Eradicating what ails the poor

I read bits and pieces of articles throughout Vanity Fair’s July issue focusing on Africa’s devastating crisis on health and poverty. As I started reading an article about economist Jeffrey Sachs and his vision of eradicating extreme poverty in Africa, I was intrigued and once again filled with excitement to read about an individual who is working selflessly to make a difference in other people’s lives. The question that may sometimes turn into an argument of whether extreme poverty can come to an end at times seems endless. There are always programs, concerts, specials and presentations showcasing the fight to eradicate something in some country. Looking at Africa, there are numerous avenues in which the fight to help save lives take place. There is a focus on these issues and they are very apparent in the media. It only makes sense that the fight continues until the plight of the most simplist illnesses and harsh conditions of living are erased from the face of the earth. The only sad truth is that the problems seem to constantly persist, that those nations that are in the poorest of conditions and cannot provide for its people remain in constant strain. Those people who need the most basic needs are still in dire situations that continue to perpetuate into worse conditions of civil war, corruption and chaos; Therefore, when you have nothing, you have to fight to protect what little you may have. I’m not saying that there aren’t agencies and organizations that haven’t achieved or met some type of goal or progressed into helping multitudes of people. There need to be concrete solutions to once and for all end what may be threatening the lives of millions of people; whether it be hunger, poverty, disease, or some other injustice. But even more importantly, steps to those solutions need to be acted upon. As many would agree, starting at the foundation of the system to meet the basic needs of people with shelter, food, water, simple medication and education is a good place to begin. Providing people with the most simplist of needed resources is what helps. In return, a solution such as this can only mean that a country will be strengthened to nurture its citizens and perpetuate into a growing cycle of solutions to eradicate what most ails a nation and its people.      

Three arrested on slave labor charges in Las Vegas

 I came across another article in the Washington Post that caught my attention today. Three individuals were charged with enslaving more than 20 members of a Chinese acrobat team in Las Vegas. Individuals were held captive against their will, while working for little or no pay, having their passports and identification confiscated, and living under harsh conditions. This story, although independent in itself from other stories of human trafficking and forced labor, is not different in the subject of human rights. Some cannot fathom or even begin to believe how individuals could take it upon themselves to intentionally exploit and coerce others for their own gain and benefit. In this case, the members were forced to work as a legitimate show acrobat team, but also as maids and gardners. The individuals who worked in charge of them were basically pimps, who allotted the members small portions of income each month; money that was not sustainable for anyone to live off of, but it is not as if these individuals had a choice to live the way that they might have wanted to. It’s a frustrating and sad truth to realize and be aware that these types of occurrances do happen around the globe and that as long as there are such demands for individuals, there will always be the coercion, force, and expliotation of those in the most vulnurable situations to be trafficked into some type of slave labor.    

Bush commutes Libby’s sentence

Does this really surprise anyone? The fact that Bush took an executive order such as this doesn’t seem to be a shock to many people. The Democrats argue that this decision illustrated an example of Bush acting above the law and not holding accountable members of his administration for their actions. The Republicans on the other hand aren’t thrilled about having Libby’s sentence commuted because it only reduces the legal penalties, or in this case, his 30 month prison sentence. Republicans would have favored an entire pardon, because then all charges would be dropped, including the hefty $250,000 fine that must still be paid. Therefore, Libby’s legal battles are far from over because if his conviction is not overturned on appeal, he won’t be able to practice law either. Sad situation for Libby? Not at all. His conviction of perjury, obstruction of justice in a grand jury investigation, and making false statements to federal investigators has bascially been erased by Bush’s executive power of clemency. Should the sentence have been commuted, especially in such an alone decision-making process that Bush pursude without going through lawyers at the Justice Department? Some will argue that all of this is within constitutional grounds and not overriding any executive powers, therefore not unconstitutional, but still, what does this situation really illustrate? Nothing more than political bureacratic favoritism; You scratch my back and I’ll scratch your’s. As former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.) was quoted in the Washington Post, saying, “Libby’s 30-month sentence was “wretched excess” and that Bush did the right thing, no matter what the political consequences are. “Why should anyone worry about that? He gets hammered every day. They don’t think George is doing anything right, so what do you lose?” But really, if Paris Hilton could handle a few weeks behind bars, then I’m sure it wouldn’t have hurt Scooter Libby either.

“Sicko” is definitely something to see

I saw Michael Moore’s “Sicko” and in order to sum up my impression and overall opinion of the film, I would have to say that it brilliantly illustrated the realization about the depleting state of the health care system in the United States. I haven’t seen any of Moore’s other films and I know that there is always an uproar about whether the films are too biased or one-sided, etc. (Ok, the film did start off with a clip of Bush saying something entrely stupid, even though he was attempting to make a point). But in all seriousness, I think that in this film, the focus, although creatively depicted in a Moore way, illustrated what millions of individuals in this country already know and have to live with everyday; especially if they are part of the population without health insurance. This film, didn’t challenge or question whether the health care crisis could be blamed on the decisions of Republicans or Democratics. This film was a comparative insight into how other countries; Canada, England, France, even Cuba have implemented universal health care, that is not only of a quality level, but preventative in nature, so that ALL citizens may have the opportunity to live healthy and happy lives; Not only the ones that can afford it. For such an incredibly rich and westernized country as ours, you would think that the same types of opportunities could be afforded and provided, especially to the individuals who need it most. But as can clearly be seen, that is simply not the case. For anyone who may think that I am complaining or bashing the United States and whose answer to this may be, “If you don’t like it, then leave it,” I have nothing more of a response then to say: Watch this movie, focus on how other countrie’s health care systems work and tell me then, if you wouldn’t want the same to be offered to you here.