The Importance of Punctuation

A comma makes a world of difference. It can mean the difference between life or death. Let's eat Grandpa. Let's eat, Grandpa.

I find it easy to depend on my computer to pick up on all the mistakes I make when writing -- that's what spell check is for, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't pick up on simple punctuation errors that can label you as an unprepared, bad writer. And presumptuous.

Not checking your work indicates you think your work was born perfect. Most likely it isn't. Most of us don't get out what we want the first time around, or we don't articulate as well as we thought. The sentence we thought was genius is not logical. The second paragraph is boring. The cliché cup runneth over. Clear and logical writing is the result of work through rewriting and editing. "Rewriting is the essence of writing well," wrote Zinsser, "it's where the game is won or lost."

Reshape and tighten. It's the difference between getting your point across and a group of krumping baby seals.

A Detour On The Road (Midterm Proposal)

It has been an extraordinary few weeks. Writing about what I enjoy. Sharing the latest news and information regarding human rights.

But unfortunately, my time as a blogger has come to an end.

I was extended a wonderful opportunity to return to Burma on a humanitarian diplomatic mission. I will not have regular access to the internet, and felt it was in the best interest to end my blog at this point.

Thanks to everyone who has followed from day one – I appreciate it.  I have enjoyed writing about topics close to my heart and even taking on the role as Devil’s advocate – an assignment I found challenging but got a kick out of the role reversal. Most helpful through this journey was picking up a great book, “On Writing Well”, by William Zinsser. It helped me realize writing nonfiction didn’t need to be serious and dry – it could be fun and interesting at the same time as being informative. It also gave me a few pointers on, well, writing well.

I highly recommend checking out a new blog created by my close friend and associate, Winston Smith. Winston has stated his blog will be “a satirical and witty take on current political events.” His blog will be an excellent précis of the current political climate, keeping readers informed but having fun as well.

 I am excited for his blog. I believe those that have grown accustomed to my site will find his a great read as well. These are topics he is well-versed in and finds great comfort in writing and sharing his thoughts with others. However, the direction he will be veering towards will be different from that on my blog, which has carried a serious tone.

This will be the first time Winston has blogged, and has a nonexistent online presence. But no worries – Winston has assured me he will be building his presence quickly through “utilizing twitter, engaging and interacting with commenters on my blog as well as other blogs, and promoting my brand through platforms such as Digg, Del.icio.us, or StumbleUpon.” He has also mentioned creating a podcast to accompany his blog.

As of now, there is no word on the new blog title; he advised this should be finalized by the end of the week – so stay tuned. In the meantime, please feel free to follow Winston on Twitter @WnstonSmith for the latest news on his blog. Be assured I will be sharing with him what I have learned through the past few weeks, and making suggestions on writing a great blog.

Take care and thanks again for taking the time to read this blog. I will be online until the end of the week, so I am not gone yet. But my direction must change – life has decided to send me on a new journey. Farewell.

Wikipedia - Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, approved in September 1995 at the Fourth World Conference on Women, is a global pledge to attaining equality, development and peace for women worldwide. The Platform for action requires immediate action by all to generate a just, humane and peaceful world based on fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Contents   [hide]  ·         1 Mission Statement ·         2 Critical areas of concern ·         3Goverment requirements ·         4 Outcomes ·         5 References

[edit] Mission Statement

According to the definition in the document’s Mission Statement:

The Platform for Action is an agenda for women's empowerment. It aims at…removing all the obstacles to women's active participation in all sphere of public and private life through a full and equal share in economic, social, cultural and political decision-making….at home, in the workplace and in the wider national and international communities. Equality…is a matter of human rights and a condition for social justice….

[edit] Critical areas of concern

The Beijing Platform concentrates on 12 "critical areas of concern" that require attention in order to achieve gender quality and women's empowerment:

• violence against women
• human rights of women
• women and armed conflict
• women and poverty
• education and training of women
• women and health
• women and the media
• women and the economy
• women in power and decision-making
• institutional mechanisms for the advancement of women
• women and the environment
• The girl child

[edit] Government Requirements

The Beijing Platform for Action requires all governments to develop policies and national plans of action to implement the Platform locally. The National Plans of Action for each country outline specific activities that the national governments will undertake to advance the situation of women, including addressing violence* against women.

The definition of violence, contained in the Platform for Action, is comprehensive, including "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life."

 [edit] Outcomes

Following the 1995 Fourth United Nations World Conference on Women, the United Nations General Assembly mandated the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to integrate into its program a follow-up process to the Conference, regularly reviewing the critical areas of concern in the BPFA and to develop its role in mainstreaming a gender perspective in United Nations activities.

In 2000 the Beijing+5 reviewed the progress of the 12 areas of concern and found that the goals had not been fully achieved and as a result further committed themselves to achieving the goals set out in 1995. Beijing+10 continued to review the status of the implementation of the Beijing Platform for Action. 

[edit] References

• Stop Violence Against Women
• Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights – Summary of the Beijing Declaration & Platform for Action
• University of Minnesota Human Rights Library
• Fourth World Conference On Women. Covenant for the New Millennium: The Beijing Declaration & Platform for Action. Santa Rosa, CA: Free Hand, 1996. 
• Healy, Lynne M., and Rosemary J. Link. Handbook of International Social Work: Human Rights, Development, and the Global Profession. New York, NY: Oxford UP, 2011.
• Healy, Lynne M. International Social Work: Professional Action in an Interdependent World. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008.
• Murray, Anne Firth. From Outrage to Courage: Women Taking Action for Health and Justice. Monroe, Me.: Common Courage, 2008.

Juan Crow in Alabama

The Southern Poverty Law Center recently reported that five people called the group’s hotline to report they had been denied food stamps. There have been reports that Decatur Utilities and Huntsville Utilities in Alabama have been prohibiting people from obtaining electric, gas, water and sewer services to homes.  

I was disturbed when I read these reports.  How could this be happening in the United States? To deny anyone food or basic utilities to survive seems like a foreign concept – not something that would ever happen in this country.

What was your first reaction? Were you also shocked? Would your opinion change if I told you that these cases involved people living here illegally?

The Alabama state legislature passed a controversial new immigration bill that requires public schools to check students’ immigration status, criminalizes giving an undocumented immigrant a ride, keeps businesses from entering into a transaction with anyone perceived to be here illegally, requires employers to use E-Verify to check potential employees’ status, and instructs police to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if they suspect the person of being an undocumented immigrant. 

Because a portion of Alabama’s immigration law makes it a felony for undocumented immigrants to enter into a “business transaction” with the state, some utility companies are interpreting this as having authority to deny people services to undocumented immigrants. The New York Times recently noted, "Fear is causing an exodus as Latinos abandon homes and jobs and crops in the fields. Utilities are preparing to shut off water, power and heat to customers who cannot show the right papers." In a legal brief, Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange claimed the fear of utility companies denying service to undocumented immigrants “has little basis.” Are these American ideals? Allow families to go without heat and running water?

The problem with laws such as Alabama’s HB56 is that it unofficially gives license for people to act on their bigotry and interpret the law the way they see fit – to ostracize and subjugate an undesirable population—just as segregationist policies did 50 years ago. 

We can’t allow fear and hatred to dictate our course of action. And we shouldn’t deny people the basic necessities to live because they didn’t arrive here through the correct channels – it is immoral and inhumane.  Respect and dignity should not be dictated by arbitrary borders and status.

Petition Writing - A How To

You’re pissed. You just read an article that has you fuming and ready to unleash your fury on local government and anybody standing in your way.

Just breathe. Find your center. Violence isn’t going to solve anything. Neither is going to jail. What you need to do is take a more practical approach. You need to get yourself a petition. You need to start a campaign. Get others involved to start change. And I am going to show you how.

A good petition is the foundation of any worthy campaign.  If your petition is unclear or unfocused, how can anyone else share your vision and passion for change? They won’t. And your campaign has gone nowhere.  

There are three questions you need to ask yourself when starting a petition:

1. Who/what is the target of your petition? A target can be a person, an organization or a position that can make your petition effective. This can include local or national legislators, city or community officials, and local or national business.
2. What do you want them to do? Have a goal! A realistic, attainable goal makes it easier for people to understand and want to join your campaign. Too many goals or trying to do too much with a single petition can make it nearly impossible to communicate your point and may confuse people. You don’t want your campaign to fail before it starts.
3. Why is this important? Demonstrate to people how this will impact their lives. Why should they care? They have laundry to do and the kids are hungry. If you have an effective argument and show how this is a significant cause for everyone in the community to join, you will be more likely to have people take action.

Once you have this all figured out, it is time to write your petition. Clear, concise and compelling will win the race. Now it's time to summarize your petition.

  The petition summary should contain the following:

1. A call to action. Why should people bother signing your petition or getting involved? Let them know within the first or second sentence.
2. Background information. What’s the t? What’s happening that needs to change? Provide one or two sentences giving some history.
3. Supporting facts. People can be skeptical. What proof do you have? And ‘I read it on Wikipedia’ or ‘I heard about it from a guy in a park’ is not going to help get people onboard. Include a short list of substantiated facts supporting your petition.
4. Final call to action. Finish by reiterating your goal.

Next up – online or offline?

Both are equally effective depending on your goal. Is it local or national? If it’s local, you can assemble a team and canvas the area. This might be tricky if you are focusing on a national cause (unless you have the time and funds to do so). So for this, I suggest making your petition online. Remember – online users might not use real names, invalidating the validity of the petition. Validate and verify! Use a confirmation email to prevent your petition from being bogged down with false names and email addresses. Don’t let all your hard work and effort go to waste because of a few addle-pates. Also, use the power of the internet to your advantage. Foster an online community – use discussion groups, blogs and social media to get the message out. It is a great way to get the proverbial ball rolling and to reach a large group of people in a short amount of time.

You have your petition? Check. You have your signatures? Check. Now it is time to send your petition and an accompanying letter to your target.

Let them know why you are contacting them – make your purpose clear and concise. Provide details. And most importantly, be polite: don’t attack your target and automatically put them on the defensive. You have a better chance of your letter going into the recycling bin than them reading the whole thing through. And do not forget to proofread and spellcheck. You don’t want your target to pull out the red pen while reading through your letter. It takes away from the seriousness and validity of your argument.

Remember, you don’t need a lobbying group or be a PR Ninja to change the world. You have a voice, and that is all it takes to foster change. 

The Devil's Advocate

Susan G Komen should have never collapsed under pressure from the liberals. The organization kowtowed to mounting attacks by the liberal media and hoards of fuming feminists hell-bent on imposing their agenda on this country.  

Last week, the Susan G Komen Foundation made a wise decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood. The organization looked long and hard at what Planned Parenthood stands for and where the majority of their funds are going towards – abortions. As a moral obligation, Susan G Komen needed to cut all ties with Planned Parenthood, and should have kept to their decision. But the vitriol spewing from the left for this decision was deplorable; a private foundation decides to end its relationship with an organization that is under investigation for illegally using federal money? How dare they! Who do they think they are?

Planned Parenthood is more interested in having people pay for the abortions they provide than overall healthcare for poor, working-class people. A lot can be said about an organization that generates sympathy and victimizing itself by targeting Susan G Komen as the big, misogynistic boogeyman, labeling them “anti-women” and even “anti-women’s health political organization”.  Progessives call their decision “cowardice”. Notice how through their calculated attacks they make sure to steer clear of the ‘A’ word they find themselves aligned.

I started my week off feeling victorious; somebody took a stand to the monster that is Planned Parenthood! Then the spin began. The liberal horns trumpeted. The attack was on full blast and our victory was short-lived. On Friday, it was announced the organization will revise its grant requirements to restore funding to Planned Parenthood — backing away from its decision to cut off the organization. Many on the left were happy. Those with morals and conscious were not as pleased.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said he was “extremely disappointed” and charged that “Komen caved to political pressure from the pro-abortion movement and its enforcers in the media.”

“There are millions of pro-life Americans who support Komen’s work in breast cancer research, prevention and education. By providing funds to the nation’s leading abortion provider — which does not even provide mammograms — Komen is asking its supporters who care about protecting the unborn to violate their own consciences,” Vitter said in a statement.

Shame on Susan G. Komen for backing down to what was right! You have an obligation to what is moral and right, but you chose to side with the views of a corrupt few. I have donated time and money to Susan G. Komen in the past, but no longer. I will not align myself with an organization that allows the views of others to dictate their course of action. Breast cancer research is not advanced by funding an organization that provides abortions. Politics do not belong in science and research, but morality does.

The New Resume

Pink Is The New Disaster - Update

After three days of controversy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity says it is reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood. 


I think it is great that they are having a change of heart. Many women benefit from the work that Planned Parenthood provides, and the grants that Susan G. Komen offers to the organization. 

Pink Is The New Disaster

This week, The Susan G Komen for the Cure Organization made an unfortunate decision to sever ties with Planned Parenthood, a move that already is having some backlash. 

Being a private nonprofit, Susan G Komen has every right to decide how it will spend its money, and to which organizations it will fund. Until now, it has given Planned Parenthood more than $500,000 a year.  So why the sudden change of heart?

Susan G Komen has been feeling mounting pressure the last few years from antiabortion groups to end all ties with Planned Parenthood. The organization denies their decision is politically motivated, but rather a brand new policy that requires them not to fund organizations that are being investigated by the government. Planned Parenthood, which has long provided low-cost medical care to women in need, has been under a barrage of unsuccessful congressional attacks aimed at cutting off their federal funding.  These investigations are a politically motivated move launched by an antiabortion Republican congressman, Rep. Cliff Stearns.

It is tragic if any woman - let alone thousands of women - lost access to these potentially lifesaving screenings because of a politically motivated attack. Politics have no place in health care. We should be helping women access this care, not placing barriers in their way. Shame on Susan G Komen! The organization has earned so much public backing and goodwill that it should not simply cut financial support to another nonprofit without permitting reasonable due process to run its course. Call on the foundation to reverse their decision and not let politics interfere with protecting women’s health! Let them know if they can't support all women equally, we will support charities that do.

Why I Fight For Human Rights

I am passionate about human rights issues.  I feel my blood boil when I see a person’s dignity and rights are violated or when groups of people are exploited by others.  I fight for the rights of all people around the world, using the law and my voice as a tool for change.

I have lead and joined thousands in protest against the human rights violations in Sudan and Congo; campaigned against the Chinese occupation of Tibet; worked with Eritrean refugees to build new lives free from torture.  Seeing people dying from malnourishment, children mortally wounded as casualties from war; these are visions that will never leave my mind. These visions are what compel me to push forward and end these inhuman acts.

These acts of human rights violations can range from civil liberties to genocide – first-world to third-world. As humans, these crises demand our immediate attention.  We have a responsibility to guard and protect the rights of our brothers and sisters. I refuse to sit back idly and watch these atrocities take place. My life’s work has been spent erasing the hatred and pain people have inflected upon each other.  Human rights are not a luxury. People around the world are entitled to living with dignity and respect, not just terror and fear.

Why should we allow this to continue?  We can’t. And we won’t. We must fight for those that can’t fight. We must speak for those that do not have a voice.  My experience and passion do not make me an expert in this field, nor does it make me the self-appointed lone savior to Earth. I am one voice, but I am a voice. If my voice can reach just one person and have them share my passion, I have done my job.  This is why I chose this topic and this is why I write this blog. 

Land Of The Thunder Dragon

Bhutan is a landlocked country in South Asia, bordered to the north by China and to the east, west and south by India. The Bhutanese name for Bhutan is ‘Druk Yul’ meaning ‘Land of the Thunder Dragon’ and just recently began to allow outsiders into the country.

Since the early 1990’s, over one sixth of the Bhutanese population has sought asylum in neighboring countries such as Nepal and elsewhere around the world. The majority of these refugees are Lhotshampas, one of Bhutan’s main ethnic groups. Organizations such as Amnesty International have stated in reports that the removal of a vast number of Lhotshampas was premeditated and implemented with thorough attention to detail by the Bhutanese government.

Why are the Bhutanese leaving their country in such remarkable numbers?

Here are just a few of many reasons:

• Discrimination against ethnic Nepali children including access to education, health care and landownership.

• Denial of the rights of cultural or linguistic minorities to practice their own customs, culture and language.

• Sexual violence and other forms of abuse against women and girls.

 Bhutan still has an opportunity to escape the brutal conflict that their policies of ethnic suppression cultivate. In order to do so, Bhutan must stop their tactics of removing minorities out of the picture of national identity, and instead grant them the dignity and rights to which they are entitled.

PBenenson BioSketch

PBenenson graduated with a BA in Social Justice & Human Rights in 1993. During his undergraduate studies, PBenenson volunteered for several leading human rights organizations and interned with an international leader in social justice. Upon graduation PBenenson joined the Peace Corps, working in Peru and Argentina for 27 months. 

Completing his Peace Corps service in 1995, he moved to France to continue his education with a LLM in International Human Rights Law. From 1995 to 2002, PBenenson worked for a major international human rights organization. Here he conducted development and program missions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Congo, with particular emphasis on refugees and women’s rights. PBenenson returned to the United States in 2003 to launch his own human rights organization. 

PBenenson’s organization advocates for democracy and human rights around the world. He supports nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat. He works directly with democracy and human rights advocates in their own countries and regions. These activists include human rights protectors, civil society leaders and members of the media. 

PBenenson’s nonprofit advocacy group is dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. He stands with victims and activists to prevent discrimination, to uphold political freedom, to protect people from inhumane conduct in wartime, and to bring offenders to justice. PBenenson's vision is a world where all local governments and citizens successfully encourage and defend the human rights of all and where everyone defending human rights enjoys protection of their rights.

As of 2008, his organization has offices located in the USA, France, England, Thailand and Lebanon.

Current campaigns for PBenenson’s organization include eradicating gender-based violence, strengthening support for the ‘Arab Spring’ and international human rights for gay and lesbians. 

PBenenson has written extensively on a variety of human rights abuses, dedicating special attention to matters of international justice, counterterrorism, and the work of the United Nations. He has documented human rights and laws-of-war violations in places such as Cambodia, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, Bhutan, Liberia, Sudan, and most recently Egypt, Syria and Burma.

Growing Human Rights Issues In Iraq

It is safe to assume that most of us are aware of the human rights violations occurring in Iraq; from the repressive regime of Saddam Hussein to the aftermath of the war, Iraq has produced quite a large sum of refugees and people forced to flee their homes (The International Rescue Committee estimates a staggering 4.7 million people have left their homes since the 2003 invasion). Most of these individuals are residing in bordering countries in the region such as Jordon.

Human rights violations have been increasing, from persecution of religious minorities, to continual disappearances and illegal detentions. Although most, if not all, Iraqis are at risk, the minority groups are increasingly vulnerable to violent attacks and maltreatment. Amnesty International estimates there are as many as 30,000 Iraqis being held in prison without a charge or a trial. Many are tortured, denied access to doctors or help in unsanitary conditions. Even human rights workers and journalists have been victims of harassment, imprisonment or killed.
To learn more about the human rights violations going on in Iraq, check out these articles:

• Iraq: Widening Crackdown on Protests
• Iraq: Security Forces Raid Press Freedom Group
• Human rights in Iraq remain fragile amid armed violence, torture and impunity

Myanmar Dog & Pony Show

There has been plenty of news lately about Myanmar (or Burma) is showing signs of reform and change with regards to their record on human rights violations and civil conflicts. While this might be the show being put on for international media, the country has still not stopped its nonstop abuses relating to long-running civil conflicts in ethnic areas, as well as a military of torture, rape and forced labor(check out this article for more information).

Working closely with a few Burmese refugees, they have shared their disbelief and distrust of the government and their message of change. It’s basically a pay no attention to the man behind the curtain situation. We want to believe that the Myanmar government wants to change their ways, and not pay attention to the atrocities that are still occurring. For more information, head over to the Human Rights Watch page on Burma.

First Post!

This blog is an effort to shed some light on global human rights issues. It’s a topic I am passionate about, and want everyone else that reads this blog to start feeling the same way.

Since I am currently doing work with refugees, I thought I would make my first post about who exactly a ‘refugee’ is and the process that goes into determining this and their journey to our country.

A refugee is a person that is outside of his/her own country and is either unable or unwilling to return due to persecution or a fear of being persecuted.

There are currently 5 types of persecution that the U.S. recognizes when determining refugee eligibility:
1.     Race
2.     Religion
3.     Nationality
4.     Social Group
5.     Political Opinion

The U.S. will decide who to allow into the country through a priority system and allocation. The U.S. has divided the world into 5 regions on how many refugees may be accepted per year (based on 2010):

• Europe & Central Asia = 2,000 (former Soviet Union)
• Latin America & Caribbean = 5,500 (Cuba)
• East Asia = 19,000 (Burma – Chin, Koren, Karenni)
• Africa = 15,000 (Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan)
• Near East & South Asia = 35,000 (Bhutan, Iraq, Iran)

So how does the government decide who gets priority? They currently use a 3 tier priority system:

• Individual Referrals
• Compelling issues/need to require a 3rd country resettlement
• Referral from UNHCR, US Embassy or NGO working overseas

• Group Referrals
• Groups of special interest to the United States
• Jewish minorities from former Soviet Union, Lost Boys of Sudan and the Somali Bantu are examples

• Family Reunification
• Parents, spouses and unmarried children under 21
• It is important to note this has currently been suspended since 2008 but will be re-instituted.

According to UNHCR’s annual “Global Trends” report, the number of people forcibly displaced worldwide has reached 43.7 million people, the highest number in 15 years.
The UNHCR says that “by the end of 2010, three quarters of the world’s refugees were residing in a country neighboring their own”.

Currently only 1% of refugees world-wide are granted resettlement; the U.S. welcomes more than 50% of those resettled.