Philadelphia Tribune - Index

Philadelphia Tribune - Friday, September 18, 2009 - Index

Friday, September 18, 2009 Page 5-A
Who really has the ear of our government?
Talk out health care, don’t shout it out
I have nothing against passion
in politics. But when
defenders of Rep. Joe Wilson’s
interruption of President
Obama’s health-care speech
claim “free speech” and “double
standards,” they only reveal
their own misguided manners
and political tone-deafness.
Wilson, a South Carolina
Republican, made history by
shouting, “You lie!” during
Obama’s speech to a joint session
of Congress. That’s OK
with a sadly sizeable number of
onlookers. They even offer
arguments that sound remarkably
alike, as if they were
coached by the same talk radio
hosts and cable TV news
shows.
“Why is it regrettable to
express a sentiment, thought,
idea, feeling, etc.?” said one
fairly typical example in
response to a blog posting. “I
thought free speech was as
American as apple pie and
baseball.”
“The Democrats booed during
George Bush’s State of the
Union speech in 2005 and no
media commented,” said
another blog reader. “You can’t
have it both ways!”
True. In fact, Republicans
jeered President Bill Clinton so
sharply during one of his
addresses that he departed
from his text to respond like a
stand-up comedian facing
hecklers on open-mike night.
Good theater, one might argue,
if it is kept within limits.
The famously formal British
Parliament raises raucous
audience reactions to an art
form, a virtual symphony of
tut-tut booing and hear-hear
cheering during their regular
prime minister’s questions.
But, we Yanks can be a more
feisty bunch. Open the door to
outbursts of individual
approval, disapproval and
advice like Wilson’s rude
shout of “You lie!” during
Obama’s speech and we’ll
have a hard time getting that
beast back into the barn.
This is our Congress, after
all, not a caged wrestling
match. I don’t care how many
people have a hard time
telling the difference.
Calling the president a liar to
his face during a formal
address to Congress crosses
lines I don’t think most
Americans want to cross. For a
member to interrupt the
nation’s commander-in-chief
during an address to Congress
disrespects the office itself and
the nation for which it stands.
It’s also bad manners. We
Americans believe in free
speech, but not when that
speech interrupts the free
speech of others.
Perhaps some folks are confused
by an overexposure to
noisy TV and radio talk shows.
I confess to participating in
some of them, after warning
my own son, “Do not try this at
home.”
Wilson apologized after prodding
from Republican leaders,
he says. Some Democrats
called for his censure, too, but
I think he’s already getting
enough punishment back
home. Rob Miller, a Marine
captain and Iraq war veteran
who is Wilson’s Democratic
opponent for re-election, was
reported to have raised a halfmillion
dollars in the first 24
hours after Wilson’s outburst.
He should send Wilson a thank
you card.
And what about the issue
Wilson raised? Did Obama lie
when he said Democratic
health-care legislation would
not extend coverage to illegal
immigrants? By the letter of
the proposed law as written,
Obama is right. The House bill
specifically bans illegal immigrants
from receiving federal
subsidies to purchase insurance.
Still, conservative critics
argue that there are not
enough safeguards to prevent
some illegal immigrants from
slipping through.
A Congressional Research
Service report, for example,
found that some illegal immigrants
would not be prohibited
from purchasing insurance
on their own through
the health insurance
exchanges that would be
established by the bill.
However, some conservative
commentators have confused
the public by ignoring that
the bill would require immigrants
to use their own
money to purchase insurance,
just as they can now.
Bottom line, the report says,
health reform “leaves in place
the status quo” and “certainly
does not provide any new benefits
particularly for illegal
immigrants.”
Let’s ask ourselves: Do we
want to discourage illegal
workers from buying their own
medical insurance? Or would
we prefer to add their numbers
to those for whom taxpayers
already are providing health
care through hospital emergency
rooms?
That’s a subject worth debating,
and the debate goes on.
House Democrats oppose making
the rules so strict that people
who should be eligible are
denied coverage. Opponents
are concerned that some
undocumented immigrants
might slip through a loophole
such as being the parents of
children who are citizens
because they were born here.
Either way, these are technical
details. They need to be
talked out, not shouted out.
cpage@tribune.com, or write
Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, NY
E-mail Clarence Page at
to him c/o Tribune Media
Services, 2225 Kenmore
14207.
Nicole C. Lee
One thing that has not gotten
enough attention in the
health-care debate is the
impact lobbyists have on the
progress of legislation and a
general reluctance for change.
One statistic I heard recently
stated that for every member of
Congress, there are five lobbyists
from health insurance
companies on the hill ensuring
roadblocks to change remain
in place.
The interests and impact of
lobbyists lie far beyond our
national borders. As we at
TransAfrica advocate for
human rights, we are constantly
confronted with campaigns
from corporations and
governments that are working
against the cause of freedom.
Understanding the reality in
Colombia has been illusory
because of this sort of lobbying.
Colombia is the most dangerous
country to be a union
member or a human rights
activist. Due to violence and
the cultivation of bio-fuels
instead of food, Colombia has
an internally displaced population
that rivals Sudan.
Yet, despite unbiased findings
that the government has
been a hindrance to freedom
and protection of human
rights, Colombian government
officials and business lobbyists
have been embraced on Capitol
Hill. These lobbyists have
worked to change the impression
American lawmakers have
of Colombia in the hopes that
the U.S. will continue to invest
millions of dollars in the
Colombian military and open
more avenues for trade for
Colombia’s business.
Despite the overwhelming
evidence that the Colombian
military continues to be
responsible for displacement
and impunity and that
Colombian businesses continue
to hire paramilitary and
criminal gangs to terrorize
local populations, members of
Congress and even-high profile
public policy organizations are
told not to believe their lying
eyes. These meetings coupled
with glitzy trips to peaceful
parts of Colombia and constant
courting from bright smiling
lobbyists, the act has worked
in Washington.
One such lobbyist is Eulises
Edgar Torres. His reputation
well preceded my first meeting
with him. Torres, a member of
the House of Representatives
in Colombia was a Washington
favorite. An Afro-Colombian,
Torres promoted the government
policies — particularly
those that directly effected the
large Afro-Colombian population,
which makes up approximately
26 percent of the entire
population of the country.
Among Afro-Colombian human
rights activists in Colombia
and the U.S., Torres was a
problem. The position he touted
directly contradicted the
reality that Afro-Colombians
live every day. Yet, it was
Torres who had access to the
halls of power. It was Torres
who was listened to.
A few years ago, I had an
opportunity to meet with
Torres. He came to my office in
Washington to discuss the
“Afro-Colombian problem.” He
told me that he disapproved of
the human rights organizations
and unions that
TransAfrica worked with. More
like a threat than advice, he
warned me not to cross his
interests in Washington, D.C.
At the end of August, Torres
was arrested in Colombia
because of his alleged links to
paramilitary death squads. He
will be tried along with 70
other legislators — many in the
ruling political party — for
working with paramilitaries
who have killed, raped and tortured
their way through
Colombia. This scandal, known
as the para-politics scandal,
has gone on for years.
Considering the amount of
U.S. aid that flows into
Colombia, one would think
that the U.S. government
would be up in arms demanding
accountability. Yet there
has been a deafening silence.
Yet, the arrest of Torres illustrates
the need to know who
has access to our government.
Who is helping our government
make decisions that affect
folks abroad? Who speaks for
Black people from the Diaspora?
Torres was embraced in
Washington for years despite a
growing chorus of evidence that
he was up to no good. He was
treated like an expert on his
world policy decisions.
I wonder how many decisions
were made or even put
off due to his influence. While
everyone is innocent until
proven guilty, certainly it is eye
opening to know the type of
people whispering in our government’s
ear.
Nicole Lee is the executive
director of TransAfrica
Forum in Washington, D.C.
older reclaims promise to civil, human rights
After eight years of retreat
rom basic values, the U.S.
epartment of Justice, under
he direction of Attorney
eneral Eric Holder, is reclaimng
its historic role as a chamion
of human and civil rights.
Two recent actions emphatially
make the point.
First, on Aug. 24, at the urgng
of the Justice Department’s
thics division, the attorney
eneral appointed respected
ndependent prosecutor, John
. Durham to conduct a preiminary
investigation to deterine
whether CIA officers and
ontractors broke the law in
heir interrogation of Sept. 11
etainees. A recently released
IA report confirms that in
addition to a number of questionable
deaths, interrogation
tactics included intimidation
by power drill, the practice of
waterboarding and threats of
sexual assault on the mother of
a detainee.
Holder’s decision to look
more deeply into these and
other troubling allegations
seems to contradict President
Obama’s stated preference for
looking forward rather than
looking back at possible cases
of torture sanctioned by the
Bush administration. But the
president has indicated that he
supports the attorney general’s
prosecutorial independence in
this and other matters of law.
We share that view.
Acknowledging that his decision
would be controversial,
Holder added, “As attorney
general, it is my duty to examine
the facts and to follow the
law. In this case … it is clear to
me that this review is the only
responsible course of action for
me to take.”
Attorney General Holder has
also recently called for a reinvigoration
of the Justice
Department’s Civil Rights
Division, which since 1957 has
been charged with enforcing
the nation’s anti-discrimination
laws in areas such as
housing, employment, voting
and criminal justice. It is clear
that during the previous
administration that commitment
suffered. In addition to
its well-documented attempts
to politicize Justice
Department appointments, the
Bush administration turned a
blind eye to numerous cases of
discrimination involving
African Americans and other
minorities.
As reported in The New York
Times, “Under the Bush administration,
the agency shifted away
from its traditional focus on
accusations of racial discrimination
… department officials are
working to rebuild the division’s
more traditional efforts on behalf
of minorities.”
Declaring that “the Civil
Rights Division is once again
open for business,” Holder
plans to increase its budget by
18 percent and add 50 new
lawyers to more aggressively
combat all forms of discrimination,
including predatory lending,
sentencing disparities and
voter suppression. He has also
called for the Senate to drop its
hold on Thomas Perez,
Obama’s nominee to head the
Civil Rights Division. The delay
in Perez’s confirmation is
impeding the important work
of the division and is a gross
disservice to the American people.
The Senate is urged to con-
In our view, nothing is more
important to America’s future
than ensuring that we remain,
claimed, “a nation of laws, not
men.” We applaud the attorney
general’s commitment to that
founding principle as demonstrated
by his recent actions to
uphold international law and
Department’s historic focus on
firm Tom Perez immediately.
as John Adams once pro-
reclaim the Justice
civil rights.
Marc Morial is president and
CEO of the National rban
League.
ilson’s wrist slap is a contrast to Serena Williams
Julianne Malveaux
Days after Serena Williams’
eltdown during her U.S. Open
atch with her longtime friend
nd fellow tennis champion Kim
lijsters the controversy contines
to swirl. There is talk of a
ossible suspension, further
ines and other action against
he phenomenal tennis diva
ho let her intensity and pasion
run away with her when
he reacted inappropriately to
hat may have been a faulty
all on the part of an overzealus
line judge. Several of the
ommentators noted that the
oot fault call was untimely and
erhaps inappropriate. Nothing,
owever, excuses Williams’
ehavior.
Microphones picked up her
se of profanity, her threatenng
manner toward the line
udge, and her obfuscating
onversation with the umpire.
er comments have generated
o much controversy that you
ould think she had, say,
hollered at the president of the
United States as he was giving
a major policy address. While
Williams’ critics call for everything
but her head on a platter,
U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, the
South Carolinian who called
President Obama a liar, has
drawn a line in the sand and
says he will apologize no more.
While the stages are different,
there is an interesting
parallel. White men can apologize
once, say they won’t again
apologize, and get a relative
pass on their behavior.
Indeed, after a tepid apology,
Wilson has put a defiantly
insolent video on the Internet
essentially excusing his
behavior. You can bet that
Williams won’t get away as
easily.
Both Serena Williams and
Joe Wilson need to reflect on
their behavior. The difference
between the two is that we
have evidence that Serena can
reflect; Wilson’s case is far
murkier. In her new autobiography,
“Queen of the Court,”
Williams writes about the
game of tennis as a metaphor
for the game of life. One of the
things she talks about is the
need to shake off the mistakes
of the last point, set, game or
match as a way of moving
ahead. The pace of tennis is
such that if you dwell on the
last point you can’t move to
the next one, and that’s often
the case with life. We have to
take enough time to learn
from our mistakes, but we
surely can’t dwell on them to
the point that they become
crippling or paralyzing.
If you are down 5-6, 15-30,
you can’t really worry about the
last serve, you have to worry
about the next one. Williams’
book is a great reflection on her
life and her challenges and as
she struggles with the aftermath
of last Saturday’s loss, I hope
her own words will give her comfort
and peace.
Many of us were quite disturbed
at the manner and
method of Williams’ Saturday
loss. Yet as I watched her walk
up to the net and shake Kim
Clijster’s hand, I also saw her, in
the words of songstress Jill
Scott, as beautifully human. I
saw her as both a young
woman, and a seasoned one. I
saw her as an intense young
woman who let the heat of the
moment push her into a zone
that she clearly regrets, and as a
woman who did not allow her
intensity to prevent her from
being gracious toward her opponent.
I saw her as so strong and
yet flawed, a player who
acknowledged her mistake in
reacting so intensely. And,
yes, I saw her as a tennis icon
whose love for and contributions
to the game of tennis
carry much more weight than
her mistake. Most of all, I saw
her as someone who has had
to shoulder the many ways
that race and gender shape
her experiences in tennis, a
woman who has all too often
been treated unfairly, even
harshly, by those who make
great profit from her amazing
athletic prowess. Williams is
beautiful — beautifully
human — resplendent in spite
of, and because of her flaws.
Wilson is getting a pass for
his ignorant and intemperate
behavior when Obama spoke.
Indeed, he has given himself a
pass. I hope that the beautifully
human Serena Williams
will get the same kind of pass
from herself and the world as
she embraces and learns from
her meltdown. — (NNPA)
Julianne Malveaux is president
of Bennett College for
Women in Greensboro, N.C.
All editorials are the expressed opinion of the Philadelphia
Tribune. The other signed opinions expressed on these pages
do not reflect the views of the Tribune. The Tribune reserves
the right to edit articles for space and grammar. We encourage
readers to write in response to any articles that appear in
the paper. Address letters to: Editor, the Philadelphia
Tribune, 520 S. 16th St., Philadelphia, PA 19146.