What's on my mind…

Five years ago the news was bombarded with devastating images of a flooded New Orleans. Today, New Orleans is beginning to bounce back. However, another region is under siege. The UN estimates that 17 million people in Pakistan have been affected by the flooding (which began roughly a month ago). Towns are submerged, livestock has been swept away and farmers can no longer work their land.

Despite the shocking images from a ravaged area, aid has been slow. There hasn’t been a telethon like we saw when an earthquake hit Haiti. Or an outpouring of aid like we saw with the 2005 tsunami. Or even like when Katrina struck New Orleans. Instead, there are a few articles here and there and silence.

The BBC has an article about why donations might be sluggish. Some of the possible reasons are donor fatigue, corruption, terrorism, timing and it being the “wrong” kind of disaster. The article raises some interesting points. We’re in a recession and a lot of people dedicated a lot of money to Haiti already. Perhaps, even if they wanted to, people can’t afford to donate.

Dr Elizabeth Ferris, senior fellow at the US-based Brookings Institution, a foreign policy think tank, says: “It should also be noted that the international humanitarian system isn’t set up to deal with more than one major crisis a year. USAID, for example, committed one-third of its annual budget to the Haitian earthquake response. And among the general public there may be a feeling of, ‘Well, I donated to the victims of the Haitian earthquake and Haiti is a far needier country than Pakistan.’”

On the corruption point, one expert says that people in Pakistan are skeptical that their government will be transparent with money it receives. On the issue of terrorism, Dr. Ferris from the Brookings Institution said, “People are less likely to donate to any country seen as a haven for terrorism.” She points out that most Western news dealing with Pakistan is negative.

One of the interesting (yet sad) points the articles raise is that people seem to donate more to “sudden” events, like earthquakes or tsunamis. Things like floods and draughts are gradual, which pushes it away from the media and out of the minds of people outside of the country. Many BBC readers who commented feel that other Islamic countries should step up and offer aid.

On the other side of the coin, there’s an article on cnn.com from UNICEF Regional Director for South Asia, Daniel Toole. He reminds people that there are many reputable organizations, like UNICEF, Save the Children, the International Red Cross/Red Crescent or the World Food Programme that have a long record of transparency and providing relief for people in need. He offers a first-hand perspective of what he has seen in Pakistan and why they need help. He points out that the negative view the West seems to have should not affect our compulsion to help. “But this enormous disaster is beyond the power of any one government and disasters know no boundaries, respect no passports. This is beyond even the people — the implications of this disaster run into the future,” Toole said.

Those implications include rebuilding towns, infrastructure, farmlands and everything else lost in the flooding. There is also concern that there will be famine because farmers will not be able to tend to their crops in time for next year. Much like New Orleans, this will not be a quick fix.

I’m going to leave off with one last link. This is an article from Nicholas Kristof’s “On the Ground” blog, which is on The New York Times’ Web site. It’s by guest columnist Sher Bano. She is a 17 year-old girl who lives in Pakistan, but spent a year in Illinois as an exchange student. I don’t agree with everything in the article, but I think  it’s a fascinating first-hand account of the wreckage.

In conclusion, please, please, please donate to Pakistani relief. Even if you gave to Haiti. Even if you disagree with their government. Do not forget the people of Pakistan.

Puppy Mill legislation is finally becoming popular in multiple states. However, it’s either non-existant or not strong enough in too many states. This reality hit me over the head this weekend when I went to volunteer at The Humane Society of Charlotte.

Last week, the Humane Society  of Charlotte rescued more than 20 dogs from a nearby puppy mill. They were mostly toy breeds- shih-tzus, scottish terriers and so forth. Some of them are in foster care and some of them are at the shelter. While I was there cleaning cages today, I snapped these pictures:

Pardon the poor lighting and the bars. I couldn’t open the cages. They’re very cute dogs. They’re a little skittish and not used to human contact (hence the way they moved away when I opened the cage doors). They were very matted and most of them had to be given buzz cuts : ). I hope they all find homes soon. If anyone lives in the Charlotte area, feel free to stop by the Humane Society and check these guys out. They’re very sweet, but they need a patient owner. Preferably one who doesn’t have small children.

There was a bill in the N.C. State Senate a few months ago that would regulate commercial breeders and target puppy mills. It failed for the second year in a row. Why? Pork producers in the state. I wish I was kidding. The spokesperson for the N.C. Pork Council is quoted in the article saying that they’re not opposed to the bill itself so much, but they’re worried about the main backers of the bill…The United States Humane Society. She says, “We’re very worried about this powerful, very wealthy animal rights organization.” Even though the bill targets commercial dog breeders, the spokesperson said they believe the Humane Society’s end goal is to “ban meat production for human consumption.” Obviously, this would start by making sure that dogs are treated and bred humanely. She does cite some legislation that targets meat production, mostly the treatment of the animals (making sure they have space to lie down, etc). However, they have nothing to do with this bill.

You can read the bill here. It basically defines a commercial breeder as anyone who owns at least 15 female dogs of breeding age and 30 or more puppies for the purpose of selling them. It basically states that the dogs have to be in clean conditions, exercised daily and so forth. It established a standard that all breeders would have to adhere to. It also requires the animals to see a veterinarian regularly. It also sets up punishments for commercial breeders who fail to get a license or meet the standards set up by the bill.

The Humane Society estimates that there are roughly 300 puppy mills in the state. I was reminded of this today when I saw the puppies we rescued. Hopefully this legislation passes next year. Regardless of the Pork Council’s perceived threats, we cannot continue to allow people to treat dogs this way.

Until there is legislation you can help to stop puppy mills by not giving them money. Puppy mills often sell to dog stores, so the best way to make sure you’re not supporting them is to adopt from a shelter, get a dog through a rescue league or find a reputable breeder.

Elena Kagan has joined the highest court in the land and with that, for the first time in its 221-year history, three women will serve on the Supreme Court. She joins Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was appointed by President Clinton and Sonia Sotomayor, another Obama appointment.

But I don’t really want to talk about Kagan, her qualifications or the nomination battle she went through. I’m also not really going to talk about what her sitting on the bench could mean for upcoming hearings. She’s a moderate and she’s not really expected to shake things up dramatically. No, no. I’d like to go back to eighth grade civics for this blog entry. I feel like a lot of people don’t understand the third branch of government. They seem to think it’s composed of crazed “activist judges.” For whatever reason, many right-wing politicians (looking at you, Palin) enjoy vilifying the Supreme Court and the judicial branch as a whole. Perhaps it’s because they were put in place to check and balance the power of the other two branches, perhaps it’s because many judges aren’t elected by a popular vote (though many are), who knows. But it’s an important part of our system and I’ll be damned if I’m going to just sit here and let people rip apart the judicial branch!

We should start with the most basic way to understand things. The program that taught you what a conjunction is or how a bill becomes a law…Schoolhouse Rock!

“Balancing the wrongs with your rights…” Thank you, Schoolhouse Rock!

In addition to the Supreme Court, there are circuit courts, courts of appeals and other levels of courts all over the country. After each court’s ruling, you have the right to appeal to a higher and higher court. However, once you present a case before the Supreme Court, that’s it. Game over. As of now, there’s a galactic court or anything that you can appeal to above them.

The court will hear arguments and then give a ruling based on their interpretation of the Constitution. Their are different forms of Constitutional interpretation. Please forgive the wikipedia link, but that actually explains them pretty well.

Think back on many historical landmarks and the chances are good that the Supreme Court or a court on a different level is behind them. That includes the desegregation of public schools, giving women the right to choose what happens to their body, teaching evolution in schools, Title 9, etc. The courts aren’t beholden to the will of the people, like the other two branches, their sole job is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. That’s where accusations of activist judges come into play.

The check on the power of the Supreme Court and other courts is that they’re nominated by elected officials and have to be approved by elected officials. Thus, it’s assumed that no one who radically opposes the will of the people will be nominated or confirmed.

There’s a very serious issue facing judges today and that’s safety. I heard a former appeals judge speak about this many years ago. Many judges face danger for simply doing their job and ruling on a case. There is something called judicial immunity, which states that a judge cannot be sued for their conduct on the bench. There have been movements against judicial immunity. The one this judge was speaking against was a Judicial Accountability Initiative Law for Judges, by a group called J.A.I.L. 4 Judges. The judge I saw said that these kinds of laws simply cannot pass. If they did, it would completely compromise the role of the judiciary. It would impede their ability to rule on cases and interpret the Constitution.

Maybe it’s the robes or the fact that they serve life terms, but a lot of people don’t seem to understand the role of the judiciary. At it’s root, it’s simple. They look at a law or a case, then look at the Constitution and decide if the two things match up. When you hear people talk about activist judges, look at who the judge is, who nominated them and what sort of rulings they tend to hand down. One person’s activist is another person’s conservative.

Congratulations to Elena Kagan on this incredible achievement.

Next Page »