| OCR Text |
Show 4 Wednesday March 6, 2013 OPINION www.dailyutahchronicle.com Society's commodification of life immoral Opinion Columnist m oral intuitions serve to guide us as to the quality of our behaviors. That's my take on Harvard professor Michael Sandel's Tanner Lecture on Human Values on Tuesday. Typically, life insurance is an agreement between an insurer and someone who has a direct interest in the livelihood of a person and wants to ensure financial stability in the case of said person's death. However in the 18th century, a new and somewhat derivative conception of life insurance quietly arose in a London tavern. Sailors and non-sailors alike would gather to make bets on whether the boats and crews preparing to embark just outside the tavern door on trade voyages would reach their destinations safely and successfully. Unlike typical life insurance today, these were essentially bets on the lives and fortunes of men in which the bettors had no direct interest — a dark and nefarious form of life insurance more akin to gambling. This was the story Sandel told Wednesday night at Kingsbury Hall in his lecture on human values. The author of "What Money Can't Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets," Sandel sought to draw parallels between the unsettling "life insurance" market that arose in that 18th century London tavern and an eerily similar market that has arisen in today's economy — that of derivatives. Much maligned as a cause of the recent housing crisis, derivatives, although often complex in practice, are essentially bets on the performance or well-being of anything in which the "investor" has no direct interest. For example, in the housing crisis, many people on Wall Street made millions on their bets that vast numbers of Americans would default on their mortgages. The people on Wall Street had no direct interest in the RORY PENMAN/The Daily Utah Chronicle mortgage contracts. Their bets were derivative to the actual mortgage market. In his lecture, Sandel suggested the derivative market, like London's "life insurance" market, should prompt us to ask whether we as a society should permit the persis- First lady's appearance at Oscar's is acceptable T wo weeks ago, thousands of Americans set aside their daily obligations and parked themselves in front of their televisions for the 85th Annual Oscar Academy Awards. Here they debated about who truly deserved Best (insert category here), laughed themselves hoarse at the caustic remarks of the host and evaluated various celebrities' fashion choices with as little compassion as possible. The brief video appearance of first lady Michelle Obama, who presented the award for Best Picture, was one of the undeniable highlights of the night, and one that sparked great controversy. Many conservatives thought her appearance was inappropriate considering her political standing. Her appearance compels us to ask ourselves what is the role of the first lady? The U.S. Constitution does not outline the powers and responsibilities of the first lady in the same way it defines the duties of the president. She is not nominated or elected, and because of this there are no legal obligations she's forced to complete during her "term." Socially, however, we as a nation have formed certain standards we believe someone in Michelle Obama's position must uphold. These expectations have existed since the establishment of the monarchic system. A review of Frank Prochaska's book "The Eagle and the Crown: Americans and the British Monarchy" reveals that many colonial Americans were fascinated with Britain's royal family and doubted the success of their infantile nation without a monarchy. The first ladies in Britain's ruling families carried prestige as the child bearers of future kings and were obliged to conform to fixed standards because of it. Luckily, we have recognized our first ladies as more than glorified surrogates, but we still expect them to be nearly perfect and to wither and refrain from the political tence of secondary markets driven solely by others' misfortune. Does having a positive interest in the misfortune of others undermine character and degrade the democratic ideals of community and virtuosity? Should we allow the derivatives market to persist as is? Finally, in an economy increasingly driven by markets totally unrelated to production, is there any "good" sacred enough to be beyond cornmoditization, valuation and the reach of market forces? These are questions that have gone unasked, yet they must be ad- JONES NAFISA MASUD sphere while existing inextricably in it, which is unreasonable and unfair. Each first lady enters the White House with her own thoughts, opinions and dreams for her country. Some are best known for their political impact, such as Eleanor Roosevelt's efforts to establish racial justice. Others, like Jackie Kennedy, inspired women in terms of fashion and the arts. Michelle Obama represents a turning point in our nation's history as the first black first lady and has had to deal with considerably more pressure as the avant-garde. Regardless of these pressures, Michelle Obama has managed to make an impact both politically and socially with her campaign to combat childhood obesity and, yes, her Oscar appearance. Such appearances remind us that despite political standing, those residing in the White House are human. Michelle Obama should be allowed to enjoy the frivolities of the Oscars or participate in Jimmy Fallon's sketch, "The Evolution of Mom Dancing," without criticism. The role of the first lady changes with each presidency depending on each woman's personality and her relationship with the public. These women might differ on their opinions and the causes they fight for, but without differences such as these, there would be no growth. We should applaud the first lady for everything she's achieved without begrudging the things she hasn't. This much I know — that is the role of the public. letters@chronicle.utah.edu letters@ chronicle.utah.edu Hessel should inspire better activism ROSE Opinion Columnist dressed in order to maintain the integrity of our society and economy. In answering them, here is an instance in which I think moral intuitions are a good guide to the right answer. F Opinion Columnist iachra Gibbons once said of Stephane Hessel, "the great [man] is dead — a man who symbolized the best of France having survived the worst of it." On Feb. 26, the world lost a magnificent man and a selfless champion of peaceful resistance and human rights. He was a master of teaching ordinary people to resist a government that does not respect the values of its people. We could learn a few lessons from Hessel. He was born during the Russian Revolution in 1917 in Berlin. He had liberal learning, yet diverse parents — a Christian mother and a Jewish father. When Hessel was 7 years old, his family fled to France as the Nazi regime began to exert its control. He knew from a young age that people should never accept injustice. Hessel fled France for London to enroll in The National Council of the Resistance, which was founded in secret May 27, 1943, in Paris. The leader of NCR, Jean Moulin, who was appointed by General De Gaulle, utilized Hessel as a covert operator to further the French resistance movement. He later became an Honorary Ambassador to France and a French Diplomat to the United Nations. He believed wholeheartedly in equality and human rights, and he rallied the young French to get as outraged as those fighting against them. Outrage, that is, facilitated through non-violent resistance. Hessel was captured by the Gestapo in 1944. He was sent to the barbaric Buchenwald concentration camp for Christians. Even as the prisoners were being slaughtered, 114 SALLY YOO/The Daily Utah Chronicle starved and dying from typhus, Hessel organized resistance factions. His ambition was detected, and he was to be hanged. The day before the execution was to take place, a fellow French prisoner, Michel Boitel, died of typhus. He was able to switch clothing and identification with Boitel, which saved his life. Upon release, a besieged Hessel quickly regained his strength and went on to co-draft the single most important document in recent history: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which passed the United Nations General Assembly on Dec. ro, 1948. He was intensely critical when it came to the French treatment of immigrants and migrant workers in France, and even more so regarding Israel's repression and occupation of the Palestinian people. Both are areas in which we could learn from his humane, reasoned example. He traveled to the West Bank and stood at the checkpoints with the native Palestinians to experience the abuse first hand, matching his words with his actions, which also provides a valuable lesson for activists today. The height of rage for Hessel came over the past decade, when he saw rapid stratification in America, a result of capital market terrorism and unbridled factious control. He wrote a small book to promote the need for outrage and non-violent resistance. In a 35-page manifesto in 2010 named "Indignez-Vous!" — in English, 'A Time for Outrage!" — Hessel inspired the Arab Spring, the Spanish uprising Indignados, the Occupy Wall Street movement and the internet group referred to as Anonymous. Four million copies have been sold, and it is now translated into 34 different languages. He is a Western diplomat whose name and manifesto are chanted with the deepest of adoration within Arab resistance masses spanning from Morocco to Iran. He inspired them — they are outraged and are taking back their power. Hessel would write, "Take over, keep going and get angry!" He taught non-violent resistance because "violence turns its back on hope." His message to the new generation of the world is a noble one: "To create is to resist, to resist is to create." I say rest in peace Stephane Hessel, and I echo his words, "Never give up, never be indifferent, never believe things cannot be changed." Let's take a page out of his book and become better fighters and activists. letters@chronicle.utah.edu |
