major accom­plishments in my life. This program takes a bunch of convicts and allows us to be productive, socially accepted figures of pride,” said one partici­pant on the program’s website.

There are statistics here, as well. New York’s Juvenile Justice Initiative has resulted in fewer than 35% of its youths being rear­rested or violating their probation. Montgomery, Alabama’s com­munity-based centers for youth offenders have led to recidivism rates under 10% and zero suicides – both enormous reductions.

However, in the United States, one in one-hundred people are in prison – an unprecedented ratio.

As the restorative justice movement grows, it will continue to encounter skepticism and political barriers. But it is resilient, and has the support of scores of human rights activists, legislators, elected officials, and scholars.

Social scientist Dr. Philip Zimbardo writes, “Prisons are places that demean humanity, destroy the nobility of human nature, and bring out the worst in social relations among people.” He might agree that by providing more alternatives to those incarcerated and empowering them to choose, Washington State can send the message that no human being is without dignity.

For the complete interview with Frank Hinojosa, visit our web­site: http://students.washington.edu/j4hr
Posted by UWJHR at 3:49 PM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , ,

Article #2 from Volume 1, Issue 4: Your Media, Your Human Right

“Reconciliation as Grassroots Justice”
Rachel Proefke

Between April and July of 1994, in the span of 100 days, an estimated one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were butchered throughout Rwanda as the rest of the world watched passively. The brutal genocide was orchestrated by the use of the propagandist radio station Radio Mille Collines; instigated in the shadows by the government; and enflamed by an inauspicious plan crash blamed on Tutsis which killed Rwanda’s President.

Most of the killings were perpetrated by civilians against unarmed civilians in vicious attacks of neighbors and community members acting out murder and destruction on a largely innocent minority and their supporters. This event is significant for the sheer efficiency and magnitude by which so many lives were extinguished.

Also, its significance is manifested in the fact that this was not the first outbreak of violence between Tutsis and Hutus, but rather one of the more glaring instances in a greater history of ethnicized tension in both Rwanda and Burundi where both sides are guilty of transgressions.

In the aftermath of the genocide, while the rest of the world wrestles with its complicit inaction, Rwandans are left with the questions of justice, truth, memory, and reconciliation.
Grappling with more than 120,000 alleged genocidaires placed in Rwanda’s prisons and communal jails by 2000, and despite the instituting of the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda, reconciliation and justice have been sought by other means.

Human Rights Watch conceded that the combination of the national courts and the ICTR managed to try 10,000 suspects in a decade, but at this rate it is projected that it would take upwards of 100 years to prosecute all the suspects. In a throwback to traditional community and tribal justice systems, a means to deal with Rwanda’s wounds has been presented in the form of the Gacaca court system.

According to the official Rwandan government website of the National Service of Gacaca Jurisdictions, the Gacaca courts system is the manifestation of endeavors to reconstruct what happened during the genocide, speed up the legal proceedings by using as many courts as possible, and promote reconciliation of all Rwandans to build their unity.

Traditionally, Gacaca courts were community assemblies presided by elders which would settle village and family disputes.

However, in their modern manifestation, these grass-roots courts, as their name implies, are overseen by individuals with judicial training and act as a forum for the community to discuss the local context of the genocide and prosecute local offenders on four categories of criminality- organizational capacity in the genocide, perpetrators of homicide, committing acts of serious bodily injury, and property damage.

There are no lawyers present at the trials; instead, community members are welcome to comment or intervene as they see fit on either the side of or against the defendant. While instituted primarily to speed up the process of justice within the small, mountainous African nation, instead the courts have been attested as the primary agents for reconciliation, truth, and memory at the local level.

This complements the community-based nature of the genocide itself where neighbors are the perpetrators and where communities must conceive of a means to negotiate their relationships.

The Gacaca courts are often touted as the most sweeping implementation of the ideological assumptions behind the necessity of truth and reconciliation. However, they are often criticized as well for potential biases, inefficiencies, needlessly exposing witnesses and victims to reprisal, and inadequacies of coping with such a complex historical and socio-political context larger than the locality.

Others in turn retort with the notion that these faults are the “occupational hazards” of truth and reconciliation as opposed to conventional retributive justice systems. The question remains how is justice to be conceived of and achieved in the context of such widespread brutality? What is the function of locality in reconciliation following crimes against humanity? And how do we repatriate a sense of community and peace after such broad transgressions?

Despite the persistence of these subjectively-oriented questions, at the very least, the Gacaca courts are occupying the gaps in accountability, speed, and resolution that international justice following the genocide has left gaping. They can be conceived of as healing the wounds that complicit international passivity allowed to be inflicted. Perhaps the best way to secure justice for community-based and widespread crimes is through respect for this locality, as opposed to through the very mechanisms of justice and protection which failed to resolve the issue before over one million civilians were brutally butchered.
Posted by UWJHR at 3:38 PM | 0 comments  
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)