[Note: this blog entry has been updated several times, most recently on October 2, 2007.]

Deep-seated social, class, and political divisions in the Southeast Asian country of Burma have been smoldering just below the surface for several decades now. They last burst into full-force flame back in 1988, when pro-democracy students rose up in protest against the military junta that has ruled the country with an iron fist since 1962. Thousands of people died in the brutal military crackdown that followed, while the rest of the world stood by and did nothing. And now that troubled, violent history is repeating itself in the ancient land of Burma once again.

The modern country of Burma, aka Myanmar, is a relatively new invention; along with over two-thirds of the other countries currently inhabiting the globe, it did not exist until after World War II. Formerly a captive part of the British Empire, it established its independence as the “Union of Burma” in 1948. In 1974 the country’s name was changed to the “Socialist Republic of the Union of Burma” to reflect the politics and policies of the ruling junta that deposed the country’s elected leaders in a 1962 coup d’etat.

After a brief reversion to the previous nomenclature in 1988, the military junta declared that Burma was henceforth to be called “Myanmar” instead. The US, the UK, and the indigenous democratic opposition movement have never accepted that arbitrary name change, which is why most Americans had never heard of “Myanmar” until the flames burst forth in Burma again last week. (Most Americans don’t know much about “Burma” anyway, vaguely associating it with quaint old advertising verses, prop-drivencargo planes flying over something called The Hump, and glibly humorous Hope/Crosby road pictures. )

Older Americans might remember U Thant, the Burmese diplomat who was Secretary General of the UN from 1961 through 1971. More globally-focused and politically-oriented Americans know about Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Peace Prize winning pro-democracy activist who has spent much of the last two decades held under house arrest by the ruling dictatorship in Burma. Suu Kyi is a hero to many Burmese who chafe under the strict rules of the military junta, including not just students and political activists, but the country’s thousands of Buddhist monks as well.

Buddhist monks in Burma have a long tradition of intense involvement in the nation’s political and social struggles. They tend to be ardent activists rather than passive pacifists, and they are very well-respected and popular among the Burmese citizenry. This means that the military rulers consider them to be a serious threat to their continued control over the people — and that’s why the current wave of monk-led protests that began cresting in mid-September has led to another brutal and lethally effective crackdown by the dictatorship there.

If there’s anybody left who doubts that “compassionate conservatism” is an Orwellian smokescreen for the same old Republican policies, listen to this:

After promising he’d work on “expanding health care for children,” the President has now unilaterally declared war on a successful, wildly popular program that gives health care to millions of low-income kids.

Democrats see a successful program, S-CHIP, and they see 11 million kids still uninsured in the richest country in the world, and they want to build on what works and expand it. Makes sense, right? But this White House is so hell-bent on denying the Democratic Congress a victory, the President’s threatening to veto health care for kids.

This is the same guy who never met a Republican spending bill he couldn’t sign. Not one. $300 million bridge to nowhere? Pass the pork. Half-trillion dollars on the road to quagmire in Iraq? Bring it on. But a few billion a year for health care for millions of kids? Forget it. Not this President. Not the “compassionate conservative.”

This time the President’s “coalition of the willing” is even more puny: a handful of right-wing ideologues who put half-baked economic theories above the all-too-real health problems of poor children and the bipartisan advice of, well, just about everyone else. Families support it. Doctors support it. Hospitals support it. Many Republican governors support it. Hell, even insurance companies like this bill!

The President still says he’s committed to “expanding health care to children” but his machinations on this issue tell a different story — this is what happens when people who hate government run our government: we get regulators who don’t regulate, “heckuva-job” cronies, and trickle-down tax cuts that leave middle class families feeling trickled on.

We have overly politicized, overly polarized debate, which doesn’t do justice to the facts on the ground or give the troops a policy that actually represents those realities and their best interests.

I believe that if everybody comes to the Senate floor and says there’s no military solution, then the significant question is: where’s the political solution? If the Iraqi politicians know that our troops are going to be there as a backstop until next summer, and at the same level as last summer, there’s no leverage for them whatsoever to make any compromises.

So our troops are trapped in a dangerous cycle, the outcome of which they can’t change — and, as a country, we’ve taken away the real leverage on the Iraqis themselves to make the compromises necessary to resolve a civil war.

Al-Qaeda, dangerous as it is in the world and real as it is in limited ways in Iraq, is not the principal problem for our troops. The principal problem for our troops is the violence between Shia and Sunni, and the unwillingness of Iraqi politicians to compromise and take away the rationale for that violence.

So I think that the administration has succeeded in backing some of these guys off from the change that they promised would occur, and that most people believe that change is critical to a positive outcome.

This post also appeared in The Hill’s ‘Congress Blog’.

Four days from now, a wildly successful effort to provide health care to 6 million low-income children will disappear.

This summer, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, Democrats and Republicans in Congress came together to expand the State Children’s Insurance Program (known as S-CHIP) to provide health care to millions more children. It was a simple test of priorities, and both sides agreed to put kids first.

Unfortunately, President Bush has chosen a different course. He is putting ideology and political confrontation ahead of the health of our nation’s children, has unilaterally declared war on S-CHIP, and is threatening to veto the bipartisan bill.

If the president follows through on his threat, his stubbornness will carry a serious price for American families. Health insurance for millions of children is on the line, and we know what happens when children lack access to proper care: Minor conditions become costly chronic diseases and preventable illnesses can even claim the greatest cost — the life of a child.

That is why Congress rose above partisan divisions to pass a bill expanding coverage to 3 million additional children — 2 million of them poor enough to be eligible for Medicaid, but still uninsured.

President Bush is not even willing to spend enough to retain the children who are currently on the S-CHIP rolls. Make no mistake: Under the president’s proposal, kids will be kicked off S-CHIP, and they will go uninsured.

Unfortunately, this president’s war on S-CHIP doesn’t end with a low-ball figure or a veto threat. During the August recess, the administration stealthily imposed draconian new restrictions that effectively kill states’ efforts to cover kids above 250 percent of poverty — in direct defiance of the will of Congress.

If you talk to anyone in Washington, there’s no disagreement that high-speed Internet access is critical to our economic competitiveness, and that a robust and competitive broadband market is key to an affordable and readily available Internet.

For small business, it is critical for the growth of their businesses and the creation of jobs.

But everyone agreeing that something’s important doesn’t get the ball rolling in Washington, and there’s been precious little actual progress toward improving broadband penetration recently.

That’s why on Wednesday I will chair a hearing to explore the impact of a lack of adequate broadband access on our nation’s small businesses. We’ll be looking for ways to move closer to making broadband accessible and affordable for every American and every business.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is hosting a summit at UN headquarters in New York on Leadership in developing ways to combat global climate change. This meeting will include representation from over 150 countries and the heads of state or government of more than 70 nations. This unprecedented participation makes this the largest climate change conference ever held. The UN leader explained the crisis and his call for action on the UN climate change website:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, if no action is taken on greenhouse gases, the Earth’s temperature could rise by 4.50°C (8.1°F) or more. The effects of climate change are being felt already, according to the Panel. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average and adverse effects on human activities are documented. Impacts of warming have also been observed in other regions and sectors, in particular on ecosystems. As glaciers retreat, water supplies are being put at risk. And for populations living in dry lands, especially those in Africa, changing weather patterns threaten to exacerbate desertification, drought and food insecurity. Other regions are expected to suffer from floods, sea level rise and extreme weather events.

“We cannot go on this way for long,” Mr. Ban said, addressing a recent session of the UN General Assembly. “We cannot continue with business as usual. The time has come for decisive action on a global scale.”

President Bush is not attending today’s conference and has sent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak for the Administration. The US is trying to downplay the UN conference and de-emphasize the expected recommendations for mandatory emission controls that UN Secretary-General Ban is trying to get passed. The Bush Administration proposed their own climate change summit for Thursday and Friday of this week in Washington and are arguing for more voluntary controls on emissions of global warming gases. The Administration is still complaining that mandatory controls might damage the economy and that developing nations like China and India are not being held to the same goals as the US.

The UN conference is also chance to begin to get a global consensus on climate change in advance of the UN-sponsored meetings in Bali, Indonesia in December. Senator Kerry participated in a conference call for the National Environmental Trust last Thursday and spoke about the importance of the UN conferences and what the Administration and Senate are planning to do in the coming months on climate change treaties and legislation. Here are some of the points he made during that discussion:

...where the debates over endangered Constitutional rights revolve around real issues like FISA excesses, habeas corpus suspensions, presidential abuses of power and illegal wars of adventure, Senator Kerry spent a busy week doing the people’s business in Washington.

He fought for the rights of prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay, pushing for passage of an amendment to the Defense Authorization Act that would have restored their habeas corpus rights and access to legal representation. That amendment received a majority of votes in the Senate, but was ultimately blocked by a Republican filibuster. This was his response to yet another move by his colleagues across the aisle to deny due process to the detainees being held at Gitmo:

The Roadblock Republicans today stopped the Senate from demonstrating that we can keep our values and keep America safe at the same time. Only these rubberstamp Senators for George Bush believe you can’t detain enemy combatants while honoring habeas corpus.

We all want to stop terrorist attacks. We all want to effectively gather as much intelligence as possible. We all want to bring those who attacked us to justice. But, we weaken our ability to do that when we undermine our own Constitution, when we throw away our system of checks and balances or when we hold detainees indefinitely without trial.

He stood up for the basic human rights of others by introducing legislation that would require Immigrations and Customs officers to follow safe and humane polices in all immigration enforcement operations:

While I recognize the importance of enforcing our immigration laws, it is absolutely critical that we also respect basic human dignity. Regardless of one’s legal status in our country, we are all human beings and deserve to be treated as such.

The immigration raid in New Bedford earlier this year was a stark reminder of how easily these civil liberties can fall by the wayside. That is unacceptable. When people are treated inhumanely, entire communities suffer, including children and the elderly. I strongly urge my colleagues to take a stand against these injustices and support the Families First Immigration Enforcement Act.

He called out the White House for continuing to deny health care to children:

President Bush today once again threatened to veto health care for poor children. The president hides behind the word “federalization” because his political base opposes doing what is decent and humane. The Senate and the House both approved legislation that would extend health care coverage for poor kids, not cut it back.

It would be a refreshing reversal if the president remembered the promise he made in 2004, when he spoke out forcefully in favor of SCHIP. On behalf of families across the country who want him to put kids first, we ask the President not to put their health care coverage last.

And he energized the ongoing debate over funding for the war by renewing his demands for a true change of course in Iraq:

For months now, those of us who believe we need a new strategy in Iraq have been told, wait until September. Wait until we hear from General Petraeus. Wait until Ambassador Crocker testifies. Wait until the escalation has time to work.

Sadly, while Washington waited, hundreds more Americans have died.

I’m the Online Communications Director for John Kerry, and I wanted to post this to the JK blog to update you with more info about what happened at the University of Florida event.

Senator Kerry has been very busy with Senate business yesterday and today – as you may have heard, there’ve been critical votes being taken on major issues such as the Republican filibuster against restoring habeas corpus, et cetera – but needless to say, he’s been in close touch with me and his other staffers about the Florida controversy as well.

There’s been a lot of misinformation and confusion about what happened there on Monday, so I wanted to be sure to share what I know about it with you here on the Senator’s blog.

First of all, it was a really bad situation all the way around. No one wants to see someone get tasered. Sure, the kid was obnoxious and physically resisting, and to a certain extent, when you physically resist cops you do put yourself in a risky situation. (Ever see photos of Kerry getting arrested in ’71 for civil disobedience? He and his fellow Vietnam Vets calmly marched off to jail without raising a ruckus…)

Still, personally speaking, I wish this ended in a number of ways that didn’t involve jolts of electricity. But, I’m not here to give my own opinions. You can read any of the many threads about this incident on the various political blogs for lots of those. (Links to a sampling of various discussions of it are posted below, and as you can see for yourselves, I’m definitely not cherry-picking them for happy talk and nice-to-hear comments…) I’m just going to give you a quick description of what the scene looked like from the stage, and let you know what JK told me directly about the situation.

Senator Kerry made the following statement in response to the arrest of a student at the University of Florida:

In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way.

I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

I asked the police to allow me to answer the question and was in the process of answering him when he was taken into custody.

I was not aware that a taser was used until after I left the building. I hope that neither the student nor any of the police were injured.

I regret enormously that a good healthy discussion was interrupted.

The government goes to great lengths to recruit young men and women to enlist in the military. Recruiters often travel the extra mile to convince rural Americans that the military is right for them.

Unfortunately, it’s often been a completely different story once the soldier comes home. The rural veterans’ care system has not been going the extra mile to care for young veterans who return to the same communities the government once visited to recruit them.

It’s time we fund our veterans’ care system so that it can reach out to soldiers living all over our country — a promise should be a promise no matter where a soldier calls home.

When it comes to fighting our wars, rural America has repeatedly answered the call. Americans from rural areas are more than twice as likely as other Americans to join the military: According to a recent study, rural America comprises 19 percent of the population but 44 percent of service recruits.

Now we must answer the call from rural America to reach out to wounded veterans wherever they live and guarantee that they can get the care they need, the care they were promised when they signed up to put their lives on the line.

Sadly, we still have a ways to go if we hope to match rhetoric with reality. Many of America’s 6 million rural veterans do not enjoy the excellent hospital care that other veterans receive. This is especially troubling because a 2004 study found that rural veterans tended to have more serious and costly problems than urban veterans.

Poor coordination between the military and Veterans Affairs has far too often led to delays in treatment, lost records and maddening battles with an impersonal bureaucracy whose indifference is the tragic inverse of the tight bonds that soldiers form with their fellow soldiers.

I understand that outreach to rural veterans can be a difficult logistical challenge for an overburdened system. I understand that the average rural veteran in America currently travels 63 miles for care. Resources will inevitably concentrate where people do: in cities. But we can and we must hold the government accountable for providing a reasonable standard of care for all vets.

I am relieved to see that the armed forces are scrambling to add care centers for brain injuries, including one in Vermont specifically designed to bring experts to remote areas. But more must be done. That is why I am co-sponsoring the Rural Health Care Improvement Act of 2007. The bill improves accessibility for those seeking treatment from VA facilities and strengthens the Department of Veterans Affairs capacity to reach out to rural vets.

We should not pit urban and rural veterans against each other. America should never have to choose between soldiers who were ready to make the ultimate sacrifice for this country. We can care for them all; we just have to choose to do so, and put health care for soldiers ahead of tax cuts for millionaires.

This post also appeared in the The Buffalo News.