Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Dec. 2, 2003)
y# ers % ny Chairma! jP MC0!Kj( ie largesi wnefcialjes 'I defense i about 3ver ?o 001 201! e* 2ft Wary am! andmissie fg-sysier: —2ft Space at mmurtcto S8i3mto ; the einli! orm Dicii g propot; Opinion The Battalion Page 11 • Tuesday, December 2, 2003 Starving for attention Industrialized countries not effectively decreasing hunger in developing nations JENELLE WILSON I n June 2002, at the World Food Summit, 182 coun tries, including the United States, signed an anti-hunger leclaration. The pledge enewed commitment to plans set forth in November 1996 at he World Food Summit to educe the number of hungry jeople in the world by half by 1015. In 1996, more than 830 Trillion people were estimated to be chronical- y malnourished worldwide; to meet the reduc- ion goal, the number of hungry people would ave to be reduced by more than 20 million rer year. So far, the plan is failing. Countries with he capability to have the greatest impact on world hunger, including the United States, are ot doing enough to fight malnourishment, ven though decreasing hunger in the world is n every country’s best interest. The U.N. Food and Agriculture —^-JJrganization (FAO) released a report last week howing that although the number of hungry ras decreased, it has done so at a disappointing ate. In fact, while the number of hungry teadily fell during the early part of the 1990s, (raised during the later half. The total number re are i if hungry in the world fell by 100 million in hf fi fie five years between the 1990-1992 and eneral) is 1995-1997 . However, this reduction was offset loein? by the increase of 60 million hungry in other parts of the world. So the net reduction was only 40 million, which averages to only 8 mil lion a year. Currently, an estimated 790 million are chronically malnourished and, according to The Hunger Site Web site, 24,000 people die per day from hunger; 75 percent of whom are less than 5 years old. To meet the World Food Summit goal, the net reduc tion in the hungry will have to be more than 30 million a year, which is unlikely unless the approach to hunger is drastically changed. As the FAO report released last week says, “Bluntly stated, the problem is not so much a lack of food as a lack of political will.” The FAO report stresses that, while the causes of hunger can vary among countries, four main causes can be clearly identified: war, drought, AIDS and trade barriers. In Cambodia, which has seen an almost 30 percent reduc- Mahesh Neelakan ™ tion in undernutrition since 1986, the largest causal factor was the end of military conflicts.. North Korea, which has seen a 30 percent increase in hunger, according to the FAO report, was hit hard in the 1990s by floods and droughts and a collapse of its trade relationships with China and the /^! A former U.S.S.R. J re * a O° ns hip between AIDS and hunger is a vicious cycle. Because people in rural areas are unable to adequately feed them selves, they move to highly popu lated cities, where they get dis eases. Women and children trade sex for food. As a higher popula tion of people contract AIDS, food becomes scarce because the labor force is dying. The 182 countries that signed the anti-hunger declara tion must focus on the four areas — drought, AIDS, war and trade barriers — to stop the spread of hunger in developing nations. Countries need to intervene in areas where people are suffering from political unrest, such as in the Congo, where 75 percent of the popu lation is malnourished, according to The New York Times. THE BATTALION Programs to stop the spread of AIDS must be utilized in the areas most affected by the dis ease. Better irrigation and drainage systems need to be introduced in countries to prepare them for natural disasters (65 percent to 80 per cent of food emergencies are caused by droughts and floods) and develop local sustain able agriculture. Besides war, drought, trade barriers and AIDS, one other cause of hunger exists: The lack of participation of women in the decision making process. In Africa, according to the World Food Programme, eight out of 10 farm ers are women; in Asia, the number is six out of 10. One-third of households worldwide have women as the sole breadwinners. Also, food aid distributed to women is more likely to reach the mouths of starving children. To decrease hunger in developing countries, those most involved in agriculture have to be brought into the decision-making process. To meet the goal in reducing the number of hungry by half by 2015, the countries that signed the pledge need to get serious about working toward it. Countries can no longer simply pay lip service to the idea of stopping starvation, while 24,000 people continue to die every day from lack of food. Jenelle Wilson is a senior political science major. ils ssidi private® Judicial nominees (change, in, an f yst fortt d nam hooter' ire Boeiif JOHN DAVID BLAKLEY S Tlfn 1788, Alexander Hamilton foresaw the fed- an J f 9| eral judiciary as being the “best expedient ie s ^ Lwhich can be devised in any government, to t secure a steady, upright and impartial administra- ," ( ' ton of the laws.” More than 200 years later, how- :ver, ideological partiality has become a dynamic actor in deciding the makeup of federal courts, fhe judicial branch — intended by the founding athers to be free from the taint of politics, guid- :d only by constitutional doctrine and never by e A * Oology — has constantly faced judges nominat ed by the Bush administration for the sole purpose of advancing a right-wing political agenda. Such abuse of the presidential power to nominate federal judges I has, fortunately, been hindered by the efforts of Democrats in the U.S. Senate in many, but not all cases. Filibustering by Senate Democrats has prevented Republicans from mustering the 60 votes needed to appoint a handful of judges considered to be outside the judicial mainstream. Senate Democrats, despite criticism from the White House, have acted responsibly, as these nominees lack the conscious separation of political opinion and practicable jurispru dence desired in federal judges. The Bush administration’s breaking with the U.S. govern ment’s 50-year-old practice of using a special committee of the American Bar Association to screen potential nominees to the federal bench is a clear indication of how far the current admin istration is willing to go to successfully appoint judges who share its political opinions. Since the days of President Eisenhower, a 15-member ABA Committee has contacted lawyers, judges and others familiar with the potential nominee and rated each as well-qualified, qualified or not qualified. The elimination of this evaluation process, created by Eisenhower as a safeguard against nominations based on political leanings, removes a vital instrument which ensures nominees meet basic standards of competence. ied jer W ne Men Mile. women oital mi^l nchez, aria De^ Dthers^ r )C >wn caul' show disrespect for system of law Among the nominees who have failed to pass a cloture vote is Janice Rogers Brown, who has been nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals, a hot spot for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, including three current justices. To fill this important vacancy, President George W. Bush selected a judge the California Judicial Nominations Evaluation Commission received specific complaints about, calling Brown “care less of established legal precedent, who has had difficulty grasping complex litigation, lacked compassion and tolerance for opposing views, misunderstood legal standards and was slow to produce opinions,” according to the Alliance for Justice. As cited by The New York Times, Brown, who serves on the California Supreme Court, has also publicly questioned the legal doctrine of incorporation, which holds that the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights apply to the states. Every first-year law student knows this is settled doctrine. Another nominee, Justice Priscilla Owen of the Texas Supreme Court, has failed to pass clo ture vote four times since May. Owen’s nomina tion has brought forth many concerns regarding a lack of judicial ethics during her time on the court. In the past, Owen has accept ed campaign contributions from corporate parties, including Enron and Halliburton, who have later appeared before the court. Not only has Owen failed to recuse herself from such cases, she has also rendered decisions favorable to her contributors. Judge Carolyn Kuhl also failed to receive approval from the U.S. Senate due to a controversial record. A dissent in Sanchez- Scott v. Alza Pharmaceuticals is the pinnacle of Kuhl’s shame ful record on individual rights. In this particular case, Kuhl dis missed a breast cancer patient’s claim of invasion of privacy after her doctor brought a drug company representative into the room during a breast exam. The work of Senate Democrats is not over, as the National Abortion Rights Action League reports that a vote could be called soon on nominee James Leon Holmes, a professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law in Little Rock. Holmes wrote in an arti cle in the Arkansas Catholic Review that “the wife is to subordinate herself to the husband and ... (that) the woman is to place herself under the authority of the man.” Such chauvin ism has no place in any court. A disreputable record on the bench is not the only attribute these nominees share. All four have consistently supported big business and opposed reproductive rights, patient rights, civil rights, gay rights and worker rights. Not only are these characteristics consistently shared by Bush nominees, but they are direct reflections of the president’s policy making. Judicial ethics and independence, the source from which all courts receive respect from the pub lic, cannot be compromised for the promotion of a political agenda. The lack of respect shown by the Bush administration toward judicial independence will ultimately lead to a federal court sys tem doomed to fall short of fully effectual jurisprudence. Such actions will deprive the country of another Louis Brandeis, John Marshall, William Douglas or Oliver Wendell Holmes, and leave us with mere servants of the executive, draped in the honorable robes of justices. John David Blakley is a sophomore political science major. a The lack of respect shown by the Bush administration toward judicial independence will ultimately lead to a federal court system doomed to fall short of fully effectual jurisprudence. -oomf i avail receptiopif meetirf OAty , I Aggie ancestors would be ashamed ; ; I am horrified, infuriated and sick ened at the amount of people who are outraged on this campus. The lack of satisfaction on this campus displayed in the Mail Call section of The Battalion has us all recalling our favorite Rolling Stones song. What would Sully Ross or E. King I think of such actions? This type I of attitude is deplorable and is very un-Aggie like. Next time you feel like you are going to get outraged, please, think of Bum Bright and | what he might do. Mark Chandler Class of 2003 ee. -Cart [iplti The Aggie spirit is alive and well i As time ran out against the I University of Texas and the Aggies I season, thousands of maroon-clad | students exited Kyle Field with more I than just hoarse voices from yelling 1 and sore shoulders from waving our I towels. We left with a stronger sense of the Aggie Spirit. As # we made our way down the ramps, you could hear a noise. Faint at first, but as more joined in, it became clear. The Spirit and The War Hymn were being sung. Maybe it was to intimi date the few brave UT fans who dared to sit among the sea of maroon. But I say it was more than that. Everyone around you, singing the songs we hold so dear, even after the game was over. The Aggie spirit is alive and well. Cody Koehler Class of 2007 Everyone is entitled to free speech With all due respect to President Gates, everyone does have the right to freedom of speech. There is no caveat to this right that states people must present their senti ments with a “genuine sense of civility.” The true meaning of diver sity is difference, yet he condemns those who hold opinions that differ from his. People may freely express their criticism of his policies; it is shame- MAIL CALL ful that he feels he is politically con strained to defend the issue of diver sity by attacking other American cit izens practicing their rights. Tim Luza, Jr. Class of 2005 To accept diversity is to accept humility In response to a Nov. 26 mail call: Choosing diversity at a school like Texas A&M is a dangerous, yet nec essary move. Dangerous yes, because of the one thing we hold so dear: our “traditions.” Traditions root ed on the backward mentality of how things used to work. We, as Aggies, should ask ourselves why the rest of the world thinks that we are the most backward school in Texas. The fact of the matter is that our “traditions” force us to fight against having diversity. I’ve heard many Aggies say that we’re just fine the way things are, and that diversity will change the good ol’ boy image that Aggies of old fought to create for the school. What are you so afraid of? To accept diversity is to accept humility. Folks, this is college. You came not only for a degree, but to become a more diverse person, to expand your horizon. Soften your grip and use that Aggie spirit for once. I guarantee you that if we do not take this high road now, UT will continue to get bigger and better, in every aspect of academia and athletics. In the end, Texas A&M will be is just another school down the road with a bunch of “traditions” that no one can relate to. Wole Faleye Class of 2002 Demonstration was oversimplifying issue In response to a Dec. 1 mail call: So what if YCT didn’t send “flyers,” the “bake sale” was an ugly, ill- informed attempt to oversimplify a complex issue. Assuming that such a bake sale is used as an analogy for diversity policy, then it also pre sumes that institutional diversity can exist absent consideration of the historical context which pro duced unequal institutional out comes. When Davis argues that YCT will cut through “innuendo and euphemism,” maybe she should actually learn what those words mean, as the intent of the bake sale was to demonstrate, in the overly simplistic, reactionary psyche of the YCT, the ills of a system of prefer ences euphemistically. And worse than that is the mis leading claim that YCT promotes racial diversity. Conservatives have made similar claims in opposing the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. How can we attain diver sity in any manner palatable to such a group that opposes any effort to promote it? Is it a surprise when they offer nothing more than merit as an alternative, neglecting that merit remains a consideration when preferences are considered? There is a reason why most of the arguments in opposition to racial and gender preferences are anec dotal in nature, and that’s because little if any statistically verifiable data is available to back up those claims. Nicolas Rangel Jr. Doctoral Student