Topic: Human Nature.
Anna Deavere Smith: Well I’m working on a project now about the human body. And I’ve been interviewing people who are dying. And I’ve been interviewing doctors. And I went to Rwanda and talked to some people 10 years after the genocide. I went to South Africa and talked to people about the pandemic of HIV/AIDS there. And on the other hand, I talked to people who are very, very talented, vibrant people with their bodies, like Lance Armstrong, for example.
I have come to the conclusion that it’s just not fair that some people get certain burdens, and some people get certain gifts. But that, as somebody said to me the other day, these gifts are randomly delivered. And so then that leaves me with a bigger question. And it looks like we’ll be going into a period now where people who have resources will be able to genetically, through genetic therapies, they can enhance things that they may not have. But not everybody will do that. And so that could set up how we started that.
The lens through which I’ve seen the world for so long is about making a level playing field. I think we’re going to move away from that very far. And then it’s kind of like if it’s not fair, what do we do? What should we do? What should we do personally? Will the desire to have things be fair and be equal go away as a human enterprise? You know we look to the law to help us figure out about fairness. On the other hand, we see it all over the world. And we saw in this country [USA] that the law can justify misdeeds. So I’ve learned about human nature.
The good news is that throughout history, even though it hasn’t been fair, there have been people who have worked hard to try to make a situation where many people could thrive when they could have chosen to make a situation where nobody could thrive but them. So it’s good news and it’s bad news. The bad news is that some are more vulnerable than others. The good news is that occasionally, powerful human beings have used their power to make it okay for everybody.
Recorded on: 08/22/2007
Discuss
Helena Handbasket on January 16, 2008, 3:03 PM
Well, if everyone in Canada, USA and Mexico are up for a North American Union…… personally, much more is going on than meets the eye. There was a method to their madness.
Helena Handbasket on January 16, 2008, 8:03 PM
Well, if everyone in Canada, USA and Mexico are up for a North American Union…… personally, much more is going on than meets the eye. There was a method to their madness.
Pat Goodenough on January 19, 2008, 11:20 PM
Sorry Anna,
you talk a lot and say nothing. If I get your drift then 90% of the world will get it. Try living in a country for several years where one third of the country suffered geneocide. then people like your well intentioned self wont do so much damage by standing by and doing nothing.
Pat Goodenough on January 20, 2008, 4:20 AM
Sorry Anna,
you talk a lot and say nothing. If I get your drift then 90% of the world will get it. Try living in a country for several years where one third of the country suffered geneocide. then people like your well intentioned self wont do so much damage by standing by and doing nothing.
Trevor Jones on January 25, 2008, 1:48 PM
Judging by the living conditions created by the "maquiladoras" in the border towns, the fact the Mexican government is actually engaged in physical combat with the border towns' drug lords, and there are more Mexican refugees (oh sorry, illegal aliens) in the United States than ever before, I'd say no, NAFTA was not a good idea.
And that's not even discussing what it has done to the American worker…
Trevor Jones on January 25, 2008, 6:48 PM
Judging by the living conditions created by the “maquiladoras” in the border towns, the fact the Mexican government is actually engaged in physical combat with the border towns’ drug lords, and there are more Mexican refugees (oh sorry, illegal aliens) in the United States than ever before, I’d say no, NAFTA was not a good idea.
And that’s not even discussing what it has done to the American worker…
Trevor Grosse on January 28, 2008, 6:59 PM
NAFTA was a great idea. Although it caused lose of jobs it also created jobs. It has created greater relations between Canada, USA, and Mexico, and encourages these countries to rely on each other.
Trevor Grosse on January 28, 2008, 11:59 PM
NAFTA was a great idea. Although it caused lose of jobs it also created jobs. It has created greater relations between Canada, USA, and Mexico, and encourages these countries to rely on each other.
Elijah Stone on March 2, 2008, 3:20 PM
i think this conversation needs a canadain point of view. NAFTA is supossed to encourage free trade but that simply hasn't happened. canadain exports into the U.S. (i.e. softwood lumber)have been taxed and tarrifed (softwood lumber was eventually taxed to cost the canadain economy 6 billion dollars) it has not been upheld. granted it has caused greater trade between the countries wich is great but the thought of a real trade union may mean greater assimilation of canada into the U.S. wich is something many canadains are opposed to.
Elijah Stone on March 2, 2008, 8:20 PM
i think this conversation needs a canadain point of view. NAFTA is supossed to encourage free trade but that simply hasn’t happened. canadain exports into the U.S. (i.e. softwood lumber)have been taxed and tarrifed (softwood lumber was eventually taxed to cost the canadain economy 6 billion dollars) it has not been upheld. granted it has caused greater trade between the countries wich is great but the thought of a real trade union may mean greater assimilation of canada into the U.S. wich is something many canadains are opposed to.
leslie rabb on April 3, 2008, 6:20 PM
ask anyone in mexico what they think and you'll have your answer.
leslie rabb on April 3, 2008, 10:20 PM
ask anyone in mexico what they think and you’ll have your answer.
Peter Bradley on May 7, 2008, 5:55 PM
Senator McCain
NAFTA is the wet dream of the rich industrialist. But what makes me sad is that I think you really believe the things you say about "training the displaced workers.
THAT DOESN'T WORK!!
You can not train workers for jobs that don't exist. Please think about this. The jobs are sent to Mexico. The workers are not. They HAVE NO WORK! You talk of retraining but as a conservative republican you oppose education handouts. You oppose government getting involved in supporting the workers while they are out of work. You oppose giving aid and educational grants to junior colleges and universities. You, as a conservative republican want people to borrow their educational loans from private lending institutions. You, as a conservative republican, BLITHLY ignore the fact that private loans have been proven to be more expensive. You talk of generalities when you talk about jobs. You talk about downsizing government and replacing government workers with private sector workers. But you never explain how private sector workers can cost less than government workers. What you NEGLECT to verbalize in your plan is that the only way government workers can be replaced at a cost savings to the taxpayer is if the private dector companies that take their place renounce and re=ject the chance to earn a profit. Government workers replaced with temp workers who can't afford insurance, aren't provided insurance or pensions or sick days or vacations and have no expectation of steady long term emp;oyment. Not to mention actually knowing what they are diong in that former government job. Believe me, I would rather square off with an intractable government beuracrat any day than have to face a steiroid pumping inexperienced Blackwater rejected private sector temp worker who really doesn't care if I get admitted to a National Park because then he doesn't have to worry I am going to trip over the oil well and mess up production quotas for the rich international industrialists that you refuse to ask; "So how many good jobs have you created with in the United States of America in the past eight years?" I this a run on sentence? Sorry, you got me on a roll.
Seriously though; Okay, deep breath and…
The way it works is this. An industry opens a facility and needs to staff it. THAT IS WHEN you start training people for jobs. When you know what to train for and the trainees will be able to start using their new skills as they learn them. And they need to be paid while they are learning. And government is needed for that. And they need child care and government is needed for that. And they need health COST help and government is needed for that. And they need affordable housing and government is needed for that. And the industry that is opening needs tax breaks so they can compete with the companies you incentived to move to Mexico and government is needed for that. And everything, all the systems and infrastructure that was already in place and working just fine until you made it possible for the old jobs to move to Mexico or American Samoa or Saipan needs to be rebuilt and you need government for that.Hey Mister conservative republican! Tell me again how this philosophy brings about smaller, more efficent government? Especially you, Mr. Senator Reagan republican McCain who has held office during the largest republican buildup and espansion of both government and national debt than ALL THE OTHER PRECEDING ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED!
I used to work in an electronics factory that bought parts from Mexico.
every January our defective unit count would spike because in Mexico, the border factory workers would go home for Christmas. Rather than shut down, The factories would go trolling for temporary workers. These people had very little idea what they were doing and cared less. These were the people the factories usually DIDN'T want working for them, but Hey! in a culture of just in time inventory, you gotta keep up production, even if the parts don't work. So what did my company do? They trained us to spot the defective parts so they could be returned for 2.5X credit.
That's NAFTA
Peter Bradley on May 7, 2008, 9:55 PM
Senator McCain
NAFTA is the wet dream of the rich industrialist. But what makes me sad is that I think you really believe the things you say about "training the displaced workers.
THAT DOESN’T WORK!!
You can not train workers for jobs that don’t exist. Please think about this. The jobs are sent to Mexico. The workers are not. They HAVE NO WORK! You talk of retraining but as a conservative republican you oppose education handouts. You oppose government getting involved in supporting the workers while they are out of work. You oppose giving aid and educational grants to junior colleges and universities. You, as a conservative republican want people to borrow their educational loans from private lending institutions. You, as a conservative republican, BLITHLY ignore the fact that private loans have been proven to be more expensive. You talk of generalities when you talk about jobs. You talk about downsizing government and replacing government workers with private sector workers. But you never explain how private sector workers can cost less than government workers. What you NEGLECT to verbalize in your plan is that the only way government workers can be replaced at a cost savings to the taxpayer is if the private dector companies that take their place renounce and re=ject the chance to earn a profit. Government workers replaced with temp workers who can’t afford insurance, aren’t provided insurance or pensions or sick days or vacations and have no expectation of steady long term emp;oyment. Not to mention actually knowing what they are diong in that former government job. Believe me, I would rather square off with an intractable government beuracrat any day than have to face a steiroid pumping inexperienced Blackwater rejected private sector temp worker who really doesn’t care if I get admitted to a National Park because then he doesn’t have to worry I am going to trip over the oil well and mess up production quotas for the rich international industrialists that you refuse to ask; “So how many good jobs have you created with in the United States of America in the past eight years?” I this a run on sentence? Sorry, you got me on a roll.
Seriously though; Okay, deep breath and…
The way it works is this. An industry opens a facility and needs to staff it. THAT IS WHEN you start training people for jobs. When you know what to train for and the trainees will be able to start using their new skills as they learn them. And they need to be paid while they are learning. And government is needed for that. And they need child care and government is needed for that. And they need health COST help and government is needed for that. And they need affordable housing and government is needed for that. And the industry that is opening needs tax breaks so they can compete with the companies you incentived to move to Mexico and government is needed for that. And everything, all the systems and infrastructure that was already in place and working just fine until you made it possible for the old jobs to move to Mexico or American Samoa or Saipan needs to be rebuilt and you need government for that.Hey Mister conservative republican! Tell me again how this philosophy brings about smaller, more efficent government? Especially you, Mr. Senator Reagan republican McCain who has held office during the largest republican buildup and espansion of both government and national debt than ALL THE OTHER PRECEDING ADMINISTRATIONS COMBINED!
I used to work in an electronics factory that bought parts from Mexico.
every January our defective unit count would spike because in Mexico, the border factory workers would go home for Christmas. Rather than shut down, The factories would go trolling for temporary workers. These people had very little idea what they were doing and cared less. These were the people the factories usually DIDN’T want working for them, but Hey! in a culture of just in time inventory, you gotta keep up production, even if the parts don’t work. So what did my company do? They trained us to spot the defective parts so they could be returned for 2.5X credit.
That’s NAFTA
Wm H on May 9, 2008, 4:20 AM
Was NAFTA a good idea?
Has globalization been good for America?
Both of these are the wrong questions. The right question is how do we continue to prosper in a global economy?
Capital knows no borders. Corporations will move money and jobs around to whatever location offers them the maximum return on their investment. While there is a place for regulation to corral the rapacious nature of the corporate mentality, tariffs and trade barriers will never offer the protection workers imagine they will.
Wm H on May 9, 2008, 8:20 AM
Was NAFTA a good idea?
Has globalization been good for America?
Both of these are the wrong questions. The right question is how do we continue to prosper in a global economy?
Capital knows no borders. Corporations will move money and jobs around to whatever location offers them the maximum return on their investment. While there is a place for regulation to corral the rapacious nature of the corporate mentality, tariffs and trade barriers will never offer the protection workers imagine they will.
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or Register