You and the Future of American
Cars
The
topic for January concerns the bail-out/ bridge loans/ structured bankruptcy
suggestions for keeping American car companies (and their suppliers and
agencies) in business. I will be sending you the views of politicians
and pundits. As they come to you, you can respond with your vote.
Which views do you prefer?
In
addition, we are seeing that Asian car manufacturers such as Toyota have
suddenly begun to lose money for the first time in decades. November
sales for Toyota were down 34% compared to GM's decline of 41%. The foreign
companies are well managed and have a non union work force but are in
trouble too. Last night I learned that Toyota has a job bank for its
employees (something that drives GM critics wild) both here and in
Japan. When there is no work, they are carried by the company and come
in to receive training, visit the work floor to offer suggestions!
Toyota did not expect their decline in sales. One of their execs
thought that the recession would just be "a sneeze" for them.
When
do you intend to buy a new car? Under what circumstances will it be a Ford,
Chrysler or GM product?
If
you now drive a car from a foreign company, tell us why.
Note
on my choice of articles: I'm trying for a range of the political spectrum
and will use mainstream press. The first two will be from the Governor
of Michigan and the Senator from Tennessee. Who gets your vote?
Merry
Christmas and Happy New Year. Get away from it all and solve the
American auto industry problem at you computer.
January
Discussion - 2009
In the interest of split
government...
Many of us
prefer having one political party in the White House and the other having a
majority in Congress.
Short of waiting for the Democrats to self-destruct, how might the
Republican Party be rebuilt?
The
following article by David Broder is provided to help get us started.
Election
should guide GOP's future
(11/16/08)
December Discussion - 2008
Changing
Concepts of Privacy.
There has always been some tension between personal privacy and the
interests of society. The Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision rests
on a supposed Constitutional right to privacy but remains controversial.
Technology has opened whole new battlefields and forced us to make new
tradeoffs. Facebook and You Tube have made private information and moments.
The Internet gives anyone instant online access to public records that used
to require some expertise and time spent searching in archives. Video
monitoring of public places is increasing. Cell phones broadcast your
whereabouts. GPS units track your movements. Credit card
information databases are vulnerable to loss and theft in wholesale
quantities. Businesses are able to track our travel and purchases in
detail. The government is now able to monitor communications on a much
more massive scale.
The following two articles provide a recent example where giving up personal
privacy can provide vast benefit to society:
Harvard
professor's project prompts research participants to post personal genome on
Internet
(10/20/08)
A
molecular full monty
(10/25-26/08)
November Discussion - 2008
The
Discussing Differences Online (DDO) topic for October 2008 is the financial
crisis
Some
of our mightiest financial institutions have collapsed. In
addition the number of home mortgage foreclosures across America continues
to rise with no end in sight. Today people in all walks of life
are finding it difficult to access credit as doubt is cast on the value of
collateral assets. Erstwhile lenders simply don't want to make
new loans because they're afraid they won't get their money back.
Therefore
last week the Treasury Department asked the U.S. Congress to authorize $700
billion to be committed over time to reduce risk and restore confidence in
the system. The House of Representatives responded "No"
on September 29. The plan will be revised and reconsidered at
the end of the week. The world waits.
Suggestions
for discussion:
What
brought this on?
Floyd Norris wrote in a recent
New York Times piece: "Already, liberals are blaming the de-regulation
that began under Ronald Reagan for letting a financial system get out
of control, and conservatives are pointing to market interventions by
liberals — notably efforts to assure mortgage loans for the poor and
minorities — as being the root cause of the mess. Conservatives are
also pointing to accounting rules, which forced banks to write down the
value of their loans, and to excesses by Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage enterprises that have since been
nationalized, whose troubles they have tried to tie to Democrats."
Does
the current crisis indicate we need to find a better way to handle our
social and political differences?
The
Political nature of the Economic Crisis (9/30/08)
John McCain's Choice
It is September, and the topic for the month on
our online discussion group, Discussing Differences, is ripped from the
headlines: John McCain's surprise choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin in a
plot twist never dared by "Northern Exposure."
Questions participants might want to address might include:
Why did he make this unusual selection?
What benefits did he see for his campaign? Will she in fact aid or
hurt his candidacy? What does the decision say about McCain or about
his view of the contest? What new problems or opportunities does the
selection pose for the Democratic ticket? What does the selection say
about the American system of selecting its top leaders?
September
Discussion - 2008
Assets & Positive Trends
- 2008/9
Disregarding Republicans and
Democrats, Greens and Libertarians; forgetting even the candidates for
president for the moment, what will a new US Administration have going for
it (and us) in 2009?
Wise souls are advising us
not to focus on what's wrong; to get out of our "funk" and get on
with our business. After all, there is no recovery for the world
economy without one in the US. There are few prospects of peace and
stability without the US playing a role.
Using the Assets Approach to
community development, what are the ASSETS a new administration will have to
work with from 2009? What are the POSITIVE TRENDS with which to
maintain momentum?
What's good about the US and
the World in 2008-9?
Unhappy
America (7/24/08)
Life Is Good, So Why Do We Feel So Bad?
(6/15/08)
August
Discussion - 2008
Gun Ownership and Control
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision struck down the District of Columbia ban on the possession of hand guns. The rationale for this action was based on the majority opinion that protection under the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well as groups.
The 'syllabus,' or preface, to the majority opinion of the Court reads in part: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home...the Amendment's prefatory clause announces purpose but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms."
For the full text of the Court decision, including the dissent, go to: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
QUESTIONS --
1. All things considered was this a wise thing for the Court to do? What are some possible consequences?
2. Does the ruling represent a fair and sound interpretation of the Second Amendment and other Constitutional principles?
Or is it an example of judicial activism?
3. Is this Supreme Court ruling likely to change the behavior--one way or another--of people who use
firearms to commit crimes and those who use firearms for self defense?
4. Why are positions on gun control so often spelled out along conservative/liberal lines? What is there about this subject
that raises the hackles of so many Americans?
July
Discussion - 2008
The Rise
of the Rest
Adapted
from Fareed Zakaria’s new book The Post-American World, the following
appeared in Newsweek Magazine.
The Rise of the Rest
(5/12/08)
Does the world still need leadership from the
US
? Does the
US
wish to, or can it, lead in a Post-American World?
June Discussion - 2008
Do animals have rights?
Human beings have always
regulated the way we treat non-human life forms. This task is embedded in
the customs and traditions of every society and often includes the use of
codified legal systems.
Most of us are familiar with
the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Are
there similar principles that should be applied to our relationships with
animals? Is it important to make distinctions between
animals that are wild, those that are domesticated, and those of value to
researchers working in the medical sciences? Are there
things we may do to mosquitos, rats, pigeons, and beef cattle that we must
never be allowed to do to dogs, cats, fur seals, and chimpanzees?
The English philosopher Jeremy
Bentham, an animal lover, argued that rights come and go according to
changes in government policies. He thought the idea of universal
rights grounded in nature was "nonsense upon stilts."
For a very different perspective on this issue visit the website of
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA).
May Discussion - 2008
Religion and Politics
Since religion and politics are obviously entangled, in the United States, in Europe (Muslim vs. secular Christian), in
Darfur (Muslim north vs. Christian/animist south), and in the middle east;
1) How do secular intellectuals (western-educated euro-Americans) learn to live in this world.
2) What is the proper role for religion in politics, and how do we learn to live in a world where we must recognize that politics, economics, religion are intermixed.How
Far
April
Discussion - 2008
Should the "Gene Police" be allowed to go?
According to the Wall Street
Journal article appended below, Britain is way ahead (ahead?) of other
countries in exploitation of genetics technology for crime-solving.
They are also allowing the police to use such techniques as taking DNA
from every person arrested for anything (as we take fingerprints), keeping the
records forever, and "familiar searching", which means using the DNA
data to find close relatives of a possible suspect (or even someone who is not
a suspect yet) who can, without even knowing it, point to the perp of a major
crime. Some spectacular successes have been achieved. The end of
the article indicates there are technical uncertainties which might make some
evidence inadmissible in countries with more picky courts, such as
the USA. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that in 10 or 15
years, these technical problems will have been overcome.
The Gene Police
(2/23/08)
-- Does using DNA to find
that a culprit is, say, Indian present any more of a civil liberties issue
than a victim's saying the assailant was red-haired?
-- Could we trust the data
system to keep secret some data on us that could lead to, for example, higher
insurance rates or that could even disclose to us information that we may not
wish to know, such as paternity or high probability of coming down with a
dread disease in the future?
-- Talking to family members
without disclosing the reasons is a common and accepted law enforcement
practice. Applying DNA data to "familial searching" may sound
like dirty pool, but does it really present any new issues?
-- It sounds like in the
future DNA technology may help provide an excellent assist to finding
perpetrators of major crimes with much less probability of false positives
than even eyewitness identification. Doesn't the public good require
that its development should be pushed aggressively?
March
Discussion - 2008
Elections (2)
What ISSUES/POSITIONS and what QUALITIES/QUALIFICATIONS are most important to you in making your choice for president. Do you see any candidate who meets your criteria? Are you committed to one party, or would any particular combination of nominees for the two parties cause you to cross over to vote? Independent of your own preferences, what is your PREDICTION of how the race will go from here?
February
Discussion - 2008
Elections
A very small number of people in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are going to have a very big voice in framing the 2008 presidential
election in the US. Is that fair and reasonable?
Should voting in national and/or state elections be mandatory for all citizens? Would the quality of civic life in our society improve if casting a vote, like the payment of income taxes, were an obligation under law that had to be
fulfilled?
January
Discussion - 2008
A few good people: Individuals
with grit can -- and do -- change history
A
few good people (11/30/07)
Please comment on Victor Davis Hanson's premise:
"a few brave individuals can--and do--change history."
Those who say 'yes' can please offer examples. Those
who say 'no' please explain what makes the world change without
deliberate turning point actions on the part of human beings.
How well do the three examples Hanson gives
support his premise?
December
Discussion - 2007
University Ethics
The following is
extracted from a Wall Street Journal article by Paul Berkowitz of the
Hoover Institution and George Mason University. Ethics
101
(10/8/07) asks whether, in light of the recent cases of Duke University and
their lacrosse players and the University of California Board of
Regents' withdrawal of the invitation for Lawrence Somers to speak,
colleges and universities are doing enough to examine their own ethics.
Berkowitz thinks
not.
"What
explains the neglect by our leading university ethics programs of a vital topic
that so plainly falls under their purview? The major cause is probably routine
thoughtlessness: Surrounded by like-minded souls and therefore protected from
questions that might rock the boat, and from research projects that might call
for scholarly retooling, it may never occur to many ethics professors that, no
less than law, medicine, business and journalism, their profession too is worthy
of systematic scrutiny."
Perhaps our answers to
Berkowitz' questions (below) will shed more light on this important
subject.
Is it proper for university disciplinary boards, often composed of faculty and administrators with no special knowledge of the law, to investigate student accusations of sexual assault by fellow students, which involve crimes for which perpetrators can go to jail for decades?
Should universities have one set of rules and punishments for students who plagiarize or pay others to write their term papers, and another -- and lesser -- set for professors who plagiarize or pay others to write their articles and books, or should students and faculty be held to the same tough standards of intellectual integrity?
How can universities respect both professors' academic freedom and students' right to be instructed in the diversity of opinions?
What is the proper balance in hiring, promotion, and tenure decisions between the need for transparency and accountability and the need for confidentiality?
What institutional arrangements give university trustees adequate independence from the administrators they review?
Is it consistent with their mission for university presses to publish books whose facts and footnotes they do not check?
In accordance with what principles may a university bar ROTC from campus because of the military's "don't ask, don't tell policy" concerning homosexuals, while inviting to campus a foreign leader whose country not only punishes private consensual homosexual sex but is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, and who himself denies the Holocaust and threatens to obliterate the sovereign state of Israel?
By exploring these and myriad other issues, our ethics programs would do more than fulfill their mandate. They would also vindicate liberal education by demonstrating the premium academicians place on ensuring that their own practice conforms to the proper principles.
November
Discussion - 2007
Elitism in elite
colleges.
The following op-ed piece appeared in the New York Times on September
24. It is by Jerome Karabel, author of a book on the preponderance
of the well-off and well-educated in admissions to prestigious
Ivy League colleges. In this column he proposes that a small
percentage (5-10%) of each class be selected by lottery.
Separately, there has been attention to the somewhat parallel phenomenon
that immigrant blacks (or blacks from immigrant families) are
overrepresented in college admissions, as compared with
"American" blacks. A key variable in admissions of
blacks in the institutions examined was whether the applicant's father
had an advanced degree.
Question for discussion: Is it bad that the rich and well-educated
dominate admissions to these prestigious places and that the poor and
less well-educated get very short shrift? Are selection criteria
skewed to the disadvantage of lower-class applicants with high potential
for success in college? Would the lottery idea constitute an
improvement? Would it provide, as Karabel suggests, a useful
controlled experiment in the value of current selection criteria?
Are elite blacks of immigrant origins displacing
"African-Americans" and undermining the goals of affirmative
action? Are any other issues or remedies available for these phenomena?
The
New College Try
(9/24/07)
October Discussion - 2007
Criminals and victims; rights and justice; individuals and society
Philip Lawrence, a popular school master with 4 small sons, was
stabbed to death while trying to protect one of his pupils from
attack. The attacker, Learco Chindamo, was a 15 year old immigrant
from Italy, the son of an Italian father and a Filipina mother who moved
to Britain for a better life. Chindamo is nearing the end of an 11
year sentence and has appealed to be extradited in England.
The Home Office wants to extradite him to Italy, but the Asylum and
Immigrants Tribunal has ruled that he must be released in England so as
not to be denied his right to a normal family life. He speaks only
English and has no family left in Italy. Philip's widow, Frances
Lawrence, has protested "what about my family's rights?"
The story raises many issues:
What should be the rights of the victims? Of criminals
having served their time?
Should Chindano's immigrant status matter in this case?
What should be the priorities of government in similar cases?
Paul
Vallely: Crime and punishment
(8/22/07)
September Discussion - 2007
Should certain degrees cost more?
Students
today at some state colleges and universities face price discrimination
based on what they choose to study. Apparently the movement is growing.
Is it fair and reasonable for colleges to charge more for those who
major in some disciplines than in others? Should future engineers and
economists (highly paid professors, lab fees) have to pay more for their
education than those who pursue philosophy and literature?
Does HateSpeech Matter?
Legislation
pending in the
U.S.
Congress would significantly broaden the application of the federal hate
crimes law of 1969 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:h.r.1592.rfs:)
In
most countries around the world, including the
United States
, a person accused of a hate crime is held accountable for his motivation
as well as his actions. Proponents argue that in the case of hate crimes
thoughts and deeds are inseparable.
President
George W. Bush has said he will veto this proposal if it receives final
passage in Congress. Should he do so?
Additional
information --
July Discussion - 2007
Mitt Romney
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has limited experience in foreign affairs and matters of national security. His recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine (July/August 2007) tells us something about his thinking.
Summary: Washington is as divided on foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. As the "greatest generation" did before us, we must move beyond political camps to unite around bold actions in order to build a strong America and a safer world. We must strengthen our military and economy, achieve energy independence, reenergize civilian and interagency capabilities, and revitalize our alliances.
(See complete article at: http://www.discussingdifferences.com/temp/cult3711.htm)
Would a Romney administration provide an opportunity for change in the formulation and conduct of U.S. foreign policy? How is Romney substantially different from other Republican candidates? Will the Democrat nominee disagree with Romney's ideas? At the end of the day – and the George W. Bush administration – are we really going to as divided on foreign policy as Romney and others suggest?
Comments on other aspects of Romney’s candidacy are welcome as well.
June Discussion - 2007
Baby
Boomers
How
will they transition into retirement?
Are Boomers values, attitudes, and expectations really so different from
other generations? Are Boomers a uniquely American phenomenon?
Will ASPEC and other retiree institutions be of interest to the Boomers?
How might they change?
Suggested reading:
May Discussion - 2007
....
Should
Capital Punishment be Abolished?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
http://www.antideathpenalty.org/statistics.html
http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/pro/pro.html
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-index-eng
April
Discussion - 2007
Discussing
Differences Online - February 2007
The February topic
for Discussing Differences Online is: Civility vs. Free Speech:
Is there a conflict? Recently some
participants in our forum complained of supposed curbs on expression of their
opinions. What "rules" do you think should guide our discussions?
To put this issue in a larger context, we turn to two thinkers of the past,
one a philosopher, the other a practical man with a philosophical bent.
1.
John Stuart Mill in his essay "On Liberty"
wrote: "Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is
fit to take notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions
should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not
pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of
fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be
offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that
this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that
every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to
answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an
intemperate opponent." http://www.constitution.org/jsm/liberty.htm
2. Benjamin Franklin and
some of his friends formed a discussion group called the "Junto."
In Franklin's words "Our debates were to be...conducted in the sincere
spirit of inquiry after truth, without fondness for dispute or desire of
victory; and to prevent warmth, all expressions of positiveness in opinions,
or direct contradiction, were after some time made contraband, and prohibited
under small pecuniary penalties." Any
person to be qualified as a [Junto] member was to stand up and be asked the
following questions:
- Have you
any particular disrespect to any present members? Answer. I
have not.
- Do
you sincerely declare that you love mankind in general, of what
profession or religion soever? Answer.
I do.
- Do you think any person ought to be harmed in his body, name, or goods, for mere speculative opinions, or his external way of worship? Answer.
No.
- Do
you love truth for truth's sake, and will you endeavor impartially to
find and receive it yourself, and communicate it to others? Answer. Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junto
Tolerance
For
most of our lifetimes the virtue of tolerance has been an assumed part of the
American national creed. It is now being questioned by those who find it
inadequate and who call for respect for others rather than simply tolerance of
them. Others, such as Stanley Fish in the article below, find it limited,
hypocritical, and culture-bound. Still others advocate "zero
tolerance" for certain offenses and offenders. What do you think
tolerance means? Is it simply another cloak for imposing Western morality
on non-Western people? Does it have a place in our pantheon of virtues?
Can we have tolerance for intolerant people and ideas?
The
Trouble With Tolerance
(11/10/06)
January
Discussion – Happy 2007!
Cuba - Next Steps?
Fidel Castro may soon be leaving the world's stage. Should the U.S. stay out of the succession process (as much as possible) and let the chips fall where they may? Or should we actively pursue a policy designed to shape the outcome of events? What should be the role of the U.S. Cuban exile community in this inevitable
exercise?
We discussed some aspects of this
in January, 2006: What should be role of ethnic groups [US] in the formation of U.S. foreign policy?
Discussion December, 2006
"Reid My Lips"
The "shoe-bomber",
Richard Reid, was sentenced to life in prison in January 2003. Since his
is a case of a terrorist who has been handled by US courts of law, there should
be some observations about the recently passed Military Commissions Act under
which such cases may be handled going forward.
Given the perceived legitimacy of
Reid's prosecution, what if he had been prosecuted, sentenced and imprisoned
under the new regimen?
Reid's case apparently lacked the
risks of intelligence leaks inherent with those targeted by the new act, but
what are the risks to society of having a court and penal system not subject to
checks and balances from third party judges?
Is habeus corpus so foundational
that we risk scuttling any expectation that wherever we are there is recourse to
a general rule of law?
Ruling
by Judge William Young, US District Court (Richard Reid)
November
Discussion, 2006
Torture
No one condones torture. In countries where torture is routinely practiced either by governments or other elements in society, the issue is handled by denial or redefinition of terms, e.g. euphemisms such preventive detention, aggressive interrogation, due punishment, etc. However, in the modern world are there circumstances that could justify the deliberate and unabashed use of torture? For example, police have captured a latter day Unibomber who boasts, with credibility, that his next device has been planted and is scheduled to detonate in twenty-four hours in a large urban center. If he is uncooperative, shouldn't every effort be made to obtain more information? Wouldn't it be irresponsible for the authorities NOT to include torture as a means of saving lives?
Do
unto your enemy
(9/25/06)
Firing
potent words, from a tank
(9/25/06)
Discussion
- October, 2006
Ethnic Profiling
Once again it's a contentious issue whether security screening should be guided
by selective characteristics such as ethnic, racial, religious and/or other
social features. Along with "stereotyping" and
"categorizing," profiling has become another dirty word in our
politically correct world. Yet we naturally use these tools for our own
security. So why not for the security of our communities? Do concerns of
misuse and misapplication really offset the potential benefits?
Do
profile; just don't tell
(8/16/06)
Discussion
dates Sep 4, second round Sep 18, 2006
Hamas/Israel/Hezbollah
What should America's policy be in the current crisis in the Middle East?
Is it in our interests to continue to "support our ally," Israel, in actions that are seen as disproportionate by most of the rest of the world?
This is related to -- but not the same as -- the question of whether Israel's actions are justified and reasonable under the conditions it faces. Likewise, are the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah legitimate acts of war and in the interest of the Palestinian people?
Discussion dates
August 7, second round Aug 21, 2006
Linguistic Nationalism
Does America need a common--and official--language to meet the challenges of globalism in the 21st century ? If so, should that language be English? However, would pressures generated by a common language policy threaten cultural diversity and individual freedom in our liberal, democratic society?"
Discussion dates
July 3rd, second round July 17, 2006
RAPE
Rape
is back in the news with the Duke lacrosse team and the exotic dancer. It
is a highly charged subject. Prosecution and conviction are relatively
rare but can result in very severe sentences when successful. In the
following article, a hard-eyed Germaine Greer portrays our social and legal
conception of rape as itself created and imposed by phallo-centric, patriarchal
males. She proposes abolishing the crime of rape and replacing it with a
more inclusive definition of the crime of assault. Do her ideas have
merit? Why or why not?
Germaine
Greer: Rape
(4/2/06)
Discussion dates
June 5, second round June 19, 2006
Patriarchy?
Phillip Longman of the New America Foundation recently
wrote (see full text below):
"Advanced societies are growing more patriarchal, whether they like it or not. In addition to the greater fertility of conservative segments of society, the rollback of the welfare state forced by population aging and decline will give these elements an additional survival advantage, and therefore spur even higher fertility. As governments hand back functions they once appropriated from the family, notably support in old age, people will find that they need more children to insure their golden years, and they will seek to bind their children to them through inculcating traditional religious values akin to the Bible’s injunction to honor thy mother and father.
Societies that are today the most secular and the most generous with their underfunded welfare states will be the most prone to religious revivals and a rebirth of the patriarchal family. The absolute population of Europe and Japan may fall dramatically, but the remaining population will, by a process similar to survival of the fittest, be adapted to a new environment in which no one can rely on government to replace the family, and in which a patriarchal God commands family members to suppress their individualism and submit to father."
If true, will this new reality change the direction that the Human Rights movement has followed for nearly sixty years? What are the implications for feminists movements in the industrial world? What will a return of patriarchy mean to the efforts of those who seek gender justice and fairness in relationships between the sexes?
The
Return of Patriarchy
(3-4/06)
Discussion dates
May 1, second round May 15, 2006
S.
Africa, Apartheid, The Struggle and the “New”
S. Africa
S.Africa
has gone through a most remarkable transformation since Nelson Mandela was
released from prison and the African National Congress was legitimized.
They negotiated an all-new constitution, held their first free election of all
citizens (Nelson Mandela as President in 1994) and held another free election in
1999 (Thabo Mbecki).
The
“struggle” was successful, first, because young black students of the 70s
rioted and gave up their education (600 lost their lives in
Soweto
alone) and, second, the ANC embarked on violent opposition from exile.
International sanctions played an important role as well, and apparently the
“Sullivan Principles” were a tipping point for international support and
sanctions that helped make all this happen.
Rev.
Leon Sullivan, a Baptist minister in
Philadelphia
, was the first corporate director of a USA Fortune 500 company – General
Motors – and he used his position to mobilize a campaign to dismantle
Apartheid in
S. Africa
.
The
Sullivan Principles are more general, as you will read below. Created as a
general corporate guide to ethical strategies, in 1999 they were adopted by the
United Nations as “The Global Sullivan Principles”. Leon Sullivan died
in 2001.
One
S. African friend said he’d initially opposed such interference from outside
(Jesse Helms, especially), at least until he became involved in a Chamber of
Commerce tour in the 80s to solicit support among European countries.
There he was convinced otherwise and upon return he and the others commenced
working for change. Re-reading the Sullivan Principles now, he says, they
seem almost innocuous. “
S. Africa
’s new constitution likely has more human rights protections than any other in
the world”.
Another
friend who had responsibility for S. African operations said his
US
company simply leased all its operations to Angl0-American Corporation, S.
Africa’s largest company, then continued to distribute their products without
missing a step. Otherwise, they would have had to lay off thousands!
Presumably the lease was easily terminated after the struggle.
A
third friend was responsible for investing pension assets and company reserves
for her company. After disinvesting from many companies, she felt
S. Africa
was being singled out unreasonably.
When
is outside influence appropriate to affect change in democratic countries?
Should businesses agitate for social change?
The
Global Sullivan Principles
About
Leon H. Sullivan
Personal
experiences are especially welcomed!
Discussion dates
April 3, second round Apr 17, 2006
Nigeria, Bolivia, Venezuela, etc. – Should the profits from natural resources be shared by all the people?
We owe thanks to .... and .... for helping develop our topic for March. The following correspondence neatly frames some issues; also see below a recent article on the situation in Nigeria.
....: "Should the profits from natural resources be shared by all the people?" Look at the demonstrations in Bolivia over sending their natural gas to US (I didn't hear any discussion of proceeds), African nations with enormous wealth in oil, diamonds, etc where there are millions dying of poverty, hunger and disease, and now Iraq with it's tremendous oil reserves and arguments about who will share in the profits. I don't know any answers, but thought some of those who do might consider the subject. Does nationalization of railroads, oil industry, etc, assure that all will share. Or is it only the stockholders.
....: I think we have to be clear what we mean by "all the people." My own interpretation of this (it may not be yours) is "the inhabitants of the countries in which the natural resources are located." If we are to accept this as a premise, then it follows that the countries concerned, i.e their governments, should own the physical assets, be responsible for their sale, and distribute the profits for the benefit of their population at large.
Alas, this Utopian ideal seldom seems to work in practice. History tells us that governments - all governments - tend to be venal and corrupt. The buck may not stop in their offices, but the money certainly does. I think Venezuela is about the only country which passes on a reasonable percentage of its natural resource proceeds to the poor - and thereby incurs the wrath of the U.S., which doesn't believe in such things!
In practice, most governments in developing countries seem to find themselves at the mercy of multi-national corporations. These can provide the capital for efficient exploitation of natural resources (good), but export the profits to their shareholders in the developed world (bad). The ordinary people in these countries tend to see little benefit from what should be rightfully theirs.
I think what is needed is an international law prescribing that a major percentage of the profits from the exploitation of natural resources be returned to the country concerned. This money should not go to the governments (who would only steal it, as they do so much foreign aid) but be used by the corporations themselves to improve the education, health facilities and infrastructure of the countries concerned. Such operations should be monitored and audited by the UN. (Not ideal, but I can't think of anyone else who could do it.)
....: This topic remains on the front page--Nigeria's elections and near-civil war, rich keep oil money, so many poor. And a recent propaganda that we should boycott Citgo because it is owned by Venezuela, where Chavez says he will bury us, and he is distributing oil profits to poor, but opposing propaganda says buy Venezuela to avoid supporting Saudis. What are the details on distribution of Iraqi oil money?
Nigeria's
civil war: Into the heart of darkness (3/3/06)
Discussion dates March 6, second round Mar 20, 2006
Assisted
Suicide
Can
we get behind the political divide on this issue?
Most of us know situations this has been used or considered.
Is this really a slippery slope? Or,
is it like other policies that can be employed wisely and seldom abused?
Finally,
and unavoidably, is it that we’re living in an aging society that accents this
issue, or are the political and cultural fault lines in the US really driving
it?
A question of life and death (and God)
(1/31/06)
When
society celebrates suicide (1/23/06)
Discussion
dates Feb 6, second round Feb 20, 2006
What should be role of ethnic groups in the formation of U.S. foreign policy?
Since 1945 special ethnic groups have exercised a major influence in defining the role America plays on the world stage. Over the years, Jews, Hispanics, Greeks, Asians, Arabs, and African-Americans are just a few of those who effectively have added their special concerns for international issues to the domestic political dialogue of all Americans. It is no secret that government officials and our politicians de facto have considered the desires of ethnic groups before they decided what to do with respect to Israel, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Rwanda, Bosnia, Sudan, trade and immigration policies, and apartheid in South Africa, etc.
The following draft article
by Eric Uslaner from the lead-up to the 2004 presidential election
provides some background.
Cracks in the Armor? Interest Groups and Foreign Policy
(??/04)
1. Do the disparate and sometimes conflicting overseas agendas of ethnic groups within America weaken our ability to function in the world?
2. Is the extension of U.S. ethnic politics to problems beyond our borders an inevitable and healthy part of a process that is bringing us to a better understanding of how to get along in the international community?
3. Are the operations of ethnic groups in the international arena a normal aspect of
globalization?
Discussion
dates Jan 2, second round Jan 16, 2006
Ethnic
Flight
Probably
all of us would agree that an ideal American neighborhood has a diversity of
races, ethnic backgrounds, incomes, etc., etc. However, it is difficult
to cite more than a handful of examples of such a phenomenon that have
survived very long. Why is that?
Simply
a diversity of races roughly equal to that in the general population
would be a happy compromise for many, but even that ideal seems difficult
to achieve. The phenomenon of "white flight" seems
irresistible. We recently received citations to an article about white
flight in
Silicon Valley
towns. Because of the perceived superior performance in schools of the
incoming ethnic group (Asian), people were transferring their kids and even
moving out (The New White Flight).
An
interesting article (The new science of artificial
societies) discusses a mathematical analysis indicating that fully integrated neighborhoods are inherently unstable if there is any degree of preference to have a neighbor or two like yourself.
Some of you may remember Marv Atkins' presentation "Computer Simulation of Sociology" in 2003, in which he demonstrated this process. Some basic questions remain:
--
What steps can or should society (government, NGO's, etc.) take to reduce or
eliminate "ethnic flight"?
--
Can this be accomplished without a degree of intrusiveness that the public
won't accept?
--
How important is it anyway? To society as a whole? To individuals
on either side of the instability?
--
Are there lessons to be learned from our military bases, where thousands of
families live peacefully in fully integrated neighborhoods?
Discussion
dates Dec 5, second round Dec 19, 2005
What are the fundamentals for a successful society?
We’ve
read before the article on how destructive no-fault divorce might be for
maintaining stable societies.
Why
No-Fault Divorce Is Our Most Dangerous Social Experiment
(5/05)
More
recently, there’s the following article along the same lines:
Judaism’s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and
then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality
Is
heterosexual marriage fundamental to achieving/maintaining a successful
society?
Prager
(second article) rejects homosexuality as part of rejecting any non-marital
sex. For him the male sexual drive run rampant is the greatest risk to
society. He says it has in so many ancient societies.
1)
Is he correct in seeing that Judaism's firm rejection of all non-marital
sexual behavior is "revolutionary" in world history?
2)
Is he correct is regarding the male sexual drive as potentially dangerous?
That it needs to be "forced" into the marital corral, as it were?
3)
Are newer forms of relationships (such as gay marriage and non-marital
cohabitation) dangerous to the long-term health of society, as Prager states?
Do no-fault divorce, and divorce in general, consequently weaken
society? What are the
relationships between divorce and newer forms of relationship, if any?
5)
Prager may be wrong in claiming that homosexuality is a "chosen
preference." That doesn't accord with the accounts of most gays.
But, will social acceptance of homosexuality really lead to a return of the
sexual practices of the ancient world?
6)
Is he correct in saying that celibacy is anti-life and, hence, a sin?
Discussion
dates Nov 7, second round Nov 21, 2005
Stereotype “threat”, stereotype “lift”
I attended a lecture recently (Stanford Alumni) in which Claude Steele
presented. He is, I think,
Director of the Phychology Dept at
Stanford
University
. He and a team of researchers
have been working on social identities and their connections with behaviors
and capabilities. Following
are some of my notes:
People
behave according to a unique combination of identities – age, sex,
profession, political ideology. As
they meet with certain contingencies – society’s readiness to judge and
treat people based on their identities – people will respond with both a
comfort/discomfort level. Their
performance will also be affected by stereotype “threats” – negatively
– and stereotype “lifts” – positively.
Being
black and male may be threatening in the American south. Being Asian may
be uplifting when competing in information technology at a university.
Steele mentioned several lab exercises they used to document these patterns:
Black and white male college athletes in a putting (golf) game: 1) When told just before the game that athletes do well in this test, blacks did better than whites. 2) When told that athletic ability doesn’t matter, white athletes did better.
3) When told that strategy was involved, white athletes did a lot better.
1) Presumably, black athletes accept the stereotype that they have natural abilities in athletics. Some white athletes believe that as well.
2) Both black and white athletes believe in racial differences in athletic
abilities.
3) Apparently whites and blacks accept that strategy involves intelligence, and that blacks have less strategic capabilities.
They also did a number of stressful mental exercises of mixed sexes and mixed ethnic background using high achiever college students. The natural “lift” should come from whites, women, Asian, etc. However, the researchers were able to manipulate the results by framing the test in the beginning. When told that natural intelligence didn’t help in the test, women and Asians didn’t do as well as expected and men did better.
Of course these were highly controlled experiments, and there are many others that I’ve forgotten. The following is a publication with Steele as co-author.
Colorblindness
as a Barrier to Inclusion: Assimilation and Nonimmigrant Minorities (9/22/00)
Has
anyone experienced something like this, either threat or life?
Something different? Are
these factors in “birds flock together”?
Discussion
dates Oct 3, second round Oct 17, 2005.
U.S. Public Policy
Eckerd/ASPEC’s own Donna
Oglesby has written a new paper for presentation August 31st at the American
Political Science Association Washington.
She has also kindly agreed for
me to share it with Discussing Differences as our topic for September!
Her paper is about how the
US
should seriously revitalize how we communicate our policies to the rest of the
world. Her view is that our influence has declined as much for poor
communications as for the results of policy or implementation. She
traces current policy back 10-15 years to document that it’s not just
Republicans and Neo-Cons, but also liberals and Democrats who’ve brought us
where we are. The paper also
echoes her former call for the
US
(us) to engage with the rest of the world in the messy process of politics -
dialogue and compromise.
A
Pox on Both Your Houses (8/31/05)
Discussion dates are: Sep 5, second round Sep 19, 2005
Suicide
Bombings:
Not just the
results of impoverishment and marginalization, but what? What extreme
factors (perceived and otherwise) cause educated, middle class young men (and
a few women), young fathers and mothers, to commit such extreme acts against
the “other”? Are these different from self-immolation protestors of
the 60s? Are they responding to different motivations and/or do they
have different strategies?
In this
context, I recently re-read Discussing Differences conversations during
September 2001. We were discussing Donna Oglesby’s article on
globalization as suicide pilots struck the
World
Trade
Center
and the Pentagon (subs/global09-2001.htm).
It was helpful for me then to have a forum to speak out and to share with
others.
The following
are selected from US and
UK
newspapers. Additional articles may be found by clicking on the Discussion
Dates line below.
Europe
juggles freedom and security (7/27/05)
Western
Terrorists Have Roots in Earlier Colonialism (7/21/05)
Can
we rid the world of this cult of death and destruction? (7/22/05)
This
is a turning point: we have to fly the flag for Britishness again
(7/14/05)
A
little religion, laced with compromise, goes a long way. Only madmen live by
purity (7/16/05)
The
strategic logic of suicide terrorism and how to defeat it (6/29/05)
Discussion dates are: Aug 1, second round Aug 15, 2005
Class in America (USA)
Americans have always rejected
the European notions of class as inherited status (the exception to this has
been in race), though we may have some tinges of this in such things as privileged
admission to education in elite colleges.
We have always had economic
class, based on wealth and power. We have believed that the gap between the
rich and the poor would be small, and growing smaller.
We have believed in economic
mobility, the ability of anyone to rise in economic condition, based on merit.
Recent studies show that the
gap between rich and poor has been getting increasingly larger.
The following Times articles
raise several questions:
Do we have class divisions in
America? Are they becoming more prevalent?
Do we still have economic
mobility in America, and is it based on merit? Are opportunities for upward
mobility more or less possible today?
Do we have a kind of class
warfare in America, as some politicians insist? If so, have the rich won?
Class
in America: Shadowy Lines That Still Divide
(5/15/05)
Class
and the American Dream
(5/30/05)
Life
at the Top in America Isn't Just Better, It's Longer
(5/16/05)
Discussion
dates are: July 4, second round July 18, 2005
The Traditional Family
- C.K. Chesterton once remarked that the family
is the indispensable building block of society and society's most important
bulwark against tyranny. Is that
true? Is the family the building
block of society and does it protect against tyranny?
If so, how?
- Some traditionally religious people are claiming that non-traditional family
arrangements actually undermine society. Is
that true? If so, why?
- Traditionally, marriage was a contract which
could be broken only with great difficulty.
Nowadays, the attitudes towards the "breakability" of
marriage seem to have changed. Is
this progress, or devolution? Are
liberalized attitudes towards marriage and divorce responsible for the rise in
non-traditional family arrangements, particularly co-habiting couples with
children?
- There may be a serious conflict between church
and state brewing over homosexual "marriage" and efforts to bring
about the social acceptance of homosexuality.
Is this avoidable? How?
Discussion
dates are: June 6, second round June 20, 2005
Language Requirements
WHEREAS: the security
of the United States now more than ever depends on how well
we respond to the challenges that come from the values, attitudes,
and expectations of people from other cultures; and, because
language skills are critical to understanding how we can effectively meet
these challenges;
THEREFORE: by law it
shall be mandatory that any person who holds a key public office
demonstrate basic proficiency in at least two modern languages, one of
which must be English. This general policy shall apply to office
holders at the federal, state, and local levels of government, and
shall apply to all language designated positions whether filled
by election or by appointment.
(Our format has been modified in a way that we hope will promote a balance
between our tradition of openness and the virtues of a well
focused discussion.)
Intolerance
The
1998 lynching of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas; three thousand dead on 9/11;
genocide in Yugoslavia; the massacres in Darfur; the 1982 slaughter of
refugees at Sabra and Shatila; the theocratic tyranny in Iran; the
killing fields in Cambodia; and Muslim violence in the streets of Europe are
but a few examples that prove intolerance is alive and well around
the world.
Can
intolerance be eliminated from the modern world or is it an inescapable part
of human nature? Do we threaten free expression if we try to suppress
intolerance using the rules of right reason, educational indoctrination, and
strict law enforcement? Isn't intolerance a by-product that comes with
the benefits of diversity? Yet at the end of the day, how can we live in
a well ordered society when behavior some people condemn as intolerant and
unacceptable is considered by others to be the legitimate pursuit of justice?
What
are the limits of tolerance?
Putting
the fear of God into Holland
(2/27/05)
Discussion
dates Apr 4, second round April 18, 2005
Why not focus on SIMILARITIES?
Do we study differences because they’re more “fun”? Is it just that differences are easier to spot?
The media shower us with calamities, violence, and aberrant behavior, but are we doing the same by Discussing Differences?
When most of us are really right or left of center, does Discussing Differences necessarily drive the extremes? How might we assure balance? Are we polarized or "in balance" after the 2004 Election?
There was a mushrooming of Catholic discussion groups after Vatican 2, when Catholics were trying to be more sensitive to people of other faiths. Leaders of that time insisted we look for similarities among the religions and emphasize those rather than differences. Is that so naive in a post-9/11 world?
Discussion dates Mar 7, second round March 21,
2005
US &
Europe: What should we have learned?
"What experience and history teach is this - that people and
governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles
deduced from it." (G.W.F.Hegel 1770-1831)