Monday, August 31, 2009

Meritocracy

In a post entitled "It's time to embrace American royalty," Glenn Greenwald comments on the news that George W. Bush's daughter, Jenna Hager Bush, has been hired by NBC's Today show:
We're obviously hungry to live with royal and aristocratic families so we should really just go ahead and formally declare it:

They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it's really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There's a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters....

[A]ll of the above-listed people are examples of America's Great Meritocracy, having achieved what they have solely on the basis of their talent, skill and hard work -- The American Way. By contrast, Sonia Sotomayor -- who grew up in a Puerto Rican family in Bronx housing projects; whose father had a third-grade education, did not speak English and died when she was 9; whose mother worked as a telephone operator and a nurse; and who then became valedictorian of her high school, summa cum laude at Princeton, a graduate of Yale Law School, and ultimately a Supreme Court Justice -- is someone who had a whole litany of unfair advantages handed to her and is the poster child for un-American, merit-less advancement. I just want to make sure that's clear.
Adding: An important step towards a more just society would be for our national dialogue to accept the idea that everyone benefits from all sorts of non-merited advantages both large and small and is burdened by all sorts of non-merited disadvantages both large and small (though some, of course, benefit a lot more than others). Any claim to meritocracy is fantasy. And that fact should enable rather than prevent us from getting down to the work of creating a more equal society.

Update: A few more thoughts on the subject that I found over at the Times' Opinionater Blog:

Adam Serwer at the American Prospect explains:
The right doesn’t mind privilege being retained, bywhatever means, within those groups that already have it, because it proves their theories about meritocracy. But when someone like Sonia Sotomayor goes from the South Bronx to Princeton valedictorian to the Supreme Court, it forces the question of how much people of privilege depend on their circumstances — their financial and social advantages — to succeed rather than their ability or intelligence. That’s uncomfortable for some people to think about, and it’s part of why Sonia Sotomayor provokes outrage over “merit,” while glaring examples of preferential treatment for the privileged do not.
Andrew Sullivan also responds to the "craven nepotism" in DC,
Late empires are known for several things: a self-obsessed, self-serving governing class, small over-reaching wars that bankrupt the Treasury, debt that balloons until retreat from global power becomes not a choice but a necessity, and a polity unable to address reasonably any of these questions — or how the increasing corruption of the media enables them all

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Beginnings of A Movement?

Last week, Mexico decriminalized possession of drugs – including marijuana, cocaine and heroin – for personal use. As the Times reports, this week, Argentina's Supreme Court followed suit in a case which prohibits incarceration for marijuana possession and seems to rule unconstitutional incarceration for the private consumption of any drug.

The court embraced a simple, powerful libertarian approach to the issue: "Each individual adult is responsible for making decisions freely about their desired lifestyle without state interference.... Private conduct is allowed unless it constitutes a real danger or causes damage to property or the rights of others.'' The Court also urged the government to adopt a public health approach to drug use.

The Argentine President has expressed support for drug law reform in the past, saying, "I don't like that an addict is condemned as if he were a criminal." It's nearly impossible to imagine an American politician talking about drugs in a way that's similarly sane. And check out how Cabinet Chief Anibal Fernandez, responded to the decision: "[S]he declared that the ruling brings an end to 'the repressive politics invented by the Nixon administration'... and later adopted by Argentina's dictators, to imprison drug users as if they were major traffickers."

It's about time Latin American countries resist their ongoing conscription in America's War on Drugs.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Epitaph

Ted eulogizing Bobby back in 1968:
My brother need not be idealized, or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life; [he ought] to be remembered simply as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.

Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Patients not Criminals

Mexico takes an important step in the direction of a sane and humane drug policy: decriminalizing personal use.

Under siege by drug traffickers, Mexico took a bold and controversial step last week when it opted to no longer prosecute those carrying relatively small quantities of marijuana, cocaine, heroin and other drugs. Instead, people found with drugs for “personal and immediate use,” according to the law, will be referred to free treatment programs where they will be considered patients, not criminals....

The decriminalization effort, which many lawmakers endorsed with little enthusiasm, is intended to free up prison space for dangerous criminals and to better wean addicts away from drugs. It is not the only legislation put forward that would probably never have been considered were the country not in the midst of a bloody and seemingly endless drug war.
It's worth pointing out that the primary reason Mexico is "under siege" by drug traffickers is because of U.S. drug policy that allows demand to flourish even as it spends vast resources enforcing prohibitions against supply. Go figure that that would produce elaborate cartels in the country next door.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Life in the Ghetto

On the New York Times website, David Gonzalez has written a sensitive piece about his recollections of living and teaching and taking photographs in the South Bronx during the late 1970s. While I grew up a million miles away from the South Bronx socioeconomically, geographically, I grew up just a couple miles away. Gonzalez's piece reminds me a little of a city I once knew, a city that seems so distant today.

At a time when the South Bronx was thought of as the single worst ghetto in America, Gonzalez finds a neighborhood alive with culture. His is not a tale of hopelessness. It's also not a tale of residents who, despite the odds, fight to overcome their environment. By seeing the South Bronx's residents as human beings, free of any pre-digested sociological narrative, he finds a community rich with culture, where children play, neighbors sit on stoops, kids squeegee windshields, buildings crumble, and couples dance in the street. The affirmation that Gonzalez finds is not a transcending of conditions so much as it is a vitality within them. He reminds us that in the end, life in the ghetto is just life.

There's a four minute audio slideshow of Gonzalez's photographs with narration here. Really cool.
I saw kids in the middle of burned out lots acting like kids would anywhere else. And I photographed some of them... [The kids to whom I taught photography] just photographed their world. And even though they lived in this messed up neighborhood, they photographed utterly ordinary things: their parents at home, their kid sister sleeping, their friends playing in the streets. And it taught me to just look at that. And so I really didn't photograph a lot of the rubble if you will. I photographed the life that persisted in the middle of all of this. And it was a really important lesson that in this place written off as hopeless, I found people just moving on....

And I think having come from there and more importantly having gone back there, it's something to be proud of actually. And it's not pride in the sense that 'I survived this tough place.' It's the kind of pride that 'I'm still part of this place in a very essential way.'"

Friday, August 21, 2009

Fair and Balanced vs. Honest and Accurate

We're all familiar with the irony that Fox News has adopted the term "fair and balanced" to describe news coverage that is anything but. But the larger issue that deserves more attention is that "fair and balanced" shouldn't be the goal of a news organization at all. As Jed Lewison explains at Daily Kos:

"[t]he media shouldn't feel any obligation to treat the disinformation campaign [surrounding the current health care debate] as it were a serious attempt at discourse. There's nothing wrong with calling liars liars....

What's really happening here is that Fox's screwball view of journalistic integrity ("fair and balanced" instead of "honest and accurate") has infected too many minds. Even if Fox weren't an overtly partisan network, the implication of the idea that news stories should be "fair and balanced" is that the primary goal of a news story is to serve the interests of subjects of the news report. ("We'll be fair to both sides in this story.")

The problem with that is that news stories aren't about serving the needs of their subjects. News stories should serve the needs of the reader. When people read news stories, they want to find out the truth, whether or not that has anything to do with the interests of any of the sides in a particular debate. Journalism should not be about giving fair treatment to the subjects of news reports, journalism should be about uncovering the real story, whatever it might be. Fairness and balance have nothing to do with it. If one side is telling most of the lies, you can't be balanced (as in "both sides are lying...") in reporting that fact. You can only be accurate -- and that's all that reasonable people should ask.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Inducing Good Behavior



One definition of punishment is "a stimulus that reduces the immediately preceding behavior such that it's less likely to occur in the future."

(h/t: Balloon Juice)