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