Growing Challenges to Democracy in Myanmar

By John Amaruso

    The country of Burma, or better known as Myanmar, is in the midst of the often volatile transition to democracy. Like many countries, Burma is experiencing the growing pains of democratic rule. Governed under the brutal Military Junta since 1962, the thaw out from authoritarian rule to democracy has been a rocky one with few strides made.
    As inherent as the troubles of consolidating a democracy may be, this does not excuse some of the recent clashes between Burmese authorities and the citizens. A few incidents in the past few weeks demonstrate that the coming months for Burma will most certainly be tumultuous.
    Recent demonstrations at the site of a copper mine in Burma's Sagaing region led to authorities cracking down and arresting 7 protestors, including Moe Thwe, the leader of the protest. Meanwhile dozens of protesters were injured.
    Police claimed the protest became violent, a story which protesters deny. Police reportedly used tear gas, smoke bombs, and incendiary devices that burned several people.
    Farmers claim the deal was forced upon them by Than Shwe's Military Junta nearly 2 years ago and has ultimately led to the eviction of farmers from their land in favor of the China-backed project. The majority of profits from the copper mine would benefit the military in Burma, which still has significant power in the country.
    To top this off, a known political activist and former monk, U Gambira, who helped organize the 2007 anti-government protests, was detained by the government prior to the demonstrations. Many say this was an attempt by the ruling elite to prevent U Gambira's support of the now nation wide protest against the copper mine.
    Family members have attempted to visit him in Insein Prison, the location where officials claimed he would be. To their surprise, the prison officials denied he was being held there. His whereabouts are currently unknown.

Monk treated after suffering burns from Burmese police

  This back peddling of human rights comes only days after President Obama visited the country to congratule President Thein Sein on his political reforms and progress towards a transition to democratic rule. The significance of President Obama's visit should not be underscored- the trip made him the first American President to ever visit the country.
    The praise from President Obama comes after the release of political prisoners, the liberalization of the media, and the successful conducting of elections that have been a part of President Thein Sein's political reforms since taking office 18 months ago. Despite these positive first steps, many in the country claim it is merely a crack in a large wall preventing civilian rule in the country. The metaphoric wall being the military.
    The military's grip on power is being challenged by Aung San Suu Kyi, a former political prisoner, who was among those released in the wave of reforms. Aung San Suu Kyi, who was placed under house arrest for 15 years and became a symbol of Burma's democracy movement, won a seat in the Pyithu Hluttaw, the lower house of the Burmese parliament in 2012. Her party, the National League for Democracy, won 43 out of the 45 seats up for grab in the election.
    Her call for action against the oppressive Military Junta throughout the 80's and 90's has won her considerable praise from the international community, receiving awards and invitations from countries around the world.
    With all this said, can Burma truly become democratic? Small skirmishes such as the copper mine protests are not as uncommon as you may think. They happen in what are considered fully consolidated democracies.
    Take the U.S. for example. Protesters at Occupy Wall Street were pepper sprayed indiscriminately by police without warrant of force. Bills have been proposed by sitting senators to ban protesters from public areas such as Federal building sites. The NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) signed by President Obama allows for the abduction and closed military trial of any U.S. citizen anywhere under the broadly defined 'suspicion of terrorism or terrorist related activities'. Meanwhile, Freedom House rates America as one of the best functioning democracies in the world.
    Can Burma become a democracy? It can. With the right circumstances, Burma can push through the door that was unlocked when the Military Junta ceded power in 2011. If those that are in power are willing to let the people decide the fate of their nation, then and only then, will true democracy be brought to Burma.
   

History In The Making- Marijuana's Legalization

Tonight, at midnight, in both the Mountain and Pacific Time Zones, history will be made. For the first time in 75 years, marijuana will be legal for recreational use in two states in the U.S., Colorado and Washington. 

On election day 2012, voters in both states voted on a referendum which legalized marijuana. Tonight those laws go into effect.

For us on the East Coast it will occur at 2 and 3 am.

History in the making folks.

A message from NGNJ.

Corporate Profits at All Time High. Wages at All Time Low.

By John Amaruso

Corporate profits compared to share of GDP
Business Insider

As the economic recovery slumps forward, fewer people are doing better, meanwhile a lot more people are doing worse than they were before the downturn.

A recent study conducted by Business Insider shows that corporate profits are at a record high while employment/wages are at an all time low.


Corporations (namely the largest of) are doing better than at any time since 1950. Research shows this comes as a result of a few common sense factors.

1. Corporations are paying people less than ever as a share of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) because they can get away with it. A limited job share (A.K.A. monopoly on labor) allows companies to pay whatever they say with little reaction/possible alternative for the worker.

Wages compared to share of GDP
Business Insider

2. Corporations are outsourcing jobs in many different ways, as in through technological replacements of workers (I.E. One computer does the work 20 people could do at a fraction of the cost) or of course, the shipping of jobs overseas.
3. Corporate tax loopholes/havens allow companies to either skip out on potential costs by retracting revenue from the American economy and providing that saved cost for itself or other governments with even lower tax rates.

So the next time someone says burdensome regulation or high taxes is what's stunting economic growth, tell them to look at the facts. Since wages are low, people can't spend, and when people can't spend, smaller companies that depend on these consumers lose customers and the cycle continues.

As Clinton famously once said...

It's the economy, stupid.

We Are Already At War With Iran

President Ahmadinejad of Iran touring a nuclear facility

By John Amaruso

       The tension between Washington and Tehran has been increasing steadily in the past few months. From the crash of a secret American drone in Iranian territory, to the assassination of a prominent Iranian scientist, to the continued threats from Tehran towards U.S., Israel and Britain, the air seems to be thickening all around us.

     But if you look at the facts, there already is a war waging between America and Iran. Just over the past few months alone, a number of events have brought to light this shadowy and often unknown world of intelligence gathering and military posturing that is often seen in clandestine wars like these.

Protesters during the 1979 revolution in Iran donning posters
of the leader of the revolt, Ayatollah Khomeini

      A cyber attack in late 2011 that many claimed the C.I.A carried out on an Iranian nuclear facility was just another form of a missile strike between the two nations. The drone that supposedly malfunctioned itself into Iranian territory in early 2012 is a modern version of gathering intelligence on the enemy. The summary trial and pending execution of an accused American-Iranian spy in Tehran is a war criminal being put on trial. The assassination of a prominent Iranian scientist is just another casualty of this secret war being waged behind the scenes. All in all, a war has not been declared, but it can be said that a war is being fought.
      The 1979 revolution in Iran which started off with the over throw of the Shah and ended with the takeover of the American Embassy where over 60 workers were held hostage for 444 days could be seen as the day war was declared. Through negotiations carried out by then President Ronald Reagan and the C.I.A., weapons and ammunition were funneled through terrorist groups in Nicaragua to the Islamists in Tehran to have the hostages released. To the American government this was a short term solution to what they knew was going to be a long term problem.
      The problem? A hostile nation, with access to immense resources, centered in one of the most strategically important areas of the globe, was now attempting at the expense of international law, at obtaining and enriching uranium for nuclear purposes. This was a sore sight for C.I.A. officials and businessmen who enjoyed a comfortable relationship with Iran under the western backed Shah. For this, the Iranian regime was deemed to have no validity and was to be prevented in anyway from achieving their goal of becoming a nuclear power.
       Sanctions imposed by President after President reflect this sentiment. Claims of Iran sponsoring groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon have stalled any form of productive talks since the cutting of diplomatic ties. Iran's ever growing influence over affairs in the region has left many in the west shaken, as control over the region's political stability is vital to many interests in both America and the business world.
       This regime which has threatened stability has pitted Shia Muslims against Sunni Muslims since 1979 have been working for decades now on obtaining nuclear materials for what they claim are peaceful energy uses. While many citizens in the country believe it is their country's right as a sovereign state to utilize nuclear energy for domestic consumption, western nations have been weary of the Iranian government's intentions.
       Iran's long time feud with Israel is one that has also been of much concern. Being that Iran is ruled by strict fundamentalist Islamists, their views towards the country have always been hostile, and it is feared that an attack on Israel by Iran could spark a war between the West and the Arab world. With rising frequency in both covert and overt operations being perpetrated by both Tehran and Washington, it seems that an attack on Israel might not even be needed to start the next war. That is, if you don't already consider this a war.

Who Needs Facts When You Have Faith?

 Sen. Marco Rubio Doesn't Know How Old the Earth Is, But He, "Knows What the Bible Says"

by Tyrone L. Heppard

   I’ve said it before, and I’ll probably have to say it a billion more times before I die: We need to keep our religious views out of domestic policy-making. I’m not saying this because I think that religious folks can't make decisions. I’m saying it because when you have someone who is in the position of representing a constituency and they’re trying to run for public office, we can’t afford to have people passing legislation based on their favorite parable or Bible story. When this takes place, strange things happen.

   Case and point: Sen. Marco Rubio. The republican from Florida was being interviewed by GQ Magazine’s Michael Hainey when the question of the Earth's age came up. I read the full interview and in Rubio’s defense, the question did seem to come out of nowhere. But it's still a simple question, “How old do you think the Earth is?”

   The Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old; everyone generally knows that to be true. The earth is round, it revolves around the sun, it’s the third planet in our Solar System and it’s 4.5 billion years old. These are facts.

   What did Sen. Rubio say? Well, he could have said, “4.5 billion years old. Next question.” He could have said, “Hmm. I don’t know exactly – I know it’s old though; probably a couple billion years old.” But he didn’t. Instead, he said this:

Sen. Rubio, how old is the Earth? It's okay. We'll wait...

   “I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.”

   There are plenty of issues with this statement; issues that should concern people who like to think of themselves as rational and educated. I’ll begin with the first part that stood out to me. It was the bit where Rubio said, “I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.”

   Really, Marco? That’s like someone coming up to me and saying, “Hey, Tyrone! What do you think two plus two is?” In which case I turn around, smile smugly and respond, “I’m not an accountant, man. I’m not a mathematician. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that.” The age of the Earth isn’t unknown or up for debate. It’s a solid, concrete answer that is widely accepted as fact. If someone asked me to add two and two and I came up with 47, they would promptly direct me towards the nearest calculator.

   But Rubio doubles down on this “lack of qualification” response to a well-known fact by saying, “I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.” No it’s not, Marco. You might not know and that’s fine, but everybody else does. Hell, I even saw Pat Robertson’s crazy Christian self on Fox News saying this:

"F**k you, Rubio! You're making us all look stupid!"

   “You go back in time, you’ve got radiocarbon dating. You got all these things, and you’ve got the carcasses of dinosaurs frozen in time out in the Dakotas. They’re out there. So, there was a time when these giant reptiles were on the Earth, and it was before the time of the Bible. So, don’t try and cover it up and make like everything was 6,000 years. That’s not the Bible.”

   Look him up if you don’t know who he is, but my point is that if this guy says you should know better, Sen. Rubio, you should know better. It seems that you no longer have to vehemently deny science to gain the support of the Christian right anymore; even these guys get it now. I mean, we still need to have a very long, public discussion about how the Earth got here, but we all agree that it got here about 4.5 billion years ago.

   The final thing that bugged me about Sen. Rubio’s ridiculous answer to the equivalent of a 4^th grade science test question was when he said, “I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow.” Eh... sure; maybe literally speaking. I don’t think anyone’s expecting an economic bailout from the cosmos.

   But keep in mind there are people currently holding office in this country who have the same views as Sen. Rubio. What happens when they start throwing money towards far-right Christian groups who want to take evolution out of schools or drastically cut spending in the areas of science and technology because whatever the Bible says or doesn’t say about these things is good enough?

  Which leads me back to my original statement: we need to keep our religious views out of our domestic policy-making. We saw what happened when Rubio failed to do that when asked a simple question from a reporter. What happens when a similar but more important question is asked by the American people to a Congress or a president that has the same lack of discipline as Rubio? 

Nothing good. And I can assure you of that just like I can assure you the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? The Final Post

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 6: Mandate of the Fourth Estate

Reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein looking straight gangsta in All The President's Men

by Tyrone L. Heppard

So there we have it: there is no media bias, only the myth of one. Conservatives are the ones who are saying it; and not even because they believe it. It’s a political Rubix cube: they use the liberal media bias myth because they know it’s impossible for the average Joe to prove or figure out. At the same time, it helps improve their image and legitimacy to the middle-of-the-road voter and even to the rest of the conservative base. How they get all those colors to line up on different sides of the block I may never know.

Fortunately, the advent of the internet has increased the ability individuals have to find out what's going on in the world around them. For this simple reason, it will be interesting to see just how much the people buy into the biased liberal media argument when people have access to all of this information that tells them otherwise.

When it comes down to it, though, it has been (and will continue to be) good journalists doing their jobs effectively who call out the crazy, ridiculous, offensive and untrue things that will no doubt come from both sides of the aisle. If you or someone you know is seriously considering becoming a member of the Fourth Estate, personally, I think there are a few things that any good journalist who is worth their weight in salt should keep in mind.

See?! Lois Lane gets it; and she's a fictional character!

Number one, as a journalist, your first obligation is to the truth; your first loyalty is to the people. A good journalist always keeps in mind that what they are a part of is a discipline of verification. If you work for print media, don’t try to impress us with your words; you’re not writing a novel. If you work for a TV news outlet, just remember the people care less about your hair and make-up and more about what’s coming out of your mouth; I’m talking to you, Brooke Baldwin….  

Next, there should never (I repeat; NEVER) be a reason a journalist can’t fairly and accurately report a story. It’s as simple as that. I don’t care what side of the aisle they’re from. I don’t care what god they worship. I don’t care what news outlet the work for. Objectivity is the heart of journalism; it’s where reporters get their credibility and what little power and influence they have. The day that we can’t expect a journalist to tell us the whole story is the day we need to start taking a look at the people cutting them a check. If you find yourself working for someone who won’t allow you to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, I suggest you hand them your papers of resignation.

Journalism: It's fantastic!

Finally, the media is the Fourth Estate; I know I say that a lot, but it’s important, dammit! The whole reason they’re here is in order to make sure that our government functions the way our forefathers intended and to hold people accountable when it doesn’t. They are the steward of the people and the watchdog of the government. That’s why I always find it funny when people like the Media Research Center label themselves as a “media watchdog”. Often times we find that the people who accuse the media of needing a babysitter are the ones who should probably be getting monitored in the first place. A journalist is an independent monitor of power; they’re supposed to be the only watchdog all of us ever need.

Even though there are people like Rupert Murdoch who claim that their power and responsibility don’t lie with them, we have people like Julian Assange who are willing to take the heat for doing what all of these media outlets were supposed to be doing in the first place: verifying facts and telling the truth.

I believe that as long as there is someone willing to do something shady enough to get ahead, there will be someone gutsy enough to call them out on it. That’s what being a journalist is all about; and it’s going to take a lot more than some baseless claims and rhetoric to put an end to that. Sorry, GOP.

So, hey! Conservatives! You listening, Hannity? You hearing me, Limbaugh? Coulter! Malkin! Reince Preibus?! Why don’t you stop it with the liberal media bias defense? Not only does it make absolutely no sense; it’s getting old, it’s not working and, quite frankly, it’s a little sad. I’m sure you’re all decent people who have some pretty strong convictions, but there’s no way in hell you believe that line about a liberal media. You know better than that, right?

So listen, if you’re looking for me to offer up some political advice or some kind words after a tough loss to a democrat, you’ll get none of that from me. However, if you guys do reinvent your brand, clean up your image, and win a few important elections in the future, I can promise you that I will be there to report on it; fairly and accurately – no matter how much I’ll most likely hate doing every second of it. You have my word.

  

Tommorow: Nothing! ‘Cause we’re done! THANKS FOR READING! DON’T FORGET TO COMMENT!

The Liberal Media: Fact or Fiction? Part 5

A week-long look at bias in mainstream American media

Part 5: Anatomy of a Calamity

"My own party spent millions to stop me from becoming the nominee AND Obama has the support of nearly every demographic in the country? Oh, this is going to be bad. Really, really bad."

By Tyrone  L. Heppard  

   At this point, it’s pretty much clear that there is no such thing as a media bias; there’s only a small group of people with power who would like the rest of us to believe there is a bias and that it is slanted in favor of the left. But even though the people generally don't buy it, that didn't stop the Romney campaign from trying the same stagnant excuse his compatriots have been using for decades.

   Anyone who followed Romney’s struggle (and that’s truly what it was – a struggle; I believe “rolling calamity” is the term being thrown about now) leading up to him becoming the presidential nominee should’ve noticed one thing. As far as the media is concerned, not even liberals were going out of their way to paint the former governor of Massachusetts in a bad light; he did a fantastic job all by himself. Let’s take a look back shall we?

   From off-color comments like, “I enjoy firing people” and, “I’m not worried about poor people”, to calling Russia our greatest political foe in the world, liking the height of Michigan’s trees, and saying 47 percent of Americans don’t take personal responsibility for their lives, Mitt Romney had portrayed himself as the less-than-desirable GOP nominee for a while.

"I got $10,000 that says you'll never see me again if Obama wins..."

   It’s interesting to see how the republican base did everything they could to try and distance itself from Mitt Romney just to end up stuck with him anyway. After all, in Romney, we see a Mormon (weird enough already…) who had to deal with trying to show the differences between a health care plan he instituted as governor and President Obama’s (because it looks an awful lot like the one republicans are complaining about right now). 

  He had to stick up for the wealthy (because almost every American was at one of the hundreds of Occupy protests last year addressing the widening gap between the rich and the rest of us), and he had to support fighting a possible war with Israel against Iran (even after a majority of Americans said they’re sick of war and want their friends a family back; provided they weren’t killed in combat).

   To any political junkie, it’s clear that the Mitt Romney isn’t your traditional republican candidate, and even if you don’t have conservative viewpoints, you have to be impressed with the way that Romney bumbled and stumbled his way to the GOP’s nomination.

   With that being the case, most of us would agree that earlier on, the Romney campaign needed to bring their base together before they started worrying about how to unite the country. And, at first, it seemed like they found a way to do that. They decided to go to that old stand-by: the liberal media bias.

   It was actually a brilliant plan. For a “non-traditional” republican like Romney looking for the support of the party, nothing says you’re a conservative more than blaming the left when you say/do something a majority of the people (or, of your party for that matter) don’t agree with while you’re in front of a news camera.

Romney probably realized this soon after Rick Santorum dropped out of the race and, like any good republican; he tried to play up the liberal media bias angle. 

   On conservative Andrew Breitbart’s radio show in April he said, “Many in the media are inclined to do the president’s bidding. I know that’s an uphill battle we fight with the media generally, but fortunately, there are other voices… which have, in many cases, a lot more credibility.”

I totally would have used this as my official presidential photo

  What’s funny is that Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism’s polls show that from January 2, until April 15 – when he made those remarks – Romney’s coverage had been 39 percent positive and 34 percent negative. President Obama would have no idea what that felt like, seeing as how at that point, there wasn’t a single week where positive coverage for him outweighed the negative. How did this happen? The answer shouldn’t be that surprising. It turns out that it was due to all of the republican candidates (including Mitt Romney) bashing the president at their televised campaign stops and during all of those televised debates.

   You remember the republican debates, right?! The debates the ‘liberal’ media would hold three to four of in one week (during prime time hours). The debates with campaign stops in between where the ‘liberal’ TV news outlets would broadcast live for 15-20 minutes and air random clips from throughout the day. The debates and campaign stops that the ‘liberal’ media frequently took sound bites and talking points from; the ones they talked into the ground with pundits for hours and hours. Those debates and those press campaign stops. Plus, the whole Supreme Court-challenge-to-a-healthcare-bill thing didn’t help Barack Obama either.

   On top of that, data shows that out of all the republicans running for president, the media treated Romney the best. Go Figure! Pew Research says that Romney was treated most favorably while Santorum was treated just as bad as Obama. Newt Gingrich only got positive coverage after he won South Carolina (but that only lasted a week), and Ron Paul?

   Well, the media barely covered Ron Paul, and that might sound like liberal media bias. However, if you do some research on what Ron Paul stands for and what a traditional conservative believes in, it wouldn’t be hard to understand why politically nobody even want to acknowledge him: Ron Paul and the republican base have virtually nothing in common and some of his views were a little too extreme for even the bluest of liberals.

   With this helpful data from Pew Research we learned that the myth of a liberal media bias is a fundamental part in hiding the fact that there isn't a media bias. In addition, we’ve learned that as a conservative, it’s you’re duty to say that you’re a victim of the “leftist propaganda machine”, even if it’s treated you pretty well.

  So now that future journalists know that they are probably going to be accused of working for hippies and communists for a majority of their careers, they should remember that their job isn't just to tell us stories; it's to deliver the truth to the American people as often as possible.

Tomorrow: Part 6: Mandate of The Fourth Estate