Tag Archives: advocacy

John Grisham: Advocating Change via Great Storytelling

I admit it. I’m a John Grisham fan. Ever since I read The Firm in 1991, I’ve read every one of his law-related novels, and I’ve relished reading all of them.

As a writer, I admire his highly readable writing style and the way his stories—filled with twists and turns–engage readers like me. As an erstwhile lawyer (like Grisham), I’m also in awe of his ability to skillfully weave legal issues into his stories.

Grisham’s latest, Rogue Lawyer, appeared last year, and I just finished reading it. What’s new in this novel is his protagonist, Sebastian Rudd, an extremely unconventional criminal defense lawyer who carries a gun and works out of a bulletproof van. Rudd, whose only friend is a burly paralegal/bodyguard, represents defendants other lawyers won’t. His encounters with a diverse group of atypical clients make up the gripping story lines that intersect in Rogue Lawyer.

What I found especially notable in this novel is Grisham’s focus on several significant issues that currently get some attention—but not nearly enough–in our current political and social climate.

Briefly summarized, here are some of the major issues Grisham highlights in Rogue Lawyer:

  • The corruption of our criminal justice system by some of the prosecutors, police officers, and judges who work within that system. Grisham focuses, for example, on what he sees as the rampant use of lies in court testimony by police and prosecutors. These lies, he makes clear, are aimed at convicting criminal defendants, fairly or not. Grisham unabashedly condemns the wrongful convictions that often result. As lawyer Rudd says at one point, “Getting a conviction is far more important [to these people] than justice.”
  • The use of phony “expert” witnesses in our courts. These witnesses are hired by lawyers to say what the lawyers want them to say. They “roam the country as hired guns testifying for fat fees.” Unfortunately, juries are usually impressed by these experts’ credentials and willing to take their testimony at face value, whether it‘s merited or not. Grisham writes that these experts brag about “their verdicts” (but rarely mention their “losses”).
  •  Human trafficking, which Grisham correctly calls “sexual slavery.” He points out, via one of his characters, that “[m]ost people in this country don’t believe there’s sex trafficking in their cities, but it’s there. It’s everywhere.” The traffickers “prey on runaways, homeless kids, girls from bad families looking for escape. It’s a sick business.” Fortunately, this issue is receiving increased attention. In San Francisco, a collaborative effort is taking aim at human trafficking, mounting an “awareness campaign” focused on reaching vulnerable teens.
  • The incarceration of one million “young black men now warehoused in decaying prisons, idling away the days at taxpayer expense,” the “unintended victims of tough laws passed by tough politicians over the past forty years,” mostly for nonviolent drug offenses. This is another issue that’s garnered more attention in the last few years, giving us some hope for change.

I commend John Grisham for shining light on these issues. His status as a best-selling author gives him a bully pulpit of sorts, a platform for raising the awareness of his readers. He told CBS News in October that he hopes Sebastian Rudd will reappear in more stories, exploring these and other issues he’s concerned about. He’d even like to see Rudd become the lead in a TV series whose episodes could touch on a wide range of important issues.

I hope that happens. And I hope that, via his storytelling, John Grisham’s focus on these kinds of issues has a broad impact on the public consciousness and leads to changes we sorely need.

What Women Need to Do

The fall midterm elections are approaching. What are you doing about it?

If you’re a man, you may be thinking about the candidates and their positions on the issues. The outcome may have some bearing on your future, but it most likely won’t have a huge impact on your daily life.

If you’re a woman, the outcome is much more important, and you should be paying a lot of attention to what the candidates are saying. You should scrutinize their rhetoric and try to determine whether their conduct aligns with their words. And once you discover which candidates stand for the positions you endorse, you should get behind those candidates and give them your support.

Unfortunately, I question how many women follow this route. Polls show that women tend to support the positions endorsed by most Democratic rather than Republican candidates and incumbents. Politico magazine recently reported that two major Republican groups have jointly issued a detailed report concluding that women view the GOP as “intolerant” and “stuck in the past” and that women are “barely receptive” to Republican policies. But how many women reach for their wallets to lend financial support to Democratic or independent candidates? How many are willing to give up one or two days this fall to work on behalf of the candidates they prefer? And most important: How many women will turn up at the polls to vote for these candidates in November?

The truth is that many women focus more on superficial concerns like their appearance and their apparel than on their ability to impact who will make the decisions that affect their daily lives and the lives of their families. They may be unhappy about earning less money than a man doing the same job. But have they urged members of Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act? They may be concerned about losing their right to a potentially needed abortion. But are they supporting candidates who consistently support that right? They may be aware that many of the world’s children, including American children, are going hungry, or that two-thirds of minimum-wage earners in the U.S. are women. But what are they doing about it?

Where Democrats are in the majority, there’s hope for change. Governor Jerry Brown just signed legislation requiring that most California employers give their workers three paid sick days a year. This will allow the 40 percent of the workforce who have never had paid sick leave a chance to stay home when they or their children are sick. Businesses fought this legislation tooth and nail, but the Democratic-majority state legislature passed the bill later signed by a Democratic governor. This demonstrates how candidates who advocate women-friendly outcomes can make a real difference.

Let’s be honest. Many women can afford to give financial support—in the form of cold hard cash—to candidates who stand for the positions important to them. But are they? I’m constantly reminded that women spend large sums of money on frivolous items instead. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that women are spending thousands of dollars on trendy handbags made of fur. Even the Journal conceded that a fur handbag costing from $1,150 for a clutch to $6,500 for a tote is a “let-them-eat-cake extravagance,” but it noted that designers are competing to outdo each other, and stores are stocked with furry bags from Valentino, Burberry, and Fendi. “Let them eat cake” also applies elsewhere in the fashion industry, where the Journal noted that “fashion brands” report “their most expensive products sell out first.”

A brand-new brochure featuring “hot” items from Bloomingdale’s included an ordinary-looking Salvatore Ferragamo leather handbag for $2,950. Even Nordstrom, a somewhat less indulgent source for women’s apparel and accessories, highlighted items like these in a recent catalog: a wool/rayon cardigan sweater for $995 (the matching tee is $295); a wool/leather/rayon jacket for $1,495; and a status-brand tote bag for $625.

Last month the San Francisco Chronicle featured a new nail “lacquer” from Christian Louboutin costing $50 (at $50 a pop, it’s no longer just plain nail polish). According to the Chronicle, the polish “floats in a faceted bottle” meant to resemble “a drop of color encased in a block of crystal.” Seriously?

Instead of buying expensive and unnecessary items like these, women should consider donating money to political candidates who deserve their support–candidates and incumbents who support women on the issues that matter to them. They should be aware that, as the Chronicle reported earlier this year, enormous sums of money are flowing from hedge funds and big corporations to GOP candidates. Because these donors don’t look out for women’s interests, it’s crucial that women attempt to counter their influence.

How about putting money to use other ways? Women who can afford it should also consider supporting charitable causes they want to foster. Entities working towards a healthier environment, for example, or those seeking funds for medical research. Charities that provide food to the hungry both here and abroad, or those that help women establish small businesses so they can provide for their families without being dependent on others.

Do you remember Anita Hill? If you were old enough to watch the 1991 Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Clarence Thomas to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, you remember Anita Hill. She gave dramatic testimony before the Senate committee, bravely describing Thomas’s sexual harassment when she worked for him at the EEOC. Hill’s credibility was attacked and her testimony disparaged by members of the all-male committee (the entire Senate included only two women at the time). Thomas assumed a seat on the Court, where he has served without distinction.

Hill, who’s now a professor at Brandeis University, recently visited San Francisco, speaking to a group called Equal Rights Advocates, and I was in the audience. She wanted everyone to know she didn’t regret coming forward to testify about Thomas because of the positive change that happened after she testified. It was vital to her to reveal how he, like many male employers, treated women in the workplace. She also spoke up because she believed in the integrity of the Supreme Court.

“The political effort to silence us” didn’t work, she said. Her testimony in fact led to increased awareness of sexual harassment and a spike in the number of women running for–and winning–public office. Hill made clear that she continues to work to effect change for girls and women. She concluded by encouraging women to be more courageous, to work for change, and to vote. As she noted, voting is especially important in determining who sits on the Supreme Court.

So what do women need to do? Above all, TO VOTE. Some pundits are predicting that GOP voters will come out to the polls this November while Democrats will not. Dan Balz just wrote in the Washington Post that even though the “national mood” favors the Republicans, and Democrats historically don’t turn out for midterm elections, many races are too close to call, and it’s too early to predict exactly what will happen.

Women must change history this fall. Even if they choose to buy $50 nail polish and splurge on tote bags costing more than minimum-wage workers earn in a week, even if they do nothing else to support women-friendly candidates, they must go to the polls in November and vote for those candidates who support women’s interests.

That’s what women need to do.

Quote

Audrey Hepburn and Me

I never thought I had a single thing in common with Audrey Hepburn.  She was tall and decidedly slim.  I’m short and, uh, not exactly slim.  She was a brunette with enormous brown eyes.  I’m a redhead with almond-shaped but not-so-enormous hazel eyes.  She was a famed film star who won an Oscar at 24 (for 1953’s Roman Holiday) while my adolescent dreams of becoming an actress never became reality.

So I never saw myself as having anything in common with this glamorous star of the ’50s and ’60s.  But a quick glance at a recent magazine article has convinced me that I have a few things in common with Audrey after all.

The article, appearing in the May issue of Vanity Fair, is based on a new book, Audrey in Rome, written by her younger son, Luca Dotti.  Luca lived with Audrey in Rome from the time of his birth in 1970 until she left for Switzerland (and he went off to a Swiss boarding school) in 1986.  As the magazine cover proclaims, in his book he recalls “the secrets of her iconic style.”

What were some of these secrets?  Well, for one thing, she was “fond of kerchiefs tied under the chin (not wound around and fastened in back in the French manner).”  Her love of sous-chin kerchiefs is apparent in a 1970 photo showing Audrey in a fabulous Givenchy coat and a scarf tied under her chin.

According to Luca, Audrey’s scarves were “a bit of a vice.”  Although she wasn’t “like Imelda Marcos and shoes,” she had “maybe 30 or 40” scarves.  In Rome, she often wore them along with big sunglasses as a disguise, enabling her “to do her shopping without having…crowds” following her.

This is one style-revelation I share with Audrey Hepburn.  My love of scarves, like hers, could be called a vice, but in view of the small amount of space they occupy and the small sums of money they cost, they’re a pretty harmless one.  I have a colorful collection in every possible fabric, suitable for every season, some bestowed on me as charming gifts, others purchased by me in a weak moment.

I admit I’ve never had crowds following me.  But I wear scarves (usually tied under my chin) for my own reasons.  In chilly weather, they keep my head warm.  On warmer days, they shield my curly hair from humidity and wind.

Childhood photos taken by my father show me, like Audrey, wearing scarves tied beneath my chin.  Ever since then, I’ve worn scarves no matter where I’ve made my home—from Chicago to Boston to Los Angeles.  Now, living in breezy San Francisco, I almost never leave home without a scarf in my jacket pocket, prepared to withstand whatever breezes the ocean blows my way.

Some have ridiculed my penchant for wearing scarves.  A friend once muttered that I liked to wear “babushkas.”  That hurt.  But now I can point to Audrey Hepburn as a scarf-loving style icon who, like me, wore scarves tied beneath her chin.

Another secret revealed by Luca is Audrey’s choice of footwear.  Generally basing her style choices on “simplicity and practicality,” she preferred to wear ballerina flats and low heels.  Vanity Fair claims that she wore them partly to accentuate her long feet, “adding to her elegant attenuation.”  (Huh?  Do you know any women with long feet who want to accentuate them?)  But even VF admits the far more likely reason:  she wore them so she “could walk comfortably.”

So here’s another preference I share with Audrey.  Long ago I gave up wearing high heels.  Like Audrey, I like to stride purposefully through the city, and wearing anything but low heels makes that impossible.  Every day I see women struggling with high heels that inhibit their freedom to move through life with ease.  I ache to tell them to forgo those high heels, and like Audrey and me, walk comfortably and safely wherever they go.

[Please note:  I’ve written another post on this blog, “High Heels Are Killers,” explaining at greater length my opinion of high heels.]

If truth be told, when I was younger, I wasn’t a big fan of Audrey Hepburn.  Maybe it was the way Hollywood portrayed her that was to blame.  After Roman Holiday (in which she fell in love with reasonably age-appropriate Gregory Peck), she was paired with male leads who were far too old for her.  At 28 she was supposedly smitten by Gary Cooper, then 56 (and looking even older), in Love in the Afternoon and by 58-year-old Fred Astaire in Funny Face.  I found these pairings simply baffling.  Why would radiant young Audrey fall for men twice her age?  At the time, I was unaware of the way Hollywood worked back then.  It’s clear to me now that she was complying with the demands of the movie moguls who dictated most of the roles she played.

No wonder she confided to friends that her favorite role was that of the nun in The Nun’s Story.  No superannuated men were slobbering over her in that role!

My view of Audrey Hepburn evolved as I learned more about her.  In her later years, she became an activist on behalf of UNICEF, traveling to more than 20 countries around the globe to advocate for the world’s most vulnerable children.  Her advocacy has endeared her to me, a fellow advocate for the underprivileged.

Moreover, during those years, she openly chose to welcome growing older.  Luca remembers that she “was always a little bit surprised by the efforts women made to look young.”  By contrast, “she was actually very happy about growing older because it meant more time for herself, more time for her family, and separation from the frenzy of youth and beauty that is Hollywood.”  She saw aging as part of the circle of life.

Audrey liked to say that “true beauty in a woman is reflected in her soul. It’s the caring that she lovingly gives, the passion that she shows. The beauty of a woman only grows with passing years.”

Some may remember Audrey Hepburn as a stunning style icon, but in my view, she should be remembered for much, much more.