CasaSugar

A Postmodern Christian perspective on social justice: Part 1 - What is social justice?

UnDave35 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 08:06:52 -0700

In light of Glenn Beck's recent comments regarding social justice and the Church, there has been a lot of controversy, and speculation for that matter, regarding what a truly biblical view of social and economic justice should look like. Some, like Beck, would argue that God isn't the least bit interested in American or global political matters and politics, therefore, they should have no part of our religion. There are others, however, who believe that not only are Christians called to care for the poor, but that social and economic justice for the poor is fundamentally central to the heart of the Christian faith.
Although Beck incorrectly attributes the term "social justice" to Father Charles Coughlin, the phrase was actually used almost a hundred years earlier in the 1840s by the Jesuit priest Luigi Taparelli (and found even earlier than that) and was based on the teachings of Thomas Aquinas. Father Coughlin (1891-1979) was a quite controversial Roman Catholic priest, who reached the zenith of his radio-broadcasting career in the 1930s, "preaching" about political and economic issues rather than religious ones. Although an early proponent of Roosevelt and the New Deal, Coughlin quickly became one of FDR's harshest critics (because he and the New Deal weren't liberal enough) and eventually used his radio program to espouse his extremely controversial anti-Semitic and extreme Socialist beliefs, as well as to empathize with and justify the policies of Hitler and Mussolini. The slogan for Coughlin's campaign and radio program was unfortunately, "Social Justice." And for some unknown reason, this is the specific context and skewed definition of social justice that Beck has chosen to focus upon. While there may be a small number of politicians and "progressives" (as Beck refers to liberal Christians), who dishonestly use the term "social justice" in an attempt to corrupt America with Socialist ideology (as Beck fears), it should be overtly obvious that to the vast majority of Christians today what Father Coughlin espoused is not a true biblical perspective on social justice.
Ok, so let's go straight to the source…what does God have to say on the subject then?

Psalm 140:12 I know that the LORD will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor.

Psalm 31:8-9 Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy.

Jeremiah 22:3 Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.

Proverb 29:7 The righteous is concerned for the rights of the poor; the wicked does not understand such concern.

1 John 3:17 But whoever has the world's goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?

And that's just five of literally hundreds of verses regarding God's concern for the poor! It should be obvious, even to the casual reader, that God's heart for poor is one of the most essential and fundamental beliefs of the Christian faith. As John Wheaton puts it in his article, A Biblical View of Social Justice, "In matters of social concern, the biblical Christian should know God's heart well. God has a special interest in the welfare of those at the lowest end of the social ladder: widows, orphans, legal aliens, and others who are oppressed or disadvantaged in society." Now that being said, my guess is that you would be hard pressed to find a Christian who didn't believe that we are called to care for the poor. So, if that is the case, then why all of the controversy over social justice?
The biggest dispute regarding social justice between more traditional Christians and more Postmodern (progressive) Christians seems to stem not from the fact of whether or not we are called to care for the poor, but rather how that "care" should look and what form should it take. Before we get into that, however, a good definition of biblical social justice is necessary. Interestingly, I have found that when you ask people to define "social justice," they usually talk about providing food for the hungry, clothes to the naked, homes for the homeless, etc. I would counter, though, that these acts are acts of charity and not social justice. Charity, by definition, is generous actions or donations to aid the poor, ill, or helpless. Social justice, on the other hand, put into the simplest terms is this: people getting what they are due (what is right and proper) in the context of their own people and community. It does not mean that everyone in world will or should have the exact same. It does mean, though, that everyone in the world should have the same basic human rights of clean water, food, shelter, medical care, security, and dignity - if for no other reason than they too were wonderfully made in the image of God. Allow me to state this as unambiguously as possible - social justice is not Socialism, Communism, Nazism or any other -ism. It is not a call for the "redistribution of wealth" that Beck, and others like him, assume it to be and are so fearful of. The term "social justice," when used today by the body of believers, untainted, in its purest, biblical sense simply means setting out to right the systems of this world that are wrong - to make just that which is unjust. It is simply the phrase that we Postmodern "progressives" use to describe the unique mandate given to us by God to care not just for the physical needs of the "weakest of these," our brothers and sisters here in American and throughout the world, but "to do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed."
The next three articles in this series will cover these three social justice questions: 1) What are the systems of this world that are unjust? 2) How should we go about fixing them? 3)Why should it matter to us?

http://www.examiner.com/x-38182-Indianapolis-Postmodern-Christianity-Examiner~y2010m3d18-A-Postmodern-Christian-perspective-on-social-justice-Part-1--What-is-social-justice

Tours to Kerala – A Destination beyond Imagination

brijesh12 — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 03:09:21 -0800

How heavenly Kerala is! Equal to paradise on the earth!
Whenever I step into this beautiful Indian state, I get transferred to the world of ecstasy and wonders.
Basking in its magnificence, drunk on its beauty I bend over before god who shaped this wonderland with natural wonders and pored unique cultural features. Simply awe-inspiring! And nothing!
If you have not yet traveled Kerala and explored its fantastic beauty, I think you have not see real India. Lovingly nicknamed as the God’s Own Country, the beautiful Indian state of Kerala is a treasure-trove of fabulous attractions such as historical monuments, religious shrines, beaches, backwaters, lakes, wildlife, Ayurveda, tea & coffee gardens, spice plantations, hill stations, houseboats, boat races and colorful & vibrant events & festivals. Sanctified with wholesome and decent climate, this beautiful land is a backbone in India tourism.
For an unforgettable and cheerful holiday experience of lifetime, you should visit Kerala – God’s Own Country. It has a lot of attractions to offer it visitors. Every year a large gathering of tourists and vacationers from all over the world visit this wonderland quite in good number and cherish awe-inspiring charm of its attractions, beauty and cultural wonders. This beautiful land features some of the most fascinating beaches in India. Kovalam beach is one of the finest beach resorts in the world. A host of impressive beach resorts here bids an experienced drenched in the exceptional nature beauty and unique serenity.
Beaches of Kerala are noted for swaying palm coconut trees, golden & silvery sands, playful murmuring waves, tranquil & amiable ambiance, sheer romantic environs, picturesque sunset and some of water sport activities. Kovalam Beach, Varkala Beach, Fort Bekal Beach, Fort Kochi Beach, Alleppey Beach, Beypore Beach, Kappad Beach, Mararikulam Beach, Poovar Beach, etc are much admired beach destinations in this beautiful Indian state. You can enjoy a variety of adventure & water sports at the beaches here. Surely, you will have a unique lifetime experience of beach tours to Kerala and will be able to convert your Kerala holiday into a lingering affair.
The serene & scenic vast stretches of backwaters of Kerala are equally delightful and fascinating. Endowed with exceptional nature beauty and serene ambiance, backwaters here give you totally unique experience of Holiday in Kerala and you will surely love to explore them. The best and most convenient way to explore the serene & breathtakingly beautiful backwaters is houseboat – a deluxe holiday home floating over placid water of Kerala backwaters. A houseboat cruise takes tourists into a world of wonders where you find each and everything charming, charismatic and spellbinding. For a blissful backwater cruise by staying at houseboat, explore the popular backwater destinations like Alleppey, Kumarakom, Fort Kochi, Kollam, Kuttanad, Kozhikode, etc. Be sure, it will be a totally unique lifetime experience of Kerala vacationsin India.
The beautiful land of Kerala also enjoys rich flora and fauna found in its various wildlife sanctuaries & national parks. Munnar, Ponmudi, Wayanad, etc are popular hill stations in this state and home to unique nature beauty and diverse flora and fauna also. Shopping in this beautiful Indian state will add special charm to your vacations. Body Massage at various Ayurvedic resorts or parlors of Ayurveda is a completely a rejuvenating experience you will love it, I am sure.

About Author ::
Brijesh is an eminent analyst and writer in Travel & Tourism related topics. He has authored many books on tour guide for Kerala Holiday and tours to kerala.Find more packages at http://www.keralatourpackage.org

Romney Makes 'No Apology' For Going After Obama

Roarman — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:36:48 -0800

Mitt Romney has been a governor, the head of an investment capital firm and the man who ran the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. More recently he applied for an even bigger job but finished out of the money in the Republican presidential primaries of 2008.

Romney seems set on another run in 2012, the latest sign being the release of his new book. No Apology: The Case for American Greatness comes with a big promotional tour starting Tuesday.

Romney's presidential run came to an end in February 2008 before members of the Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC, in Washington. Romney had bounced back a bit after crucial early losses in Iowa and New Hampshire the month before. But he could see he was done.

"I entered this race because I love America," Romney told the crowd then. "Because I love America, in this time of war, I feel I have to now stand aside for our party and for our country."

It was a difficult day for a man accustomed to success but Romney wasn't ready to regard the setback as permanent. He spent two years helping raise money for Republican candidates across the country. He's making friends and collecting favors and last month he was back at CPAC - this time having more fun.

Romney told the crowd he was just back from the Olympics: "You probably didn't hear the news this morning - late-breaking - that the gold medal that was won by Lindsey Vonn has been stripped. It was determined that President Obama has been going downhill faster than she has."

The joke was followed by a by a broad critique of the administration: "When he assumed the presidency, his energy should have been focused on fixing the economy, creating jobs, succeeding in our fight against radical violent jihad in Afghanistan and Iraq; and keeping us safe," Romney asserted.

"Instead, he applied his time and political capital to his ill-conceived take over of health care, and to building his personal popularity in foreign countries. He failed to focus, and so he failed."

In his book, the title No Apology echoes a common critique of the president by Republicans - that Obama has been too willing to apologize around the world for American actions.

Elsewhere in the book Romney lays out a vision for U.S. economic and foreign policy. It argues that the current path is one toward weakness and decline.

As for the book tour, Romney will be all over network and cable TV Tuesday - ending with a stop at the Late Show David Letterman. So far the travel schedule includes 42 stops in 19 states.

"You look where he's going on this book tour and he has surrounded himself with the same guys he had in 2008," says Erick Erickson, who publishes the popular Republican blog RedState.com. "He's definitely in for President."

Romney's 08 campaign had trouble with conservatives, particularly evangelicals who had doubts about his Mormonism and about his switch from pro-choice Massachusetts governor to pro-life presidential candidate.

Some analysts wondered why he didn't simply run on his resume as a highly successful business man and executive. With polls showing the struggling economy and weak jobs picture to be the dominant issue for Americans, Erickson says Romney has an opportunity while on this book tour.

"He needs to set himself up as the fixer," Erickson adds. "As the guy who knows what's wrong with the economy and can fix it."

But a big book tour also risks comparison to others on the same well-trodden path - including one whose book came out in November: Sarah Palin.

Kevin Madden, a GOP strategist who worked for Romney in 08, is quick to head off comparisons to Palin's massive crowds. "This is not about building crowds, instead it's about going out and meeting people sharing his ideas and his vision for the country with as many people as possible. Rather than being an event, it's a process of engaging on many of these ideas and issues."

The Republican party is searching for a new standard bearer, as polls show it is on track to make big gains in this year's mid-term elections.

Mitt Romney wants to make sure his name is more than just part of that discussion.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124227822

Group Seeks More Religion in U.S. Foreign Policy

Yogaforlife — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:12:13 -0800

Yesterday, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs’ 32-member task force asked the U.S. government to make religion “integral” to American foreign policy.

The group claims that countries see America’s focus on religious freedom as a form of imperialism and concludes that Western secularism feeds into religious extremism.

The report, produced by a group who wants to see government entangled with religion even at home, thinks the U.S. needs to close the “God gap.” To do this, they have asked for two things: that government officials and diplomats be educated about religion and that they have the ability to “engage” with religious communities abroad to get things done. Right now, the task force claims there are too many obstacles – namely the First Amendment – that prevent this type of activity.

Writing on The Washington Post’s Web site, Susan Jacoby, who agreed that education on religion could be valuable, otherwise criticized the council’s recommendations for being “stunning in their naïveté.”

She accurately points out in The Post’s “On Faith” blog what can happen when American citizens interact too deeply with religious groups abroad. She cites the situation in Uganda, where a series of lectures on homosexuality by Religious Right activists led to the proposal of an anti-gay law by Ugandan legislator, David Bahati.

“[O]ne can only shudder at the thought of diplomats being urged to work more closely with religious groups,” Jacoby writes.

I was especially struck by language in the report that seems to indicate that America should be reluctant to champion human rights abroad because it might offend some religious believers. It calls on the United States to “recognize that human rights can be implemented effectively and robustly only in a manner consistent with different traditions and beliefs.”

But what about when the prevailing “traditions and beliefs” simply refuse to recognize certain groups’ rights? In some nations, women and members of minority religions are considered second-class citizens because of oppressive unions of religion and government. Is the report seriously arguing that our country not speak out against that? Remarkable!

Unfortunately, the Chicago Council’s recommendation may actually be taken seriously. Members of the task force met with Joshua DuBois, head of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and other government officials on Tuesday. In addition, the group has close ties to President Obama, who spoke once to the council as a state senator and twice as a U.S. Senator. Michelle Obama is even on their board.

We hope the report receives no more attention than it already has. What this group is calling for is unnecessary. They have made it seem that as things stand, Americans abroad must practice “secular fundamentalism” and can’t even acknowledge the existence of religion. That’s not true.

Government officials abroad should of course be educated about religion and the role it plays in the countries they travel to; no one disputes that. But that doesn’t mean we need to be ashamed of our country’s own tradition of ensuring religion doesn’t control government decisions. We are a secular state. The report seems to think that’s something to be ashamed of rather than a reason for pride.

Secular government is a positive value that’s worth exporting overseas. Think of it – our most stable and strongest allies tend to have secular governments either officially or by default. (When was the last time Finland caused any problems?) By contrast, harsh theocracies are usually dangerous and unstable, often harboring terrorists.

Just as Americans advocate for better conditions for citizens all of the world – such as urging countries to respect free speech, democratic elections and human rights – we can and should do the same for religious freedom. Many theocratic Middle Eastern nations, for example, would do well to adopt secular governments.

We have seen the benefits of our system – it keeps religious bigotry and disputes over religion at bay, while allowing religion to flourish. Why shouldn’t we be proud of what we have accomplished?

Source:

http://blog.au.org/2010/02/25/international-intrigue-group-seeks-more-religion-in-u-s-foreign-policy/

What the health-care summit taught us

liliblu — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 05:47:56 -0800

The Republicans simply don’t want to pass comprehensive health-care reform. That is the main lesson of today’s health-care summit. It started, as Steve Stromberg pointed out earlier, with the Republicans wanting to talk more about process than about the content of the various health-care bills. It approached an end with House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) delivering the core Republican message: “Scrap this bill.”
As I argued in a post I put up before the summit began, this discussion would be successful if it simply revealed the stark philosophical differences between the parties. That’s exactly what it’s done. Now it is absolutely clear that the only way health-care reform will pass is through majority rule in the Senate, otherwise known as the “reconciliation process.” Democrats will have to have the guts to do it on their own. Republicans wanted to talk about process or tried to poke holes in President Obama’s proposals. They sought not to emphasize their own ideas because their own bills are so much smaller and do so much less.
Obama sent a very strong signal toward the end of the summit: He wants a bill even if the only way to get it is through the reconciliation route. “I don’t think that the American people are interested in the process inside the Senate,” Obama replied in response to Sen. John McCain’s criticism of the idea that the Senate might try to pass a bill with fewer than 60 Senate votes. Most Americans, Obama said, believe in “majority rule.” So they do. The president was telling members of his own party: Press on.
Four revealing moments:

An early exchange between Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Obama highlighted the foolishness of talking about the number of pages in the bill.
Vice President Joe Biden argued that the debate over the White House’s health-care proposal was “a philosophical echo of the debate on Social Security.” That’s exactly right and important: Opponents of social security said provision for retirement was something best left to individuals and the private sector. Mandating that everyone contribute toward their retirement, they argued, was wrong. But once social security was passed, Americans did not want to turn back. It’s an enduring program. Many who oppose a government guarantee that everyone will have health coverage -- and that is where the Obama proposal will eventually lead -- fear the same result: once it’s passed, this program will be too popular to repeal.
Late in the day, Obama admitted that he has reversed his position on the mandate requiring that everyone buy health insurance. “When I ran in the Democratic primaries, I was opposed to the mandate,” he said, adding that he had to be “dragged kicking and screaming” to the idea. He then offered a very good defense of the mandate, noting that all who have insurance end up subsidizing the emergency room care and other forms of treatment that those without insurance receive.
A suggestion to the president: Tonight, please call Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and apologize for all the bad things you said about her mandate proposal during the campaign. She was right about this issue. You should tell her so.
And good for Obama for asking Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) if he would really rather have catastrophic care than comprehensive health coverage. Barrasso said it would lead him to be a better health-care consumer, which makes you wonder whether Barrasso will agree to dump what he now has. But Obama then made the central point of the whole day. Speaking of the uninsured, he said: “We can debate whether we can afford to help them. We can’t say they don’t need help.”
That’s the issue.

By E.J. Dionne | February 25, 2010; 4:12 PM ET

Millions of Unemployed Face Years Without Jobs

Roarman — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:42:41 -0800

Even as the American economy shows tentative signs of a rebound, the human toll of the recession continues to mount, with millions of Americans remaining out of work, out of savings and nearing the end of their unemployment benefits.

Economists fear that the nascent recovery will leave more people behind than in past recessions, failing to create jobs in sufficient numbers to absorb the record-setting ranks of the long-term unemployed.

Call them the new poor: people long accustomed to the comforts of middle-class life who are now relying on public assistance for the first time in their lives - potentially for years to come.

Yet the social safety net is already showing severe strains. Roughly 2.7 million jobless people will lose their unemployment check before the end of April unless Congress approves the Obama administration’s proposal to extend the payments, according to the Labor Department.

Here in Southern California, Jean Eisen has been without work since she lost her job selling beauty salon equipment more than two years ago. In the several months she has endured with neither a paycheck nor an unemployment check, she has relied on local food banks for her groceries.

She has learned to live without the prescription medications she is supposed to take for high blood pressure and cholesterol. She has become effusively religious - an unexpected turn for this onetime standup comic with X-rated material - finding in Christianity her only form of health insurance.

“I pray for healing,” says Ms. Eisen, 57. “When you’ve got nothing, you’ve got to go with what you know.”

Warm, outgoing and prone to the positive, Ms. Eisen has worked much of her life. Now, she is one of 6.3 million Americans who have been unemployed for six months or longer, the largest number since the government began keeping track in 1948. That is more than double the toll in the next-worst period, in the early 1980s.

Men have suffered the largest numbers of job losses in this recession. But Ms. Eisen has the unfortunate distinction of being among a group - women from 45 to 64 years of age - whose long-term unemployment rate has grown rapidly.

In 1983, after a deep recession, women in that range made up only 7 percent of those who had been out of work for six months or longer, according to the Labor Department. Last year, they made up 14 percent.

Twice, Ms. Eisen exhausted her unemployment benefits before her check was restored by a federal extension. Last week, her check ran out again. She and her husband now settle their bills with only his $1,595 monthly disability check. The rent on their apartment is $1,380.

“We’re looking at the very real possibility of being homeless,” she said.

Every downturn pushes some people out of the middle class before the economy resumes expanding. Most recover. Many prosper. But some economists worry that this time could be different. An unusual constellation of forces - some embedded in the modern-day economy, others unique to this wrenching recession - might make it especially difficult for those out of work to find their way back to their middle-class lives.

Labor experts say the economy needs 100,000 new jobs a month just to absorb entrants to the labor force. With more than 15 million people officially jobless, even a vigorous recovery is likely to leave an enormous number out of work for years.

Some labor experts note that severe economic downturns are generally followed by powerful expansions, suggesting that aggressive hiring will soon resume. But doubts remain about whether such hiring can last long enough to absorb anywhere close to the millions of unemployed.

A New Scarcity of Jobs

Some labor experts say the basic functioning of the American economy has changed in ways that make jobs scarce - particularly for older, less-educated people like Ms. Eisen, who has only a high school diploma.

Large companies are increasingly owned by institutional investors who crave swift profits, a feat often achieved by cutting payroll. The declining influence of unions has made it easier for employers to shift work to part-time and temporary employees. Factory work and even white-collar jobs have moved in recent years to low-cost countries in Asia and Latin America. Automation has helped manufacturing cut 5.6 million jobs since 2000 - the sort of jobs that once provided lower-skilled workers with middle-class paychecks.

“American business is about maximizing shareholder value,” said Allen Sinai, chief global economist at the research firm Decision Economics. “You basically don’t want workers. You hire less, and you try to find capital equipment to replace them.”

During periods of American economic expansion in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s, the number of private-sector jobs increased about 3.5 percent a year, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by Lakshman Achuthan, managing director of the Economic Cycle Research Institute, a research firm. During expansions in the 1980s and ’90s, jobs grew just 2.4 percent annually. And during the last decade, job growth fell to 0.9 percent annually.

“The pace of job growth has been getting weaker in each expansion,” Mr. Achuthan said. “There is no indication that this pattern is about to change.”

Before 1990, it took an average of 21 months for the economy to regain the jobs shed during a recession, according to an analysis of Labor Department data by the National Employment Law Project and the Economic Policy Institute, a labor-oriented research group in Washington.

After the recessions in 1990 and in 2001, 31 and 46 months passed before employment returned to its previous peaks. The economy was growing, but companies remained conservative in their hiring.

Some 34 million people were hired into new and existing private-sector jobs in 2000, at the tail end of an expansion, according to Labor Department data. A year later, in the midst of recession, hiring had fallen off to 31.6 million. And as late as 2003, with the economy again growing, hiring in the private sector continued to slip, to 29.8 million.

It was a jobless recovery: Business was picking up, but it simply did not translate into more work. This time, hiring may be especially subdued, labor economists say.

Traditionally, three sectors have led the way out of recession: automobiles, home building and banking. But auto companies have been shrinking because strapped households have less buying power. Home building is limited by fears about a glut of foreclosed properties. Banking is expanding, but this seems largely a function of government support that is being withdrawn.

At the same time, the continued bite of the financial crisis has crimped the flow of money to small businesses and new ventures, which tend to be major sources of new jobs.

All of which helps explain why Ms. Eisen - who has never before struggled to find work - feels a familiar pain each time she scans job listings on her computer: There are positions in health care, most requiring experience she lacks. Office jobs demand familiarity with software she has never used. Jobs at fast food restaurants are mostly secured by young people and immigrants.

If, as Mr. Sinai expects, the economy again expands without adding many jobs, millions of people like Ms. Eisen will be dependent on an unemployment insurance already being severely tested.

“The system was ill prepared for the reality of long-term unemployment,” said Maurice Emsellem, a policy director for the National Employment Law Project. “Now, you add a severe recession, and you have created a crisis of historic proportions.”

Fewer Protections

Some poverty experts say the broader social safety net is not up to cushioning the impact of the worst downturn since the Great Depression. Social services are less extensive than during the last period of double-digit unemployment, in the early 1980s.

On average, only two-thirds of unemployed people received state-provided unemployment checks last year, according to the Labor Department. The rest either exhausted their benefits, fell short of requirements or did not apply.

“You have very large sets of people who have no social protections,” said Randy Albelda, an economist at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. “They are landing in this netherworld.”

When Ms. Eisen and her husband, Jeff, applied for food stamps, they were turned away for having too much monthly income. The cutoff was $1,570 a month - $25 less than her husband’s disability check.

Reforms in the mid-1990s imposed time limits on cash assistance for poor single mothers, a change predicated on the assumption that women would trade welfare checks for paychecks.

Yet as jobs have become harder to get, so has welfare: as of 2006, 44 states cut off anyone with a household income totaling 75 percent of the poverty level - then limited to $1,383 a month for a family of three - according to an analysis by Ms. Albelda.

“We have a work-based safety net without any work,” said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “People with more education and skills will probably figure something out once the economy picks up. It’s the ones with less education and skills: that’s the new poor.”

Here in Orange County, the expanse of suburbia stretching south from Los Angeles, long-term unemployment reaches even those who once had six-figure salaries. A center of the national mortgage industry, the area prospered in the real estate boom and suffered with the bust.

Until she was laid off two years ago, Janine Booth, 41, brought home roughly $10,000 a month in commissions from her job selling electronics to retailers. A single mother of three, she has been living lately on $2,000 a month in child support and about $450 a week in unemployment insurance - a stream of checks that ran out last week.

For Ms. Booth, work has been a constant since her teenage years, when she cleaned houses under pressure from her mother to earn pocket money. Today, Ms. Booth pays her $1,500 monthly mortgage with help from her mother, who is herself living off savings after being laid off.

“I don’t want to take money from her,” Ms. Booth said. “I just want to find a job.”

Ms. Booth, with a résumé full of well-paid sales jobs, seems the sort of person who would have little difficulty getting work. Yet two years of looking have yielded little but anxiety.

She sends out dozens of résumés a week and rarely hears back. She responds to online ads, only to learn they are seeking operators for telephone sex lines or people willing to send mysterious packages from their homes.

She spends weekdays in a classroom in Anaheim, in a state-financed training program that is supposed to land her a job in medical administration. Even if she does find a job, she will be lucky if it pays $15 an hour.

“What is going to happen?” she asked plaintively. “I worry about my kids. I just don’t want them to think I’m a failure.”

On a recent weekend, she was running errands with her 18-year-old son when they stopped at an A.T.M. and he saw her checking account balance: $50.

“He says, ‘Is that all you have?’ ” she recalled. “ ‘Are we going to be O.K.?’ ”

Yes, she replied - and not only for his benefit.

“I have to keep telling myself it’s going to be O.K.,” she said. “Otherwise, I’d go into a deep depression.”

Last week, she made up fliers advertising her eagerness to clean houses - the same activity that provided her with spending money in high school, and now the only way she sees fit to provide for her kids. She plans to place the fliers on porches in some other neighborhood.

“I don’t want to clean my neighbors’ houses,” she said. “I know I’m going to come out of this. There’s no way I’m going to be homeless and poverty-stricken. But I am scared. I have a lot of sleepless nights.”

For the Eisens, poverty is already here. In the two years Ms. Eisen has been without work, they have exhausted their savings of about $24,000. Their credit card balances have grown to $15,000.

“I don’t know how we’re still indoors,” she said.

Her 1994 Dodge Caravan broke down in January, leaving her to ask for rides to an employment center.

She does not have the money to move to a cheaper apartment.

“You have to have money for first and last month’s rent, and to open utility accounts,” she said.

What she has is personality and presence - two traits that used to seem enough. She narrates her life in a stream of self-deprecating wisecracks, her punch lines tinged with desperation.

“See that,” she said, spotting a man dressed as the Statue of Liberty. Standing on a sidewalk, he waved at passing cars with a sign advertising a tax preparation business. “That will be me next week. Do you think this guy ever thought he’d be doing this?”

And yet, she would gladly do this. She would do nearly anything.

“There are no bad jobs now,” she says. “Any job is a good job.”

She has applied everywhere she can think of - at offices, at gas stations. Nothing.

“I’m being seen as a person who is no longer viable,” she said. “I’m chalking it up to my age and my weight. Blame it on your most prominent insecurity.”

Two Incomes, Then None

Ms. Eisen grew up poor, in Flatbush in Brooklyn. Her father was in maintenance. Her mother worked part time at a company that made window blinds.

She married Jeff when she was 19, and they soon moved to California, where he had grown up. He worked in sales for a chemical company. They rented an apartment in Buena Park, a growing spread of houses filling out former orange groves. She stayed home and took care of their daughter.

“I never asked him how much he earned,” Ms. Eisen said. “I was of the mentality that the husband took care of everything. But we never wanted.”

By the early 1980s, gas and rent strained their finances. So she took a job as a quality assurance clerk at a factory that made aircraft parts. It paid $13.50 an hour and had health insurance.

When the company moved to Mexico in the early 1990s, Ms. Eisen quickly found a job at a travel agency. When online booking killed that business, she got the job at the beauty salon equipment company. It paid $13.25 an hour, with an annual bonus - enough for presents under the Christmas tree.

But six years ago, her husband took a fall at work and then succumbed to various ailments - diabetes, liver disease, high blood pressure - leaving him confined to the couch. Not until 2008 did he secure his disability check.

And now they find themselves in this desert of joblessness, her paycheck replaced by a $702 unemployment check every other week. She received 14 weeks of benefits after she lost her job, and then a seven-week extension.

For most of October through December 2008, she received nothing, as she waited for another extension. The checks came again, then ran out in September 2009. They were restored by an extension right before Christmas.

Their daughter has back problems and is living on disability checks, making the church their ultimate safety net.

“I never thought I’d be in the position where I had to go to a food bank,” Ms. Eisen said. But there she is, standing in the parking lot of the Calvary Chapel church, chatting with a half-dozen women, all waiting to enter the Bread of Life Food Pantry.

When her name is called, she steps into a windowless alcove, where a smiling woman hands her three bags of groceries: carrots, potatoes, bread, cheese and a hunk of frozen meat.

“Haven’t we got a lot to be thankful for?” Ms. Eisen asks.

For one thing, no pinto beans.

“I’ve got 10 bags of pinto beans,” she says. “And I have no clue how to cook a pinto bean.”

Local job listings are just as mysterious. On a bulletin board at the county-financed ProPath Business and Career Services Center, many are written in jargon hinting of accounting or computers.

“Nothing I’m qualified for,” Ms. Eisen says. “When you can’t define what it is, that’s a pretty good indication.”

Her counselor has a couple of possibilities - a cashier at a supermarket and a night desk job at a motel.

“I’ll e-mail them,” Ms. Eisen promises. “I’ll tell them what a shining example of humanity I am.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21unemployed.html?sq=... New Poor&st=cse&scp=1&pagewanted=all

In Passage of Jobs Measure, a Glimpse of Bipartisanship

amybdk — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 08:08:37 -0800

Source

By CARL HULSE

Published: February 22, 2010

WASHINGTON - Five Republican senators broke ranks with their party on Monday to advance a $15 billion job-creation measure put forward by Democrats, a rare bipartisan breakthrough after months in which Republicans had held together to a remarkable degree in an effort to thwart President Obama’s agenda.

The 62-to-30 vote - two more yeses than the minimum required to get past a procedural roadblock - cleared the way for the Senate to vote Wednesday to approve the measure, which Democrats said would create tens of thousands of new jobs at a time when the unemployment rate is hovering near double digits and is expected to remain high for years to come. But it is not clear whether the House, which has backed a broader approach, will go along without making substantial changes.

With the midterm elections already revving up and the parties facing deep ideological divides over a host of issues, there was no evidence that Monday’s vote was the beginning of a trend. But after being repeatedly stymied by Republicans on a series of initiatives and nominations over the past months, Democrats were elated with the outcome and expressed gratitude to Republicans who sided with them in cutting off a potential filibuster.

“Today, jobs triumphed over politics,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

Senator Scott Brown, the newly elected Republican from Massachusetts, was the first member of his party to cast his vote for the measure. He was followed by Senators Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, George V. Voinovich of Ohio and Christopher S. Bond of Missouri, who voted after it became evident that Democrats would prevail. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the sole Democrat to vote no.

Mr. Brown, breaking with his party’s leadership on one of his first high-profile votes, said he backed the measure grudgingly, since even its sponsors acknowledged its limited scope.

“It is the first step in creating jobs, not only for the people of Massachusetts but for the people of the country,” said Mr. Brown, who said he intended to pursue other proposals, like an across-the-board cut in payroll taxes.

The bill was drafted by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and is built around an approach that has won bipartisan support in the past: a $13 billion plan to give companies who hire unemployed Americans an exemption from paying payroll taxes on those workers through the end of this year. It also provides a $1,000 tax credit to employers who keep new workers on the payroll for at least for 52 weeks.

Mr. Obama, who will be meeting with Republicans later this week on health care, praised the Senate action. Facing an erosion of support for Mr. Obama among independent voters who say they are not seeing the change that the president promised to bring to Washington, the White House has been looking for opportunities to show that the president can help transcend partisanship.

“The American people want to see Washington put aside partisan differences and make progress on jobs, and today the Senate took one important step forward in doing that,” he said.

Republicans complained about the way the bill was handled and that they would be prohibited from offering amendments.

“Millions of Americans want to get back to work,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “That’s why Republicans will offer ideas that will make it easier for businesses to hire new workers. Those ideas should be considered, too.”

The outcome of the vote was in doubt throughout the day, and Democrats were prepared to accuse Republicans of simply trying to block any Democratic initiative, since many Republicans had backed the job provisions as part of a larger $85 billion measure that also included billions of dollars in corporate tax breaks.

“Enough with the political games,” Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, said before the vote.

Democrats said they planned to call repeated votes on jobs legislation to force Republicans to explain to the public why they were balking at the measure when they supported the underlying provisions. But the decision by the five Republicans to help bring the bill to the floor short-circuited that argument, though Democratic political operatives immediately aimed criticism at Senate Republicans who supported the failed filibuster.

Like Mr. Brown, Ms. Snowe said she did not think the measure went far enough, and she also protested the Democratic decision to bar any Republican amendments. But the senator, who was particularly supportive of some business-oriented provisions in the measure, said those concerns were outweighed by the need to show Americans that Congress was acting.

“We have to demonstrate outside the Beltway and to Americans that we need to move forward initiatives that are going to benefit small businesses and individuals in a tough economy,” Ms. Snowe said.

The vote prevented Mr. Reid from being second-guessed about his handling of the legislation. In a move that angered Republicans, the majority leader earlier this month jettisoned the broader $85 billion measure, which had attracted bipartisan support.

He said he instead wanted to focus on core elements of the jobs package in an effort to move it more quickly and then follow up with other provisions on tax benefits and added jobless pay and health care coverage for the unemployed. But his maneuver raised the possibility that the effort could collapse; instead, Mr. Reid pulled out a victory.

“I hope this is a beginning of a new day here in the Senate,” Mr. Reid said after the vote.

He also promised to return with other jobs-related bills after the Senate disposed of the initial measure.

Besides the payroll tax exemption, the bill would also extend a tax break, included in last year’s stimulus package, to encourage business to make capital expenditures. The provision would allow businesses to write off up to $250,000 in capital investments in 2010 rather than depreciating the costs over time. It is projected to cost the government $35 million over 10 years.

The Democrats’ measure would also reauthorize the highway trust fund, providing an extension of spending on road and transit programs through the end of the year, allowing billions of dollars in projects to move ahead. Democrats say public works construction is a quick and effective way to lift employment.

The bill would also allow state and local governments to issue Build America Bonds that provide a direct payment from the federal government for a part of the interest paid on bonds that finance government works projects.

Judge Rules Oklahoma Abortion Law Unconstitutional

Yogaforlife — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:06:45 -0800

OKLAHOMA CITY – An Oklahoma County judge has ruled a law regulating abortions violates the state's constitution.
Judge Daniel Owens issued the ruling Friday afternoon on HB 1595 saying the law violated the single-subject provision of the Oklahoma Constitution. The provision requires that laws only address one subject.
Oklahoma residents Lora Joyce Davis and Wanda Stapleton challenged the law in a suit file last year. Their lawyers and attorneys from the Center for Reproductive Rights argued that the law was unconstitutional because it addressed four different subjects instead of one.

The law bans women from getting an abortion simply because they want a child with a different sex. It also requires doctors to ask patients nearly 40 personal questions. Many of them detail the woman's relationships and reasons for seeking an abortion.
Judge Daniel Owens ruling prohibits that state from enforcing the law.

Source:

http://www.newson6.com/Global/story.asp?S=12013211

Background:

OKLAHOMA CITY -- House Bill 1595 has been called one of the strictest abortion laws in the country, and an Oklahoma County judge will decide Friday whether it's constitutional.
"It's not only unfortunate, it's incomprehensible that we would do this to one part of our society, to put these restrictions on women and no one else," lawyer Martha Hardwick said.
Hardwick is one of the lawyers challenging the constitutionality of House Bill 1595. She and lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York sued the state over its latest pro-life law.
"I think we just ought to call them what they are, forced pregnancy fanatics," said Wanda Jo Stapleton, who's a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
Stapleton said she believes the goal of HB 1595 is to harass and intimidate women.
The law bans women from getting an abortion simply because they want a child with a different sex. It also requires doctors to ask patients nearly 40 personal questions. Many of them detail the woman's relationships and reasons for seeking an abortion.

It's outrageous really," Stapleton said. "This to me is social justice, to tell these people to keep their laws off my body and off of your body."
But the law's author said HB 1595 isn't meant to hurt Oklahomans, but rather help them. The goal is to collect information and prevent abortions. The answers to the questions will be posted online by the state health department.
"With these reporting requirements, we think we can move from a polarized debate to a very informed debate in Oklahoma on why women are choosing abortion, what are their reasons for that pursuit and allow health care professionals, mental health care and faith based, to give them more information to counsel these women in this very tough decision," Republican Sen. Todd Lamb said.
Lamb insisted the purpose is not to make life more difficult for women seeking abortions.
"I have a great respect for women. I would not want to harass or intimidate a woman in any way. That is absolutely false. That is misguided information," Lamb said.
The group Oklahomans For Life supports Lamb and the bill. The state chairman said it is constitutional.
"We should save the lives of unborn children where we can and we should spare the children's mothers from the agony they often go through for the years after an abortion," said Tony Lauinger with Oklahomans For Life.
Regardless of how anyone feels about the law, the judge won't make his decision based on the law's content. He'll strictly look at the single subject rule. The lawsuit states the law violates Oklahoma's single subject rule, which requires laws to only have one subject. The lawsuit argues the bill has four subjects. The bill's author insists it has one.

Obama defies China with Dalai Lama meeting

amybdk — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:04:20 -0800

by Shaun Tandon Shaun Tandon – Thu Feb 18, 6:44 am ET
Source

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Defying Chinese anger, US President Barack Obama on Thursday meets Tibet's exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, who plans to seek assistance in finding a solution in his homeland.

The Nobel Peace Prize laureates will speak away from the cameras in the White House Map Room for a meeting the US administration calls private but which China has warned could worsen relations with the United States.

The 74-year-old Buddhist monk greeted the Tibetan well-wishers, tasting milk and tea which children presented to him and throwing a ceremonial offering of rice over his shoulder.

Lodi Gyari, his lead negotiator in on-off dialog with China, said that the Dalai Lama hoped to speak to Obama both about global concerns and events in Tibet where China sent troops in 1950.

"His Holiness will be asking the president to help find a solution in resolving the Tibet issue that would be mutually beneficial to the Tibetan and Chinese people," Gyari said.

Beijing voices anger when any government leader meets with the Dalai Lama. It has demanded that the United States reverse its "wrong decision" to "avoid any more damage to Sino-US relations."

The Dalai Lama's advisors said the White House meeting sent a comforting message to those in Tibet.

"They will feel encouraged that the president of the United States, a global superpower, is meeting with His Holiness," the Dalai Lama's secretary Chhime Chhoekyapa said. "It means the world has not forgotten them."

The Obama administration not only refused to call off the meeting, but announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would also see the Dalai Lama on Thursday at the State Department.

"She has met with the Dalai Lama before and looks forward to the opportunity to do so again," her spokesman Mark Toner told reporters.

"The Dalai Lama is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, internationally revered religious and cultural leader and the secretary will meet him in this capacity as recent secretaries of state have done," he said.

Toner acknowledged that China was upset by the Dalai Lama's trip but said that the United States supported a cooperative relationship with the rising Asian power.

"It's a complex relationship," he told reporters. "There's areas where we agree on; there's areas where we disagree on. And we're going to continue to pursue that relationship vigorously."

The Dalai Lama says he accepts Chinese rule over his homeland, as do virtually all countries including the United States. But China has branded him a "wolf in monk's clothes" and accuses him of advocating separatism.

China in January held talks with the Dalai Lama's envoys including Gyari, the first between the two sides since November 2008.

Many observers believe the Chinese are simply stringing the Tibetan exiles along until the Dalai Lama dies, on the assumption that the Tibetan movement will wither without him.

The Dalai Lama enjoys a wide following in the United States and every sitting US president has met with him since George H.W. Bush in 1991.

In 2007, President George W. Bush awarded the leader the Congressional Gold Medal in a high-profile ceremony on Capitol Hill.

Fending off domestic criticism, Obama did not meet with the Dalai Lama when he was in Washington last year in an apparent bid to set relations off on a good foot with China.

But Obama has this year gone ahead with decisions opposed by Beijing -- including approving a 6.4-billion-dollar arms package to Taiwan, which China regards as its territory awaiting reunification.

Leonard Leo, chair of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, a government advisory board, said he hoped the meeting with the Dalai Lama was "not just checking a political box."

Instead, Obama should seek advice on "how to think creatively" on the thorny issue of Tibet.

"Beijing's objections to Obama meeting the Dalai Lama should not deter the administration from trying to bridge China's plans to improve the living standards of Tibetans and Tibetan demands for religious freedom and protection of their unique culture and language," Leo said.

Senator Al Franken’s Anti-Rape Amendment Closes Government-Corporate Loophole...With Some Opposition

tiabia — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 09:20:24 -0800

By Jessica Corsi

In a strange legal loophole, American companies-including those that receive government contracts such as Halliburton-can require their employees to sign contracts waiving their right to bring a civil trial against fellow employees that rape or otherwise sexually assault them. This egregious loophole was first spotlighted when Jamie Leigh Jones, a former contractor for one-time Halliburton subsidiary KBR, spoke out against her gang raped by fellow contractors, which took place on the 4th day of her job for KBR in Baghdad in 2005. Her contract and similar contracts block an employee from bringing suit in court by requiring binding arbitration out of court, rendering this private arbitration the victim’s only legal option. Shamefully, U.S. law allowed for this and the U.S. government paid hefty sums to the companies that invented and maintained these contracts.

Senator Al Franken (D-MN) pushed through an amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010 on October 7 that takes a step toward closing this loophole. This amendment prohibits the U.S. government from contracting with companies that prevent their employees from accessing the U.S. justice system regarding rape and sexual assault claims. The main issue is that allowing private companies to present their employees with these contracts is repugnant to society’s interests in preventing and prosecuting rape and all violence against women. Using U.S. money to enlist the services of such companies flies in the face of laws against rape and violence against women and the Constitutional right to one’s day in court.

Strangely, 30 Republican senators opposed this amendment, and the amendment’s only opponents were Republicans. The amendment is an important and yet small and glaringly obvious move towards combating rape. Senators such as Jeff Sessions (R-AL) opposed what he called government interference in private contracts, arguing that “[t]he Congress should not be involved in writing or rewriting private contracts. That’s just not how we should handle matters in the United States Senate.”

This statement is a mischaracterization of the amendment. What the amendment does not do-but what some yet to be proposed piece of legislation should do-is prohibit these types of contracts when they interfere with civil suits regarding egregious crimes such as rape that all members of society are invested in eradicating. The amendment allows such contracts to persist; it simply bars government funding for companies that continue to contract in this manner. Thus, the claim that the private right to contract is interfered with rings hollow. But more importantly, there should not be and arguably is not a right to contract out of one’s right to bring a civil suit against rapists. No one would think that we should allow contracts barring suit for attempted murder, brutal beatings, child abuse, pedophilia, or other crimes we consider heinous. Why would be allow contracts that prohibit bringing rape and sexual assault into our justice system?

While work remains to be done to get rid of these types of contracts altogether on the grounds that they are repugnant to society’s interests in combating rape, it is certainly the right move for the U.S. government to stop funding companies that obstruct justice and sanction violence against women through these binding arbitration clauses. It is also a small victory in developing government regulation regarding the interaction between private companies and human rights.

List of those 30 Senators:
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

SOURCE