It has been three years since George W. Bush announced his "zero tolerance" of human trafficking by overseas contractors, and two years since Congress backed zero tolerance up with law. The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act authorized more than $2 million to combat human traffickiing, including women and girls forced into prostitution.

But the actual adoption of a plan to stop human trafficking is stuck in a mire of defense contractor lobbying tactics and disagreement over the Defense Department's intentions. Last summer, the Pentagon drafted a proposal prohibiting defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced labor and prostitution, but lobbying groups objected to it because, they say, key parts of it are unrealistic. At the same time, experts on human trafficking say that the Pentagon's proposed policy would only formalize practices that have made it possible for contractors working overseas to escape punishment for their involvement in human trafficking.

A new bill reauthorizing the nation's efforts against human trafficking was just passed, but only after the a measure that would have created a trafficking watchdog at the Pentagon was removed. Lobbying groups have also fought against a plan to have contractors police their overseas subcontractors with regard to trafficking. On the up side, though, the new law also deals with trafficking within U.S. borders, and holds non-defense federal employees accountable.

Notes from a meeting, released yesterday by a union representative for federal emergency workers, say that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told employees that changes planned after Katrina were "partially a perception ploy to make outsiders feel like we've actually made changes for the better."

Lee Bosner, president of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents FEMA workers, says he obtained the typed notes from an unnamed FEMA official. A spokesman for Chertoff denied that the Homeland Security secretary had made any such remarks. According to Bosner's source, the remarks were made in the past week. Chertoff is also alleged to have said that FEMA is not a response agency for disasters; "we essentially should be only doing recovery."

The plan, according to the notes, is for a Coast Guard admiral to be placed in a number of major cities, and that person would handle disaster response.

Bearing in mind that we do not have proof of the veracity of the notes, it is nevertheless becoming increasingly difficult to trust Chertoff with regard to FEMA, let alone other matters. It was Chertoff, who, during the midst of the New Orleans crisis, said he was unaware that people were dying in the Superdome. It was Chertoff who saw fit to allow former FEMA director Michael Brown to do nothing while people on the Gulf Coast drowned, went hungry and thirsty, and had no medical care.

There is no doubt that one of the this administration's objectives has been to weaken FEMA, and there is no reason to believe it is now sincere about strengthening it again.

Rebecca Solnit reflects on 2005 and finds that it was a bad year for the Goliath's of this world; which isn't to say it was a great one for the Davids -- the "little people." Still, the experience of the groups, organizations, publics, and citizenries who stood up for their rights give reason to hope for a more just world. (Read it.)

Tony Judt, author of the monumental Postwar, a history of Europe since 1945, says the fall of Communism changed Europe's future and its past. (Read it.)

Jack Hitt considers the unhappy lot of George W. Bush, a president who prizes loyalty but now finds that the knives are out for him. (Read it.)

The new issue of Mother Jones magazine is now online!

Here's a sampling of what's inside:

In "The Three Conversions of Walter B. Jones," Robert Dreyfuss details how the conservative congressman from North Carolina who coined the term "freedom fries" turned against the Iraq war. (Read it.)

Daniel Duane wonders why, with gang violence on the rise, a proven anti-gang strategy known as the "Boston Miracle" is being dissed by the L.A.P.D., the FBI, and Congress. (Read it.)

Nir Rosen journeys to the madrasas and streets of Pakistan, where students learn to hate in the name of love. (Read it.)

JoAnn Wypijewski considers our rules of war and finds them dangerously unclear. (Read it.)

And Chris Bachelder argues that The Jungle, Upton Sinclair's underrated classic about the meatpacking industry in Chicago, is due for a critical reappraisal. (Read it.)

Following up on Mother Jones' recent special report on domestic violence, Ann Friedman notes that Congress's reauthorization on Saturday of the Violence Against Women Act is being hailed as a victory by women's rights advocates. As one activist says, "There was a sustained level of drama, trying to figure out if...desperately-needed programs were going to make it in. I guess Santa decided he was going to be beneficent." Read the full story and find out what provisions made it into the final bill here.

New at Mother Jones:

Four photojournalists who elected not to "embed" with US troops take an unflinching look at the human faces of war-ravaged Iraq. (LINK)

Tom Engelhardt wonders why the anthrax attacks of October 2001 have all but disappeared from public and media memory. (LINK)

In an interview, international lawyer Philippe Sands tells how the Bush administration has tried to wreck the global rules-based system--against the United States' interests. (LINK)

In the latest reported incident of the Chinese government's crackdown on its citizens who practice Falon Gong, two women in Hebei Province were beaten, stunned on the breasts with a stun baton, and raped by police officers. Other female detainees report that they have been stripped naked, beaten, kicked in the breasts and genitalia, raped, and subjected to vaginal probes with stun batons. Pregnant women and nursing mothers have reported similar treatment by the Chinese police.

Torture, murder, and psychological abuse are all said to have been perpetrated on Falon Gong practitiioners, and many are said to have disappeared, never to be seen again.

Falon Gong was outlawed by the Chinese government in 1999, when then-Communist Party leader Jiang Zemin declared it the number one enemy of the Communist party. It is estimated that between 70 and 100 million people in China practice Falon Gong, which is not a religion, per se, but rather, a spiritual practice loosely based on Buddhism and Taoism, and which is referred to by its detractors as a cult. Falon Gong-related human rights abuses have been verified by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the U.S. Department of State.

The Elusive Quest for Balance

Let's look at a recent column by NPR ombudsmen Jeffrey Dvorkin tallying up guests from think tanks who've appeared on NPR shows. Here's the data, and a bit of his commentary (bold text is mine):

American Enterprise – 59 times

Brookings Institute – 102

Cato Institute – 29

Center for Strategic and Intl. Studies – 39

Heritage Foundation – 20

Hoover Institute – 69

Lexington Institute – 9

Manhattan Institute – 53

There are of course, other think tanks, but these seem to be the ones whose experts are heard most often on NPR. Brookings and CSIS are seen by many in Washington, D.C., as being center to center-left. The others in the above list tend to lean to the right. So NPR has interviewed more think tankers on the right than on the left.

The score to date: Right 239, Left 141.

You see these sorts of tallies all the time, and for all sorts of reasons they always have to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Decisions about who's left or right or center is obviously highly dependent on where the judge stands. (Here's a blurb from The Nation describing Brookings as "center-right.") And as the policy debate "center" has shifted rightward, previously staid, neutral institutions have come to be characterized as "left."

But this one is really interesting: do you see how Dvorkin describes CSIS and Brookings as "center or center-left"—and then all the sudden in the final count they are just plain left? Only calling Brookings left—which a sentence before he essentially described as "center"—could he make the count look remotely fair. Now over at TAPPED, Garance Franke-Ruta suggests that this imbalance was supposed to be corrected by Center for American Progress. Maybe. But the truth of the matter is that if groups like Cato and the AEI get that much air—88 NPR visits combined—we should hear from places as left as the Institute for Policy Studies on a more regular basis. And the last time I remember seeing Phyllis Bennis on any sort of broadcast was on MSNBC's Donahue in the fall of 2002.

Our Embassy in the North

Canada's ruling (and somewhat disgraced) Liberal Party is facing a special election to determine whether it will keep its control of the government or not. It's a very testy time in Canada, and not the sort of moment for an American Ambassador to wade into another country's domestic politics.

But that, of course, is exactly what the Bush administration's man in Ottawa, David Wilkins, has done, calling out Canada's incumbent Prime Minister, Paul Martin, for criticizing U.S. policies, and suggesting that the U.S. won't remain a punching bag for much longer. (Martin has not held his tongue on Iraq or, perhaps more seriously, the long-going softwood lumber controversy.) Josh Marshall and Matt Yglesias have more, with both making the point that, since the Bush administration is so despised around the world, this could paradoxically end up helping out the Liberal incumbents.

While that dust-up has gotten a good deal of attention on the other side of the border, and a smattering of play down here, there an admittedly smaller indication that our embassy has forgotten that diplomatic is synonymous with delicate, judicious, polite, politque, etcetera. Curt Stone, the U.S.'s environmental counselor in Canada, has also managed to write off Canadian opposition to U.S. drilling in ANWR as electorally motivated by asking "Is it Really About the Caribou?"—and making it pretty clear that he thinks it is not. The left-leaning Toronto Star wrote up the controversy last month:

"I am surprised a diplomat would do this," said [Canadian] Environment Minister Stephane Dion. "It is not according to the rules.

"I am surprised a diplomat would express such cynicism."

Ottawa has long opposed oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska because of its feared effects on migrating caribou on which Canadian Gwitchin First Nations depend for food and clothing.

A bilateral agreement to protect the caribou was signed in 1987. The Canadian position has remained unchanged.

It seems that Stone stopped blogging after Thanksgiving, but not before attacking the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change measures. Of course the U.S. Embassy claims that Stone's writings only represent himself. But isn't that a rather flimsy cover? He's a diplomat, for chrissakes—by definition he represents the entire United States.

Via Ampersand, Dave Neiwert had a post a few weeks ago pointing to a new Bureau of Justice Statistics study showing that the number of hate crimes in the United States vastly exceeded the totals reported to the FBI by far. The report estimated that there were an average of 191,000 hate crimes per year—between 19 and 31 times higher than the FBI's numbers. Moreover, only 44 percent of all hate crimes were ever reported to the police. 84 percent involved violence.

Why are hate crimes so underreported? Neiwert suggests it could be because of the rise of violence against immigrants, many who are here either illegally—and are afraid of being deported by going to the police—or, perhaps, are "guest workers" who would rather get on with their lives and not have any trouble with law enforcement. Either way, though, Neiwert's characterization of hate crimes as "acts of terrorism directed at entire communities of people" seems perfectly apt, and it's pretty obvious that the problem is massive.