The death of the Rev. Dr. Benjamin L. Hooks is a clarion call to reinvigorate our support for the disadvantaged and underrepresented in our society. Hooks, a lawyer, judge, and executive secretary of the largest civil rights organization in the country, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), was a stalwart defender of the so-called least of these and a stanchion against systemic oppression and injustice as well as personal prejudice and xenophobia. His receipt of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest award in the land, is a fitting testimonial to his persistent battle to "let justice roll down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream."
Hooks was born in 1925 in Memphis, Tennessee, to a prosperous family whose livelihood was photography. Hooks was taught hard work, discipline, and self-respect at an early age, and these were demonstrated in his life through academic achievement, military service, ordained ministry, and time on the bench. As he ascended professionally in his life despite the strictures of Jim Crow segregation, he never forgot about folks locked in the poorhouse and suffering the indignities of structural racism and the malaise of social ostracism. That is why he left his position as a commissioner with the Federal Communications Commission to become the executive secretary and CEO of the NAACP in 1977. He was able to revitalize the historic organization and had doubled the membership by the time he resigned in 1992.
Not enough has been written about this great man, who did a lot to continue the struggle against inequality while encouraging young African Americans in particular, and all Americans in general, to become the best persons they can be through hard work, discipline, and self-respect. What goes around, comes around. Thank you, Dr. Hooks!
Friday, April 16, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
TO NUKE OR NOT TO NUKE?: OBAMA'S SUMMIT
The words of the prophets Micah and Isaiah reverberate down through the centuries:
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
When I first learned of President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Summit, I was moderately overjoyed. I let out an exhilarated sigh—so relieved was I to discover collaborative, international efforts ostensibly to disarm and extirpate stockpiles of atomic bombs and other weaponry. Time and experience have taught me never to be wholly optimistic about anything in the political arena—particularly with regard to foreign affairs. Sure enough, I was missing a very critical goal of the Summit: to develop an effective approach to ensure that nuclear fissile materials will not ever land in the hands of nations, heads of state, and terrorists determined to wreak havoc on this planet. Whereas I believe the Nuclear Security Summit could be a remarkable and revolutionary opportunity, I am cynical or jaded enough to believe the Summit will be more grandstanding than groundbreaking, more symbolic and gimmicky than substantive and galvanizing.
Just as wealthy people can scarcely be persuaded to relinquish their perceived economic security voluntarily, the leaders of sovereign nations are similarly constrained from reducing nuclear storehouses and other weapons of mass destruction. No citizenry will take the lead in authorizing their official representatives unilaterally to dismantle their nuclear arsenals. It is clear to me that the ultimate goal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 is to eradicate the stockpiles, and there has been no genuine attempt to act accordingly heretofore by the signatories to that agreement, namely, the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, and China. Certainly, there have been cuts in nuclear warheads from the end of the Second World War up to now by these countries; however, none of these states is willing to singularly take that step. And this Summit will not be the vehicle through which such a goal will more deliberately be fulfilled.
Perhaps, the holding of such a Summit is placed under the wrong jurisdiction. The United States has disobeyed the Geneva Accords on a regular basis, and the government has often looked upon the United Nations Security Council with disdain. How can we serve as a model for the other countries to stick to some agreement when we have not stuck to our own obligations in the international realm for countless decades and generations? It smacks of arrogance and disregard for law to trample on treaties with one foot and crack down on fellow disobeyers with the other foot, so to speak. The five oldest nations with nuclear weaponry should relinquish their questionable oversight of the NPT and surrender their authority to the Security Council of the United Nations. There is the proper body to levy sanctions upon those who are not in compliance with the spirit of both nuclear disarmament and stoppage of uranium enrichment programs or construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
I would like to applaud Obama for launching this renewal of promises made in the past. However, will the group go beyond mere verbal excoriations of Korea, Iran, and Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withdrew from attendance at the Summit, and insist that they, along with India and Pakistan, join with the other 189 nations that are signatories of the NPT? The Summit will not amount to anything beyond a disingenuous show of cooperation if there is no strengthening of accountability and penalties that would make an impact and matter to those incompliant.
I am aware that my desire for a non-nuclear world is not going to happen in my lifetime. However, as long as my memory cords lengthen and my diaphragm rises and falls, I will work tirelessly to realize a world in which international conflict is resolved by peaceful means and nations will study war no more!
“They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”
When I first learned of President Barack Obama’s Nuclear Summit, I was moderately overjoyed. I let out an exhilarated sigh—so relieved was I to discover collaborative, international efforts ostensibly to disarm and extirpate stockpiles of atomic bombs and other weaponry. Time and experience have taught me never to be wholly optimistic about anything in the political arena—particularly with regard to foreign affairs. Sure enough, I was missing a very critical goal of the Summit: to develop an effective approach to ensure that nuclear fissile materials will not ever land in the hands of nations, heads of state, and terrorists determined to wreak havoc on this planet. Whereas I believe the Nuclear Security Summit could be a remarkable and revolutionary opportunity, I am cynical or jaded enough to believe the Summit will be more grandstanding than groundbreaking, more symbolic and gimmicky than substantive and galvanizing.
Just as wealthy people can scarcely be persuaded to relinquish their perceived economic security voluntarily, the leaders of sovereign nations are similarly constrained from reducing nuclear storehouses and other weapons of mass destruction. No citizenry will take the lead in authorizing their official representatives unilaterally to dismantle their nuclear arsenals. It is clear to me that the ultimate goal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968 is to eradicate the stockpiles, and there has been no genuine attempt to act accordingly heretofore by the signatories to that agreement, namely, the United States, Great Britain, Russia, France, and China. Certainly, there have been cuts in nuclear warheads from the end of the Second World War up to now by these countries; however, none of these states is willing to singularly take that step. And this Summit will not be the vehicle through which such a goal will more deliberately be fulfilled.
Perhaps, the holding of such a Summit is placed under the wrong jurisdiction. The United States has disobeyed the Geneva Accords on a regular basis, and the government has often looked upon the United Nations Security Council with disdain. How can we serve as a model for the other countries to stick to some agreement when we have not stuck to our own obligations in the international realm for countless decades and generations? It smacks of arrogance and disregard for law to trample on treaties with one foot and crack down on fellow disobeyers with the other foot, so to speak. The five oldest nations with nuclear weaponry should relinquish their questionable oversight of the NPT and surrender their authority to the Security Council of the United Nations. There is the proper body to levy sanctions upon those who are not in compliance with the spirit of both nuclear disarmament and stoppage of uranium enrichment programs or construction of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
I would like to applaud Obama for launching this renewal of promises made in the past. However, will the group go beyond mere verbal excoriations of Korea, Iran, and Israel, whose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu withdrew from attendance at the Summit, and insist that they, along with India and Pakistan, join with the other 189 nations that are signatories of the NPT? The Summit will not amount to anything beyond a disingenuous show of cooperation if there is no strengthening of accountability and penalties that would make an impact and matter to those incompliant.
I am aware that my desire for a non-nuclear world is not going to happen in my lifetime. However, as long as my memory cords lengthen and my diaphragm rises and falls, I will work tirelessly to realize a world in which international conflict is resolved by peaceful means and nations will study war no more!
Thursday, April 8, 2010
HEALTH INEQUALITIES. WHO CARES?
Why are American racial and ethnic minorities disproportionately numbered among all the major health issues and diseases in our country? Is it because the stereotypes are true: they are lazy, unintelligent, reckless, and hedonistic? Is it because they are unemployable, uninsurable, and uneducable? Is it because they are ensconced in unhealthy behaviors endemic to their culture and would risk being ostracized were they to contravene or criticize those conventions in any way? Of course, not!
Health care in the United States is another bastion of institutionalized racism. Historically for decades, the health care system was racially segregated and people of color, particularly African Americans, were forced to seek service at a “colored” facility, even if none was nearby and even during emergency situations. Today, we’re not far from that dehumanization. The millions who lack health insurance, many of whom are persons of color, do not have access to the medical care they routinely need and are egregiously treated as second- and third-class citizens. In my opinion, it is unconscionable for a citizen of this country to be denied the fundamental means of survival because they lack participation in a structure that deliberately discriminates against certain categories of people and types of work—never mind those who are temporarily or perpetually jobless!
President Obama’s health care reform was never intended to fix a broken system. Thus, to put it in other words, it was scarcely designed to insure everyone, let alone significantly reduce medical costs. Instead of focusing on those perennially unable to secure basic medical care, Obama and Congresspersons elected to improve the circumstances of middle- and working-class folks, without regard to the most disadvantaged. The probity of a nation is determined by how the poorest are treated or served. The United States has a bad moral record in this regard. It is like everyone complaining about the skyrocketing cost of health care, yet turning blind eyes to millions to whom the doors of hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies are tightly shut. I know my tendency to advocate for not only socialized medicine, but also completely free health access to all citizens, is far to the left of most people who self-characterize as liberal, but the more moderate stance of a single payer system has also been relegated to the radical junk heap.
There’s a part of me that laughs raucously over the attempts beginning in the 1990s to reduce the racial disparities in the health care system, first by the year 2000 and then by the year 2010. As the Center for Multicultural Education held various health symposiums and even a health conference in 2004, I tried not to be cynical or pessimistic over the possibility of success. I knew realistically that social structures, processes, and policies in the United States were hopelessly and inveterately ill-suited for such an appreciative overhaul. Besides, the goal of reducing health care disparities for minorities was never elevated to a federal endeavor, for we are not equipped, nor do we have the desire or will, to address and redress the plight of the oppressed and the indigent.
April is National Minority Health Month. My laughter is nothing short of cacophonous. Who cares?
Health care in the United States is another bastion of institutionalized racism. Historically for decades, the health care system was racially segregated and people of color, particularly African Americans, were forced to seek service at a “colored” facility, even if none was nearby and even during emergency situations. Today, we’re not far from that dehumanization. The millions who lack health insurance, many of whom are persons of color, do not have access to the medical care they routinely need and are egregiously treated as second- and third-class citizens. In my opinion, it is unconscionable for a citizen of this country to be denied the fundamental means of survival because they lack participation in a structure that deliberately discriminates against certain categories of people and types of work—never mind those who are temporarily or perpetually jobless!
President Obama’s health care reform was never intended to fix a broken system. Thus, to put it in other words, it was scarcely designed to insure everyone, let alone significantly reduce medical costs. Instead of focusing on those perennially unable to secure basic medical care, Obama and Congresspersons elected to improve the circumstances of middle- and working-class folks, without regard to the most disadvantaged. The probity of a nation is determined by how the poorest are treated or served. The United States has a bad moral record in this regard. It is like everyone complaining about the skyrocketing cost of health care, yet turning blind eyes to millions to whom the doors of hospitals, physician offices, and pharmacies are tightly shut. I know my tendency to advocate for not only socialized medicine, but also completely free health access to all citizens, is far to the left of most people who self-characterize as liberal, but the more moderate stance of a single payer system has also been relegated to the radical junk heap.
There’s a part of me that laughs raucously over the attempts beginning in the 1990s to reduce the racial disparities in the health care system, first by the year 2000 and then by the year 2010. As the Center for Multicultural Education held various health symposiums and even a health conference in 2004, I tried not to be cynical or pessimistic over the possibility of success. I knew realistically that social structures, processes, and policies in the United States were hopelessly and inveterately ill-suited for such an appreciative overhaul. Besides, the goal of reducing health care disparities for minorities was never elevated to a federal endeavor, for we are not equipped, nor do we have the desire or will, to address and redress the plight of the oppressed and the indigent.
April is National Minority Health Month. My laughter is nothing short of cacophonous. Who cares?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)