Man Cannot Live on Bread Alone
Current Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama may have graduated from Harvard and taught at the University of Chicago as did U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, but the similarities end there. Recently, on the 221st anniversary of the U.S. Constitution's adoption, in an article written by Abdon M. Pallasch, Scalia Says U. of C. Has Gone Liberal. Justice Scalia spoke to a roomful of conservative lawyers, The Federalist Society. He accused the University of Chicago of 'going liberal,' and in effect, 'losing its edge' (17 Sept. 2008. ).Scalia had taken what he felt were more 'bread-and-butter' classes instead of popular classes such as Current Issues in Racism and the Law, taught by Obama. Scalia felt that the courses offered were no longer as rigorous, and the philosophy no longer conservative. In fact, he not only laughed as he mentioned Law and Poverty, he also lamented the contemporary courses and called them exotic, made-up, and a waste of time. Despite the University of Law School's consistent rank as one of the nation's top five or 10 in national surveys, he admitted he would not recommend that school to future law students. Scalia was considered by Republican presidential nominee John McCain as well as President Bush to be a "strict constructionalist" who "does not legislate from the bench." As a justice who strictly adhered to the text of the U.S. Constitution, he accused his fellow justices of rewriting the Constitution with contemporary decisions on abortion, gay rights. He did admit, however, that despite his studies, he was no more qualified than Joe six-pack to determine whether or not these rights should exist. While Scalia was questioning his qualifications to determine what our Constitutional rights were, some four floors down at the Chicago Union League Club, a less conservative group, Constitutional Rights Foundation Chicago, did not seem to have this difficulty. They chose to celebrate the U.S. Constitution's anniversary by presenting awards to Chicago lawyers who represented accused enemy combatants who were detained without probable cause; Habeas corpus had been suspended, and no due process hearings had been given. Eighty-six percent of these detainees were picked up by Pakistani forces, not U.S. forces, but with a tempting U.S. $5,000 bounty dangling over their head. In many cases no evidence of crime found, yet basic Constitutional rights were not recognized by the Bush administration and had to be forced by the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, Boumediene v. Bush, 128 S.Ct. 2229 (2008) the Court decided that the detainees were protected by the U.S. Constitution's habeas corpus protections.The Federalist Society is an organization that was founded in 1982 as a debating society by students who believed professors at the top law schools were too liberal. The fact that The Federalist Society, like Scalia, a Federalist affiliate, advocates a more conservative approach to interpret the law is ironic. The original Federalists, our Forefathers, feared people like Scalia. While impossible to enumerate all possible rights of the People in the Bill of Rights, enumerating only a few would grant too much power to those who felt it was their inalienable right to deny rights not numerated to moralize the majority with their own beliefs. Alexander Hamilton said it best in Federalist paper 84, when he asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Is it not the "power to do" our inalienable right? In his own defense, Scalia has said, "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." Apparently, that is when Scalia is not in the majority opinion. Labeled a judicial activist by Obama, he freely voices his personal opinions, and stare decisis--deeply rooted in tradition and implied in Article III of the Constitution--has little value for him unless it mimics his own judicial philosophy, a clear contradiction of originalist philosophy. For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51 (1992), he concluded that a woman's decision to abort her unborn child is not a constitutionally protected "liberty" because (1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and (2) the long-standing traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed. Another example is Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989), when Justice O'Conner asserted that a "'fundamental rule of judicial restraint" requires us to avoid reconsidering Roe, he stated her opinion "could not be taken seriously." In fact, the article fails to mention many important aspects of Scalia's philosophies, opinions and positions on important Constitutional issues. First of all, Scalia disagrees with the McCain and Bush label given him; that he is a 'strict constructionalist who does not legislate from the bench.' According to Linda R. Monk in, The Words We Live By-Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (95), President Jefferson--a true strict constructionist--believed "that judges should limit themselves to narrow interpretations of the Constitutional text and avoid enlarging the powers of government." Scalia, on the other hand, believes Constitution text and the Bill of Rights should limit the powers of the People, not the government. Resisting the Bush-McCain label, he hides behind his own labels of himself as a 'textualist' or 'originalist' who does not rely on the intent of the framers, nor does he believe the Constitution is an evolving document (Id. at 96) and is judiciously proscribing in a time warp as customs and traditions evolve through time.The article also mentioned that Scalia felt studying poverty law was a "waste of time" and "made up." This outrageous Scalia viewpoint is not surprising. In a similar meeting in 2004, while speaking to a hotel ballroom full of lawyers, he attacked some of the most important Supreme Court decisions of the last 40 years: The court was wrong, to say the Constitution requires that lawyers be provided to poor people accused of crimes. We have now determined that liberties exist under the federal Constitution -- the right to abortion, the right to homosexual sodomy -- which were so little rooted in the traditions of the American people that they were criminal for 200 years.'' (Liptak, Adam. In Re Scalia the Outspoken v. Scalia the Reserved. N.Y.Times. 2 May 2004. ).This was not the first time Scalia has made outrageous comments to the Federalist Society. When speaking to them on Valentine's Day in 2006, there was no love lost from his critics when he criticized advocates of a "living Constitution," calling them "idiots." (Scalia Blasts Advocates of 'Living Constitution.' Associated Press. 14 Feb, 2006 ). It begs the question; could Scalia's belief in the Constitution as a document fixed in time not be construed as a personal opinion and thereby affect his judgment? Our Constitution is both the oldest as well as the shortest in history, and was meant to be a living breathing document that adjusted for all times because there was no way our Founding Fathers could prepare on parchment paper all future issues that could affect our liberty rights. Certainly it can be inferred, for example, if our framers believed in an originalist concept such as Scalia's, that 'pesky' Bill of Rights would not exist, and Scalia is, therefore, a proud supporter of slavery.On the other hand, when Obama instructed law students at the University of Chicago, one of his more traditional courses was in the due process and equal protection areas of Constitutional law. In this class, he challenged Scalia's views, and stated that "the Court never explicitly embraced Justice Scalia's 'cramped' approach to defining the scope of rights protected under the substantive Due Process." Apparently, Scalia's definition of a due process right depends on how far into the notion of tradition he is willing to go. (Obama, Barack. Students in Con. Law III. Final Exam Answer Memo. 1996. < http://miniurl.com//42>).Obama analogizes this point: If we following this notion of over 200 years of deeply rooted American traditions, when the Bill of Rights was created, our forefathers could not have dreamed of whether or not cloning or in vitro are procreation rights under the due process clause, but does that give the Court the right to criminalize it? In vitro is not "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions," and does not follow traditional notions of procreation, but is legal. Following Scalia's cramped approach; these rights should not exist, and contradict current law. Id.There are other contradictions in the article that Obama debated in his Constitutional law class. Homosexual sodomy does not follow traditional notions of family, marriage, and procreation, therefore, it is criminalized, yet heterosexual sodomy is not. Id. See: Bowers v. Hardwick, 760 F.2d 1202, (11th Cir. 1985) Both do not follow traditional notions of family, marriage, and procreation, thereby legalizing the criminality and discrimination of sodomy homosexuality, yet holding judgment for heterosexual sodomy. See: Watkins v. U.S. Army, 847 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1998). Obama further mentions Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) where Justice Scalia, in his dissenting opinion in Bowers defends the belief that moral opposition alone rationalizes laws that express disapproval of homosexuality, since they are legally criminalized. Justice Scalia's view of public morality as a legitimate government interest would, by contrast, clearly justify Bowers-style laws. Id.The article also fails to mention that Scalia was one of the Supreme Court justices who dissented in the Boumediene v. Bush decision. This landmark decision overturned Bush administration policy as well as two acts of Congress, ruling that the Military Commission Act (MCA) suspending habeas corpus to the detainees was unconstitutional, and against the Geneva Conventions. Despite this, as well as the fact that many of the detainees were farmers and goat herders, not militants, Scalia warned, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain thought so too. However, Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama applauded the ruling, saying it was a repudiation of "yet another failed policy supported by John McCain."
The article also mentions Scalia's mocking University of Chicago's 'waste of time' course offerings, yet there are both former students as well as legal scholars who disagree. John C. Eastman, a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas found the Current Issues in Racism and the Law course particularly instructive:Professor Obama was leading his students in an honest assessment of competing views regarding some of the most difficult legal and policy issues our nation has ever faced--a refreshing change from what passes for debate about contested questions in our political classes these days. Only occasionally do then-Professor Obama's decidedly personal views come across. He refers to Justice Scalia's approach to assessing fundamental rights as "cramped," for example. But on the whole, this is a body of course materials that is as would be expected of Chicago Law Professors. (Kantor, Jodi. Inside Professor Obama's Classroom. The N.Y. Times. 30 July 2008. ).Although some label Obama's students as 'groupies,' John K. Wilson, one of Obama's students who took his course Race, Racism, and the Law, and author of, Barack Obama: This Improbable Quest, (Paradigm Publishers, Oct. 2007) has observed "the appeal of Obama, more than any other professor, was his ability to listen to different points of views in a serious way, and yet still move students in the direction of understanding the law." He also felt that, "Obama probably learned a great deal from recognizing the flaws of his colleagues rather than swallowing their ideas wholesale. Obama embodies the University of Chicago ethic of asking 'What's your evidence?' far better than most Chicago professors. As someone who was out in the trenches, he never accepted the ivory tower theorizing as superior to the facts on the ground." (The Times Distorted Professor Obama. Huffington Post. 30 July 2008. ).Finally, Scalia also mocks the study of poverty, calling it 'made up' and a 'waste of time.' Unfortunately, since the creation of the Constitution, the criminalization of poverty has increased without the acknowledgement or sympathy of many elite members of our society, but since when is poverty 'made up'? Since when is poverty not considered a 'serious' subject? Since when is studying poverty a 'waste of time'? Since when has poverty been considered 'exotic'? In his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) Scalia argued that, "This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected…" We have 37 million living in poverty in American--hardly what one could call exotic or made up. Could it be that his 'elitism' has blinded him to the plight of the large numbers of poor American? Perhaps some of the vast differences between Obama's and Scalia's Constitutional opinion are because Obama was a Constitutional lawyer, and Scalia taught Administrative law. However, Scalia cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution he wants to uphold. It is said, "Man can not live on bread alone." Perhaps Scalia should have added 'a little meat' to his 'bread and butter' classes. Perhaps he should have listened to the majority opinion of his colleagues, Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 850-51 (1992) when they stated: "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." The Constitution is a living breathing document, capable of adapting to social construct while still maintaining its original purpose. There are rights in the Constitution which do not yet exist. As a dormant seed they await the right time for discovery. These rights are simply within the framework of the document. But where the powers are not explicit; then the power belongs not to Scalia, but to The People.
The Kingdom of The Pride
It was a special day in the Kingdom of The Pride. Today was the yearly meeting of all the wild animals that belonged to the Kingdom. Today it was to be decided who deserved the title of King for the year.
One by one, everyone in the kingdom arrived at the old acacia tree and gathered inside. Suddenly there was a loud roar. All eyes turned as the wild yellow lion strutted into the meeting with his head held high. His mane was thrown about his head like a golden crown of glory as he made his way to the front of the room. Like the parting of the Red Sea, the crowd made room for him. His wife followed closely behind him.
Pride, as he was called, held the title of King as long as anyone could remember. It was known by everyone that he would win once again. The yearly meeting was just a formality and no one knew why they even bothered to attend. Contagious yawns spread through the crowd. Many were impatient and wanted to go find food to eat. Many were tired. They had traveled a long, long way and wanted to take a nap.
Suddenly, there were loud noises coming from outside. Sleepy heads became curious and turned in the direction of the noise. Lil’ Gif, the littlest spotted giraffe galloped inside. He was excited. This was his first yearly meeting. He sat on the right side of Pride. On the left of Pride stood his wife. Smug, she looked over at the littlest giraffe, turned her nose up with a “humph!” as she fanned herself.
Pride stood up and looked at the bored crowd. “Well, if there aren’t any objections, I have won again. Have a nice year, everyone!”
Everyone turned to leave. “Wait!” someone yelled. Everyone stopped in their tracks and turned to see who dared to prevent them from leaving.
Was it? Could it be the giraffe that just spoke? Everyone gasped. No one had ever heard a giraffe talk before.
The little spotted giraffe questioned the crowd. “Aren’t we going to have a vote?”
“A what?” they asked.
“A vote,” the little giraffe repeated.
“No,” they chorused, “that would change everything!”
Lil’ Gif smiled. “As scary as it may seem at first, change can be a good thing!”
“He wants change!” Everyone whispered to each other, “Change! Oh my we’ve never had CHANGE before!”
Lil’ Gif asked them, “Are you happy the way things are?” No one answered. They looked at each other, looked around the room, stared at the ceiling.
Lil' Gif continued, “How do you know Pride is the best man for the job?” He glanced around the group, and his eyes rested on the little gray mouse. “Or woman for that matter?” The little gray mouse giggled. Gasps were heard all over the room. The yellow lion appeared bored and rolled his eyes.
Suddenly, Ellie, the big gray elephant spoke up. “Yeah, why is it we don’t have a vote?” She looked around the room. All eyes followed her as she walked to the front. “Why hasn’t anyone voted for me? Is it just because I am a girl?”
The baby kangaroo popped out of his cozy bed to see what all the noise was about. His momma asked, “Is it just because I am not a citizen?”
The penguin sighed. “Well, that leaves me out.”
The mouse ran and jumped on Ellie’s long trunk. “Why hasn’t anyone voted for me? Is it just because I am little?”
Ellie asked, “Is it because I am too big?”
The oxpecker flew onto Lil’ Gif’s shoulder. “I am a hero. I save your lives by eating the bugs off your fur. Why do you not vote for me? Is it just because I am a bird?”
Round glasses slid down the beak of Ben, the wise old owl as he argued, “I’m the smartest. Is it just because I’m a bird, too?”
The blue swallow perked up. “Is it just because I am blue?”
The orange thrush asked, “Is it just because I am orange?”
The black stork asked, “Is it just because I am black?”
The white-bellied sunbird asked, “Is it just because I am white?”
The blue swallow argued, “Only you’re belly is white, Jefferson.”
Jefferson argued, “Well, only Orange’s head is orange.”
The blue swallow argued, “Orange has black and white stripes on his wings, too.”
The zebra asked, “Is it just because I have black and white stripes, too?”
The yellow-throated Warbler argued, “It has nothing to do with color. I am a bird, but I am also yellow like the lion and no one voted for me.”
The turtle crawled slowly near Ellie. “Why isn’t anyone voting for me? Is it just because I am too slow?”
Lil’ Gif argued, “But I’m fast and nobody voted for me.”
The cheetah argued, “I am the fastest and no one voted for me!”
The sloth asked, “Is it just because I am lazy?”
Pride growled. “This is ridiculous! Who could fight for you day in and day out, but me? I am ready on Day One.”
The little giraffe shook his head. “But we don’t want to fight anyone unless we have to.”
Pride was stubborn. “I am the only choice you have! What do you fools have to offer?”
The penguin argued, “I’m the coolest.”
Pride roared, “I’m the loudest.”
Ellie bellowed, “No! I’m the loudest!”
Pride added, “I am proud.”
Lil’ Gif argued, “I am courageous.”
Pride added, “I am bold!”
Lil’ Gif argued, “You’re just mean!”
Pride argued, “I am fierce!”
Lil’ Gif argued, “I am peaceable.”
Pride argued, “I roar!”
Lil’ Gif argued, “Too loud, I might add. I only bleat when needed.”
Pride argued, “I am the best hunter!”
Somebody in the back of the room yelled, “Yeah…only for yourself! Where were you last year when we had no food to eat?”
Everyone nodded and began to yell out, “Yeah! Yeah!” as they crowded around him.
Pride got angrier and angrier that they should dare to challenge his authority. His face got redder and redder. He huffed and puffed and raced to the littlest giraffe who dared to dream of a different world. Just as he jumped up to pounce on the littlest giraffe, the little giraffe spun around and whacked the biggest yellow lion with his back leg. The lion flew through the air, out the window, up into the sky, past the hot air balloons flying near the clouds, spun around and around in the air, and landed in the quicksand with a “SPLAT!”
Pride’s wife ran after him. “This is a right wing conspiracy!” she cried.
The little mouse giggled. “Pride is before a fall.”
Ellie walked over to the little giraffe. “You’re a hero, Lil’ Gif. Why didn’t we do this before?”
The littlest giraffe shrugged.
Ellie tried to find an answer. “Is it just because you’re fast?”
“No.”
Is it just because you’re tall?”
“Is it just because you are strong?”
“Is it just because you are a boy?”
“Is it just because you have no fear?”
“Do you have super human powers?”
“No,” he laughed.
“Then, what is it little giraffe?”
“Yeah, tell us, tell us!” They pleaded.
The littlest giraffe smiled before he walked out of the room. “It’s just because I stuck my neck out and spoke up.”
As they left, Ellie the elephant reached up with her trunk and tore down the sign over the door that read, The Kingdom of the Pride. Jefferson pulled out a feather and with his quill scratched out “the Pride” and wrote US.
Everyone present signed their name, and that was the beginning of democracy for The Kingdom of US.
©2008 Donna Zuk Adley
As you all know, we Truth Defenders for Obama write and write and blog and blog, plant the seed here and there, waiting for it to sprout. So it's nice every once in awhile when we get published or receive an answer back. Here's my recent email to the Washington Post and the nice response back from Ruth Marcus:
From: Zuk Adley, Donna J.Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 2:24 PMTo: marcusr@washpost.com.Subject: sweetie remarks
Dear Ruth:
After living in the South for 2 years, I had come to the realization that everyone is 'sweetie' 'sugar' and ma'am or 'miss' [insert first name]. It was the expected thing to say if you don't want to stick out like a sore thumb. (However, my daughter who still lives there hates being called ma'am-it makes her feel old, she says.)
I'm back in the north now, but it's a hard habit to break.
The funny thing about this whole thing is the one sexist remark I DID hear came from HILLARY'S own mouth way back way with her comment on her not staying home baking cookies which disrespected women all over the country who DO stay home and bake cookies. What is most important is not that you have a career or are a stay at home mom, but the CHOICE.
-Donna Zuk Adley
New Haven, CT
--From: Ruth Marcus [mailto:marcusr@washpost.com]Sent: Sat 5/24/2008 10:00 AMTo: Zuk Adley, Donna J.Subject: Re: sweetie remarks
Thanks. I agree with a lot of what you said.Best,Ruth
Ruth MarcusWashington Post editorial page(202) 334-7529
Just a reminder that today is the day Peter Paul takes the Clintons to court in a civil hearing regarding the Senate campaign fraud contributions they took from him (a felony offense).
It was dropped in a criminal trial, and I do believe it was not a coincidence that the judge had been Clinton appointed. But now? Not so fast. Paul is able to sue them in a civil court with a video as evidence. I have not heard ANY thing about this in the news. You KNOW it would be if it were Obama.
When Rezko went to court, they made a big thing about it, and that was just Rezko. But when the Clintons go to court, it's all hush hush. If you think there is still a First Amendment, it's drowned out by bribes, threats and corruption.
Is this hypocrisy of the Clinton's association of Rendell who was recently praising Farrakhan publicly yet attacking Obama for his pastor associating and traveling with Farrakhan tearing the Democratic party apart?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA
This is really cool. You can save the text and put your favorite ones on your myspace site. Mine is the kids arguing about "politics as usual." It is hilarious!
http://www.obamain30seconds.org/vote/index.html?id=-9219305-b_CSDv&voted=1
<embed src="http://www.obamain30seconds.org/content/flvplayer/mediaplayer.swf" width="448" height="354" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="height=354&width=448&bufferlength=10&show_digits=true&autostart=true&file=http://s3.amazonaws.com/oi30sflv/view-291-smxZNH.flv&link=http://www.obamain30seconds.org/vote/?v=view-291-smxZNH&linkfromdisplay=true&linktarget=_blank" ></embed>
Doctor, Doctor, Give Me the News! (America’s Prognosis)
Hiliary v. Wright or is it Hilary v. Obama?
My question is why is Obama (and even McCain) getting religion bashing, and Hilary hasn’t been touched?
With dubious tax exemption status, this Capitol Hill group is not open to the public and based on secrecy along with the belief that they are the chosen ones, and like King David, can commit sins that will be absolved because they are the chosen ones for power. Hilary has been approached by the media about her affiliation with it but has declined comment for she has been sworn to secrecy.
~Donna Zuk Adley
We are blessed with this great nation but along with this greatness comes responsibility to our Creator and each other. Two candidates want to conquer and divide, no matter what the cost. One wants to unite. Two want to divert our Constitutional rights. One wants to returns our inalienable rights to us.
Mississippi vote Obama:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okjN4DJ7L4Y&feature=related
Clinton’s Latest Slams & Excuses in the Campaign
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83Xb_cKtcHI&feature=related
Thank You Barack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZsk02u29UQ&feature=email
More than Just Words
The Semantics of Race: Does It Make Any Sense?By Donna J. Zuk AdleyIf a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?You may have been asked this question at least once, but the first time you heard it, you probably had to stop and think. Hearing is a sense, a conscious perception or awareness of stimulus. According to The Random House Dictionary, sound is an auditory effect. Therefore, in order for it to be a sound, it must be heard. Your ears have to react and acknowledge its existence. Apparently, it was one of those ‘you had to be there’ situations.Sound is only one of five human senses; sight, smell, taste and touch are the others. We’ve talked about hearing. Let’s briefly discuss another sense, that of sight. The dictionary states that sight is the power of vision, yet it also speaks of perception again, this time, mental perception. You may ask at this point, what does hearing and seeing have to do with racism? Well, if the answer to the argument as to whether or not the tree made a sound when it fell is all about senses, and senses are all about perception, let me ask you this: If a person is blind and mental perception is all he can see, are all people black? What if the lights are on? What constitutes “black” at the US Census Bureau? Color? Or origin? If a person’s color is black, but not African-American, are they still black? If the answer is yes, then is it melanin that constitutes the difference, regardless of origin? If so, what if an African-American baby is an albino? Is an albino black person required to check off “Caucasian” or “white” on employment applications? Or white, non-Hispanic? Is the presence or absence of melanin the cutoff point between races? Or is it perception? Is race real or just a social construct?It seems much of the hoopla regarding racism all stems from a small amount of melanin that gives us the color of our skin. Color is on a continuum. Where does it begin and where does it end? Even the NAACP states its purpose is for the advancement of colored people. How much color? Isn’t white a color? If white isn’t considered a color, and black is, then why does the definition of the color black in the dictionary say black is the absence of color?When a soul goes to heaven, and the melanin remains with our bodies here on earth, can anyone in heaven figure out who is of a different “race”? Do white Supremacists hang out with other souls originally-known-as… black? Are there two Gods and two heavens? Or many heavens for many races?I hate that word race. We are of different cultures, not races. I cringe at it and refuse to acknowledge it. To this day, I still wonder if I was not chosen for a jury panel because I had checked off the ‘race’ box, “prefer not to say.” What does the dictionary say? Race is defined as a group of persons related by common descent. Aren’t we all from Africa? If you believe in God, aren’t we all descendants of Adam and Eve? The dictionary goes further and states race is the human race, mankind. Enough said. Without attempting to be an oxymoron, it wasn’t always so clear that none of it made any sense, because I didn’t know it existed. I wasn’t in the forest when the tree fell, so not only did I not know it existed, I didn’t foresee the damage. I had read Black Like Me in my early teens, but I had no true concept of racial strife in real life until a few years later in high school. A family friend who was African-American rode the bus with me to school and was ostracized by some of the other teenagers on the bus, also African-American, for associating with me, and would sing, “Louie, Louie,” (a song about the love between a white guy who fell in love with a black girl, causing grief on both sides of their family). One verbally harassed me and I could not understand what the problem was. I began to do research on racial strife, inequality, bigotry; there was no end to the evidence. It shocked me to my soul and changed my life forever. Living as a white person in a religion where race or origin didn’t matter had blinded me to what was going on in the world. I had my eyesight, but my senses perceived nothing, as if I wasn’t there when the tree fell. Being colorblind is only a good thing if everyone else is colorblind. I had to open my eyes to what was going on around me. Just because I wasn’t the one chopping the tree down, didn’t mean no tree or no one was falling. America is the home of the free. If all are not free, then no one is free. From then on I became an active advocate for equality, justice and racial harmony and one thing led to another like a domino effect.Initially, it all started after a friend of mine read my Christmas wish for racial harmony in the Hartford Courant, and stopped by my house to ask a favor of me. He told me the Bristol, Connecticut NAACP (no longer in existence due to new bylaws which require a certain membership quota to have a chapter) membership was dropping, and he, being the current President of that chapter, needed a secretary and would I consider a nomination for election. I laughed as I said to him, “Um, Jerome, I am honored, but in case you haven’t noticed—I’m white!” It was then that I had learned that the NAACP was formed by both blacks and whites with the goal of racial equality. Well, what do you know? I asked myself. (I’d like to consider myself temporarily uninformed, rather than ignorant!) I then served a two-year term as secretary, but not only that, most importantly, I became a voice. Whenever I had a suggestion for an article for the local newspaper, The Bristol Press, and subsequently, The Bristol Today, the President gave me a green light. I wrote an article for Black History month, I wrote an article about women who changed the history and destiny of Black America during Women in History month, a Juneteenth article (the newspaper also asked to reprint my article for the following year). But the article that had the most effect was when our chapter had to close. In it, amongst other questions, I asked the community why were the numbers in the Bristol NAACP chapter shrinking? Have we finally overcome? Did racism no longer exist? Or did people become complacent, obtained the American Dream through the hard work of others and were no longer concerned about the well-being of future generations. I noted that the police, the NAACP and the ACLU seemed to be at odds with each other and I questioned this, since -- on paper-- we all had the same common goal, namely, justice and equality for all. I also mentioned when we no longer have “Black, African-American, Hispanic, White, non-Hispanic,” or any other color they can think of on police reports or job applications, or the US Census, then and only then will we know we have “truly” overcome. Upon receiving my letter to the editor, a newspaper reporter called me and I was interviewed for the front page article, Bristol NAACP Chapter Closes. I was in college at the time completing my Criminal Justice degree, and had forwarded my article to my college advisor. He loved it and thought it was a wonderful example of abstract thinking by a student, and I was nominated and became the salutatorian at graduation. But the best domino effect was when I received a letter in the mail inviting me to the first Bristol African American Social Club Planning Committee meeting to prepare for the first Juneteenth celebration in Bristol, stating my original article on Juneteenth was the inspiration. During my two year term as the NAACP secretary, I was also invited to speak to high school dropouts, both black and white students who were being tutored to obtain their GED at the LP Wilson Community Center in Windsor, CT. My chosen subject was stereotyping. To make a lasting impression on their minds, my teaching began before I ever walked into the classroom. The tutor and I plotted ahead of time. They were told that a grandmother who is the Bristol, Connecticut NAACP secretary would be speaking with them. On the day of my arrival, to their surprise, in walked a youthful white woman who was also a nurse, aspiring writer, and athletic police applicant. Amused as I saw their jaws drop, I had to ask, “What were you expecting?” They were pretty much in agreement that they had visions of a black old lady with a cane!Our assumptions of what we perceive the world to be never ceases to amaze or amuse me. I remember the time when I met a woman from South Africa, a white woman. Then there’s the time when people ask what my husband does for a living, or if I am a good cook. “Not as good as my husband,” I laugh. He’s a French chef who trained in Paris.” “Oh, is he French?” “Yes,” I say, “he is a French citizen hoping to obtain his US citizenship soon.” When they meet him, they are surprised to note that he is black. “He is from Martinique, a French-owned island,” I explain. Racism. Where did it all come from? If you ever watch young children playing in a park, watch them closely. They have no concept of race or prejudices. As I did research for a racial profiling report for school, I stumbled upon a quote from an anonymous writer, “A child does not have to be taught how to be happy or the ways of love. It is fear, hatred, & prejudice that have to be taught. And from the condition of the world we can see that unfortunately there are some very good teachers.”Racism. Why does the America’s melting pot still simmer, ready to boil over at any given point and scream racism was the motive? When will it end? When will we overcome? We are all enablers to its stubborn existence. Martin Luther King once stated that, “To be silent is to acknowledge, to passively reinforce.” Unless we are active, and not passive in our beliefs, it is as if we did the injustices of racism ourselves. A synonym of sound is noise. On the other hand, the opposite of sound is silence. The sounds of silence can be very loud. Let’s speak out loudly against racism. Let us perfect our other sense, our sense of justice. Not a token offering, but a pure, sincere and lasting sense of justice.Let’s go back to that old tree that fell. In order for there to be a sound, we have to hear it. But if we choose to ignore it, the tree still falls, the effects of our ignorance is still there, and the damage is done. Like that old tree, let us acknowledge the injustice, the utterly ridiculous and destructive concept of racism. It makes a sound. Will you hear it? Link />Link>
EAT, DRINK AND PEE MERRY ON THE JOB --AN INALIENABLE RIGHT?Not In Your (American) Dreams!As Labor Day approaches, we Americans need to stop and reflect on our quality of life as wage earners. After all, we are the hardest working and most generous of all nations. Surely our reward should be a job with a living wage, livable working conditions that also encourages family life. How are we faring and how do we compare to other nations? Are we gaining momentum, or are we losing ground? Are we Americans following in our (founding) fathers footsteps, or have our inalienable rights taken a walk?It is a fact that America works more hours, earns the least amount of breaks on the job, yet has the least vacation time of all industrialized nations. For low wage earners, a vacation is but a dream. Germans consider it their inalienable right to have six weeks vacation, yet Arthur Fromm of MSNBC notes that, “We Americans put up with the shortest, most miserably limited vacations of any advanced prosperous nation.” ABC news reporter Catherine Valenti goes even further by stating, “Americans are legally entitled to zero vacation days.” This is because unlike other industrialized nations, America has no Federal or labor law covering these issues.In fact, America’s prehistoric labor law hasn’t changed much despite an ever-changing carousel of conditions, perspectives and economy. Although our inalienable rights are written in both Federal as well as State Constitutions, federal law governing labor standards--the Fair Labor Standards Act—does not require employers in any State to give their employees, “any breaks from work for any reason,” even basic human needs such as eating, drinking and voiding. Our Bill of Rights include the right to speak, the right to assemble, the right to vote. A lack of these rights won’t harm us, but not fulfilling our basic human needs can. The closest thing we can come up with in America is, “It is customary among employers to give employees a break.” We need positive law, not custom. Positive law is deliberately imposed, customs are not. Therefore if it is ‘customary’ for an employer to give a break, but not mandated, then Americans survive on the possible but not probable kindness of an employer’s heart. If you ever notice a sign at work that states you have to take a break for more than 30 minutes, do not be deceived. They are not being generous; if you clock out for 30 minutes or more, that gives them the right to dock your pay under Federal law. Let’s face it, this is a capitalist country and they are out to make money whether you eat or not. In fact, few States have laws that allow Americans to rest on the job (19), and even fewer allow both meal and rest breaks (8) however, they still have loopholes. For example; in Colorado, not if you are a teacher or nurse; in Illinois, only if you are a hotel room attendant and the county population is over 3 million; in Kentucky, not if you’re an employee under the Federal Railway Labor Act; in Minnesota, not if you are agricultural or seasonal employees; in Oregon or Washington State, not if you’re into agriculture; in California, not if you’re a sheepherder, or claim undue hardship (both California and Nevada). The only exceptions to the rule are if you are covered by a collective bargaining agreement.In many aspects, labor in America is little more than legalized slavery or contemporary peonage. Matter of fact, the North Carolina Department of Labor, an Employment-at-Will State, warns that unless there is a specific law to protect employees or an employment contract, an employer can treat its employees, “as it sees fit.” If we treated animals in this manner, society would be outraged, and the Humane Society notified with stiff penalties. In fact, there are specific nationwide laws against overworking, worrying or harassing, or depriving an animal of wholesome air, food or water. Not humans. Not unless you live in the special eight States; clearly a mockery to equality in America. Although laws for prevention against cruelty to animals have increased, human’s own ‘Humane Society,’ Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) enforcement powers, protections and funding have decreased. Voluntary programs have replaced them, favoring corporations, not employees, and will never be enforced. The chance of OSHA ever visiting your workplace? You may as well look for weapons of mass destruction. Sadly, if that isn’t enough, corporations have another loophole; the worker. If you increase the workload enough, the worker begins to cut corners himself endangering his own safety. Like a hamster in a wheel, he runs faster and faster, hoping but never reaching the Holy Grail, namely a small break to rest or eat. Bush has also indicated his intentions to zero out funding for union programs. This is not surprising. Since the beginning of time, government officials, even Presidents have attempted to undermine labor unions, the only recourse from abuses of an American worker. Surely, Adam Smith did not mean for laissez-faire to be so literal that the government could not step in to mandate its workers-- who also financially assist much of the world with our hard-earned tax dollars-- to take a break to eat and rest, and maybe even urinate within a reasonable amount of time. What’s going on here? If we can’t have recourse from unions, our only other recourse is the Government, which according to the Declaration of Independence, doesn’t seem to be protecting its workers. Has the American government bitten the hand that feeds it? Due to multiple violations of human rights, the UN thinks so. However, the international protection of human rights should be the principal guide of American laws. The United States talks the talk, but does not walk the walk as it repeatedly violates the laws, standards and principles of the American Convention on Human Rights set forth in the Charter of the Organization of American States; the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man; the International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights which applies to US Federal, State and local governments; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the World Health Organization (WHO); the International Labor Organization, as well as our own International Labor Affairs Office, the US Board of Labor, OSHA, the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, and the US Constitution. The UN has condemned the US multiple times for violating human rights treaties; law treaties; covenants; and humanitarian and human rights laws, both home and abroad. Under these provisions, humans have the right to be free from cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment as well as the right to the preservation of health relating to food…and the right to work under proper conditions. The US submitted a report to the United Nations Rights Committee—7 years late—yet the July 28, 2006 findings still did not address multiple accusations of US abuse.When a sophisticated industrialized country such as the US does not even give its workers the right to eat, drink and pee merry on the job, it’s shockingly degrading, barbaric, and downright inhumane.Ironically, all States speak of either natural rights, equal rights or inalienable rights in their Constitutions. In addition, the Federal Government promises us equal rights. The Declaration of Independence assures us of equality. It is a truth that is self-evident, but perhaps like slavery, was an exception to these natural rights they spoke of; perhaps being able to eat, drink and pee merry is only allowed to an elite few Americans? America, what happen to your fight for all things right? We seem to have forgotten what our country stands for and have become complacent and compliant like a puppet on strings. Our founding fathers would be ashamed. In the Declaration of Independence our founding fathers explained to the world why they were cutting the umbilical cord from Mother England and creating a new independent government; to secure those inalienable human rights; life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As part of our social contract with those who rule, we pay taxes, and they are supposed to protect our rights from being abused, not to abuse us. Eating, drinking, nourishing our bodies on the job and disposing of its byproducts to sustain life are human rights, absolute. In addition to inalienable rights, at the risk of being politically incorrect, most States’ Constitutions mention God in some form, and our US dollars state we trust in God. Yet His command even allowed bulls to graze when working (Deuteronomy 25:4). “Mankind have nothing better under the sun than to eat and drink and be merry,” (Luke 12:19) but what about God? Although God’s energy is unlimited, even He rested on the seventh day. I ...um...rest my case. Donna J. Zuk Adley
">Link
