I admit that when faced with this hypothetical scenario, I am at a real loss. It's actually much more entertaining to think about what the last eight years of neo-conservatism have insanely over-funded, rather than think about what needs the money. Here are a few of my favorites: the War on Terror, the War on Stoners, the War on Undocumented Immigrants, the War on Pre-Marital Sex, the War on People Who Carry Liquids Onto a Plane, and, of course: the Crusade for Bridges to Nowhere.
The under-funded issues camp gets rather unwieldy: Public schools, sex education, all manner of medical and scientific research, market regulation, green technology, and essentially everything else.
I have to pick one issue that is deserving of an additional $5 billion in funding? The task is, regrettably, impossible. And frankly, just weeks after we handed a $700 billion bailout to Wall Street, the task is dwarfed to the point of being unimportant, which is unfair because $5 billion is more money than I'll ever really comprehend.
I know, I know, I should just play nice with the game here. I should remind myself that $5 billion is just a hypothetical number in a hypothetical scenario. I should forget the fact that it's obvious that this lame-duck administration has raped every important issue in the country all the while as it served champagne to causes that haven't brought any tangible long-term benefit to society at large. The task at hand, after all, is to simply pinpoint an important issue that is deserving of more funding and attention.
Well, if I'm going to put aside the impracticality of the hypothetical situation, then let me add onto the impossibility of the scenario by suggesting that the $5 billion be spent on something that would never, unfortunately, happen in the United States of America. Let's throw that money at a tribunal that would actually try the Bush Administration for its crimes against humanity, its violations of the U.S. Constitution, and its general swindling of the electorate.
In my hypothetical scenario, the tribunal would try Rumsfeld, Cheney, Gonzales, Rice, and all the rest of the W. minions—and George himself, of course—and they would be convicted of the crimes they committed in the name of all Americans. If this impossible tribunal actually wasn't impossible, these convictions would result in no sentences. But the crimes would be acknowledged in the public arena, and the convicted would acknowledge their crimes publicly.
You may wonder what the value of this amnesty-granting tribunal would be. In college I was particularly focused on and fascinated with the concept of nation-building in a divided society where human rights and the rule of law have been violated on a grand-scale. My argument then and now is that the first step in the nation-building process in such a place is to develop that absent appreciation for the rule of law so that the ensuing democratization process (whether it's a renewal or birth thereof) can take place. Particularized amnesty, which is what I described above, is the linchpin in establishing a strong human rights culture and respect for the rule of law. This kind of amnesty does not forsake justice because the justice to be gained from it is of a restorative kind; retributive justice does not work in a post-conflict, divided society setting—particularly given the language of hope that, with the election of Obama, has re-framed the White House. This scenario would forgive (and yes, that would be hard) but not forget, providing for the happiest medium between general amnesty and Nuremberg-style justice. And it's certainly better than what's definitely going to happen: Doing nothing, holding no one accountable, sweeping everything under the rug.
Too bad it will never happen, just as I'll never have $5 billion to spend on any one issue.
-- Daniela Perdomo
Surely I am not the only one who has been recently barraged with Chevron's "I will" PR campaign, right?
I come home from work, open the New Yorker (above), and it's there. My friend goes to an independent café near our place in San Francisco's Mission District, and her latté is delivered in a "Human energy" coffee sleeve. I see ads on decidedly lefty websites.
The "human energy" campaign isn't new—it's been around since September last year, but the "Will you join us?" ads are only about a month old. I hardly believe that the new influx of Chevron ads is a coincidence, especially here in San Francisco, where the completely under-publicized Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. case started a few weeks ago at the Supreme Court of California. (Full disclosure: My roommate is a lawyer in the case. Guess which side.)
It's a landmark human rights case. Earth Rights International—one of the non-profit organizations representing the plaintiffs in the case—describes their case succintly:
"Chevron was complicit in gross human rights abuses committed against [Nigerian] villagers who peacefully protested environmental abuses and other harm caused by Chevron's oil production activities. The protest took place at a Chevron drilling platform. Chevron paid and ferried members of the notorious Nigerian military and 'kill and go' mobile police to the platform in Chevron-leased helicopters and Chevron personnel supervised the operation. Two protesters were shot and killed in the brutal attack – including one who was shot in the back - and others were injured."
You might wonder why I'm bringing this up seeing as how this is not the first time a corporation has tried to cover up its spotted past with a friendly publicity push. (In fact, it's definitely not the first time for Chevron.) See, for example, BP's "Beyond Petroleum" roll-out, or ExxonMobil's new "Fuels Marketing" ad (which features The Postal Service's music). I'm sure there are other clever power/energy puns I've missed.
I'm writing this post because I'm perturbed by the fact that there hasn't been a single word in the media—mainstream or otherwise—about this new campaign coinciding with the start of this trial. It's not like the trial is a secret. Yet despite this, I personally know a New York magazine reporter who was sent to write about the "cool, new" Chevron campaign this month and didn't even know about the trial! Talk about wool over the eyes.
Earlier this week, fellow Whyrooter Nathan and I discussed the socially responsible trend in corporate America. I said that if there was any corporate trend I could stand behind, it was one where for profit ventures are forced to be of true benefit to greater society. (Nathan argued that they need only be regulated more stringently, and I replied that what we were saying need not be mutually exclusive.)
This new Chevron "I will" ad campaign is part of this corporate social responsibility trend, but its timing is clearly an attempt to pre-emptively deal with a potentially heinous PR situation when the trial ends later this month. They ought to be called out on it.
-- Daniela Perdomo
RSS Feed