|
|
Twenty years ago (this year) when Texas Congressman Mickey Leland’s plane went down in the mountains of Ethiopia on August 7 killing him and everyone else on board, Leland’s singular cause – world hunger took a hit as well. Of course there was the normal exultation to keep Leland’s memory alive by working for his causes (and many did), but the missing piece of the puzzle - Leland, his presence, his determination, his force as a human being, was gone. Some in the media understand the loss of Leland even today.
So of course now, as world hunger surges amidst the global recession and the shortcomings of foreign aid, the world is crying out for a champion like Mickey Leland to give the cause legs again, like in the 1980’s.
''I am as much a citizen of this world as I am of my country,” Leland barked once back in those days. “To hell with those people who are critical of what I am able to do to help save people's lives.”
This was Leland. He was responding to criticism that he spent too much time trying to help other nations and not his own. Leland, born and raised on the poor, tough streets of Houston’s Fifth Ward, wasn’t having it.
Today’s statistics on world hunger call out for Leland.
According to reports this past summer from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Program (FAO), 1.02 billion people are suffering from hunger and starvation in the world today (nearly 17 percent of the world’s population). This is a record number of people. In addition, FAO estimates that 100 million people will be pushed into hunger and poverty this year as a direct result of recessionary conditions. Of course, Africa, the continent has highest levels of hunger and human devastation.
Bread for the World, an international organization devoted to the cause of fighting world hunger, reported this summer that three million children under the age of five die each year from hunger. In the United States, the country where people throw food out as if it were a religious practice, over 11 million children live in homes where someone has to skip meals so the family can make ends meet. Home grown hunger (in the U.S.) remains an issue that is being ignored for the most part by the government.
The summer meeting of the G-8 countries in Italy did result in a commitment from the member nations to commit $20 billion to poor nations to develop their agricultural sectors. This is good because it is aid but also helps the countries help themselves (if it happens). However, three years ago in Scotland, some of these same countries pledged billions of funds for Africa where hunger is severe but obligations were not met
As for Leland, the champion of this cause as a politician, his arrival as an international player in 1978 was preceded by a career as a Texas civil rights advocate and state legislator. When the great Barbara Jordan’s seat in the 18th District of Texas opened up in 1978, Leland ran for it, and was elected. Leland immediately began to fight for his causes - most notably, world hunger.
By 1983, after years of struggle, Leland was able to establish the House Select Committee on Hunger in the U.S. Congress. The committee, which he chaired, was instrumental in providing $800 million to Ethiopia as a desperate famine began ravishing the country. He took a contingent of U.S. governmental officials to Ethiopia during the crisis in 1984 a year before Michael Jackson and all that famous cadre of rock stars of America recorded “We are the World” and ultimately put the plague on the map.
Leland tried to help other poor nations too; he visited Asia, and the Caribbean regularly, and by his own admission, his work in the world sometimes caused him to neglect the congressional district he represented. But he never lost his focus.
"I am now an activist on behalf of humanity everywhere,” he told Jacqueline Trescott of the Washington Post in 1985, “whether it is in Ethiopia ... South Africa ... Chile ... in any part of the world where people are desperate and hungry for the freedoms and rights deserve as human beings.”
His dedication has left a legacy. The Mickey Leland International Hunger Fellows Program sends fellows every year to countries all over the world to fight hunger, on the ground, and on the policy level. Texas Southern University, his alma mater, maintains The Mickey Leland Center on Hunger and Peace. It includes a website, archival material, and internship programs.
But it would be so nice to have Leland around right now to get loud about world hunger. President Barack Obama has much on his plate; he can’t be out front on every issue. Mickey Leland, if he were around, would be more than happy to take this one on and make the media and lawmakers sing his tune.
|
|
|
My gut says, the global financial system, needs more regulation. Yet, deep inside the recesses of my mind where common sense and pragmatism dwells, I don't think more regulation by federal government (statism, in the words of writer, George Will), is the solution. This is not just because the federal government is enormously unsuccessful in prosecuting and regulating the bad acts of the financial moneychangers, this is because when big governments get in the act, smaller actors with more of an attachment to the bad acts, lose their ability to address the problem.
Each week (or day), I read about the financial sins of bankers and investors all over the world. Countries (their governments) talk of addressing the problem with more regulation, more oversight. Of course, we need some oversight, but please do not take away the power of the smaller players to regulate if and when the big regulators move in.
Example: the U.S. wants to move in and regulate their financial markets more right now. This means the banks and the bankers should expect more oversight. Yet, the problem with the current proposal is, the federal government in its desire to regulate, will take away the ability of the states to regulate the rogue individuals in their own states and would consolidate power into one federal agency. This would be a bad trade-off.
The states know what is happening in their area. North Carolina, a leader in addressing predatory lending issues, knows what is happening in Cackalack. Let them alone. Ohio knows Ohio. Michigan knows Michigan. Maryland knows Maryland. In other words, regulate but do not take away the power from the states.
Currently, this is what is about to happen.
In a huge case last year, Cuomo v. Clearinghouse Association, the U.S. Supreme Court left open the possibility that states could regulate nationally chartered banks through enforcement of their own lending laws (consumer laws). It was a big victory, for once, for the little guy.
The banks sprung into action and are not hoping that the federal government will take over regulation of national banks, by statute because they know the states are about to slap them with lawsuits to get them in line with the laws in the various states. It is shrewd move by the banks which is why the states must fight to keep their own powers regardless of what the federal government does in the area of regulation.
|
|
|
I am officially declaring the Republican Party of the United States the party of uselessness. Some call them the party of "no." I can accept that but I am looking for more strident words these days. A matter of fact, why do any of them run for office and run the government? I've got an answer: to make sure government does not work and that the business community dominates the lives of the masses.
The Saturday night vote on health care is the latest evidence of their moral bankruptcy and political uselessness. The U.S. Senate voted to start debate on the health care bill pending in Congress. The bill, most agree, is pro-business in a lot of ways and will not cover all Americans with a single payer, universal health care system. It probably will not have a coherent public option but will provide private insurance companies with 31 million more customers. There are some good things for people and over 30 million people who did not have coverage, will have some kind of access to health care after this bill becomes law.
Yet, the Republicans did not even vote to start debate on this bill, a bill most agree, is flawed. The vote was 60-39 in favor of the Democrats and debate has begun with all Republicans voting "no." Imagine, the insanity of the GOP decision to vote party rather than people. This is what they do all day, everyday, no matter what. This is their modus operandi: forget about people. In fact, to hell with people. Party, baby. Party.
None of this is surprising. The GOP has had its share of moments of anti-government over the years, folks.
Under Ronald Reagan, the GOP wanted to re-classify ketchup a vegetable in the school lunch program to save money in the budget.
In the 90's with Newt Gingrich, Republican, running the House of Representatives, the party recklessly shut down the government in the name of party, and not people. The decision was a disaster politically and it allowed Bill Clinton to regain his footing as President.
There is more of this throughout our recent history. George W. Bush, Republican, starved the government but fed an insane war in Iraq with billions of dollars. Thousands of people died over there in that war by the way.
I don't need to document the inability of the Republican Party to do anything useful for people collectively for decades. The record speaks for itself. The party is the party of "no." They just vote against things and never for anything unless it benefits people who have already lined their pockets with billions of dollars.
But here with health care reform is a golden opportunity to break with the past, and show some guts and not one of the Republicans voted just to start debate. This is, I stress, not a vote for the bill, as written, but a vote for debate. This is their chance to offer up some innovative change to the bill that will make it more humane, that will reach out to the people.
Don't hold your breath because such an amendment is not forthcoming. The GOP's goal is to stand united and then wait until the next elections where they will rise up and say - look, we stood against health care reform. Over 40 million of you did not have any health care, and over 90 million did not have care at some point in 2007 and 2008 and we are here to tell you that we fought like hell to keep it that way. Even though we lost, if you vote for us, the health care coverage you have recently been granted, will be rescinded under our rule.
Who would vote for this crew?
By their own admission, the GOP had a plan. It was all about tax cuts and tort reform and would cover 3 million additional people, not 31 million. Unbelievable.
If you had no care at all, and are a person who is playing Russian roulette with your life involuntarily, how can you vote for the GOP? They are morally bankrupt and politically absurd.
|
|
|
Attorney General, Eric Holder, was asked the ultimate question regarding the terror suspects, this past week. If Khalid Shiekh Muhammed, takes his case to trial, and is somehow acquitted, for whatever reason, is he free to go?
Holder, a great lawyer, essentially said that the U.S. Department of Justice would not fail. He was pressed a bit by Senator Chuck Grassley, on this issue, and it was noted by Grassley, according to media accounts, that if Muhammed beats his civilian charges in federal court, he immediately becomes an "enemy combatant." This means is not free.
Sorry Khalid. I guess you thought you had a chance to evade martydom.
On another note, one Republican Senator asked Holder why was he wasting time prosecuting a guy who wants to plead guilty so he can be executed so he can become a martyr. This was odd (The conspiracy theorist inside me thinks that Muhammed wants to die to trigger terrorist activity).
Why did the Republican Senator (I did not catch the name) want to toss out all elements of judicial due process just because a person, the accused, wants to die? We have had plenty of that in U.S. history but the person still gets tried, convicted, and executed, for the sake of the system. As Holder noted, it is not for the criminals to decide their fate; the state handles that.
But I want to return back to the suggestion that even if Muhammed is acquitted, he is still not free. So, why try him anyway? You are not going to free him for any reason so you still go through with a trial? This is a facade. This is especially so in light of the 183 waterboards Muhammed received from the government. How many people believe he wasn't forced to implicate himself and others? Who was waterboarded to get information on Muhammed? Who was tortured? How is this a real trial?
The problem with all of this is, because the U.S. under Bush handled the suspects wrong from the beginning, any hope for a real trial has been dashed. Due process did not exist from the beginning so it can't exist now. Can you set them free? No way. How could you politically and in good faith? Can you hold Muhammed and his crew forever and ever? That too is insane. Maybe you can release them but not really. Would the South African-Steven Biko (I hate even suggesting this but...) model work?
That is, release them but in an area where there is no one and nothing for them to do but be under surveillance at all times even though they are not in prison and can eat, drink, and breathe. They can't leave and can't talk or have meetings or phone conversations with anyone that are not monitored.
Of course, this is quasi-prison and is a laugh as well. It all makes you scratch your head. How is it that the U.S. was in the right because of the bombing of the country on 9/11 but due to overzealousness and bad policy, the U.S. is wrong.
|
|
|
Basically, President Barack Obama is doing a mop-up job for the nation on the administration of George W. Bush. The Bush administration rolled into town in 2001, on the heels of a disputed election, and made of mess of things.
Where should we start?
Foreign policy? They were asleep at the wheel. They ignored outside threats, made a joke of the Middle East peace process, and within 9 months of being in office, hte country was bombed on September 11, 2001. Right before this bombing, evidence had been received that strongly suggested the mother of all terrorist attacks was imminent. Bush and his employees ignored it.
The economy? They ruined it. They also allowed the financial markets to become like Las Vegas casinos. No one was accountable. Kill or be killed. The housing market collapsed as a result of this recklessness. Throw in an insane giveaway of a tax cut and here we are in the throes of insolvency.
New Orleans. Katrina. FEMA. Need I say anything else. Government failure.
Criminal justice, and civil liberties. Madness. A complete disregard for over 200 years of constitutional protections and due process guarantees. Torturing. Denial of basic rights, a mockery was made of a system that is the envy of the world, as far as due process protections. Simple ideas like you can get a lawyer were tossed aside.
This is just some of the mess Mr. Obama inherited. While I don't agree with Mr. Obama on some of his policies, it is silly to think people oppose him so adamantly. They have probably forgot the craziness he inherited. He is trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Mr. Bush left a ridiculous mess of the government.
People complain about the bailout to the banks and the economic stimulus. Should Mr. Obama just let the economy wither away and die and not signed the stimulus? And the bailout, remember, was passed into law with Mr. Bush in charge.
As for complaints about closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (aka "GITMO), this is a good thing. The place is an insult to decency. It should be closed. Due process must be supported. The rights of even the worse criminals has to be respected. Mr. Obama is seeking to make the world and the nation understand that. This is not the 16th century England or 18th century France. We are not ruled by kings who want to chop off heads. We are ruled by laws executed by men and women, of many different racial and ethnic backgrounds. This is, considering the record of the human race, a pretty serious deal and must be maintained.
Mr. Bush, as I stated, left a mess of things. Mr. Obama is seeking to clean it up. He is doing a fairly decent job. Just call him the janitor.
|
|
|
When I recently read an article about the opposition by Republicans to trials of terrorist suspects in the states (New York City, and Charleston, S.C.), I did a double take. The GOP was opposing trials of terrorism suspects from 9-11? It made no sense. Isn't the GOP the party of law and order? And a naive piece of me also was wondering if the GOP was about to challenge the trials altogether because they are a judicial farce.
But then I read the article closely and realize, it was, yet again, political madness.
The GOP oppose the trials because they want to score political points. They are making the same argument as before that the suspects should never be brought to the mainland U.S. because their presence endangers lives. Their other argument is the fact that the suspects don't deserve a civilian trial.
Of course, this is hogwash.
Bringing the suspects to the U.S. makes us all no less safe than incarcerating them at the inhumane Gitmo prison in Cuba. I am sure their comrades would love to liberate them. Moving them to New York City doesn't make the hatred many have for the U.S. rise any higher; their opposition to the U.S. is fairly consistent.
However, here is the point that was totally missed in all of this: how can the terrorist suspects, many of whom were tortured into confessions, and who were probably tortured after others were tortured, who did not have lawyers present, or their rights read to them; how can they get fair trials anywhere? Will any evidence obtained through torture be used to convict them? President Obama also asked for the death penalty; how can he, a lawyer, justify the use of illegally obtained evidence to sentence someone to death? If so, this could be a new low for our President on the rule of law front?
In all honesty, it would be better to simply say that these individuals will never be released but they will not be tried for 9-11 crimes either. The easy justification is national security. We have to hold them for the sake of national security. Even that is odd but it is better than seeking the death penalty using confessions obtained by torture. While many believe the evidence obtained through torture will be excluded, no one believes that. It will create an epic appeal process that might be impossible to sort out in the end.
Fact is, the Bush administration got it wrong from the start by suspending the rule of law. If the rule of law was suspended, you can't suddenly declare it back in effect. The process is tainted. Let it go, and simply declare that a fair trial is impossible, and these suspects, for the sake of national security, cannot ever be released or tried in court.
The GOP, with its very backward reason for opposing the trials, missed a chance to stand for the rule of law. As expected, they didn't. In fact, it is rare they are on the right side of the law.
|
|
|
So Larry King asked Carrie Prejean, Miss USA, why she settled her lawsuit against Miss USA Paegant officials. Ms. Prejean, already under fire for her comments indicating she was opposed to gay marriage, slip slided away from King's inquiry. Ms. Prejean told Larry he was being "inappropriate" and that the settlement terms were confidential. She took off her microphone and ruined herself.
Larry, who has probably settled some cases over the years being a man in the limelight, was ready. King insisted he didn't want to know any confidential terms; he wanted to know her motive, or in other words, why did she settle? This was a great question because it isn't likely that "why" she settled is part of the agreement. What she settled for is clearly off limits but why she decided to give up her lawsuit was another issue altogether.
While some speculate that it is because of the revelation that she made a sex tape and that it was about to go public (this would, of course, destroy the image she nurtured at the paegant amidst the gay marriage issue), this is irrelevant. My issue is, was King within legal bounds when he asked for the motive? I would argue - yes, and that Prejean's avoidance of the issue was dishonest and slippery.
For example, I sue someone for $5 million dollars for discrimination. During the litigation, I learn a few things about the person I sued, and come to realize that even though I could win easy, the person is not as bad as I had believed. In fact, I believe they have made great strides to improve themselves. They offer me $100,000, and I take it because I honestly believe they have made great strides to stop discriminating. The parties agree to keep it confidential - the terms. When ask why I settled, I can say, I settled because I believe settlement is the best course of action for all parties; I am motivated, in other words, by a change of attitude towards the defendant.
Is this a breach?
Did the beauty queen avoid a fair question?
|
|
|
Senator Joe Lieberman is so politically bought he now says he will filibuster with the Republicans any Senate bill on health care reform that includes a public option. Can you imagine this?
Let's break this down.
If health care reform passes, approximately 36 million more Americans will have some form of coverage. They will not be subject to caps on treatment and will not be denied because of "pre-existing conditions." Like everyone in the era of health care reform, they will have to purchase coverage. This means (don't laugh), the insurance companies have potentially 36 million new customers to scoop over.
No wonder they are opposed to a public option. Why would they want to compete with the government for these new customers? They want them for themselves. This is what Joe Lieberman's play is all about. He is fighting for the insurance companies. He also knows they will bankroll him into office if he pulls this one off.
|
|
|
I have long opposed the death penalty, or as I describe it: state sponsored killing. I have written about my opposition and why I believe it should be abolished. Thus, it should come as no surprise that I didn't think the execution of the DC Sniper, John Muhammed, accomplished anything.
As I have written, I understand why the families wanted him to die. Their need to see him die (or suffer or something) is understood. Yet, I am sure they did not get what they wanted: their lives back. This is what makes the death penalty so misguided and wasteful. If anything, it would have made more sense to deliver Muhammed to them to kill, as opposed to letting the state do it in the night when most of the nation was asleep, eating, watching television, or surfing the web.
The litany of reasons why the death penalty should be abolished is extensive: it costs too much money (millions in order to maintain order and legal integrity). True.
It is immoral. How can killing not ever be immoral unless it is to save other lives?
It does not deter murder. It doesn't. There were murders last night in states with the death penalty. Murder is impulsive so it isn't likely that a future killing will stop anyone. I could go on but I won't.
The only real reason we have capital punishment anywhere, we all know, is for revenge. As someone who has had a very close friend murdered and a family member murdered, you do think of revenge very quickly. I get that. The death penalty is to allow family members see the murderer suffer or beg for their lives or forgiveness.
But John Muhammed didn't beg for anything and probably didn't suffer on his way out of our world. In fact, I suspect that he did what he did to stay away from the hysteria of the moment. He wasn't going to give into it. If he came to the death chamber fighting, the family members would have loved it. Here was the devil incarnate fighting for his life. He also didn't offer any last words and in another show of defiance asked that the details of his last meal be withheld as well. Muhammed, no doubt, got the last word and this is what irks the hell out of people, yet again.
If you think the relatives of some of the victims got closure, think again as well.
Bob Meyers, brother of Dean Meyers, the victim Muhammed died for killing noted that "I think it was justice." He also admitted that it was only "a certain bit of closure" and that "there are no winners." These sentiments clearly suggest that he too thinks Muhammed's murder spree was vicious and wicked but most of all, really a waste to Muhammed as well. One of the Prince William County prosecutors noted he thought there was closure but he didn't lose a relative. He was just trying to defend the system which, he should admit, isn't really justice. Ask any family member would they have rather shot Muhammed as opposed to this orderly exit and I bet you they would say: "hell yes."
This is, of course, the real problem with state sponsored killing: it is medicinal in nature; thus, it is allowed to continue. It reduces killing to something akin to a process. It takes murder and seals it off somewhere for the state to do. Those who really want to do it are essentially getting all of us, whether we are for this or not, to pay for a killing of someone, out of sight, out of mind.
If we really want to explore the depths of state sponsored killing, we should televise executions and they should be violent deaths, in my opinion. Firing squads, beheadings, or electric chair killings with very high voltage to make sure it works. And no masks on the face of those being killed; we should see the suffering if that is what we want. Perhaps, they could be tortured into making a final statement before they are done in, as well. Waterboarding anyone?
Will this new age state killing give the families and friends of victims the closure they need?
|
|
|
There are many moments since I have been a lawyer where I see lawyers do something and I think: damn, I am so proud I am a lawyer. The latest proud moment came when I was watching the lawyers for executed DC Sniper, John Allen Muhammed handle themselves as the execution unfolded.
Just watching them see the case to the end, and try to work the case all the way to the end was enough. Yet, after the execution they read statements relating to the case and paid respect to victims and were not afraid to speak of their client as a person. Jon Sheldon, one of the lawyers, was highly emotional as he read the statement, his voice cracking several times. Obviously, he didn't want anyone to forget that a person was executed (murdered) by state action that evening despite the hysteria and such loss involved.
Last time I felt this way about being a lawyer was when the Pakistani lawyers took to the streets in protest in Pakistan to protest a martial law declaration. Their actions were instrumental in preserving some degree of democracy in Pakistan. The lawyers fought for justice which is how it should be anyway. Shakespeare's famous line - "first, lets kill all the lawyers," is a tribute to lawyers because if there are no lawyers, then there is no order, there is no system.
I always tell people: I am lucky. I have been a public interest lawyer almost all of my career. I get to do things that changes the lives of people who have, for the most part, given up on such lofty ideals. Yet, I have seen the look on the faces of people many times when they have begun to believe in the system again because I was their lawyer.
The lawyers for the DC Sniper make me feel that way about being a lawyer. Your client is not always the choir boy or the angel; in fact, your client will probably never be that person. It is up to you to be their lawyer and to be it as best as you can every moment you work for them.
|
- Page 1 of 3
- << Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
|
0
Comments
Add