12.03.08
Posted in Government, Homeland Security, Jacob Canon, Obama, Politics, The Oscar Show, UVa College of Arts & Sciences, University of Virginia, War on Terror, elections at 12:04 pm by Jacob Canon
In today’s show, adapted from an article written by Mary Wood, Director of Communications for the School of Law at the University of Virginia, we discuss UVa Graduate, Janet Napolitano, who was named as the next secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, a Cabinet-level post, by President-elect Barack Obama.
Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, a 1983 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, has been nominated as the next secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Dean Paul G. Mahoney said, “Governor Napolitano has dedicated her career to public service, fulfilling an ideal that the University of Virginia Law School holds dear. The nation is fortunate that President-elect Obama has chosen to bring her wide-ranging talents to a vitally important position.”
Napolitano Tapped by Obama for Homeland Security Secretary [5:26m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Chosen by Time magazine in 2005 as one of America’s top five governors, Napolitano recently concluded her term as the first woman and first Arizonan chosen to chair the National Governors Association. Elected governor of Arizona in 2002 and re-elected in 2006, she is the first woman in the nation’s history to serve as U.S. attorney, state attorney general and governor in immediate succession.
In a 2007 interview with UVA Lawyer magazine, Napolitano stressed the importance of bipartisan governance and said neither party has a monopoly on good ideas.
Napolitano said, “It is necessary for us to reach across the aisle to build consensus. In the end, the voters don’t care whether you’re a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ — they want results… What did you do in education, in health care, on job development, to protect the environment? They want to know what you produced besides a fight. Excessive partisanship is troublesome because it’s an artificial limitation on thinking about what’s the best idea. And sometimes the best idea requires a compromise to get any of it done.”
After Napolitano took office, she erased a billion-dollar deficit without raising taxes or cutting funds for public schools. She made education one of the key issues in her administration, and started a voluntary full-day kindergarten program. She has also reformed the state’s Child Protective Services.
Napolitano helped create the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Information Center, a multi-agency intelligence fusion center that tracks and shares critical data. She created a prescription-discount plan for Arizona seniors and her administration expanded the state’s group health insurance plan to include more individuals and small businesses.
Prior to taking elected office, she served for four years as a U.S. attorney for the District of Arizona. Born in New York City and raised in Albuquerque, N.M., Napolitano is a graduate of Santa Clara University. She has lived in Arizona since 1983, when she moved to Phoenix to clerk for a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge and then practice law.
Napolitano joins several other Law School graduates with high-ranking national security posts. Kip Hawley, a 1980 alumnus, is the director of the Transportation Security Administration. Robert Mueller, a 1973 graduate, is the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, and 1989 graduate Patrick Rowan is the assistant attorney general for national security.
Speaking at the Law School’s 2007 commencement, Napolitano challenged graduating students to make sense of the transformative nature of technology, international law and the rule of law.
Napolitano said, “Your job will be to sort out where to alter the law and where to leave it alone. To know the law is to know how to make this world better through its proper application and to practice law properly is to engage in public service of the highest order. Never forget that being an attorney is not just a job, it is a calling — it is a way of life.”
You’ve been listening to the Oscar Show, I’m Jacob Canon. Join us next week when we will look at the Commonwealth’s first ever, Doctor of Nursing Practice Degree. The UVa Nursing School granted the historic first ever achievement, on November 14, 2008.
Permalink
11.12.08
Posted in Film, Gitmo, Jacob Canon, Politics, The Oscar Show, UVa College of Arts & Sciences, University of Virginia, VFF, Virginia Film Festival, War on Terror at 12:04 pm by Jacob Canon
In our previous show we reflected on several of the movies showcased at this year’s Virginia Film Festival. In today’s show, we will examine “The Response,” a short film about the Guantanamo Bay War Tribunals and the plight of Guantanamo detainees by Sig Libowitz, screened at this year’s Virginia Film Festival.
During the course of the seven years since 9-11, the United States and its elected representatives have made calculated moves to deal with the declared “War on Terror.” Because of the nature of this global war, which is based more in backrooms around the world than on battlefields, it has become increasingly difficult to have concrete ideas about whom and where we are, or should be fighting.
Because of the clandestine nature of the war, the measures to combat it have also taken a more covert form, including… Abu Ghraib… and more recently, Guantanamo Bay. These Prisoner Detentions Camps were set up in an effort to isolate suspected enemy combatants from battle regions and interrogate them so that the war in the Gulf, and on Terror could be mitigated.
Gitmo and The Response [6:07m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
In the movie, “The Response,” writer, Sig Libowitz, utilizes transcripts from Combatant Status Review Tribunals, or CSRT’s, to dramatically explore the events that lead up to and occur, during these trials.
The setting for the movie is a CSRT in Guantanamo, and examines the interactions between a detainee played by Aasif Mandvi, and his inquisitors as portayed by Kate Mulgrew, Peter Reigert and Libowitz, who plays a “King Solomon - like” character who ends up interpreting the limited protection of rights for the accused combatant, while shielding the world from a potential terrorist.
The movie is delivered in two acts. First, we are introduced to the shortened trial process, in which a detainee is brought before the tribunal and asked a series of questions about his knowledge, or lack thereof, concerning their connection to terrorists and terror activity. Libowitz characterized the experience for the detainee as a “… few minutes in front of a war tribunal…this is him defending his life.”
The process presented is antithetical to what we as American citizens expect as our basic rights in a court of law. Elements important and implicit in our court system that are not available to a detainee include: the right to counsel by a competent attorney - they are given a military advisor who is not an actual attorney; to know the identity of their accusers, which are only known by the tribunal officers, and what the charges are against them.
Finally, and potentially most important is the “writ of habeas corpus,” which states that the accused may demand a determination of the right to be held by their accuser. This element is one of the most important parts of the US justice system, and yet was not available to these detainees, who could have been held indefinitely, until a Supreme Court ruling on June 12, 2008.
After the testimony period the movie shifts to the second act, the deliberations of the tribunal judges. It is during this period that most of the moral arguments for and against the policies and ramifications of Guantanamo are explored. Col Jefferson (Peter Reigert) makes the telling comment, “Why don’t we measure our behavior against who we say we are and tell ourselves we are as a country.” To which Col. Simms (Kate Mulgrew) responds, “That’s a little simplistic after 9-11…” The detainees fate is then left in the hands of Capt. Miller (Libowitz).
(See clip of “The Response” here)
This even handed look at the Guantanamo Tribunals was lauded by two Special Forces soldiers who came to a recent Baltimore screening. They were so impressed with how the material was presented, both gentlemen expressed their thanks in a unique way. Libowitz read from one of the letters which said, “Thank you and the film for highlighting the real nexus confronting us today. The discipline in presenting a balanced treatment is most patriotic. The enclosed stone is from the World Trade Center, Tower Number 2. The razor wire is from Gitmo. They are presented to you and the film on behalf of the soldiers that are in this nexus with you.”
It will be interesting to see how this story unfolds. Just yesterday, president-Elect Obama stated that he planned on bringing charges against these detainees in US courts. This plan is speculated to require creation of a new legal system because of the classified information in the most sensitive cases.
To learn more about the movie,“The Response” please visit www.theresponsemovie.com.
You’ve been listening to the Oscar Show, I’m Jacob Canon. Join us next week when we will discuss the work of UVa Professor Paul Halliday, and his research of Habeas Corpus, the only specific right enshrined in the US constitution.
Permalink
10.01.08
Posted in Cognitive Science, Education, Gender Bias, Jacob Canon, Politics, Psychology, Racism, The Oscar Show, UVa College of Arts & Sciences, University of Virginia, elections, ethics, history at 11:04 am by Jacob Canon
In today’s show, we share comments and reflections from the UVa Faculty Roundtable concerning Race and Gender in Politics.
Last Thursday, the Miller Center of Public Affairs hosted the UVa Faculty Round Table on Race and Gender in Politics. Sponsored by the University of Virginia’s Arts & Sciences Magazine, the forum was moderated by Douglas Blackmon, the Atlanta bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. The panel included UVa faculty members, Paul Freedman, Brian Nosek, Lynn Sanders, Vesla Weaver and Nick Winter.
Moderator, Douglas Blackmon called this point in time “an extraordinary moment in American history and American discourse,” while Associate Politics Professor Paul Freedman referred to this time as “Christmas” for political scientists because of the multicultural base of the presidential candidates.
Reflections on Race and Gender in Politics Forum [7:30m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Freedman said the implicit message in political advertising is the important element of political ads. An example of this was a 2006 Republican ad run in Tennessee, concerning Democrat, Harold Ford, Jr. Freedman said, the ad included “a white woman who claimed to have had met Harold at the Playboy Party and she suggested that he call her, the ad concluded with the text on the screen, Harold Ford…’he’s just not right.’ And many people suggested that the implicit message was, ‘he’s just not white.’” Freedman added this year’s election has seen less of these types of messages.
Associate Politics Professor Lynn Sanders, spoke to the question, “will Obama lose this election due to race.” Referring to a recent Stanford AP poll and the subsequent media spin that Obama will lose the election by six to fifteen percent simply because he is black, Sanders said, “I think that it is really, really interesting how tied we are to that kind of pessimism. There is an alternative framework that we could be focusing on, which is… that we’re living in a time when we have accomplished such a feat that we can have these different kinds of candidates.” Referring to the Bradley/Wilder effect - when voters tell pollsters they are undecided or likely to vote for a black candidate, yet, on Election Day, they vote for the white candidate - Sanders said this effect has lessened over the past forty to fifty years and the reverse was observed in the 2006 Tennessee race between Ford and the Republican candidate.
Assistant Politics Professor Nick Winter spoke about the book he is working on, “The Secret History of Gender.” Winter said, looking at data from the last three decades, the Democratic party is associated with stereotypically feminine traits such as being “… compassionate, generous, egalitarian, and so forth and conversely they like the republican party for relatively stereotypically masculine characteristics, it’s efficient, supports the work ethic…” Yet, when it comes to Presidential candidates, he said the electorate tends to feel “… that our ideas about what it makes a good leader are themselves very associated with ideas about men and masculinity.”
Associate Professor of Psychology Brian Nosek’s data suggests that some political choices we make are influenced by “implicit” feelings toward blacks, women or the aged without us even realizing it. Nosek said of people who participate in his online surveys, “… 80% of white Americans who come on and try this task have a stronger association of black with bad, than white with bad, suggesting that they have associations in their minds that are quite distinct from the egalitarian values that they tend to express. Likewise with gender, it’s harder to associate female with leader or female with career than males, even if they will explicitly say, ‘no, I’m egalitarian minded… we don’t necessarily know that these things are happening.”
Mr. Blackmon observed that the research of the panelist had led to potentially opposed ideas of how much race and gender effect the election process.
Answering this question, Assistant Politics Professor Vesla Weaver satirically noted, that this may be the first time that professor Sanders and she had been considered the “racial optimist in a room.” She went on to say, “I’m certainly not saying that there aren’t negative racial attributions that happen. I do think we need to question how much the Bradley Effect has been overstated, how much the negative aspect of race is the thing that makes headlines, and what effect that has on perceptions, on people, on raising sensitivities, on looking for it.” Professor Sanders added that it was interesting “…the way conservative and optimistic, and liberal and pessimistic, are associated. And this is a real consistent theme in this year’s election.” She said that none of the panelist felt that bigotry and racism were no longer issues, yet much had changed in the short time since the 1960’s.
The goals of the panel to open public discussion on these issues were summarized by Professor Weaver’s salient comments concerning what would occur if the topic of race and gender were not brought to the public’s attention. Weaver said, the danger is not only, not having this type of public discourse, but that “it opens up space for a powerful counter narrative to develop on November 5th. And that is the counter narrative that, for blacks, for young voters, for anyone that was mobilized… and saw this as the first time their constituency was being spoken to, the counter narrative would be, if not now, then when.” She added, “it opens up a rift in that powerful American dream logic. It opens a rift in the notion that this is an egalitarian society. That we can move forward together… And so if we don’t have that very public conversation now about race, the public conversation that going to get had when we look in the mirror on November 5th is going to be a conversation that is going to be uglier.”
You’ve been listening to the Oscar Show, I’m Jacob Canon. Join us next week when we will discuss the work of Brad Cox, professor of physics and a principal investigator with the University of Virginia’s High Energy Physics Group and his involvement with the new Large Hadron Collider in Geneva Switzerland.
View the archived web cast
Permalink
09.24.08
Posted in Cognitive Science, Education, Jacob Canon, Politics, Social Psychology, The Oscar Show, UVa College of Arts & Sciences, University of Virginia, elections, ethics, history, sociology at 11:04 am by Jacob Canon
In today’s show, we introduce the Moderator and UVa Faculty panel participating in the Race and Gender in Politics Forum being held tomorrow evening at 7:00 PM at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, located at 2201 Old Ivy Road, in Charlottesville, VA. This event is free to the public.
With the election season upon us, and the diverse nature of the major candidates, Americans are faced with unique challenges when they go to the polls this November 4th. With the notable exception of Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, the major candidates for the office of President of the United States have been white males. But this election season, both major political parties have offered candidates that begin to explore the multicultural basis of our nation.
Race and Gender in Politics [5:48m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Tomorrow evening, September 25th at 7:00PM, the Miller Center of Public Affairs will be hosting the UVa Faculty Round Table on Race and Gender in Politics. This event is sponsored by the University of Virginia’s Arts & Sciences Magazine will be Moderated by Douglas A Blackmon, the Atlanta bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal. This forum will discuss many of the issues that face the electorate this season. The panel will include UVa faculty members, Paul Freedman, Brian Nosek, Lynn Sanders, Vesla Weaver and Nick Winter.
The moderator, Douglas A. Blackmon, has written extensively about the American quandary of race. Many of his stories in The Wall Street Journal have explored the interplay of wealth, corporate conduct and racial segregation.
Associate Politics Professor Paul Freedman, has written about the negative advertising that is present in American politics, and has come to the conclusion that this type of discourse has positive effects in educating the public concerning issues. Freedman found that voters who saw more campaign advertising were more energized and knowledgeable.
Associate Professor of Psychology Brian Nosek’s interest in politics emerged while he was doing research in implicit cognition, which examines thought and feeling outside of awareness and control. His data suggests that some political choices we make may be influenced by “implicit” feelings toward blacks, women or the aged without us even realizing it.
Associate Politics Professor Lynn Sanders, has found another dynamic at work in the American political system. Sanders research has found there are differences in survey data received depending on the race of the interviewer and interviewee. If they are the same race, prejudices are more likely to be revealed. She found this evidenced by the differing results in the public vote of caucus states versus the private vote found in primaries states during the recent Democratic campaign.
Assistant Politics Professor Vesla Weaver’s research has detailed the disparities between the outcomes of whites to darker- and lighter-skinned blacks and Hispanics, including lower incomes, high incarceration rates and higher execution rates for the dark-skinned. Her data appears to show that the gradient of skin tone also appears to have an effect, and that this disparity carries over to politics as well.
Assistant Politics Professor Nick Winter’s book, Dangerous Frames explores the ways that political leaders can mobilize our ideas about race and gender in ways we don’t realize; his current project is exploring the ways that ideas about masculinity and femininity shape political discourse and public opinion.
So, as this multicultural dynamic changes the Presidential debate continues across America, you are invited to the Miller Center tomorrow evening, September 25th at 7:00 PM to hear this panel discuss gender and race and how they effect the political landscape.
The Miller Center address is 2201 Old Ivy Road, Charlottesville, VA. For more information or direction to the event please call 434-243-8974 or email Cristina Martinez de Andino at clm6q@virginia.edu.
For those who can’t attend, you can watch the forum online by going to www.millercenter.org and the link will appear on the home page shortly before the panel starts.
You’ve been listening to the Oscar Show, I’m Jacob Canon. Join us next week when we will follow up this show with comments and reflections from the UVa Faculty Roundtable concerning Race and Gender in Politics.
Permalink
07.09.08
Posted in Jacob Canon, Politics, The Oscar Show, UVa College of Arts & Sciences, University of Virginia, history at 11:04 am by Jacob Canon
In today’s show, written by Brevy Cannon, General Assignments writer for University of Virginia Media Relations, we look at a recent Center for Politics event, “Reconsidering the Presidency” held at the University of Virginia in April 2008.
“The vast and ever-increasing amounts of money spent on U.S. political campaigns are a detriment to our democracy. And, contrary to public opinion, the Electoral College is a quirk of American politics that should not be tampered with…”
Reconsidering the Presidency [6:45m]:
Play Now |
Play in Popup |
Download
Those two opinions were shared by three former governors, John Sununu of New Hampshire, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut and Virginia’s Doug Wilder, during the Center for Politics event, “Reconsidering the Presidency” in April 2008.
Center director and event host Larry Sabato noted in his introduction that he expected a lively debate from these three political veterans from across the political spectrum, and the trio did not disappoint, offering many diverging suggestions on how to reform U.S. politics and the presidential nomination process.
Sununu, a former three-term governor of New Hampshire, White House chief of staff and co-host of CNN’s “Crossfire” political news show, defended the widely criticized tradition of his home state being the first to hold presidential primaries.
Critics contend that being first gives New Hampshire an outsized influence; that the predominately white population isn’t reflective of the nation; and that voters there get the opportunity to personally meet with each candidate several times, while voters in other states may not even be visited.
Doug Wilder, former governor of Virginia, recalled his own run for president in 1992 and complained that recent presidential candidates haven’t campaigned enough in Virginia. He said, “It’s not right for certain areas of the country to be constantly courted to the degree that the residents there expect it … and others are surprised just to get a handshake or a chance even to be in the room with a presidential candidate.”
Sununu went on to say, “I think people don’t understand that the nominating process should demand from our citizens an equal commitment to the election process as the general election.” If another state goes first instead of New Hampshire, contended Sununu, that state should have some of the same merits as his state: a voter turnout rate near 75 percent, engaged citizens who ask serious questions and a place that doesn’t require lots of money to start being noticed by the public.
Wilder, who became the first African-American governor in U.S. history when elected in 1989, suggested that primary election rules could be “modernized” by having a longer timeframe, such as two weeks, in which to cast ballots, rather than just one day.
Weicker was elected governor of Connecticut in 1990 as an independent after serving three terms in the U.S. Senate as a Republican. He drew attention to the “extra hoops” that those outside the “two-party duopoly” must contend with in order to run for office. He proposed a constitutional amendment that would standardize the requirements for a presidential candidate to qualify to be on the ballot in any given state, replacing the widely varying requirements that inhibit independent candidates.
According to opinion polls cited by Sabato, contrary to the view of 70 percent of Americans who would like to do away with the Electoral College, all three governors felt it should stay. Weicker and Sununu both said that the current system (wherein a candidate wins all or none of the electors representing each state) makes candidates campaign in all 50 states.
All three panelists condemned what they all termed the “obscene” amounts of money involved in today’s politics, with Weicker going so far as to declare, “I think money is destroying politics in the United States.”
Only Wilder offered a substantive suggestion of how to address that issue. He said, “Copy a little bit from the British system, shortening it and saying the campaign will start on such and such a date and end on such and such a date… rather than as soon as George Bush took his hand down from swearing… taking his oath as president, this campaign started. That doesn’t make any sense at all, we got to shorten that.”
Sununu also decried how today’s media have “poisoned the minds of the public” with flawed coverage of political issues like the Florida recounts in the 2000 presidential election. While one questioner defended the role of the media as “the fourth branch of government,” no participants even entertained the idea that political advertising might benefit the political process, such as by increasing voter knowledge and participation, as recent research from U.Va. politics professor Paul Freedman has found.
You’ve been listening to the Oscar Show, I’m Jacob Canon. Join us next week when we look at the annual Walter A. Ridley Distinguished Lecture at the University of Virginia, held recently in the Rotunda’s Dome Room.
For more information about scholarship, creativity and research, please visit www.oscar.virginia.edu. Did you miss a show? Then go to www.wtju.net and click on “blogs & pods” or visit www.cvillepodcast.com. Question about this program; please call WTJU at 434-924-0885 or email at wtju@virginia.edu.
Permalink