Young Voices
Exchanging ideas from the show and blogging about topics in the news from a range of perspectives.
February 12, 2007
PJ O'Rourke, Donald Trump, and the Conspicuous Absence of Moral Philosophy
by Jeremy Freed
PJ O'Rourke
In his February 5th appearance on the program, P.J. O'Rourke, the bestselling author and economist, made a point about the distribution of wealth in America that needs revisiting. In response to a question about Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, and the persistent inequalities of wealth within a system that purports everyone to be equal, O'Rourke responded,
"First place, don't misunderstand these inequities... it may be bad that somebody is really poor down here in the wake of Katrina, and then there's Donald Trump out here on the golf course. It offends us. But don't think that the Donald Trump money over there was taken from the person... When you're building your business, I may stay poor and you may get rich, but you didn't take that money from me. You made that money. You created that money."
P.J. O'Rourke is a very smart man, a pragmatic thinker, a persuasive writer, and someone whose work I respect immensely. However, I have to question the sturdiness of his example in the face of our times. While it's true that Trump, and the legions of super-rich CEOs for whom he has become a masthead didn't literally steal their fortunes, they did create them under some extremely shady circumstances.
The difference between the average CEO's salary, and the wage paid to that CEO's workforce has reached record highs in recent years, while the federal minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has gone down. To say these things aren't related is to be aggressively naìve of the way our government works, and the way our economy and our society have changed in the last couple of decades. The problem, it seems to me, lies in the present and sweeping absence of moral responsibility.
While Trump and his ilk may have made their money by being savvy businessmen, they did so to the detriment of the growing millions of working poor, like those hardest hit by Katrina, who they actively lobbied to keep that way. There has possibly never been a better time to be rich in America, but with skyrocketing healthcare costs, abysmal public schools, and ever-fewer social programs, being poor seems to be getting harder all the time. I'm pretty sure this wasn't Adam Smith's idea of freedom.
Smith was the founder of capitalist thought, but as O'Rourke points out, he was also a moral philosopher. Call me a cynic, but it's hard to imagine there's much hot debate on moral philosophy going on in the boardrooms of America right now.
February 8, 2007
Cheese Steaks and the Language Barrier
by Rose Capozzi
Geno's Steaks, Philadelphia, PA
Immigration reform has been a major issue in recent months. One of the implications of a large immigrant class, especially one crossing our southern border, is that many many have trouble becoming part of American culture. One fiery Italian American decided to do something about the language divide. Joe Vento, owner of Geno's Steaks, and son of two Italian immigrants, posted a sign in his store window reading "This is AMERICA: WHEN ORDERING SPEAK ENGLISH" As a result, the city of Philadelphia is waging a legal war against Vento for discrimination.
"Speak English" sign
Is Vento really violating a law? Understandably, there are laws in place to protect from discrimination of public accommodations, but is asking customers to communicate in one language a crime? After all, non-English speakers in and of themselves are not a protected class of people under the 14th Amendment. Without encouraging immigrants to learn the majority language in the United States, their assimilation will be prolonged. They will not become fully functional citizens and take part in the national dialogue until they are able to speak and understand the majority language.
Joe Vento was having a communication problem and since the state was unwilling to do something about it, he took matters into his own hands. And though his method may have been blunt, forcing assimilation might make American society more cohesive.
February 27, 2007
Barak and Blackness: Who Cares?
by Victor Marsh
“...black voters do not just vote for the blackest candidate...”
News media are in a frenzied debate about Candidate Barak Obama's blackness. There are two basic positions.
First, some blame the media for making him less authentically Black. They focus on how Obama is different from the so-called typical Black person. The press about his Harvard accomplishments, education in foreign countries, and mixed racial background all make him an all-American superstar in the vein of Tiger Woods. Some say that anyone who Whites love unconditionally will lose some points in Black communities.
Second, some take a more Pan-Africanist stance - saying that all descendants from Africa have experienced racism in the world and should be united. In that view, Barak is certainly Black (Marjorie) and deserves to be welcomed as a member of the community. There is even an online petition expressing such a community welcome, which I considered signing myself, but in the end decided against because it just does not matter.
This Black identity debate is basically a discussion of the ivory tower intellectuals (like yours truly). The only reason we have to suffer through such meaningless debate is that the campaign season has started too early. We have a full two years with nothing to say, meanwhile we crave some election news-drama 24 hours a day.
At the end of the day, I just do not think that this debate about Obama's black-authenticity matters to voters - even Blacks. Black voters do not just vote for the blackest candidate.
February 27, 2007
The Oscars: Green and Gore-y
by Victor Marsh
Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio at the 79th Annual Academy Awards
The Academy Awards always feature some kind of political statement. This time it was more overt than ever: the Oscars are "green," and Hollywood loves Al Gore.
The greens - a movement friendly to the environment - have gained a lot more favorable publicity these days through Al Gore's movie presentation on global warming: An Inconvenient Truth. The movie is stunning. It made climate change a much more urgent issue to me. I began unplugging my computer at night to save a little energy, since I know my energy comes from a coal-burning and air-polluting plant.
Some have said that Al Gore is planning to run for President. Though he would probably make a great President, it would be a shame if he ran - because it would automatically make his important film look like it was just a campaign stump speech.
Al, for the sake of God's green Earth, do not run for president - no matter what the Hollywood stars say.
February 1, 2007
Injustice or iPods?
by Victor Marsh
“...behind bars half his life and CNN talks technology...”
CNN Can Make Georgia Reform Witness Rules
Willie O. "Pete" Williams was jailed in Georgia for 21 years for a crime that DNA evidence now shows he did not commit. So let's talk about how to prevent Pete's tragedy of Georgian justice from happening again. No, on second thought, I have a better idea, let's follow CNN's example and talk instead about how hard it is for Pete to use an iPod.
Focusing on the so-called human-interest story may make us smile, but fixing Georgian justice will make our children proud. Journalists should spend less time talking about Pete's technological travails and more time focusing on the practical fixes that will make Pete's case rare in the future.
CNN's formula for delivering the soft side of Pete's tragedy was simple, heart-warming and wrong-headed.
First - show Pete's beaming face for 20 seconds, while a newscaster tells the basic facts: that a man in Georgia has spent half of his life behind bars for a crime he did not commit.
Second - for only 10 seconds, mention the dedicated people of the Georgia Innocence Project who helped release him.
Finally - talk with Pete about his fear of even touching all the new fangled technology around him for 60 seconds.
The problem of wrongful conviction by mistaken witness testimony, prosecutors' misconduct and defense lawyer incompetence is a serious problem in our national justice system - especially in death row cases. Not only has the number of documented cases of innocent people on death row increased, but there is also a significant racial gap.
Eyewitness testimony from a witness who was certain Pete was the assailant did him in for 20 years. CNN could have told you how we can stop Pete's tragedy from being repeated. CNN failed, but you care enough to find out. Something can be done to address these fundamental inequities by focusing on improving how we screen eyewitness testimony.
Psychologists have offered some practical recommendations about how to improve the reliability of witness testimony, to take away the biases that lead to Pete's loss (or at least make them obvious enough that we can reject bad testimony).
For example, research has shown that presenting suspects in a one-by-one sequence approach actually avoids the psychological biases caused when traditional lineup forces suspects to stand side-by-side.
Furthermore, when police ask innocent-sounding follow-up questions to eyewitnesses, that can lead the witness to be overly confident in their selection of a suspect. In a related type of bias, when police interrogation tapes are shown with the officer's back to the camera - that focuses a jury's attention on the face of the suspect with unequal examination of how police detectives are acting in the interrogation room.
In Pete's home state, State Representative Stephanie Stuckey-Benfield brought up this issue last year, and gained bi-partisan committee approval to create State standards for police taking witness testimony. It never got a hearing in the full House. This year, after Pete's release from prison, Representative Benfield's small and determined State House coalition has new steam, to which we may all lend a hand by putting pressure on the chief obstructionists of their efforts.
CNN, you should ask Georgia House of Representatives Speaker Glen Richardson why he is blocking efforts to improve justice in Georgia. The crimson stain of racial bigotry still scars his state's courts, but simple steps to cleanse it cannot even be heard. The practical steps suggested by psychologists, and endorsed by the US Dept of Justice a few years ago at least deserve a serious hearing in the media and the Georgia House. Georgia needs all of our help to ensure that Pete's story is not one of iPods or permanent injustice, but of the spark that set Georgia's and America's justice systems moving closer to our goal of Equality Under Law.
Today, Georgia Speaker Richardson will hear from me, will he hear from you?
February 15, 2007
Seeing Green
by Rose Capozzi
Richard Branson
Regardless of whether you agree that global warming exists or if you remain skeptical, one thing is certain. Money motivates. Virgin Group Chairman and British tycoon Sir Richard Branson realized this and decided to offer a $25 million dollar prize to the first scientist who develops a way to remove carbon dioxide from the air. This kind of philanthropy harkens backs to the days of Andrew Carnegie, when the robber barons (to whom we can probably attribute some of the greenhouse gases), went out of their way to leave their own positive marks on society.
At the very least, if greenhouse gases are responsible for global climate change, this offer could be very good news for our planet. And if it is not, then Mr. Branson, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet are proving that money isn't the only legacy worth leaving to their children.
February 12, 2007
Amateur Historians Surge to Iraq
by Victor Marsh
“It is true that today...is not the first...time where Sunni groups and Shiia groups have clashed. It is false that this result today was unavoidable...”
"Throughout history..."
If an argument begins with these words, then ready your salt-shakers. Last week the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Iraq war. At those hearings and in other forums, many are now saying that chances were always slim to bring stability and democracy to Iraq because throughout history Shia and Sunnis have fought each other to the death. The list of people who have told this version of events includes Sentors, think tank experts and military officials.
It is true that today's Baghdad is not the first place and time where Sunni groups and Shiia groups have clashed. It is false that this result today was unavoidable, or destined to happen because of invincible forces of history. That description misses the mark and passes the buck.
If you believe the "throughout history" crowd then you may breath a sigh of relief. Instead of blaming US foreign policy, we blame history itself. Not the President, not Bremer, not Rumsfeld, not Sanchez. One could hardly expect these gentlemen to have a reasonable chance at turning history's course on a dime. Islam had its schism after Mohommad's death in 632 based on a political struggle to determine who should succeed The Prophet. Current day policy-makers seem to be puny in comparison to the mighty trends of this history unleashed by that struggle.
There are still other scapegoats latent in the "throughout history" argument: the colonizers. European colonialism created nonsensical countries that put together diverse groups who have been clashing with each other ever since their countries were created. The Balkans, Rwanda, and now Iraq can be explained by this argument. If only the colonizers had kept ethnic groups seperated in their own countries (of course there would have to be hundreds more of them), then things would be more peaceful in Iraq and everywhere today.
Unfortunately these sighs of relief would be shaken by the work of modern sociologists and political scientists who have challenged this old notion that people go to war simply because their great-grand forefathers clashed, or just because European map-makers failed to color within existing ethnic lines. Paul Collier of Cambridge and countless other scholars instead have found that institutions and politics of today matter more than simply what box you checked in your local census.
The question is timing. The institutions and politics arguments successfully explain all the cases mentioned - Bosnia, Rwanda and now Iraq - to explain why things happened when they happened.
In Bosnia, why were Bosnia's three main groups sharing mixed neighborhoods and living without war until the 1980s? It turns out that the crumbling of a communist dictatorship plus the rise of violent nation-expanders like Slobodan Milosevic had a lot to do with why war occurred when it did. Does it make sense to blame the old Ottoman Empire or Woodrow Wilson for the wars that ensnared Bosnia in 1990s?
In Rwanda, certainly a strong case has been made by many scholars that the Belgians established a terrible caste system between Hutus and Tutsis. But, when the "Hutu Power" groups began calling for the people to rise up and behead the Tutsi minority, the UN peacekeepers were reluctant to stop them and French foreign policy was tacitly supporting them.
If the US had marched into Iraq with 300,000 troops and declared marshall law from the outset, then things would have been different. If the Coalition Provisional Authority led by Ambassador Bremer had not given instant pink slips to the whole Iraqi army, then things would have been different. If reconstruction programs had begun immediately to employ the Iraqi labor force using local engineers and muscle power to rebuild the country, then things would have been different.
These "lessons learned" from stability operations in other lands at other times could have been applied in Iraq, but were not.
Tension in Iraq was inevitable, but the current level of violence in Baghdad was not. Recall that it is a recent phenomenon. Saddam's rule set the stage for potential conflicts over resources and clashes of Sunni and Shiia as latter majority took over the reigns from a minority-led dictatorship. But no matter what the stage set by history, today's decision-makers are the actors who could have written a better script and played their roles more truly.
In Iraq, the ensuing difficulties were not, and should not be representaed as simply the fault of Iraqis and their history. It was out policy in the past that brought us here - and it is our next policies that will determine whether Iraq has a better future.
February 3, 2007
Sticks and Stones
by Rose Capozzi
“....when Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) resigned from her seat in the Hispanic Caucus last week because of name calling and bickering, women took a step back in their fight for political equality.
”
The “good old boys” system in Washington, DC has made it difficult for women elected to office to carry out their political agendas. But on the first day of the 110th Congress, women made history with the swearing in of Speaker Pelosi and the election of a record 74 women. Without a doubt, gender discrimination is a very real issue, one that warrants investigation and action when appropriate. But when Representative Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) resigned from her seat in the Hispanic Caucus last week because of name calling and bickering, women took a step back in their fight for political equality.
The bickering began when Representative Joe Baca, also a Democrat from California, ran for Chairman of the Caucus. Of the six women on the Caucus, four abstained from voting in protest of perceived disrespect. This called into question the legitimacy of the election, because not all members cast a vote.
Problems escalated when Sanchez and other members broke away from the campaign finance arm of the Caucus after it backed the unsuccessful bids of Baca’s two sons for the California legislature. Finally, on January 31st Sanchez officially resigned from the Caucus amidst rumors that Baca called her a “whore” behind her back to other legislators. Sanchez maintains that she resigned because of alleged election rules violations.
As a leader and role model for young women and girls hoping to break through the glass ceiling, Sanchez’ resignation sends out the wrong message. Loretta Sanchez is acting like she should be protected from the “bad boys” on the Caucus. However, most women do not want to be treated like porcelain dolls. Brazen insults like those experienced by the women on the Hispanic Caucus are calculated to force poor little girls out of the "clubhouse." It is during those trying times that it is most important not to give in. If women are unable to show that they can take the heat in Caucus, how can they legitimately say they can handle the fire of being leaders of a nation under constant scrutiny?
Subscribe to RSS Feed
E-mail a friend